Roger wrote:
ree.t wrote:
All that will do is shift the inexperience.
and make it more protracted - young learn faster.
I read this page about once every two weeks or so, and dare to dream ...
Anyone remember this thread?I feel an urge to contrast what Colorado is trying to do with graduated licensing, against the ideal of the late Paul Smith's 'Manifesto'.
Alastair Ross wrote:
Whilst some of the measures discussed today may not be popular with young people, any measures that will reduce the carnage on our roads and save lives must be given detailed consideration.
Keeping kids off the roads at the times when they are most likely to kill themselves and their friends is certainly a viable approach to 'saving lives' and 'reducing carnage'.
I doubt he is interested in giving detailed consideration to any ideas that could or might improve road safety
culture, much less examine how to do so by
a) graduated licensing
beyond either the L-Test, or Pass Plus
b) improving the education, training, and tesing standards for the L-Test itself
Numerical age may be one of the necessary factors in creating a proxy for measuring the ability to manage distractions. On its own, however, it is most certainly not such a proxy.
The overall quality of the development of 'the next generation' is already in measurable decline. Graduated licensing, as is, will simply increase the number of people left to barely learn how to drive.
(Anybody willing to bet that the only minimum age requirement that will never go any higher, is the age of military enlistment?)