Zero alcohol for drivers under 20.

[Swoop]

The Government intends imposing a zero alcohol level (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10629218)on drivers aged under 20, Transport Minister Steven Joyce has confirmed.

He said today it was part of a package aimed at reducing the road death toll, which was 60 per cent per capita higher than Australia's.

Mr Joyce said the zero alcohol level for drivers under 20 still had to be signed off by the Cabinet.

"I think it is likely to get through," he said on Radio New Zealand.

"We do need to take a systematic approach to the issues around young people dying on our roads."

At present teenage drivers have a 30mg alcohol limit.

Mr Joyce said there would also be proposals in the package covering drivers up to age 24.

[motor_mayhem]

That Joyce is a douche who has chosen young drivers as his scapegoat and decided to put everything on them because older drivers certainly don't want to believe they are ever at fault. Stuff's motoring journalist refers to it here. It annoys me even though I am no longer in the age group of those that will be penalised

http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/blogs/drivetalk/2893905/Older-drivers-appear-to-be-increasing-our-road-toll

Despite being a car driver he has also acknowledged our issues too.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/blogs/drivetalk/2971483/Bikers-cop-ACC-blame

[R6_kid]

It's a start, next step would be halving the acceptable breath alcohol limit for everyone else.

I still think they need to invest heavily in some reliable and accurate statistics collection followed up with full analysis so that they can target all the real problem areas other than just speed and alcohol. But then they'd be doing their job correctly, and we all know government agencies aren't capable of that.

[Mikkel]

It's fairly ridiculous - there's nothing to support that you are less of a risk when driving drunk just because you are older.

Again, we see the short-sighted, narrow mindedness of the people who are making the laws. When are they going to wake up and realise that prohibition does not work.

[avgas]

Short sighted - possibly. However the peripheral stuff can happen later.
The only thing bad I can see out of all of this is the fact they haven't stated the total plan e.g.
- Zero alcohol for drivers under 20
- Half alcohol levels for all drivers
- Lift drinking age to 19
- Lift driving age to 17
- Compulsory driving tests ever 5 years after 50.
- Stronger penalties for dangerous driving causing harm.
- Stronger penalties for repeat offenders........

[Spearfish]

I think is more to do with developing better behaviour patterns at a younger age. But I do wonder if anything will work with a system that lets someone blow over the limit two/three times in one night fail a blood test then get it retested privately and fail again then go plead not guilty, but then I guess if the system lets him run up 6 or seven convictions you have to wonder who is at fault for forming his habit.
Recidivist criminals will only respond to one punishment...the woodchipper..IMHO

[sunhuntin]

its a start, and one that needed to be done. so many teens think that driving drunk makes them a better driver... totally crazy. heres hoping this first step will lead to others in the right direction as far as preventing drink driving in adults as well.

[Mikkel]

Short sighted - possibly. However the peripheral stuff can happen later.
The only thing bad I can see out of all of this is the fact they haven't stated the total plan e.g.
- Zero alcohol for drivers under 20
- Half alcohol levels for all drivers
- Lift drinking age to 19
- Lift driving age to 17
- Compulsory driving tests ever 5 years after 50.
- Stronger penalties for dangerous driving causing harm.
- Stronger penalties for repeat offenders........

Well, that's the foolish approach - 'things are bad so we'll just fix it by tightening up the law'. :nono:

Introduce proper extensive driver education, real tests, lift the driving age to 18, make 3rd party insurance compulsory and people will begin to take motoring serious. I am confident that would resolve a lot of the problems...

[Mikkel]

Short sighted - possibly. However the peripheral stuff can happen later.
The only thing bad I can see out of all of this is the fact they haven't stated the total plan e.g.
- Zero alcohol for drivers under 20
- Half alcohol levels for all drivers
- Lift drinking age to 19
- Lift driving age to 17
- Compulsory driving tests ever 5 years after 50.
- Stronger penalties for dangerous driving causing harm.
- Stronger penalties for repeat offenders........

Well, that's the foolish approach - 'things are bad so we'll just fix it by tightening up the law'. :nono:

Introduce proper extensive driver education, real tests, lift the driving age to 18, make 3rd party insurance compulsory and people will begin to take motoring serious. I am confident that would resolve a lot of the problems...

[Genestho]

It's a start at one end of the spectrum, building on a generation with better habits, and the first of many announcements on the drink drive and roadsafety in general topic this year. There is debate as we speak, regarding penalties, recidivists, interlocking devices have been reviewed.

I have been extremely fortunate in this area, working with the leading researcher in the world who is now releasing 'look back' research information and studies over 20 years with excellent results. Which once approved I have been given permission to publish.

Like anything there will be those that won't respect the law, and laws need to be enforced to be respected. Behaviours need to be taught, to be learnt, hence a massive injection into SADD peer group education.

Joyce has got his work cut out, but from what i understand he is astute and intelligent, researching and listening, and prepared to make some moves.

[avgas]

Well, that's the foolish approach - 'things are bad so we'll just fix it by tightening up the law'. :nono:
Introduce proper extensive driver education, real tests, lift the driving age to 18, make 3rd party insurance compulsory and people will begin to take motoring serious. I am confident that would resolve a lot of the problems...
So you mean introduce and tighten laws.......
sorry I am confused, as you have just said the fluffy stuff around the laws.
Age - law
Insurance - law
License - law
Education - law......

[motor_mayhem]

Well, that's the foolish approach - 'things are bad so we'll just fix it by tightening up the law'. :nono:

Introduce proper extensive driver education, real tests, lift the driving age to 18, make 3rd party insurance compulsory and people will begin to take motoring serious. I am confident that would resolve a lot of the problems...

That kinda reads like a large contradiction - sounds like you are first saying laws aren't going to fix anything, then suggest a whole heap of new laws? could you elaborate?

Regarding the topic as a whole, Is there any statistics to prove that it is this minority that are crashing BECAUSE their breath/blood alcohol limit is within the current legal limits but more than zero. I very much doubt it. For everyone who says the driving should be raised, maybe consider the people who don't live in the middle of the cities and how their lives might be affected by such a change.

[marty]

I think is more to do with developing better behaviour patterns at a younger age. But I do wonder if anything will work with a system that lets someone blow over the limit two/three times in one night fail a blood test then get it retested privately and fail again then go plead not guilty, but then I guess if the system lets him run up 6 or seven convictions you have to wonder who is at fault for forming his habit.
Recidivist criminals will only respond to one punishment...the woodchipper..IMHO

Exactly. It's called education at the top instead of ambulance at the bottom. If they made the learner licence tighter and easier to lose through poor behaviour that would also begin to create young people who actually respected their licence...

[avgas]

Exactly. It's called education at the top instead of ambulance at the bottom. If they made the learner licence tighter and easier to lose through poor behaviour that would also begin to create young people who actually respected their licence...
While I agree - I do wonder how a lot of people who believe "education will solve all" feel about their own ability. Especially those who's motorbike licence consisted of riding the BSA home from the shop.
Just curious, and not saying its right or wrong. But would you all recommend something that you would also be tested on?
I personally believe that all riders and drivers need a bit more grasskanna so that they know how to hold themselves and feel what a potential of a vehicle is. And I practice what I preach sometimes taking a vehicle to its limits (in a safe area) just to check my skills.

[neels]

It's a close to zero limit at the moment anyway, one beer and you're over, so just making it zero seems sensible.

Will raising the driving age reduce accidents for inexperienced drivers, or will it just create older inexperienced drivers having accidents? Attitude is just as much as of a determining factor as age, and there are plenty of 20 or 30 or even 70 year olds that drive like retards and are possibly more dangerous than a careful 15 year old.

[Toaster]

It's a close to zero limit at the moment anyway, one beer and you're over, so just making it zero seems sensible.

Will raising the driving age reduce accidents for inexperienced drivers, or will it just create older inexperienced drivers having accidents? Attitude is just as much as of a determining factor as age, and there are plenty of 20 or 30 or even 70 year olds that drive like retards and are possibly more dangerous than a careful 15 year old.

Ain't that the truth. Maturity and sensible behaviour often have little nexus to age itself. Just look at some people on here!

It does not take much at all to exceed the youth limit for drink driving, so removing it altogether at least takes away the doubt factor of "will I or wont I be okay" to have a drink or two then drive. So many factors determine the result and the actual number of drinks consumed is merely one of many factors. Its the numbers that come out of the EBA machine or blood test result that matters the most.

[Mikkel]

So you mean introduce and tighten laws.......
sorry I am confused, as you have just said the fluffy stuff around the laws.
Age - law
Insurance - law
License - law
Education - law......


That kinda reads like a large contradiction - sounds like you are first saying laws aren't going to fix anything, then suggest a whole heap of new laws? could you elaborate?

