Proposals to Raise Driving Age to 18

[James]

I read in the Metro this morning of a proposal related to this aimed at drivers who are within either their 1st year of probation (17 - 18) or in their first year of having passed that they will have a zero alcohol policy imposed. Apparently the DOT figures suggest this could save 1000 lives a year...

My thoughts were that if there is evidence to suggest that lives could be saved by a zero alcohol policy then why not adopt it no matter length of licence held, as it may save more lives!

[Gareth]

I understand (maybe incorrectly) that the reason for not having a zero alcohol level regime is that some people normally have a measurable level of alcohol in their blood.

[MGF]

In practice zero means 20mg/100ml. (That is what Sweden's 'zero' is). Apparently it isn't realistic to go below 10.

The EU Commission is pressing for an EU wide 50mg (most countries have this).

It also wants zero limits for young and professional drivers, eventually extending to all drivers.

Apparently the effect of alcohol rises steadily upto 50 mg where there is a marked increase in the rate of effect upto 90 mg where there is another marked increase in the rate. This is where the 80 and 50 figures come from.

The UK has resisted a decrease to 50 mg on the basis that enforcement here is much higher than in most EU countries.

[crr003]

My thoughts were that if there is evidence to suggest that lives could be saved by a zero alcohol policy then why not adopt it no matter length of licence held, as it may save more lives!

I wonder how it would work. You have three or four pints of ESB on a Friday night. Can you (legally) drive Saturday morning? Sunday morning? Monday morning? When does your body clear out the alcohol? Maybe a good market for alcohol testers.

[ROG]

My thoughts were that if there is evidence to suggest that lives could be saved by a zero alcohol policy then why not adopt it no matter length of licence held, as it may save more lives!

I wonder how it would work. You have three or four pints of ESB on a Friday night. Can you (legally) drive Saturday morning? Sunday morning? Monday morning? When does your body clear out the alcohol? Maybe a good market for alcohol testers.

My local IAM group were given a talk about how alcohol is processed by the liver and it is the same for everyone, no matter their size etc - there is a formula for how long it takes to purge the body but I cannot remember it. As it was the Leicester police who gave the talk then it might be worth a phone call.

[Gareth]

there is a formula for how long it takes to purge the body

I understand it to be very close to 10ml (1 unit) of alcohol per hour, so all you need to know is the percentage alcohol content of each of the drinks coupled with their volumes, (preferably in metric units to make the calculation easier) ...

[jasonh]

There may be a formula but it doesn't contain many constants! The speed at which alcohol is metabolised by the liver depends on a number of factors including the state of the liver in question, what else is floating around in the blood and suchlike. Any calculation on how long it takes to clear a defined amount of alcohol is always going to have to work roughly on the basis of a theoretical maximum processing time being the minimum safe time before driving.

Everyone knows stories of someone failing a breath test when they expected to be OK, and of others passing when others would expect them to fail, and that is an indication of the physiological variability between people (and at different times for the same people).

[Gareth]

Everyone knows stories of someone failing a breath test when they expected to be OK

I think there is a natural unwarranted optimism about this in most people. After all, how many people are capable of remembering exactly how much they drank and of what the following morning?

The basic calculation isn't that hard, but what is hard first knowing the volumes of drinks and amounts of alcohol especially in beers and shorts, and second, working out an appropriate fudge factor to take into account the time that drinking was started, rather than just using the safer time of when drinking was finished.

Here is a worked example based on my wife and I sharing a bottle of wine on Saturday evening. The standard bottle is 75 cl and according to the label, the alcohol content is 12.5% for this middlin' priced Rioja.

12.5% of 75 cl is 9.375 cl. Sharing it equally, (although in practice I usually get slightly less than half ), means we will each imbibe about 4.7 cl. If liver processing is said to be 1 cl per hour, then if we finish drinking at 11 pm, we'd both be clear before 4 am on Sunday morning. If we start drinking at 9 pm, then we could probably get away with driving at 3 am because the liver will have started processing as soon as the alcohol got into the blood.

On the other hand if we have a bottle each and continue drinking until 1 am, then according to the rule we ought to be fit for driving before 11 am, although we'd probably have stinking hangovers

[crr003]

After all, how many people are capable of remembering exactly how much they drank and of what the following morning?

Party at Gareth's then.......!!??

[waremark]

For the full report rather than a bit of BBC-style reporting which only touches upon the subject, you can read it by clicking here:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 5/355i.pdf

Thanks Susie for the link, and Susie and others for some excellent comments. I did read the report. I found it generally professional and impressive, but I don't support many of the recommendations.

