Driving must be raised to 18

[Gareth]

There is also a arrogance amongst certain sections of the teenage comunity where they think that they are untouchable.

It's not arrogance - it's that they don't believe in their own mortality, and as far as I can tell it applies to all young people to a greater or lesser degree.

[martine]

There is also a arrogance amongst certain sections of the teenage comunity where they think that they are untouchable.

It's not arrogance - it's that they don't believe in their own mortality, and as far as I can tell it applies to all young people to a greater or lesser degree.

Certainly applied to me - I shudder when I think of some of the things I did on a motorbike when I was 20ish (long time ago!)

[quintaton]

It always worries me when politicians indulge in "knee jerk reactions" to questionable statistical evidence.

The burning question is simple emough, "Why are younger drivers more likely to have accidents than more experienced (older) drivers?"

Unfortunately, the answer(s) is anything but straightforward, as my own research into the subject reveals.

Let's look at some of the factors involved in accidents involving younger driver:-

a) Younger drivers often drive fast, just as young horse-riders "rode furiously" in days of old.
b) The 17-25 year age group is the one most likely to indulge in drug-driving
c) Younger drivers often stay out late and drive late at night
d) Many younger (predominantly male) drivers enjoy risk and pushing the limits
e) In addition to drugs, many young drivers often drink and drive
f) A lot of young drivers initially lack knowledge about such things as brake-fade, understeer, oversteer and vehicle handling
g) Young drivers do not necessarily drive vehicles in good condition
h) Young drivers who like to drive fast, often do so on the most difficult and challenging roads; often in vehicles fitted with lowered suspension and wide-tyres.......a lethal combination on tight, twisting, bumpy rural roads.

All this is bad enough, but as we all know, the first encounter with black-ice in winter, can easily be a young driver's last. No-one is ever taught to drive on snow; possibly because very few drivers, (even advanced drivers), know the first thing about it these days.

What it really amounts to, (apart from the obviously lethal combination of a motor-vehicle and drugs or alcohol), is the fact that there is a distinct learning-curve with any activity. People do not start out as brilliant drivers, or brilliant pianists. The basic techniques have to be learned, developed amd honed over a period of time.

Now increasing the driving age would, without doubt, bring a sudden and dramatic improvement in the statistics relating to young-driver casualty figures (17-25), simply because a year would be removed from the results. That is not, however, a genuine safety measuire, but merely a statistical sleight-of-hand unless the age-range was changed to 18-26 years.

As the proposal stands, it makes not the slightest sense to my mind to increase the minimum driving-age to 18.

[MGF]

...there is a distinct learning-curve with any activity. People do not start out as brilliant drivers, or brilliant pianists. The basic techniques have to be learned, developed amd honed over a period of time.

Doesn't increasing the likelihood of more supervised driving prior to the test being taken make a useful contribution to the 'learning-curve'?

[ROG]

Doesn't increasing the likelihood of more supervised driving prior to the test being taken make a useful contribution to the 'learning-curve'?

I would say no as most just want to PASS the test - the remedy is to have more supervision post test.

[PeterE]

I think some of this makes sense.

What's particularly shocking to me is:

"...In 1992, there were 12.6 deaths on the road for every 100,000 motorists aged 17 to 20. By 2005, the figure had risen to 19.2..."

That's a more than 50% increase. What's going on? Why has it changed for the worse?

I think you'll find that over that period the rate of participation in driving amongst that age group has substantially declined (mainly due to prohibitive insurance costs), and so the absolute numbers being killed may be no higher. As one person commented, those who do drive may be doing more mileage. And, as a broad generalisation, the increased rate of accidents amongst young drivers is due more to overconfidence than sheer incompetence, and it will probably be the more confident and determined who are still taking the trouble to acquire a licence.

Also, do those figures include deaths of unlicensed drivers aged 17-20, which could well have increased if the number of licensed drivers has fallen?

[quintaton]

I think some of this makes sense.

What's particularly shocking to me is:

"...In 1992, there were 12.6 deaths on the road for every 100,000 motorists aged 17 to 20. By 2005, the figure had risen to 19.2..."

That's a more than 50% increase. What's going on? (snip)

Also, do those figures include deaths of unlicensed drivers aged 17-20, which could well have increased if the number of licensed drivers has fallen?

===========================

I cannot put my finger on the facts, but I seem to recall that ALL young drivers are included in the accident statistics, whether they have a licence or not, and whether or not they were driving a stolen vehicle.

That is a new pastime for the youth of to-day, whereas such things were once quite unusual.

I don't know if it has changed, but the police and other authorities do not seem able to give the figures for those drivers high on drugs, and that too is a modern phenomenon which MUST have a huge bearing on the accident statistics relating to young drivers.

It seems obvious to me, that increasing the driving age from 17 to 18, cannot and will not eliminate 14-17 year old boys nicking cars and killing themselves.