I believe someone was calling for making the restrictions more restrictive and the penalties harder. My point is, adding more of the same shit to the pile is only going to make the pile bigger. There are several fundamental changes that could be applied to NZ's handling of driver licensing and traffic enforcement which have been in place for decades in those other countries with which we like to compare ourselves. You know the ones, those that have significantly lower road-tolls per capita, just for a start.


For everyone who says the driving should be raised, maybe consider the people who don't live in the middle of the cities and how their lives might be affected by such a change.

As incredible as it may sound, people got away with living in the middle of nowhere before we got cars. Give kids over 15 the option of getting a moped license, that'll give them something to move around on. As for young drivers today, most of them do not live out in the middle of nowhere.


It's a close to zero limit at the moment anyway, one beer and you're over, so just making it zero seems sensible.

I see your point. However, with a zero limit you could loose your license by having had a wine-based sauce for dinner. The breathalyser catching a whiff of your aftershave? Having had a beer in the afternoon and the driving 2 hours later. Some mouthwashes have a small amount of alcohol in them as well...

The problem is not people having a couple of beers over dinner and driving an hour or two later - it's the people who goes out, gets sloshed and then drive themselves and their mates home from town. No setting the limit at zero is going to prevent that. Hell, you could put hanging as the minimum penalty for driving with a blood alcohol above zero and there would still be people doing it...


Will raising the driving age reduce accidents for inexperienced drivers, or will it just create older inexperienced drivers having accidents? Attitude is just as much as of a determining factor as age, and there are plenty of 20 or 30 or even 70 year olds that drive like retards and are possibly more dangerous than a careful 15 year old.

Indeed, but most of these 20, 30 or even 70 year old drivers have never been taught to take motoring seriously. However, generally speaking, a great deal of maturing happens in those last years of puberty - an 18 year old will, on average, be significantly more mature than a 15 year old. ...many 15 year olds either are not at all careful or they are so insecure they shouldn't be on the road in the first place. Both are unacceptable.


Ain't that the truth. Maturity and sensible behaviour often have little nexus to age itself. Just look at some people on here!

Maturity is many things. One of them is recognising that your actions have very real consequences - another is actually accepting that you are responsible for those potential consequences.

[marty]

It's a close to zero limit at the moment anyway, one beer and you're over, so just making it zero seems sensible.

Will raising the driving age reduce accidents for inexperienced drivers, or will it just create older inexperienced drivers having accidents? Attitude is just as much as of a determining factor as age, and there are plenty of 20 or 30 or even 70 year olds that drive like retards and are possibly more dangerous than a careful 15 year old.

In a totally scientific experiment a couple of weeks ago, my 18 year old son drunk 4 Stellas in an hour before he blew 150 (tested on friendly Police equipment). He only ate chips while he was drinking. Don't for a minute think 1 drink puts ANYONE over.

[neels]

In a totally scientific experiment a couple of weeks ago, my 18 year old son drunk 4 Stellas in an hour before he blew 150 (tested on friendly Police equipment). He only ate chips while he was drinking. Don't for a minute think 1 drink puts ANYONE over.

So he was right on the limit after 4 quick beers, do you think he might have been over if you'd tested him again later, or with a blood test after an hour at the cop shop?

And does that mean you would be happy for him to drive after 4 beers in an hour?

I'm quite happy with my 15 year old working on the understanding that one beer could put him over the limit so he shouldn't drink anything before driving.

[avgas]

There are several fundamental changes that could be applied to NZ's handling of driver licensing and traffic enforcement which have been in place for decades in those other countries with which we like to compare ourselves. You know the ones, those that have significantly lower road-tolls per capita, just for a start......
....Maturity is many things. One of them is recognising that your actions have very real consequences - another is actually accepting that you are responsible for those potential consequences.
hehe I like you - you think this place is fixable. Not only in NZ on the downward spiral staircase, it tripped and started falling 10 years ago.
Now we have to beat the fundamentals into the morons skulls with a really big stick.
While I dream of that day that might change - you have to realise that people were complaining about smoking in the 80's..........

[motor_mayhem]

I believe someone was calling for making the restrictions more restrictive and the penalties harder. My point is, adding more of the same shit to the pile is only going to make the pile bigger. There are several fundamental changes that could be applied to NZ's handling of driver licensing and traffic enforcement which have been in place for decades in those other countries with which we like to compare ourselves. You know the ones, those that have significantly lower road-tolls per capita, just for a start.

I don't know if you can compare us to anyone only because of the quality and winding nature of some of our roads as a contributing factor.




As incredible as it may sound, people got away with living in the middle of nowhere before we got cars. Give kids over 15 the option of getting a moped license, that'll give them something to move around on. As for young drivers today, most of them do not live out in the middle of nowhere.
At the times before cars were around, businesses(banks and post offices etc.) tended to have outlets in every little village, with the advent of cars they now don't. Mopeds would be worse - someone has pointed out in another thread one of the biggest problems is speed differential between objects like vehicles. Restrict vehicle engine size and modifications might work better. And you would choose to support a "Punish the minority because their situation is different" to placate the majority (which may not fix the issue)? Does this sound like an ACC idea?



I see your point. However, with a zero limit you could loose your license by having had a wine-based sauce for dinner. The breathalyser catching a whiff of your aftershave? Having had a beer in the afternoon and the driving 2 hours later. Some mouthwashes have a small amount of alcohol in them as well...

The problem is not people having a couple of beers over dinner and driving an hour or two later - it's the people who goes out, gets sloshed and then drive themselves and their mates home from town. No setting the limit at zero is going to prevent that. Hell, you could put hanging as the minimum penalty for driving with a blood alcohol above zero and there would still be people doing it...

Agree



Indeed, but most of these 20, 30 or even 70 year old drivers have never been taught to take motoring seriously. However, generally speaking, a great deal of maturing happens in those last years of puberty - an 18 year old will, on average, be significantly more mature than a 15 year old. ...many 15 year olds either are not at all careful or they are so insecure they shouldn't be on the road in the first place. Both are unacceptable.

Blanket punishment again?


In a totally scientific experiment a couple of weeks ago, my 18 year old son drunk 4 Stellas in an hour before he blew 150 (tested on friendly Police equipment). He only ate chips while he was drinking. Don't for a minute think 1 drink puts ANYONE over.

Depends who the subject is. Being very fit I doubt I could have more than 1 if that (so I don't).

[Mikkel]

hehe I like you - you think this place is fixable. Not only in NZ on the downward spiral staircase, it tripped and started falling 10 years ago.
Now we have to beat the fundamentals into the morons skulls with a really big stick.
While I dream of that day that might change - you have to realise that people were complaining about smoking in the 80's..........

Of course it is fixable. All it takes is that people stop pissing around and actually get their arse in gear and do something about it. But it requires honest self-examination and a willingness to challenge and abolish non-functional doctrines. It's only a matter of how long it takes before things turn shitty enough that people realise they have to wake up...


I don't know if you can compare us to anyone only because of the quality and winding nature of some of our roads as a contributing factor.

Of course you can compare NZ to other places. NZ isn't the only place in the world with winding roads - as for the quality of the roads, that's one of these doctrines that needs to be abolished. The "we can't afford to do it properly right now so we'll do a half-arsed job that will cost more down the track"-mentality needs to go. In with asphalt and out with grit.


At the times before cars were around, businesses(banks and post offices etc.) tended to have outlets in every little village, with the advent of cars they now don't. Mopeds would be worse - someone has pointed out in another thread one of the biggest problems is speed differential between objects like vehicles. Restrict vehicle engine size and modifications might work better. And you would choose to support a "Punish the minority because their situation is different" to placate the majority (which may not fix the issue)? Does this sound like an ACC idea?

Blanket punishment again?

First of all, operating a motor vehicle is a privilege not a fundamental right - as such limiting the group to whom such a privilege is extended has nothing to do with blanket punishment or targeting minorities. Or do you also think that 9-year olds are hard done by for not being allowed to vote, drink, drive and work on equal terms with yourself? Everything you consider a right is most likely a privilege granted to you a guy with a gun.

Secondly, the pre-18 year old drivers can cry me a river. If they need to go to the bank or the post office they can either get on their bike/moped/horse/bus or get their parents to give them a lift. Maybe if kids weren't taxied to school in mobile fortresses they'd be able to handle such stressful situations. It isn't a problem - there's plenty of countries with extensive rural areas where kids aren't allowed to get their license until they turn 18.

Third point, plenty of people survive walking or biking along the road every single day. A moped is - on average - faster than a bicycle and therefore even less dangerous. As someone has remarked on here, perhaps that would teach them a thing or two about appreciation for consideration, before they get their own mobile fortress for taking their own kids to school.

