From the
Raising legal driving age thread.
botach wrote:
Ziltro wrote:
Ooh look, another pointless numerical limit. That'll solve the problem...
Or perhaps it's time to get rid of the production line driving school idea and return to 20/30 years ago - where teenagers were taught to drive first, then taught to pass the test. Add to that proper and enforced signing of new drivers( and some proper policing to give them some protection and if necessary some extra advice/education) .
Production lines are great for turning out radios etc - some learners need a bit more attention.
And if you accept what Ziltro and botach are saying there you have to question why we bother having a minimum age at all. Are we actually achieving anything with it, or is simply a barrier for competent sensible 16 1/2 year olds? And if we do think we're acheiving something worthwhile is there any data to actually back that up? Yeah, I know the 17-19 year old group is a bad insurance risk, but I'm wondering about comparisons with places where 16 or 15 year olds are legally allowed to drive. Would it turn out that in those places it's the 15-17 or 16-18 groups who need to be watched, and that the risks for, say, an American 18 year old who's been driving for 2-3 years are lower than for a British 18 year old who's only been driving for 12 months?
Would it be possible to do away with a minimum age entirely by taking a different approach? Imagine if you could begin learning to drive at any age subject to an initial assessment off the public road, or better yet, in a simulator. Such an assessment would have to include the blindingly obvious, such as being physically able to reach and safely operate the controls of a typical unmodified car. That would keep the CeeBeebie viewers from even applying without there actually being anything on the statute books barring them. Might as well do the numberplate check as well (why wait until the actual L test - I'm sure I remember my instructor doing it), and clearly anyone so young that they've yet to develop the reading skills to go through the Highway Code will be going nowhere. Not sure what the next step would be, but the end goal would be to ensure that applicants are sufficiently able and mature to be allowed to learn to drive. I'm not saying that this isn't a goal of the existing system, but I'm questioning whether an arbitrary minimum age is an effective way of going about it. Could it not be mostly about ability? And if it could, why not simply make it entirely about ability?
Pros:
Wannabee drivers under 17 who do have the skills and maturity need not wait.
Those who are over 17 are not guaranteed a go unless they're good enough.
Might make the beginning of driving
tuition as aspirational as passing the L test - "Hey everyone, I've been told I'm good enough to start driving lessons next week even though I'm only 16". Could it begin a learning culture within some young drivers?
Cons:
Would do square root of naff all about young drivers who currently don't meet the age requirement and drive anyway. They would probably not get started any earlier, and quite possibly would actually begin later. Unfortunately their attitude is f
it, we know best, we'll drive anyway, and I can't see any form of change to how driving is taught and to who doing anything about that.
There would probably have to be an age where ability and maturity is assumed just to keep the system going, and if so it's likely that some poor quality drivers will slip through the net and be just good enough on test day to be allowed to drive unsupervised from then on. But doesn't this happen anyway?
Am I seriously advocating this? Er, not as such. Actually my inner Daily Mail reading middle aged fartie is not keen on the idea of 15 or 16 year olds being let loose on the roads, but this is the Brainstorming section after all. And at the same time I'm not sure if I'm simply following a convention that there has to be a limit because we've always had one (or at least, since long before I was born). Could we design an ability based system that would allow most 17 year olds to begin their driving careers, but at the same time allow precocious younger people to get started
and postpone the most muppet like of the 17+ group until they've matured a little more?