[martine]

It seems obvious to me, that increasing the driving age from 17 to 18, cannot and will not eliminate 14-17 year old boys nicking cars and killing themselves.

I sort of agree except that the older one gets the more 'risk averse' (or just plain careful) one gets. Someone said the brain is still developing in important areas up to age 25 - I'm not suggesting driving be delayed that long but an extra year may make a sensible difference.

Like you I would also like to know the number of killed or seriously injured (KSI) for road users drugged/drunk/unlicenced or driving stolen vehicles.

[zadocbrown]

The one thing that hasn't changed is that everyone has the option to choose to drive safely, or not at all.

If you make that choice and put in the effort you can avoid the majority of accidents, including those where the primary fault lies with someone else.

People who choose not to bother will have to live with the consequences. That applies whether you are 17 or 70.

Prohibition by the state has rarely been a success, whether in respect of alchohol, tobacco, sex or anything else.

[jont]

Prohibition by the state has rarely been a success, whether in respect of alchohol, tobacco, sex or anything else.

And indeed, is often counter productive. A concept the new government seems more receptive to than the old.

[MGF]

It seems obvious to me, that increasing the driving age from 17 to 18, cannot and will not eliminate 14-17 year old boys nicking cars and killing themselves.

No but it might help prevent 17 year old drivers from killing themselves which appears to be the thinking behind the proposed change in licencing conditions. Does every initiative intended to reduce road casualties have to prevent them all to be acceptable to you?

Prohibition by the state has rarely been a success, whether in respect of alchohol, tobacco, sex or anything else.

So no-one should be prohibited from driving by the state? No need for a compulsory driving test then?

Changing the conditions of issuing a licence by raising the age one can take their test to eighteen is hardly 'prohibition'.

[ScoobyChris]

I sort of agree except that the older one gets the more 'risk averse' (or just plain careful) one gets. Someone said the brain is still developing in important areas up to age 25 - I'm not suggesting driving be delayed that long but an extra year may make a sensible difference.

I wonder how much experience (of making mistakes) plays in the learning process or at least accelerating it. Starting later may just move the accident stats further up the age range...

Would be an interesting experiment

Chris

[jont]

It seems obvious to me, that increasing the driving age from 17 to 18, cannot and will not eliminate 14-17 year old boys nicking cars and killing themselves.

No but it might help prevent 17 year old drivers from killing themselves which appears to be the thinking behind the proposed change in licencing conditions. Does every initiative intended to reduce road casualties have to prevent them all to be acceptable to you?

Although as has already been asked, it would be interesting to know of those killed at a young age how many are actually driving within the law (ie licensed, not drunk or drugged and within the speed limit). It's a bit pointless making laws even more restrictive when the problems are being caused by those acting outside them, while at the same time reducing respect for the law from those that do try and live by the rules

[quintaton]

It seems obvious to me, that increasing the driving age from 17 to 18, cannot and will not eliminate 14-17 year old boys nicking cars and killing themselves.

No but it might help prevent 17 year old drivers from killing themselves which appears to be the thinking behind the proposed change in licencing conditions. Does every initiative intended to reduce road casualties have to prevent them all to be acceptable to you?

Prohibition by the state has rarely been a success, whether in respect of alchohol, tobacco, sex or anything else.

So no-one should be prohibited from driving by the state? No need for a compulsory driving test then?

Changing the conditions of issuing a licence by raising the age one can take their test to eighteen is hardly 'prohibition'.

-----------------------------


I'm sorry, but I just regard this as nanny stateism once more. I would be convinced if there were proper studies made of the psychological, physiological, social, medical and educational evidence which supports the view that raising the age to 18 would have the slightest effect other than to postpone the deaths of some young people.

What will be the next initiative?

Keeping children indoors 24/7 unless attached by a leash to a responsible adult, who will have paid £64 for the privilege unless they are the parents?

Steering-locks fitted to all bi-cycles suitable for children below the age of (choose your own number) 18?

I've long held the view that if safety-professionals were realistic and serious about driver-safety, they would have built specialist circuits where kids could have a go at "driving furiously" in a controlled and safe environment. THAT would teach them that they are not immortal or the best drivers in the world.

It seems to have worked for racing drivers who live to a ripe old age, and began driving Go-Karts at the age of 7 or so.

[vonhosen]

It seems obvious to me, that increasing the driving age from 17 to 18, cannot and will not eliminate 14-17 year old boys nicking cars and killing themselves.

I sort of agree except that the older one gets the more 'risk averse' (or just plain careful) one gets. Someone said the brain is still developing in important areas up to age 25 - I'm not suggesting driving be delayed that long but an extra year may make a sensible difference.

Like you I would also like to know the number of killed or seriously injured (KSI) for road users drugged/drunk/unlicenced or driving stolen vehicles.

Contributory factors in fatality collisions 2006

Impairment due to alcohol - 259 (10%)
Impairment due to drugs - 51 (2%)
Stolen vehicle - 40 (1%)
Learner or inexperienced driver - 144 (5%)