[avgas]

But it requires honest self-examination and a willingness to challenge and abolish non-functional doctrines.
Sadly that is a dead art here my friend. Take the financial crisis. Bunch of people who thought they were 'swindled' out of there money - where the evidence showed they never questioned where it was going.
Then there are the riders here who believe that 'its not their fault'.
Yep unfortunately you are preaching to the indoctrinated here my friend, I just question if your word will be heard by those who really needs it.

[Mikkel]

Sadly that is a dead art here my friend. Take the financial crisis. Bunch of people who thought they were 'swindled' out of there money - where the evidence showed they never questioned where it was going.

It's a lost art everywhere where people have become too well off to give a shit about anything and anyone but their's and themselves. Maybe, if the financial crisis becomes bad enough that we will have to depend upon each other once more, maybe then that will push us in the right direction.


Then there are the riders here who believe that 'its not their fault'.
Yep unfortunately you are preaching to the indoctrinated here my friend, I just question if your word will be heard by those who really needs it.

Yep, and then we are back to my post about maturity - more specifically the second part of the sentence.

[Genestho]

I believe someone was calling for making the restrictions more restrictive and the penalties harder. My point is, adding more of the same shit to the pile is only going to make the pile bigger. There are several fundamental changes that could be applied to NZ's handling of driver licensing and traffic enforcement which have been in place for decades in those other countries with which we like to compare ourselves. You know the ones, those that have significantly lower road-tolls per capita, just for a start.



As incredible as it may sound, people got away with living in the middle of nowhere before we got cars. Give kids over 15 the option of getting a moped license, that'll give them something to move around on. As for young drivers today, most of them do not live out in the middle of nowhere.



I see your point. However, with a zero limit you could loose your license by having had a wine-based sauce for dinner. The breathalyser catching a whiff of your aftershave? Having had a beer in the afternoon and the driving 2 hours later. Some mouthwashes have a small amount of alcohol in them as well...

The problem is not people having a couple of beers over dinner and driving an hour or two later - it's the people who goes out, gets sloshed and then drive themselves and their mates home from town. No setting the limit at zero is going to prevent that. Hell, you could put hanging as the minimum penalty for driving with a blood alcohol above zero and there would still be people doing it...



Indeed, but most of these 20, 30 or even 70 year old drivers have never been taught to take motoring seriously. However, generally speaking, a great deal of maturing happens in those last years of puberty - an 18 year old will, on average, be significantly more mature than a 15 year old. ...many 15 year olds either are not at all careful or they are so insecure they shouldn't be on the road in the first place. Both are unacceptable.



Maturity is many things. One of them is recognising that your actions have very real consequences - another is actually accepting that you are responsible for those potential consequences.
Most countries (if not all..) already enacting this legislation, alongside other policies - enforce a 0.02 level to cover these wine sauce/ aftershave/mouthwash/residual alcohol possibilities.

The thing is this legislation removes all confusion for youth. Currently there is a limit, which enables youth to drink and drive.
There will be youth able to respect this change, and there will be youth that won't, that - will also be an indication of wider issues.
As a parent i do have a sense of relief that the confusion is removed.

I do believe there does need to be meaningful and combined focus from parents, schools and education groups regarding roadsafety and the consequences in general.
There is some debate from researchers that alcohol "related' youth crashes are merely part and parcel of a lack of understanding of consequences, or understanding how these impact on the roads around them due to the teenagers inability to cognitively grasp these concepts...

[steve_t]

Has there been any suggestion as to what changes will be made for people under 25 years old (besides alcohol)?

[Genestho]

Has there been any suggestion as to what changes will be made for people under 25 years old (besides alcohol)?
There is debate on raising the license age, extending the learner license period, removing access to high powered cars, increasing number of hours young drivers must spend under adult supervision, there is a report that says the best way for teenagers to learn good habits is to spend at least 200 hundred hours with parents. Also things like raising purchase age for alcohol could come into play...possibly even compulsary 3rd party insurance too!!!

[{.bLanK}G_o_D]

Everybody that thinks this zero alcohol limit wont achieve anything is fucked.
Teens are generally immature and don't think about the consequences, allowing any amount of alcohol is just an open door for, "one more won't hurt"
If they know from the start the "Zero limit" then it will detour more teens from having that first drink.
The only problem I see with this new law is it's capped at 20 years old.
We've had it drummed into our heads the last 10 years that "If you drink and drive" bla bla bla. But then again it's ok to have one or two drinks.
There is a big difference in the way different people react to the effects of alcohol. Some people can drink 3 times the limit and still be perfectly sober (sober but over the limit), on the other hand some people get drunk on half a glass of beer (drunk but under the limit).
I admit I've done some dumb shit in the past, one of them being drinking at the clock tower on Thursdays after work when I was working at foodies. I got breath tested on night on the way home, I was sure I was going down, no doubt reeked of piss, vision was that kinda slightly fuzzy "yeah I'm pissed" feeling. Had been drinking at an average pace for several hours. Honestly, I should not have been driving that night, I could have quite easily caused an accident. But I passed the breathalyzer to my amazement. Same thing happened while in a mates car, he says as we're pulling up to a checkpoint, "fuck I'm so not gonna pass" and he did.

If you eat food with alcohol, your body can process the alcohol faster.
Too many variables for my liking.
My vote would be a Zero alcohol limit for all motorists of all ages.


Short sighted - possibly. However the peripheral stuff can happen later.
The only thing bad I can see out of all of this is the fact they haven't stated the total plan e.g.
- Zero alcohol for drivers under 20
- Half alcohol levels for all drivers
- Lift drinking age to 19
- Lift driving age to 17
- Compulsory driving tests ever 5 years after 50.
- Stronger penalties for dangerous driving causing harm.
- Stronger penalties for repeat offenders........

This is what I'd vote for.
- Zero alcohol for all drivers
- Lift drinking age to 21
- Lift driving age to 17
- Compulsory driving tests ever 5 years after 50
- Stronger penalties for dangerous driving
- Stronger penalties for repeat offenders
- Compulsory third party insurance

IMHO I wouldn't be upset at all if they banned alcohol altogether. It'd leave heaps more tax dollars for more important things from all the money saved from the drunk dicks no longer filling our hospitals, police cells and wasting police time.

[imdying]

Why shouldn't the limit be zero for everyone? Do you get better at driving under the influence the older you get?

[{.bLanK}G_o_D]

Teens are generally immature and don't think about the consequences

That doesn't read quite how I intended it to come across.
A better way of putting it would be, Maturity and wisdom get better with age. The majority of under 20-25 year old people don't have enough life experience to fully understand the repercussions from ones actions.

Still not exactly what I was thinking but better.

[Hiflyer]

its a start, and one that needed to be done. so many teens think that driving drunk makes them a better driver... totally crazy. heres hoping this first step will lead to others in the right direction as far as preventing drink driving in adults as well.

Hey Sunhuntin, just to let you know, i'm not singling you out, yours was the first post that said this,

but if you can find me one person that sincerely believes that drunk driving makes them a better driver... I dunno what I'd do, everybody knows it fuks you up, I'm 19 and absolutely none of my mates think that. Sure it makes you more courageous, but that's only cos you took an extra 50 metres to brake for the corner...




P.S if you find a person that believes this, send them back to school, they obviously didn't pay much attention.

EDIT: I do however reckon that a 0 limit would be better, leaves no room for error, kind of like "A No means NO" attitude from the cops. But why for only under 20's? I wonder how many 21-70 year olds have thought, I'll have a few wines with dinner and drive home but didn't make it?

[Mikkel]

Most countries (if not all..) already enacting this legislation, alongside other policies - enforce a 0.02 level to cover these wine sauce/ aftershave/mouthwash possibilities.

Yes, exactly. My point is that a strict ZERO limit is not in the interest of anyone - won't help road safety either.


Everybody that thinks this zero alcohol limit wont achieve anything is fucked.

What if I know it won't achieve anything? History has proven that particular lesson again and again over the aeons. Hell, why not go full out and ban alcohol altogether? After all, it's a known neuro-toxin, it aggravates a lot of life-style conditions - there's hardly anything good about alcohol besides the way it can make you feel. Same goes, more or less, for all other drugs.

Fuck it, why not just:

BAN EVERYTHING BAD!

It'll be awesome! Life will be so much easier once we don't have to make all these hard choices and take responsibility for our own lives. :weird:


IMHO I wouldn't be upset at all if they banned alcohol altogether. It'd leave heaps more tax dollars for more important things from all the money saved from the drunk dicks no longer filling our hospitals, police cells and wasting police time.

Isn't there a tax on alcohol? What do you think would happen if they banned alcohol altogether? Does the name Alphonse Gabriel Capone mean anything to you - besides movies with people in stylish suits driving around in classy old cars and shooting tommyguns?