As the father of 3 teenagers, 2 driving and one crossing her fingers that she will reach 17 before things change, I have a strong interest in the topic. I have another interest as a gliding instructor. Gliding probably requires a similar level of skill and responsibility to driving. You are allowed to go solo at 16. In my club youngsters are encourage to learn at 15 and to solo on their sixteenth birthday. The ones who achieve this are generally both skilled and responsible - but going solo is nothing like the end of the learning process.

I am glad the committee criticised the authorities for the lack of analysis of the effect of changes made in the last few years such as introduction of the theory and hazard perception tests and lengthening of the practical test. I was sorry to read that the rate of young driver deaths and serious injuries has got worse since these introductions.

I agree with the committee that the process of learning to drive should be spread over a longer period than today's minimum, but not with the way they suggest going about it. I think that attitudes are formed long before 17, and I therefore support inclusion of traffic sense in the national curriculum from about 12.

I consider that the current driving test is a suitable test of whether candidates have enough skill to practise on their own, and that 17 is a reasonable age at which to allow them to do so. However, I do not think this should be the end of learning to drive, and I would support compulsory further training after the start of solo practise, perhaps followed by a further test.The most important individual change which I would like to make would be to get rid of the idea that being allowed to practise solo means you have finished learning to drive.

Some aspects of the recommendations concern me:

Based partly on my gliding experience, I am not at all convinced of the need to be older before driving alone. The suggestions for making driving instruction more effective and professional could instead result in a bureaucrat's heaven, without actually improving the quality of training. The proposal to require practical training in specific time segments over a period of a year could be very difficult to fit into young people's schedules, and spreading out the learning process could make for very inefficient learning. The whole learning process would be bound to become much more expensive than it already is, both reducing the mobility of more young people and increasing the number who decide to drive outside the law. And under these proposals parents would be fetching their children from evening events for two years longer than they do now (I live in the country).

As many of you have said, the best way to create a new generation of good drivers would be to have the right sort of input from their parents - that's probably why the U17 car club creates such good drivers, more so than the particular training systems they use. While we cannot hope for too much in this area, we could improve matters a bit if we require regular retraining of all drivers!

[steev]

I was at the DSA conference at Nottingham a few weeks ago and this is, as far as the DSA go a non starter. There was talk of looking into (sort of like talks about talks) the German model where you can pass your test at 17 but must have a licence holder with you until you are 18 - even after you have passed your test.

Just the cynic in me here but as just about the only thing 17 year olds can do when the reach 18 that they can't already at 17 is vote does any one believe that the government that puts into place an 18 + driving licence age will get in next time ?

In reality yes you can pass your test at 17, and lots of people do. However, other than the odd few that pass on the day of their 17th due to some astute planning and off road training most are well on the way to being 18 when the do pass.

My guess would be that we may have a half house solution where you can learn to drive at 17 but not take a test until 18.

As for education in schools - I have been offering this for over 1 year now and schools don't even bother to reply despite the fact I make it very clear that I'll do it FREE and without any commercial slant, even offering them transcripts of the talk and a copy of the presentation.

[martine]

In reality yes you can pass your test at 17, and lots of people do. However, other than the odd few that pass on the day of their 17th due to some astute planning and off road training most are well on the way to being 18 when the do pass.

My guess would be that we may have a half house solution where you can learn to drive at 17 but not take a test until 18.

Yes good point.

As for education in schools - I have been offering this for over 1 year now and schools don't even bother to reply despite the fact I make it very clear that I'll do it FREE and without any commercial slant, even offering them transcripts of the talk and a copy of the presentation.

That's disappointing - shame they don't take up your kind offer. I think a lot more could be done in schools (from a very early age) to infiltrate kids with a sense of danger/responsiblity when driving - bit like a follow on from cycle training.

[steev]

As an addendum to the German model - as far as I understand it anyone passing after their 18th birthday doesn't need this supervision.

My PERSONAL view is that we should have an 'L' test, then a short time later - say 3 months, have another test. This would give a real incentive to keep good standards (hopefully forming good habits that may stick for life) and perhaps even seek additional training from a recognised source - IAM, RoSPA or dare I suggest ADI ?

[waremark]

My PERSONAL view is that we should have an 'L' test, then a short time later - say 3 months, have another test. This would give a real incentive to keep good standards (hopefully forming good habits that may stick for life) and perhaps even seek additional training from a recognised source - IAM, RoSPA or dare I suggest ADI ?

As a first step, what would you think about making Pass Plus compulsory within two years of the DSA test - else you go back to a provisional license?

[waremark]

My PERSONAL view is that we should have an 'L' test, then a short time later - say 3 months, have another test.

3 months is too short - my children and their friends took their tests while still at school, and hardly drove in the following three months.