Driving must be raised to 18

[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.

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%)

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


This is misleading, because these figures are unqualified.

Are they overall figures? Figures for a specific age-grouping?

Has anyone properly collected data relating to drug-driving, because my instinct tells me that it is endemic among many younger drivers......I've seen them "spliffing up" in remote lay-bys and beauty spots late at night, and that happens all over the country everyday.

Are the figures taken from the Police records (drug driving is NOT included), or at the hospital casualty departments, (more reliable)?

Lastly, has ANYONE performed the obvious study.......at what time do most accidents occur which involve younger drivers?

The 12 hours of night is the one usually quoted, but that is nonsense, because it covers late and early commuting, lightness, darkness, twilight and sunrise in the summer months. I'd like to bet that MOST young drivers die between 11pm and 3am, and more particularly on Friday and Saturday nights.

I'll also repeat something I mentioned previously.

How many drivers have massive accidents on remote, poorly surfaced roads, in cars best suited to smooth roads, with lowered suspension, stiffer shock-absorbers and ultra-wide wheel and tyres?

I ask this, because I recently bought a Renault Turbo with wide tryes and wheels, and on some of the country lanes in Yorkshire where I live, it is an absolute handful to control. On the other hand, on smooth roads it is superb.

That's the big difference between now and 20 or more years ago, when tyres and wheels were not ridiculously wide, simply because they hadn't become a fashion accessory.

[vonhosen]

They are overall figures & they are from STATS19 forms, you know those completed by the people who investigated the causes of the fatality collision.

[zadocbrown]

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%)

Any figures for unlicensed drivers? Or are they part of 'learner or inexperienced?

[zadocbrown]

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

But will we instead see a rise in the number or 18 year olds killing themselves as they go out and do exactly what they would have done a year earlier if they had had the opportunity? In my experience 18 year olds are not vastly more mature than 17 year olds, nor do they become better drivers just by waiting longer to start.

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?

There's a world of difference between requiring people to demonstrate competence before allowing them to do something which involves potential risk to others (licensing); and making a blanket assumption that people or certain groups of people are inherently incapable and should not have the opportunity to prove otherwise (prohibition).

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

It is if you happen to be 17.

[MGF]

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.

The age at which licenced drivers can drive unsupervised - 17 - is set by the state. The state forbids anyone under 17 driving, even provisionally. Why is that acceptable but changing the age to 18 'nanny stateism?
At least the state is restricting unsupervised driving to adults and not including minors.

In Italy young people can ride scooters at 14 yet cannot drive a car - even provisionally - until they are 18.Those restrictions don't appear to be the product of a 'nanny state'.

The proposals we are discussing merely suggest that young people should be able to drive supervised between the ages of 17 and 18 and unsupervised thereafter, subject to attaining the appropriate licence. This seems to me to be wholly reasonable and appropriate. Introducing young people to driving in measured stages. I doubt it will be a panacea for reducing fatalities and serious injuries from driving in young people but that, in my view, shouldn't be the sole test for deciding licencing conditions.

[GJD]

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 limits of Rule 126).

EFA

[GJD]

They are overall figures & they are from STATS19 forms, you know those completed by the people who investigated the causes of the fatality collision.

Is there still scope for those statistics to be politicised though? Do the people who investigate the causes have control over the set of contributory factors they can choose from? For example, I have heard (may or may not be true - I don't know) that at some point in the past police officers stopped having the option to distinguish between inappropriate an excessive speed in accident reports.

[MGF]

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?

...requiring people to demonstrate competence before allowing them to do something which involves potential risk to others (licensing);

That is also prohibition. One is prohibited from driving unless and until one passes the required test. The corollary of licensing is prohibition.

You may however believe those who haven't passed the DSA test should be prohibited from driving whereas those who have not attained the age of 17 shouldn't be.

My understanding of the word 'prohibition' in this context is not allowing anyone to do something. eg dangerous driving, drink driving rather than allowing people to do potentially harmful' things subject to controls (licensing) eg selling/buying alcohol and.... driving.

...and making a blanket assumption that people or certain groups of people are inherently incapable and should not have the opportunity to prove otherwise (prohibition)

You appear to be assuming that arbitrary age limits are chosen on the basis of assumptions of inherent capabilities.

If an arbitrary age limit is wrong then the logical conclusion is that children should be given the responsibility to drive unsupervised so long as they are capable of passing the DSA test. That makes children vulnerable to becoming tortfeasors and criminals before they have the legal status of being an adult. These risks are much greater for people when they are driving than when they are not. Furthermore, children would be exposed to the emotional and psychological effects of being responsible for death or serious injury.

Unless of course you don't believe that there should be an age one is considered to be an adult in law. I believe we have to have arbitrary age limits just as we have to have arbitrary speed limits. Of course what these should be is a matter of opinion but it is often not feasible to assess every individual for their suitability to be granted permission to do something.