You can pass whatever laws you want, unless you change people's mentality there will always be people who drive drunk and there will always be people getting killed, through no fault of their own, by drunk drivers. No matter how draconian the law or how oppressive its enforcing - that will never go away.
Oh, and I am not personally overly worried about young drunk drivers - it's their parents who passed down the habit that have me concerned. Just like they passed down their poor driving habits.

[Chrislost]

The Government intends imposing a zero alcohol level (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10629218)on drivers aged under 20, Transport Minister Steven Joyce has confirmed.

He said today it was part of a package aimed at reducing the road death toll, which was 60 per cent per capita higher than Australia's.

Mr Joyce said the zero alcohol level for drivers under 20 still had to be signed off by the Cabinet.

"I think it is likely to get through," he said on Radio New Zealand.

"We do need to take a systematic approach to the issues around young people dying on our roads."

At present teenage drivers have a 30mg alcohol limit.

Mr Joyce said there would also be proposals in the package covering drivers up to age 24.

sweet! im over 20 now, i can still legally fill my camelpack with vodka/lemonade and go for a fang!

[marty]

I


Depends who the subject is. Being very fit I doubt I could have more than 1 if that (so I don't).

being 6'5" and 100kg probably helps.

[davereid]

Seems pretty daft to me.

Any change to the limit should be based on factual data that shows that drivers between 50 and 80 mg are dangerous, AND that a reduction in the limit would result in a drop in the number of people driving between 50-80mg.

The government has already said, it cant find that data. But no doubt it will now have "new"data that can show it.

In reality, some drivers don't drink at all. Some drink, and seriously consider their impairment. Some don't give a toss, and drive regardless.

There is no gauge on the dashboard that says "55 mg" or any other reading.

This will only help the stats show we are all drunk drivers, it actually offers no real solutions.

We already see the lies - "We have the highest rate in the world of deaths and crashes for drivers in the 15-17 year old age group". That is to be expected. As we are comparing ourselves to countries where 15-17 year olds don't drive !

The old "compulsory third party" chestnut will re appear. Ignoring the fact that we already have third party insurance rates as high as countries where it is compulsory. And ignoring the fact that it will massively increase the cost of third party insurance. And ignoring the fact that it wont help, cos even if the boy-racer that crashes into you has insurance, it will be declined, as he will be outside the terms of his licence curfew/no of passengers etc.

And, your current third party insurance covers you, if someone else crashes into you, and its their fault. You will lose that, as litagatious american companies will arrive, and they wont play he knock-for-knock game. So you will need full cover, just to stand still.

[{.bLanK}G_o_D]

Any change to the limit should be based on factual data that shows that drivers between 50 and 80 mg are dangerous, AND that a reduction in the limit would result in a drop in the number of people driving between 50-80mg.

What a waste of money and resources.
We all know that alcohol + driving is bad.
Instead of finding the exact level of intoxication, just lower the level to zero.

[Spearfish]

Zero takes the guess work out it, with a discretion the size of an ants nasty for mouthwash etc.
We had a booze bus outsize our door one night so being an interested (read: nosey bastard) I had a we look at who was being processed, it was old men from the RSA, middle aged men in work vehicles, A taxi driver, a mother with children, a father with child, one young dude failed youth and a carload of bints playing the victim, guess who played up the most?.. the middle aged tradesmen who could do nothing but abuse the cop the whole time... I couldn't believe how prevelent it was and the attitude of the drink drivers.
Its not as simple as "Drink Driving" I think it goes into the psychological.

[motor_mayhem]

First of all, operating a motor vehicle is a privilege not a fundamental right - as such limiting the group to whom such a privilege is extended has nothing to do with blanket punishment or targeting minorities. Or do you also think that 9-year olds are hard done by for not being allowed to vote, drink, drive and work on equal terms with yourself? Everything you consider a right is most likely a privilege granted to you a guy with a gun.

Secondly, the pre-18 year old drivers can cry me a river. If they need to go to the bank or the post office they can either get on their bike/moped/horse/bus or get their parents to give them a lift. Maybe if kids weren't taxied to school in mobile fortresses they'd be able to handle such stressful situations. It isn't a problem - there's plenty of countries with extensive rural areas where kids aren't allowed to get their license until they turn 18.

Third point, plenty of people survive walking or biking along the road every single day. A moped is - on average - faster than a bicycle and therefore even less dangerous. As someone has remarked on here, perhaps that would teach them a thing or two about appreciation for consideration, before they get their own mobile fortress for taking their own kids to school.

Firstly voting (assuming age appropriate) IS a right hence it being declared so in the New Zealand Bill Of Rights Act of 1990. As a side note you might be interested to know that Section 19 of that same act guarantees freedom from discrimination including on the grounds of age.

Secondly, the pre-18 year old drivers can cry me a river - well that obviously proves you have thought about the subject as a whole rather than purely how you think your life might be better off. From my experience the kids in mobile fortresses thing only happens in urban areas like chch, if you journeyed into rural areas you would find that kids tend to go on school buses because it would cost the parents a good portion of their working day to take the children to school. Multiple countries/people/businesses doing something can indicate that the something is a good idea but do not definitively prove it.

On your third point, can you honestly say you would ride a scooter for 2 hours each day to commute to and from local centres on a nice day let alone a crappy one.

[Blackflagged]

Some people can`t see 15 cyclists in High Vize Jackets.And that with out a drop!

[Ixion]

This proposal is driven very little by any genuine regard for the road toll, and very much by the wowser agenda for prohibition by stealth

[riffer]

What a waste of money and resources.
We all know that alcohol + driving is bad.
Instead of finding the exact level of intoxication, just lower the level to zero.


This proposal is driven very little by any genuine regard for the road toll, and very much by the wowser agenda for prohibition by stealth

I have to say, I'm in favour of a zero limit for alcohol and operating a motor vehicle. But don't want it banned. If alcohol came out nowadays I'd very much doubt it would be allowed to go to market. Let's face it, a significant minority of kiwis can't hold their piss - ride, drive or not.

[crazyhorse]

think they should've been more sensible and never lowered the drinking age in the first place. I drove at 15, but never drank alcohol. I believe they should let the driving age stand, and let them get used to one thing instead of throwing them at the same time with drinking and driving age. :done:

[rastuscat]

The problem with having a limit at all is that it leaves people to decide if they are at the limit or not. Lots of people who don't think they are over the limit get prosecuted each year. The current adult level of 80 is a joke, it gives people the problem of having to decide if 2 is okay, or maybe 3 or 4.

The message they want to deliver is that it's easy to exceed the limit, so don't even think about it. Of course, there are those who don't believe they are bad drivers even when sober, so asking them to believe they are worse with a few under their belt is just too much to ask.

Our ability to make wise choices decreases with alcohol, so letting someone have 2 or 3, think they are under the limit, then watching them drive is societal insanity.

Impose a youth limit of 0.01 and that allows for medicinal alcohol only. Anyone having a drink will exceed that. Impose an adult limit of 0.05, that tells adults that more then one drink over dinner will put you over. Simple.

IMHO.

[Scuba_Steve]

this is pointless, the problem people are already 4x over the current limits for booze so making the limit less is only gonna put these people further over the limit. It'll do absolutely NOTHING to stop them from doing it in the first place!
Again its another of the governments "band-aid to an artery bleed" fix.

[Mikkel]

Firstly voting (assuming age appropriate) IS a right hence it being declared so in the New Zealand Bill Of Rights Act of 1990. As a side note you might be interested to know that Section 19 of that same act guarantees freedom from discrimination including on the grounds of age.

Your bill of rights is a list of privileges extended to you by the government within its sphere of sovereignty. Traditionally this sphere of influence has been upheld by the force of arms and lately by the force of finance - and the force of finance is again backed by the fact that capitalism is supported by USA which in turn has the biggest guns. You can argue until the cows come home but there are no fundamental rights. If China were to grow powerful enough to topple the current state of affairs, do expect your rights to be curtailed somewhat.


Secondly, the pre-18 year old drivers can cry me a river - well that obviously proves you have thought about the subject as a whole rather than purely how you think your life might be better off. From my experience the kids in mobile fortresses thing only happens in urban areas like chch, if you journeyed into rural areas you would find that kids tend to go on school buses because it would cost the parents a good portion of their working day to take the children to school. Multiple countries/people/businesses doing something can indicate that the something is a good idea but do not definitively prove it.

Yes, I do live in an urban area. Kids here have a shorter way to school and the taxing back and forth is as wasteful as it is unnecessary and paranoid. There are plenty of school buses around Chch too - thankfully. And no number of soccermoms in 4x4s taking their kids to school while on the cellphone arranging where to meet up for the morning latte is ever going to make it a "good idea".


