Driving age to raise to 18

[Nipper]

It aint gonna happen, the Government pull in too much money from young drivers...

 

Yes i have done my research, and yes i know what im saying, BUT... i can not be bothered typing out a huge long post that only 3 out of 10 will read.

[Who]

I notice no change to the motorcycle laws... surely if drivers know they will have no chance of getting a car till they 18 they would move to 50cc motorbikes, which is essentially encouraging people to get on the roads at 16 (you can drive a 50cc at 16).

 

I mean, the only reason im not going for a CBT test is because i know that if i wait one year i could buy a car, and save the money for buying a 50cc, and its related costs over the year leading up to my 17th. Now if it was 18 for driving i would have gone for the CBT as soon as i'd had my 16th birthday, and so would ALOT of people i know, being as the bike wuld be useful twice as long . So the removal of 17 year old drivers would lead to a great increase of 16 year old motorbikers. so they are inadvertantly (sp) encouraging youngsters on the road EARLIER.

[Pherelas]

I wouldn't take a 50cc motorbike ever, first you look like an idiot, sorry you do, reving the engine and going about 10 mph and secound I quite value my life. See what you mean though a lot of people would go across early.

 

As for long posts, if what your trying to post takes that much space im not going to split it up into different posts or shorten it so lazy people can be borthered to read it, if your intressted you'll read it, if your not you won't. And if your talking to baxie who's post is a lot longer, it was quite easy to read really.

[NinjaSix]

Hmmm, I do think the government paper has missed a trick here. I don't think the age limit should be raised (There are people in rural areas who rely on their cars to get around. How many 17yr olds will be out of a job because they can no longer travel to work?).

 

I think that, instead, there should be a horsepower limit for young/inexperienced drivers, just like we have for bikes. The particularly tragic event mentioned earlier would not have happened if the kids were driving a 1.0 Fiat Punto.

 

It's not just about experience, either. It's a biological fact that as you get older, you take fewer risks. It's even been shown that once a young man reaches his mid twenties, something in his brain triggers which dramatically reduces risk-taking in a fairly short period of time. Even in a crappy Punto, a young male driver will more than likely want to drive it as close to the edge of its performance as he can. It's just the way they're made.

 

I like driving fast as much as anyone, but it's all about risk assessment, and knowing when not to. Older people do it better.

 

I get very pissed off at sweeping legislation that inconveniences law-abiding people (because they will obey the new laws) and doesn't affect the people it's supposedly targeting (who don't give a toss).

 

A government's motivation is not public safety, but just to be seen to be doing something about public safety. It's all about winning votes, and nothing else. That's why we have so many speed cameras, no police patrols and lies about speed being the root cause of accidents. The trouble is, these measures are the cheapest and easiest way of being seen to do something, when in actual fact they are making things worse. How many speed cameras does it take to catch a drunk driver, or an unroadworthy vehicle, or someone who's driven for too long and is falling asleep? (Or even a young man pumped up on hormones driving like an idiot to try and impress girls into shagging him?)

 

The fact of the matter is that, over the last 40-50 years, all of the easy steps to reducing accident figures have already been done. We've already got arbitrary speed limits (yes, that's right - arbitrary. No scientific method was used in coming up with a 70mph limit. Someone just pulled the figure out of his a$$), all the dangerous corners have been resurfaced or re-routed, we've got a plethora of warning signs everywhere, suspension, brakes, seatbelts, airbags, crumple zones, the works. The only measures left are the hard ones.

 

Unfortunately, the real answer, as I see it, is educating the public and a much more relevant (and rigorous) driving test. That's far more difficult and expensive to achieve than speed cameras, and will probably mean fewer new drivers, which will piss off the motor manufacturers who line the pockets of our political parties.

 

 

On a slightly different tack, one interesting idea I've heard of for reducing accidents (at least, in urban areas) is to remove all white lines from the road. It's been shown that people tend to drive much more carefully and considerately if they don't have the psychological reassurance that they have right of way.