[vonhosen]

They are overall figures & they are from STATS19 forms, you know those completed by the people who investigated the causes of the fatality collision.

Is there still scope for those statistics to be politicised though? Do the people who investigate the causes have control over the set of contributory factors they can choose from? For example, I have heard (may or may not be true - I don't know) that at some point in the past police officers stopped having the option to distinguish between inappropriate an excessive speed in accident reports.

There is a list of 77 contributory causes & you can select up to six contributory causes for each vehicle/pedestrian in the collision.

Exceeding the speed limit - 342 (13%)
Travelling too fast for the conditions - 417 (16%)

are separate causes. As is

travelling too slow for the condition or slow vehicle - 4 (0%)

[martine]

Exceeding the speed limit - 342 (13%)
Travelling too fast for the conditions - 417 (16%)

Love your selective quotes - if anyone from 'Brake' lurks here I would love to see their comments...

And just to add wood to the 'Brake' fire they might also like to see the latest press release from the IAM (one of their better ones IMO)...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Gear Up for Tougher Roads

With the 1st June marking the 75th anniversary of the introduction of the driving test in the UK, the IAM
(Institute of Advanced Motorists) has called for drivers to continually improve their technique in keeping with
increasingly demanding driving conditions.

Peter Rodger, IAM Chief Examiner, said: “There are more cars on the road than ever before, and the driving
environment is becoming more complicated. Our driving tests, however, have changed little over the years,
and an improvement in driving standards is needed to fill the gap.

“Although cars are becoming easier to drive – with much improved brakes and suspension as well as power
steering and a host of safety systems - traffic has significantly increased and traffic networks have become
immensely more complex, so the driver needs far more understanding of what’s going on outside the car,” he
said.

The IAM also wants to see a rural road element being incorporated into the driving test, as it is not currently
compulsory. In the UK 71 per cent of road deaths occur on rural roads.

“It is improving the driver which will make the single biggest improvement to road safety in the future, and
drivers need to take it upon themselves to adopt a lifelong learning approach,” added Mr Rodger.

• In 1935 the driving test was introduced: within a year the death toll had fallen by nearly a thousand.

• In 1934, 7,343 people were killed on Britain's roads when there were just 2.4 million vehicles. In 2008
there were two-thirds fewer deaths (2,538), but fourteen times as many vehicles (34 million).

• In 2008 the learner pass rate was 41 per cent for women and 47 per cent for men.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[ScoobyChris]

Certainly a much better message than previously, although I'm not sure the statistics at the end help the case for promoting better driver education. Essentially, I read it as saying the driving environment's changed a lot and the driving test has changed very little. Despite this, the number of deaths on the road has massively reduced while the number of cars using that road has massively increased!

So why do we need to improve our driving?

Chris

[martine]

Certainly a much better message than previously, although I'm not sure the statistics at the end help the case for promoting better driver education. Essentially, I read it as saying the driving environment's changed a lot and the driving test has changed very little. Despite this, the number of deaths on the road has massively reduced while the number of cars using that road has massively increased!

So why do we need to improve our driving?

I suppose the message is:
“It is improving the driver which will make the single biggest improvement to road safety in the future, and
drivers need to take it upon themselves to adopt a lifelong learning approach,” added Mr Rodger.

Which we can all agree with surely?

[ROG]

“It is improving the driver which will make the single biggest improvement to road safety in the future, and drivers need to take it upon themselves to adopt a lifelong learning approach,” added Mr Rodger.

And the take up will be near to ZERO

When will they get it into their heads that it will take either an immediate large financial carrot or make ongoing assessments compulsory by law for drivers to improve ??????????

[vonhosen]

Exceeding the speed limit - 342 (13%)
Travelling too fast for the conditions - 417 (16%)

Love your selective quotes - if anyone from 'Brake' lurks here I would love to see their comments...

I didn't select them, I gave them in response to the question posed. Earlier I provided different causation factor details, again in response to the question posed to which they relate.

[Paul_Black]

I have had the following suggested to me and it seems somewhat sensible (of course now it'll be torn to pieces =P):

Firstly a sort-of CBT for 17 year olds which is a course in the basics of the highway code which, once passed, will allow them to apply for a Provisional. To obtain it they must pass the driving test as it stands today. While they have the CBT they are NOT allow to drive without supervision, on motorways or after 7.00pm. After they pass their 'provisional' they are allowed out unsupervised but not on motorway or past 7.00pm or in a vehicle bigger than a 2.0 (non-turbo) or a modified vehicle. To get a full license they would have to pass todays advanced driving test (even though there is disagreement on which version is "better" any advanced training is better than none, right?) after which all restrictions are lifted.

I don't think it would be that difficult to police as through ANPR Police can already identify the registered owner of the vehicle and the insurance status so is it really that much to add engine size and license status of the registered owner... and I've heard the police have a six sense for when somethings fishy too =P