On your third point, can you honestly say you would ride a scooter for 2 hours each day to commute to and from local centres on a nice day let alone a crappy one.

I can honestly say I'd rather spend 2 hours on a scooter than spend 8 hours walking each day. And I sure as hell wouldn't have any reservations about making my 15-year old kids do it. Your perspective is screwed up, you are taking for granted that 15-year olds should be allowed to drive cars. There's plenty of data to suggest that letting adolescents drive is generally a bad idea. There are other options and these other options do work in other countries. I still fail to see why it would be crucial that pre-18 year olds in rural areas should have to commute to and from the local centres every day.


this is pointless, the problem people are already 4x over the current limits for booze so making the limit less is only gonna put these people further over the limit. It'll do absolutely NOTHING to stop them from doing it in the first place!
Again its another of the governments "band-aid to an artery bleed" fix.

I agree - except I'd compare it to applying tourniquet to the thigh to treat a brain tumour. It's not going to resolve the problem, rather it's going to cause immediate damage that might take your attention of the real problem for a while.

[Mikkel]

Firstly voting (assuming age appropriate) IS a right hence it being declared so in the New Zealand Bill Of Rights Act of 1990. As a side note you might be interested to know that Section 19 of that same act guarantees freedom from discrimination including on the grounds of age.

Your bill of rights is a list of privileges extended to you by the government within its sphere of sovereignty. Traditionally this sphere of influence has been upheld by the force of arms and lately by the force of finance - and the force of finance is again backed by the fact that capitalism is supported by USA which in turn has the biggest guns. You can argue until the cows come home but there are no fundamental rights. If China were to grow powerful enough to topple the current state of affairs, do expect your rights to be curtailed somewhat.


Secondly, the pre-18 year old drivers can cry me a river - well that obviously proves you have thought about the subject as a whole rather than purely how you think your life might be better off. From my experience the kids in mobile fortresses thing only happens in urban areas like chch, if you journeyed into rural areas you would find that kids tend to go on school buses because it would cost the parents a good portion of their working day to take the children to school. Multiple countries/people/businesses doing something can indicate that the something is a good idea but do not definitively prove it.

Yes, I do live in an urban area. Kids here have a shorter way to school and the taxing back and forth is as wasteful as it is unnecessary and paranoid. There are plenty of school buses around Chch too - thankfully. And no number of soccermoms in 4x4s taking their kids to school while on the cellphone arranging where to meet up for the morning latte is ever going to make it a "good idea".


On your third point, can you honestly say you would ride a scooter for 2 hours each day to commute to and from local centres on a nice day let alone a crappy one.

I can honestly say I'd rather spend 2 hours on a scooter than spend 8 hours walking each day. And I sure as hell wouldn't have any reservations about making my 15-year old kids do it. Your perspective is screwed up, you are taking for granted that 15-year olds should be allowed to drive cars. There's plenty of data to suggest that letting adolescents drive is generally a bad idea. There are other options and these other options do work in other countries. I still fail to see why it would be crucial that pre-18 year olds in rural areas should have to commute to and from the local centres every day.


this is pointless, the problem people are already 4x over the current limits for booze so making the limit less is only gonna put these people further over the limit. It'll do absolutely NOTHING to stop them from doing it in the first place!
Again its another of the governments "band-aid to an artery bleed" fix.

I agree - except I'd compare it to applying tourniquet to the thigh to treat a brain tumour. It's not going to resolve the problem, rather it's going to cause immediate damage that might take your attention of the real problem for a while.

[Swoop]

think they should've been more sensible and never lowered the drinking age in the first place. I drove at 15, but never drank alcohol. I believe they should let the driving age stand, and let them get used to one thing instead of throwing them at the same time with drinking and driving age. :done:
An important point. By the suggested raising of the driving age to 16, this pushes the two issues closer together (driving-alcohol).
I wonder if the age of alcohol purchase may be going up in the near future?

[motor_mayhem]

Your bill of rights is a list of privileges extended to you by the government within its sphere of sovereignty. Traditionally this sphere of influence has been upheld by the force of arms and lately by the force of finance - and the force of finance is again backed by the fact that capitalism is supported by USA which in turn has the biggest guns. You can argue until the cows come home but there are no fundamental rights. If China were to grow powerful enough to topple the current state of affairs, do expect your rights to be curtailed somewhat.
So if there are no rights, why would you think you have the right to demand that young people don't get to drive? let alone you having the right to have an opinion or the right to live even?




Yes, I do live in an urban area. Kids here have a shorter way to school and the taxing back and forth is as wasteful as it is unnecessary and paranoid. There are plenty of school buses around Chch too - thankfully. And no number of soccermoms in 4x4s taking their kids to school while on the cellphone arranging where to meet up for the morning latte is ever going to make it a "good idea".
Exactly - Just like no number of countries having a higher driving age proves that it is a good idea.



I can honestly say I'd rather spend 2 hours on a scooter than spend 8 hours walking each day. And I sure as hell wouldn't have any reservations about making my 15-year old kids do it. Your perspective is screwed up, you are taking for granted that 15-year olds should be allowed to drive cars. There's plenty of data to suggest that letting adolescents drive is generally a bad idea. There are other options and these other options do work in other countries. I still fail to see why it would be crucial that pre-18 year olds in rural areas should have to commute to and from the local centres every day.
I am sure you would rather spend 2 hours on a scooter than spend 8 hours walking each day but I bet you wouldn't do either. My perspective is probably more balanced than yours because I have lived in a rural area before where it would seem you have not so I know the difference a licence can make to working etc. There's also plenty of data to prove that young people learn quicker and are able to digest more info than old people. If you move the licence age all you will do is have the same group of learners drivers but a few years older.

[Ixion]

The driver licence age was 15 because that was previously the school leaving age. And it was recognised that once people left school and got jobs, they needed to be able to get to those jobs.

Getting to school was not an issue, because even (actually, especially) in rural areas, there are school buses. But non-school transport in rural areas is pretty much non existent.

But now the leaving age has been raised to 16 . So 15 year olds will still be at school. And can get there on the school bus. So it is logical to raise the driver licence age. Whether doing so will achieve anything is another matter. I rather doubt it myself. But politicians must be seen to be doing something, and clobbering youf is always popular with the electorate.

[Patrick]

Zero takes the guess work out it, with a discretion the size of an ants nasty for mouthwash etc.
We had a booze bus outsize our door one night so being an interested (read: nosey bastard) I had a we look at who was being processed, it was old men from the RSA, middle aged men in work vehicles, A taxi driver, a mother with children, a father with child, one young dude failed youth and a carload of bints playing the victim, guess who played up the most?.. the middle aged tradesmen who could do nothing but abuse the cop the whole time... I couldn't believe how prevelent it was and the attitude of the drink drivers.
Its not as simple as "Drink Driving" I think it goes into the psychological.

Had the unemployed mother with three kids in her "Hummer" go off the other night. More concerned over her Hummer being left at the side of the road than driving pissed with kids on board. Still stumped how an Unemployed can own a Hummer, let alone pay for the gas....


The problem with having a limit at all is that it leaves people to decide if they are at the limit or not. Lots of people who don't think they are over the limit get prosecuted each year. The current adult level of 80 is a joke, it gives people the problem of having to decide if 2 is okay, or maybe 3 or 4.

The message they want to deliver is that it's easy to exceed the limit, so don't even think about it. Of course, there are those who don't believe they are bad drivers even when sober, so asking them to believe they are worse with a few under their belt is just too much to ask.

Our ability to make wise choices decreases with alcohol, so letting someone have 2 or 3, think they are under the limit, then watching them drive is societal insanity.

Impose a youth limit of 0.01 and that allows for medicinal alcohol only. Anyone having a drink will exceed that. Impose an adult limit of 0.05, that tells adults that more then one drink over dinner will put you over. Simple.

IMHO.

Simple really. But like any good idea, it will have to go through the complicator a few times before it is put into use..... only to be an arse and be unworkable, probably......

[CookMySock]

Better not eat a ripe banana then. Has alcohol in that!

I also wonder how accurate their test gear is around the tending-to-zero point.

Steve

[Mikkel]

So if there are no rights, why would you think you have the right to demand that young people don't get to drive? let alone you having the right to have an opinion or the right to live even?

Well, if you want to extrapolate, be my guest. Sure, I have no right to demand that young people don't get to drive - and neither am I demanding it. I am merely putting it forward as reasonable suggestion - backed by statistical data - as a way of improving some of the traffic-related issues that are tainting NZ.

I have the right to have an opinion and a right to live only in-so-far no one is able to suppress me - and I am being ensured, to some degree, that no one significantly suppresses me by the government and the law. That's privilege, not rights - otherwise everyone, everywhere would be free.


