Safe Speed Forums

Victory for the Mail as watchdog looks into raising legal driving age
03.11.06

Parliamentary watchdogs are to look at raising the driving age to 18 in a bid to cut the carnage caused by young 'rogue' drivers on Britain's roads.

The powerful House of Commons' Transport Select Committee is to consider raising from 17 the minimum age at which young and inexperienced drivers can take their L-test to gain a full licence.

The major investigation announced on Thursday by such an influential body follows a campaign by the Daily Mail to raise the minimum age for a full licence to 18.

The move was immediately welcomed by motoring groups, road safety organisations and insurers - and by the MP who raised the issue with the committee after being moved by the Daily Mail's campaigning coverage of the issue.

Support for a change in the L-test age was voiced by Elizabeth Davidson - whose 26 year old doctor daughter Margaret was killed by a speeding teenager - backed the moves for a one year probationary period and tougher sentencing.

Mrs Davidson, who read out the full text of her court statement on radio, leaving many listeners sobbing, is demanding tougher penalties for rogue drivers after Margaret's 19-year-old killer was sentenced to only four years.

A coalition of insurance, motoring and road safety groups - spearheaded by the Association of British insurers - believes raising the L-test age could cut road deaths by 1,000 each year.

Last year nearly 1,200 young drivers under the age of 20 were killed or seriously injured.

Drivers aged 17 to 19 are ten times more likely to have an accident than those aged 30-plus.

Many are also uninsured, untaxed and driving cars without an MOT.

Men aged 17 to 20 account for three per cent of the driving population but 33 per cent of convictions for dangerous driving, including causing death and bodily harm.

Launching its inquiry into 'novice' drivers, the Commons' Transport Select committee said last night: "Changes might include new pre-test requirements such as a minimum number of hours or miles driving, or a minimum period between obtaining a provisional licence and taking the test."

Compulsory professional tuition for learners - rather than a few tips from, mum, dad or a mate - and additional training for motorway and night driving are also being considered.

Significantly, the committee asked on Thursday: "Would there be any benefit in changing the minimum age at which a provisional or full licence may be obtained."

MPs are also to look at the option of a 'graduated licensing' in which restrictions would be placed on drivers after they pass their test or until a second test is taken.

This could include restrictions on night driving, a lower speed limit, restrictions on the number of passengers who could be carried and a lower blood alcohol level for drink-driving offences.

MPs will consider the extent to which driver attitude affects the collision rates of young and novice drivers.

They will look at the effectiveness of the existing practical and theory driving tests in identifying safe driving skills and behaviour and whether the hazard perception test has achieved its objective of helping learners spot and anticipate trouble on the road ahead.

Evidence is to be taken early next year from police, road safety bodies, insurance experts, motoring groups and other interested parties.

Announcing the inquiry, a spokesman for the committee said: "The chance of a driver being involved in a collision is particularly high during the first year after passing the driving test.

"The Government estimates that nearly 38,800 people are killed or injured each year in collisions involving at least one driver with less than two years' post-test experience.

"We want to know to what extent novice drivers are more at risk of being involved in a collision than other drivers, and whether this is primarily a consequence of age, inexperience or a combination of both."

Tory MP Lee Scott, who raised the issue with the House of Commons Transport Select Committee of which he is a member, was delighted the inquiry got the green light.

He said: "I am very pleased that the committee has taken up the baton on this very important subject. We need to look at radical solutions.

"This is a problem which blights families and leave parents grieving for their children. If it saves one life, it is worth it. Hopefully it will save many thousands of lives."

Malcolm Tarling of the Association of British Insurers (ABI) welcomed the move: "This is an important step towards making young and inexperienced drivers safe and reducing the carnage on our roads. It is heartening that the MPs have listened to our concerns."

The ABI said most countries in Europe do not allow drivers to take a test until they are 18.

Sweden switched to the higher age of 18 in 1993. The effect of a longer probationary period was a drop in the number of accidents per mile of up to 40 per cent.

Do they want to raise the minimum age for riding a moped at the same time? If not, then road deaths would probably increase as you would have far more 17-yos on mopeds.

I have a letter from Stephen Ladyman which states they have no intention of altering anything, as it would affect young peoples chances of finding employment or taking up further education!

Around a third of young people now go on to higher education at 18, often moving away from home.

Currently, with the minimum driving age at 17, they have ample chance to learn to drive before they leave home. If it was raised to 18, those with birthdays in the second half of the educational year would be seriously disadvantaged. Arguably this is less a safety measure than a social engineering one - if you go away to university without having learned to drive, the chances are much less that you ever will.

Of acquaintances in the 18-22 age group, I have to say that those with driving licences on average seem more mature than those without.

Drivers aged 17 to 19 are ten times more likely to have an accident than those aged 30-plus.

Surely the problem has more to do with lack of experience rather than age. The number of people who learn to drive at 30 must be miniscule compared to the number at 17-19 so it must be very difficult to compare the figures.

It does actually have something to do with age - those who pass their test at a later age generally do have a much better safety record in their first two years, probably because they have developed a more mature attitude to risk-taking.

It is a symptom of the growing erosion of freedom in this country that, after many years of reducing the minimum ages for things, we are now looking at raising them again. Scotland has already raised the minimum age for smoking from 16 to 18...

My best estimate for the factor split (age experience) is 50/50. If you (or anyone else) has a reference source, I'd be very interested.

I find this interesting - we used to have a policy of not hiring graduates who had not learned to drive. This policy existed for two reasons:

Firstly they are likely to need to be mobile (but one could argue they could learn fairly quickly). However, the primary reason was that those who had not bothered to learn early were unlikely to be right for us..

We want our recruits to be champing at the bit and getting on. We see this as an indication of attitute and it raised alarm bells.

I have a letter from Stephen Ladyman which states they have no intention of altering anything, as it would affect young peoples chances of finding employment or taking up further education!

I have posted it up elsewhere in another thread.

Ooh look, another pointless numerical limit. That'll solve the problem...