Safe Speed Forums

From the Raising legal driving age thread.


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?

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

I believe younger drivers are allowed on the roads on Agricultural tractors, and youngsters with certain learning difficulties are allowed to start lessons early already.
Anyone have the legal script on this?

Remote rural areas would benefit, as they often need to be able to travel, and public transport is... sh*t in these locations.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Personaly think that raising the age would only move the stats to a higher age group.
Lowering the age - a theory is that the younger one is taught -the easier.
What seems to be reflected in the stats ( and in insurer thinking ) is that experience is needed.

My thoughts tend to earlier driver training - some schools used to do this , with involvment from local trafpol.Might just catch the ones who would drive at an early age ---especially seing trafpol as a face rather than as some faceless authoruty.??
When in a car, they might just start to develop skills ,as a passenger, being able to hone awairness ( and to some extent,COAST skills ) concentrating solely on the outside --- the idea being that ( and don't forget this is brainstorming) the subconsious will start to take over and that the consious can then focus on driving, when they actually physically drive.

Surely better for kids if they learn how do drive safely rather than 'relationships' or whatever other nonsense they're taught?

How about 'Driver's Ed' classes in schools, conducted at locations off the public highway, where youngsters can be taught about machine opertaion and then safe driving techniques, prior to, and without the onus of the driving test. Once they are of age they can then pay for their own lessons in order to pass the test.

When I was 16 there was a scheme run at our local cattle market for 15+yo to have a go. An extension of this could instil an ethos of safe driving before the mad dash at 17 to pass the test and get independantly mobile.

I had been thinking about that. What does the age limit prove? Not a lot.

When I was younger I rode a bike quite a lot. I also had a go-kart, which was often connected to my friend's one with bits of string (mine could have planks of wood attached easily to fit more people on, his had steering) and could control that quite well!
We even got used to crashing into things (not usually people) and having the thing fall apart while riding it.

At school there was an event where they had some dual-control cars which anyone could have a go at driving around the field. I think most of the kids there had a go. I didn't get above second gear myself, but it was still good fun.

So I could probably have handled most of what's needed to drive on the roads when I was 13, if not a bit earlier.

I don't know if I would trust any of the other people who went to my school to drive even now.

Age limits are too sudden a change to really be useful. Today I'm not allowed to drive, tomorrow I am. Today I am not allowed to buy alcohol, tomorrow I am. Today I am not allowed to have sex, tomorrow I am. What's changed? Nothing.

_________________
Andrew.

And in a few years ( if GB don't mess up the nations pension funds again) - today i can got to work - tomorrow, i'm too old.
And after that i will be too old to hold a driving licence - or be wise enough to get off the roads.
Hopefuly by then GB and TB will be resting in the home for GA-GA politicians --the House of Lords ( if they havent abolished it by then)