Exactly - Just like no number of countries having a higher driving age proves that it is a good idea.

You are quite right it doesn't prove anything. But the road-toll in those countries are significantly lower per capita than in NZ - that shows us that there could be a correlation between the two. Now considering causality, I feel fairly confident that I can claim that the legal driving age doesn't vary as a result of the road-toll (in that case it should vary from year to year - which it doesn't) - rather the causal relationship goes the other way, i.e. driving age is a determining factor in road-toll per capita. (Ask yourself why the vast majority of western countries have a legal driving age of 18 - unlike here. And please try and think a bit further than John Farmer and his son having to get to the supermarket.)


I am sure you would rather spend 2 hours on a scooter than spend 8 hours walking each day but I bet you wouldn't do either.

Well, until I move somewhere where that is relevant and become approximately 15 years younger I guess we won't get that bet resolved. But I do know that, since you do not know me, you are making unsupported assumptions.


My perspective is probably more balanced than yours because I have lived in a rural area before where it would seem you have not so I know the difference a licence can make to working etc.

You perspective is probably less balanced, I base that observation on the fact that you are making assumptions about things of which you have no knowledge and put the forward with surety. So, while I myself have not lived in a rural area I have had considerable commuting distances and also family and friends living in more remote areas. They made do with mopeds and bicycles - commuting every day rain or shine.


There's also plenty of data to prove that young people learn quicker and are able to digest more info than old people. If you move the licence age all you will do is have the same group of learners drivers but a few years older.

That's disputable. Yes, you'll pick-up base skills more easily as a young child - but from that observation you should be suggesting dropping the legal driving age to 10. However, driving requires focus and maturity - and young kids are both easily distracted and not risk-aware. I don't care how good drivers they might become 10 years down the track if they run me over today because they either didn't focus on the task at hand or didn't consider the potential consequences of their actions.

You are of course right about the learners being older - but that is what we want because, on average, they will be more mature.

[avgas]

198785Felt like one of those moments

[Maha]

Better not eat a ripe banana then. Has alcohol in that!

I also wonder how accurate their test gear is around the tending-to-zero point.

Steve

Pretty accurate Steve, I know a female that tested positive one night, she said ''fuck that thing must real sensitive because I have'nt had a drink for two years''.

[crazyhorse]

An important point. By the suggested raising of the driving age to 16, this pushes the two issues closer together (driving-alcohol).
I wonder if the age of alcohol purchase may be going up in the near future?

Doubt it - they're dumb fuckwits in the first place having lowered it! That is one of the factors there are so many problems. Its hard enough now having a learner driver. My daughter is 17 and the opportunity for driving is hardly there. She does not want to go with me anwhere, and I sure aren't gonna go with her to do her thing with her mates, so the older they get, the harder it is for a learner. And they want to extend that by 6 months! Bet all the people making these decisions are old fuddy duds :done:

[scumdog]

Pretty accurate Steve, I know a female that tested positive one night, she said ''fuck that thing must real sensitive because I have'nt had a drink for two years''.

People mistake a roadside 'sniffer' test for a breath test, shoot, shitloads of stuff will give a positive result - but a screening test (the next roadside test) will soon sort it out.:yes:

[motor_mayhem]

Well, if you want to extrapolate, be my guest. Sure, I have no right to demand that young people don't get to drive - and neither am I demanding it. I am merely putting it forward as reasonable suggestion - backed by statistical data - as a way of improving some of the traffic-related issues that are tainting NZ.

I have the right to have an opinion and a right to live only in-so-far no one is able to suppress me - and I am being ensured, to some degree, that no one significantly suppresses me by the government and the law. That's privilege, not rights - otherwise everyone, everywhere would be free.

But there are statistics to prove that people tend to crash a fair bit when they are driving, but you can clearly see that considering driving is about more than safety or noone would not be doing it. Or what about the people who believe ACC have shown them the stats to prove the motorcycles are too dangerous so should be taxed off the road.



You are quite right it doesn't prove anything. But the road-toll in those countries are significantly lower per capita than in NZ - that shows us that there could be a correlation between the two. Now considering causality, I feel fairly confident that I can claim that the legal driving age doesn't vary as a result of the road-toll (in that case it should vary from year to year - which it doesn't) - rather the causal relationship goes the other way, i.e. driving age is a determining factor in road-toll per capita. (Ask yourself why the vast majority of western countries have a legal driving age of 18 - unlike here. And please try and think a bit further than John Farmer and his son having to get to the supermarket.)
Yeah you also find that they tend to be skewed just like many poor countries have less road crash fatalities per capita because they have less roads and less cars.




Well, until I move somewhere where that is relevant and become approximately 15 years younger I guess we won't get that bet resolved. But I do know that, since you do not know me, you are making unsupported assumptions.
I am making assumptions, I am just using support the same way you are supporting your arguments. Why don't you find me a person who does travel a hour each way on a scooter to their work and does so purely for the safety reasons.



You perspective is probably less balanced, I base that observation on the fact that you are making assumptions about things of which you have no knowledge and put the forward with surety. So, while I myself have not lived in a rural area I have had considerable commuting distances and also family and friends living in more remote areas. They made do with mopeds and bicycles - commuting every day rain or shine.
And yet you make assumptions about what you believe I know or don't know. I will assume you have no experience living in a rural area because if you had a) you would have mentioned it already and b) you would be understanding my view, rather completely dismissing it. If you had to ask two generic people whether rugby is an enjoyable game, are you likely to take the word of the one who has watched it or the one who has watched it and played it?



That's disputable. Yes, you'll pick-up base skills more easily as a young child - but from that observation you should be suggesting dropping the legal driving age to 10. However, driving requires focus and maturity - and young kids are both easily distracted and not risk-aware. I don't care how good drivers they might become 10 years down the track if they run me over today because they either didn't focus on the task at hand or didn't consider the potential consequences of their actions.

You are of course right about the learners being older - but that is what we want because, on average, they will be more mature.
So expanding your "maturity" reasoning we should really hold off giving people licences until they're 35. Off course I am not talking about giving 10 year olds a licence. But you need to consider that with the current system you get your learners at 15, restricted at 15 + ½ and if you do a defensive driving course you can have your full licence at 16 + ½. You realise that lots of people of all demographics crash and yet I don't hear you crying out that everyone should be banned from driving. The fact is driving would not be done if it was purely about safety. But it isn't. For some it's a very necessary tool, for others it's something they do for enjoyment and for independance but for most it's all of the above. I think a change in the law will (as usual) take rights away from the people who obey it and the people who don't obey the current will most likely just ignore the new one as well. I wouldn't say the current system is perfect but I don't think increasing the driving age will do anything except penalise law abiding people.

As a final query did you go through the graduated licence system? If so how old were you/how long ago?

[Genie]

Oh and how about they raise the age for drinking back to 20.
Glad to see the licence age is up a bit too, though I tend to think it's more an education and boundary issue. Set limits for the darlings when they are young so that by the time they are 12 they have some understanding of how far is enough.

[Genestho]

Doubt it - they're dumb fuckwits in the first place having lowered it! That is one of the factors there are so many problems. Its hard enough now having a learner driver. My daughter is 17 and the opportunity for driving is hardly there. She does not want to go with me anwhere, and I sure aren't gonna go with her to do her thing with her mates, so the older they get, the harder it is for a learner. And they want to extend that by 6 months! Bet all the people making these decisions are old fuddy duds :done:

Should parents get in amongst it with their kids, what's so hard about -" I bought you this car, (of course I'm assuming you bought it?) so the deal is, until you pass your restricted - you drive with me in the car, no deal? don't like it? no car." Isn't that what used to happen?

Could it be that simple? Or am I just being an idealist? :scratch:

[crazyhorse]

Should parents get in amongst it with their kids, what's so hard about -" I bought you this car, (of course I'm assuming you bought it?) so the deal is, until you pass your restricted - you drive with me in the car, no deal? don't like it? no car." Isn't that what used to happen?

Could it be that simple? Or am I just being an idealist? :scratch:

No, she bought the car herself, but has not really wanted to drive it. Now its just in the too hard basket to go places I go.......... but I hear you. She has now had her learners for 2.5 years!

[scumdog]

Should parents get in amongst it with their kids, what's so hard about -" I bought you this car, (of course I'm assuming you bought it?) so the deal is, until you pass your restricted - you drive with me in the car, no deal? don't like it? no car." Isn't that what used to happen?

Could it be that simple? Or am I just being an idealist? :scratch:

Makes waaay too much sense.

I'm sure a lot of parents buy the car so there little shit will bugger off and stop bothering them.

