driving age

[yorkie_chris]

Darwinism in action by the sounds of it

[fizzwheel]

It wont make any difference, I drove like a tw*t when I was 17, I drove like an even bigger tw*t when I was 18... TBH quite honest at times I still drive like a tw*t now.

I wander how our accident statistics compare to the USA where IIRC kids are taught to drive at 16...

If there's no difference in skill and competence between age 17 and 18, then by that logic, there's no difference between ages 17 and 16... how many of you want that car edging up to the junction to be driven by a 16 year old, more interested in getting laid than in your safety?

I think 17's too young... 18's about right I reckon.

I havent read all of the posts here but agree with what most of the posts I have read and that is that it wouldnt change a thing.

Im 23 now, and was a bit of a 'boy racer' when I first passed. It would make no difference if I a year older.

I also believe you learn nothing until you have your first crash. I had my first crash on a roundabout in my Firesta Si 1.6 where a mate infront in another car decided to do a handbrake turn while going around it..... Dont ask! He was an idiot.

Since then, I calmed right down until I was able to afford a 2.2 Honda Accord Type-R. It was an amazing car and at the age of 19, I was still as immature as when I was 17. I did stupid speeds in that weaving in and out of cars on a busy motorway (it was filmed and I watched it back). I couldnt believe how stupid I had been and havent done it since.

Anyway, to cut this short, I believe that yes, do your test at 17 (learn young) but be capped in what you can buy, not by price of insurance but by engine size and bhp. Give them a car that cannot exceed 60mph (this would limit them to the inside lane on motorways) until they are 21. And also limit the 0-60 speed so that racing is completely pointless and therefore cant and wont be done.

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

Jesus, 24 posts and noone has said it yet.

Pics of daughter

Agreed! Where are they?!

Originally Posted by ceeshaw

If there's no difference in skill and competence between age 17 and 18, then by that logic, there's no difference between ages 17 and 16... how many of you want that car edging up to the junction to be driven by a 16 year old, more interested in getting laid than in your safety?

I think 17's too young... 18's about right I reckon.

Of course there is a difference between 16 and 17... it is the point at which society can abide people driving, 17 is acceptable, 16 would not be. In an ideal world you would judge an individual based on how responsible they are and make that reflect in the age at which they can drive. You simply cannot do this. The age is set at 17 because that is the age at which most people can be trusted with a car, set the age higher and you unfairly penalise those people who should be on the road. An arbitrary line must be drawn somewhere, it is drawn at the age of 17 and I agree with it.

Originally Posted by ceeshaw

If there's no difference in skill and competence between age 17 and 18, then by that logic, there's no difference between ages 17 and 16... how many of you want that car edging up to the junction to be driven by a 16 year old, more interested in getting laid than in your safety?

I think 17's too young... 18's about right I reckon.

What difference did that 12 months make for you then? Because I know for a fact its made no difference at all to me pointless to raise the age it wont actually achieve any thing.

Originally Posted by Stuuk1

Anyway, to cut this short, I believe that yes, do your test at 17 (learn young) but be capped in what you can buy, not by price of insurance but by engine size and bhp. Give them a car that cannot exceed 60mph (this would limit them to the inside lane on motorways) until they are 21. And also limit the 0-60 speed so that racing is completely pointless and therefore cant and wont be done.

A car that cant exceed 60mph? A mate of mine has a car that only just exceeds that and takes an age to get there tiny little thing he went into the back of some one at about 10mph in traffic a while back and it just crumpled no chance I would drive that in hell and limiting cars so they wont do 70 on the motorway just means that when they overtake the trucks going 4mph slower your going to be stuck behind them in the midddle lane because of all the tosser middle adged blokes in there beemers flying past in the outside lane doing 90 odd mph and you cant get in. What do the people who are driving in their parents cars do as well? daft idea really IMO. And like with bikes 21 before you can have at least instant access to anything with any remote sniff of power ruins it at least the 33bhp on a bike will get you to a decent speed fairly quickly. I honestly dont see what age has anything to do with it its experience that counts for most of it, being 21 and just passing your test doesent make you any more able to handle a 500bhp car than being 17 and just passing your test.

[keith_d]

As a general observation, this does seem like another bit of tabloid politics, "Think of the children!!". Except that these "children" are old enough to have started a family and held down a steady job for a year or more. Let them make their own minds up as far as possible, we don't need more "Nanny know best"

But, let me see. The statistics show that inexperienced drivers have more accidents, no s**t Shirlock. So we want to make harder for them to start accumulating experience. What???

I'm with the people who want to make it safer for them to build up road experience. Limiting the power-to-weight and top speed for the first two years after passing the test would make a lot more sense than making teenagers spend an extra year on a moped which is statistically much more dangerous.

Restricting them to one passenger might help a bit too because a bunch of rowdy mates in the car is a pretty effective distraction. Been there, done that.

Just my thoughts,

Keith.

In Ontario you can get the equivalent of L plates at 16, and move on to driving on your own within 8 months (instead of the normal 12) if you pass a ministry-approved driving school course (which I did).

Did I crash? Yes. Because I did something stupid (raced across a parking lot, and hit/flew over a curb).

Absolute crap. What if you work at night and car share? Emergancies? There must be a million reasons why you might need to drive after 11pm with people aged 10-20.

Encourage better roadcraft and attitudes, in my opinion, are the best ways to improve young drivers on the road.

(I passed when I was 17 and have been driving for 3 years and have never had a car accident which was my fault - 1. woman lost her licence for dangerous driving, and second my car was parked)