[Mikkel]

But there are statistics to prove that people tend to crash a fair bit when they are driving, but you can clearly see that considering driving is about more than safety or noone would not be doing it. Or what about the people who believe ACC have shown them the stats to prove the motorcycles are too dangerous so should be taxed off the road.

Que? I'm a bit unsure, do you suggest that we should give up driving altogether - or are you advocating not giving a damn about analysing the risks involved?
What does the ACC levy increase has to do with all of this? (Objectively.)


Yeah you also find that they tend to be skewed just like many poor countries have less road crash fatalities per capita because they have less roads and less cars.

How is this relevant? The traffic density in most of the countries that NZ compares itself with will in be higher than that of NZ. Yes, I do realise that solo accidents factor quite highly in the NZ road-toll, but that only goes to suggest that the standard of drivers is lacking, you can not reasonably blame that on the fact that the quality of the roads is poor and that we have many windy mountain roads - poor judgement in drivers is to blame.


I am making assumptions, I am just using support the same way you are supporting your arguments. Why don't you find me a person who does travel a hour each way on a scooter to their work and does so purely for the safety reasons.

What the hell has that got to do with anything? I can find you several who commutes more than an hour back and forth - not for safety reasons or comfort - but because they have no other option.


And yet you make assumptions about what you believe I know or don't know. I will assume you have no experience living in a rural area because if you had a) you would have mentioned it already and b) you would be understanding my view, rather completely dismissing it. If you had to ask two generic people whether rugby is an enjoyable game, are you likely to take the word of the one who has watched it or the one who has watched it and played it?

As a matter of fact I wasn't making any assumptions about what I believe you know, I merely, and quite correctly, pointed out that you were spouting shit and presenting it as fact without you having any way of knowing for sure.
As for your points a) I could have mentioned that I just passed wind, but that wouldn't really be relevant either and b) I do understand your view, I'm just saying you are wrong.
As for your rugby example - if you ask someone for their opinion, that opinion is equally valid irregardless of their experience - that's why opinions are worth jack-shit!


So expanding your "maturity" reasoning we should really hold off giving people licences until they're 35. Off course I am not talking about giving 10 year olds a licence. But you need to consider that with the current system you get your learners at 15, restricted at 15 + ½ and if you do a defensive driving course you can have your full licence at 16 + ½. You realise that lots of people of all demographics crash and yet I don't hear you crying out that everyone should be banned from driving. The fact is driving would not be done if it was purely about safety. But it isn't. For some it's a very necessary tool, for others it's something they do for enjoyment and for independance but for most it's all of the above. I think a change in the law will (as usual) take rights away from the people who obey it and the people who don't obey the current will most likely just ignore the new one as well. I wouldn't say the current system is perfect but I don't think increasing the driving age will do anything except penalise law abiding people.

You must really have a lot of pity for the people who come from a place where the legal driving age is higher than here - after all they are, in most cases, law abiding people being penalised by the establishment. (Come on, wake up and look at what you are saying for crying out loud!)

Driving at age 15 is not a god-given right - it's a poor choice by the NZ government which hasn't yet been addressed. Hell, I'd advocate a legal driving age of 21 - kids mature later these days than they did 50 years ago! I'd also be in favor of a basic psychological evaluation - just to make sure we don't go around handing out keys to borderline psychopaths.

I'd be much more in favour of the low legal driving age if there actually was a proper system in place. By a proper system I mean class-room and in-car sessions with certified instructors - hours and hours of it. Letting immature pubescent kids have a play at motoring with only their parents bad-habits as a guide is a pretty dumb idea. It doesn't work, the statistics show it clearly, wake up, smell the coffee and fucking face the real issue behind NZ's appalling road statistics.


As a final query did you go through the graduated licence system? If so how old were you/how long ago?

I got my class 1 drivers license in Denmark just after I turned 18. That was back in 1999.
First I had to do a theory course and test, quite a bit more comprehensive than skimming the road code and doing a multiple choice scratch test. Only once we passed the theory test did we get to get behind the wheel - first on a closed track where we practiced accelerating, braking, changing gears, cornering, backing up and parking maneuvers. Then I had 9 and a half instructor hours in the car on public roads - the two last hours was mainly to do with the fact I had a hard time getting into my head I had to slow down and look at controlled rail-way intersections. Finally we had to do a whole day course at a technical driving facility where we learned to handle the car on an irrigated skid-pad, emergency braking exercises, evasive maneuvers, etc. (Fucking great fun, damn did we trash those little cars!)
And then - once our instructor deemed us ready - then we were allowed to sit the test. Quite a few failed their first test, whether it be an inadequate parallel parking or failing to observe some random rule (i.e. failing to slow down and do a head-check before crossing a controlled rail level crossing).

I went through the NZ graduate licensing system for my class 6 when I was 26-27 in 2007-2008. It took me 9 months to the day and I had the dubious pleasure of sitting through your generic defensive driving course to cut back the restricted period by 6 months. I'll tell you this much - compared to what you had to learn in the Danish system it was a fucking joke. No instruction required, pass the basic handling skill test and you are free to go out and try not to get yourself killed. Restricted test - big joke. Defensive driving course - ok, but didn't teach you anything you shouldn't be fully aware of with 8 years of driving experience under your belt. Full test - bigger joke.
I did a Roadsafe riding course with Andrew Templeton while on my restricted - money well spent, certainly taught me more than the BHS, the scratch test, the 6R test, the 6F test and the defensive driving course put together.

How about yourself? Had any proper driving/riding instruction? ...or does your balanced perspective arise from exclusive experience with the NZ graduated licensing system as well as unfounded assumptions?

[Bandit Rider]

Zero alchol under 20 makes sense - as long as it is meaningful e.g. it's not OK if putting on perfume with an alchol base 2 hours ago puts you over the limit.

15 yo is old enough to learn to drive. But it should be really clear it's a privilege not a right to drive. That applies to everyone. So you drink and drive, and you forget about driving for the next 2 years. As it is you can kill someone and be driving again in less time than that. If you have a restricted licence system, why not have sensible rules? - the one person in a car deals with a lot of it. I don't see why at young woman should not be allowed to drive home after finishing work at 11 pm (or a young man, but the security issues for young women make the point).

On drinking and driving generally, I would keep the present limits. But, get one conviction and you have the zero limit for the next 5 years (more if you like) - if you have a problem knowing how much you can drink and then drive, problem solved - you don't drink and drive.

You still have a problem with that, the next time you lose your licence it is up to you to prove to somebody that you have your problem sorted - with a right to appeal to the court.

Most people are sensible - you give them a rule (helps if its fair) and they know where they stand, and they work within it.

I would also give some serious thought to a real driving/riding test every 5 years. That's how it works for a pilot, every two years max, and it its serious flying every 13 months you need to show you really know what you are doing. That is because it makes a difference - we are all the same, pretty much - if you can cruise, and lie to yourself that you are on top of it, you will.

With driving we have whole communiites driving around on learners licences, ignoring the rules - and the cops looking for the more affluent people who pay their fines. About time the present rules were applied with a real eye to what matters, not who can pay fines.

This is from someone who got their full licence at 15 - it was the only sort you could get. My bike licence involved a cop standing on a corner seeing that I could go up an down the street and turn while doing hand signals. Some people are a lot more sensible and skilled at 15 than other people at my age. The difficult time from an age point of view is not 15, it's about 18 - more freedom, and more confidence than is good. But, if you don't allow driving until 20, you have the same problem at 22.

[motor_mayhem]

Que? I'm a bit unsure, do you suggest that we should give up driving altogether - or are you advocating not giving a damn about analysing the risks involved?
What does the ACC levy increase has to do with all of this? (Objectively.)
1. Bikers are a minority (like teen drivers). 2. Car drivers perceive bikers as a higher risk group (like you see teen drivers). 3. While using bikes does have a high risk factor in that you are not surrounded by a metal shell, it has advantages for others such as lowering conjestion, fuel consumption etc (while you see teens as high risk due to safety, them being able to have jobs etc has benefits like them learning work ethic so you don't have to pay their dole money later).



How is this relevant? The traffic density in most of the countries that NZ compares itself with will in be higher than that of NZ. Yes, I do realise that solo accidents factor quite highly in the NZ road-toll, but that only goes to suggest that the standard of drivers is lacking, you can not reasonably blame that on the fact that the quality of the roads is poor and that we have many windy mountain roads - poor judgement in drivers is to blame.

Do you think if we got a large set of drivers from a country that we compare ourselves to, that the statistics would be infinitely better?




What the hell has that got to do with anything? I can find you several who commutes more than an hour back and forth - not for safety reasons or comfort - but because they have no other option.

Exactly. Give them the option to drive a car or ride a motorcycle and they would. So if they could prove they were capable of driving(addressed further on) why would we not?



As a matter of fact I wasn't making any assumptions about what I believe you know, I merely, and quite correctly, pointed out that you were spouting shit and presenting it as fact without you having any way of knowing for sure.
As for your points a) I could have mentioned that I just passed wind, but that wouldn't really be relevant either and b) I do understand your view, I'm just saying you are wrong.
As for your rugby example - if you ask someone for their opinion, that opinion is equally valid irregardless of their experience - that's why opinions are worth jack-shit!

Correctly? according to who? You? IF you have no experience living in a rural area how would you know the importance of having a licence out there? You could not judge the social impact because you have no idea. You've never lived there.



You must really have a lot of pity for the people who come from a place where the legal driving age is higher than here - after all they are, in most cases, law abiding people being penalised by the establishment. (Come on, wake up and look at what you are saying for crying out loud!)

Driving at age 15 is not a god-given right - it's a poor choice by the NZ government which hasn't yet been addressed. Hell, I'd advocate a legal driving age of 21 - kids mature later these days than they did 50 years ago! I'd also be in favor of a basic psychological evaluation - just to make sure we don't go around handing out keys to borderline psychopaths.

For the sake of not going round in a circle again, I will say that since the government declare that it is a right so far as any individual who meets the current age/eyesight/identity/test criteria can do it then it is a right(unless a government decides to change it or you do something to deserve having it taken away). Otherwise we will go back to defining that nothing is a right therefore neither of us living or having an opinion is a right. Which if we both were not allowed opinions then this would be one boring debate.



I'd be much more in favour of the low legal driving age if there actually was a proper system in place. By a proper system I mean class-room and in-car sessions with certified instructors - hours and hours of it. Letting immature pubescent kids have a play at motoring with only their parents bad-habits as a guide is a pretty dumb idea. It doesn't work, the statistics show it clearly, wake up, smell the coffee and fucking face the real issue behind NZ's appalling road statistics.

Probably the first thing we would agree on. I definitely think the education piece of the system could be changed for the better, provided the age limits remain as they are. Whilst I don't think the lowering of the alcohol limit will actually make anything better, I would definitely take that before raising the driving age (I treasure being able to drive like the stereo type American treasures the right to bare firearms).



I got my class 1 drivers license in Denmark just after I turned 18. That was back in 1999.
First I had to do a theory course and test, quite a bit more comprehensive than skimming the road code and doing a multiple choice scratch test. Only once we passed the theory test did we get to get behind the wheel - first on a closed track where we practiced accelerating, braking, changing gears, cornering, backing up and parking maneuvers. Then I had 9 and a half instructor hours in the car on public roads - the two last hours was mainly to do with the fact I had a hard time getting into my head I had to slow down and look at controlled rail-way intersections. Finally we had to do a whole day course at a technical driving facility where we learned to handle the car on an irrigated skid-pad, emergency braking exercises, evasive maneuvers, etc. (Fucking great fun, damn did we trash those little cars!)
And then - once our instructor deemed us ready - then we were allowed to sit the test. Quite a few failed their first test, whether it be an inadequate parallel parking or failing to observe some random rule (i.e. failing to slow down and do a head-check before crossing a controlled rail level crossing).

I went through the NZ graduate licensing system for my class 6 when I was 26-27 in 2007-2008. It took me 9 months to the day and I had the dubious pleasure of sitting through your generic defensive driving course to cut back the restricted period by 6 months. I'll tell you this much - compared to what you had to learn in the Danish system it was a fucking joke. No instruction required, pass the basic handling skill test and you are free to go out and try not to get yourself killed. Restricted test - big joke. Defensive driving course - ok, but didn't teach you anything you shouldn't be fully aware of with 8 years of driving experience under your belt. Full test - bigger joke.
I did a Roadsafe riding course with Andrew Templeton while on my restricted - money well spent, certainly taught me more than the BHS, the scratch test, the 6R test, the 6F test and the defensive driving course put together.

How about yourself? Had any proper driving/riding instruction? ...or does your balanced perspective arise from exclusive experience with the NZ graduated licensing system as well as unfounded assumptions?

No I have actually had proper professional driving instruction – It was for a car when I was 15. I also did the defensive driving course around that time and as I didn't have 8 years of town/car driving experience I found it pretty good. While my proper driving/riding instruction is not as great as yours, like most rural kids I have a bit of experience that I would be pretty sure quite a few city kids are lacking. By the time I was 14 I could drive the farm truck, the tractor(with a variety of implements and I am talking the 100HP size tractor as opposed to those little lawn ones), and 2, 3 and 4 wheel motorbikes (also learned how to back a trailer with them). I also raced go karts for a year or 2. And yeah I still made a few mistakes along the way.

So would you say that the Danish system turns out absolutely no bad drivers? If it an expensive system to fund? If so where do the funds come from? Could the average teenager afford them? Does Denmark have a significantly better transport system(Air/Sea/Rail) than New Zealand? Given our population distribution do you think it would be feasible to put one in NZ? Do you have to sell a kidney to get a reasonable air service in Denmark like you pretty much have to in NZ, unless you want to Risk Jetstar?

[PrincessBandit]

It's always difficult to backtrack once rules have been made easier/standards lowered to tighten them up again. People of any age don't appreciate freedoms or privileges they've had access to being suddenly removed, regardless of the well meaning intent usually behind it.

These issues are not just about youth, although it is scientifically supported that young people (esp. teenagers) have not yet developed the mental capacity for a lot of problem solving/forward thinking fully yet they are given access to alcohol and potential lethal weapons in the form of transport. The problem is that people of any age, and despite their supposedly more advanced skills in the brain area, still cause accidents and fatalities. I can understand how teenagers can feel picked on when they see us oldies "getting away with stuff" just because our more advanced years imply we are better able to handle ourselves than they are.

I'd be all for a lowering of alcohol blood limits across the board. For me drinking then driving is something I give careful consideration to if I'm out where there is booze available but I still have to drive myself home. Yet a lot of older folk shore themselves up with the same overconfidence in their own abilities to tank up then get home safely, which is what teenagers are being told not to do! Surely we never lose the "set a good example" burden; or do we magically arrive at a point in our lives where we can say, by virtue of age, "now I can live however I like, do what I want, drive pissed (insert phrase / poor activity of choice) because I've earned the right to do so - you little buggers can wait your turn until you're my age"?

[davereid]

1. Bikers are a minority (like teen drivers).

Yep. "The government says young drivers have become a lethal statistic, with 67 deaths and 506 serious injuries in crashes in the year to last September, involving at least one driver aged between 15 and 19."

So they are going to almost outlaw this group of drivers. Even those keen enough to get down the the AA on their 16th birthday, will be lucky to have a full licence by the time they are 19.

Compare : Motorcyclist 48 deaths and 430 serious injuries in 2007.

Got to be next on the banning list !

[FJRider]

It's always difficult to backtrack once rules have been made easier/standards lowered to tighten them up again. People of any age don't appreciate freedoms or privileges they've had access to being suddenly removed, regardless of the well meaning intent usually behind it.



And when that tightening of the rules may mean possible loss of votes in the next election ...

I personally would have preferred to see a restriction on what vehicles can be driven by learner/restricted drivers ... just as motorcyclists are NOW ...

[FJRider]

Should parents get in amongst it with their kids ....

Could it be that simple? Or am I just being an idealist? :scratch:

Parental responsibility .... would solve a lot of "social issues" across the board ...

[Mikkel]

1. Bikers are a minority (like teen drivers). 2. Car drivers perceive bikers as a higher risk group (like you see teen drivers). 3. While using bikes does have a high risk factor in that you are not surrounded by a metal shell, it has advantages for others such as lowering conjestion, fuel consumption etc (while you see teens as high risk due to safety, them being able to have jobs etc has benefits like them learning work ethic so you don't have to pay their dole money later).

1. Yes. 2. Bikers are a higher risk group, we can hardly deny that. 3. So you believe that getting a license at 15 actually will reduce the number of people on the dole in the future... interesting.


Do you think if we got a large set of drivers from a country that we compare ourselves to, that the statistics would be infinitely better?

Infinitely better? As in no traffic related deaths and injuries at all? A large set of drivers - depends on how big a fraction of the total population of drivers they would constitute. Unless they constituted the majority I'd say no discernible improvement would be achieved - but I really do not know. It only takes a few bad apples to fuck it up for the rest.

However, I am absolutely confident that if NZ had as rigorous a licensing system as e.g. Denmark we would see an reduction of traffic accidents - and as the older generations left the roads and younger ones got on them that trend should keep on going until the last old-school drivers have retired.


Exactly. Give them the option to drive a car or ride a motorcycle and they would. So if they could prove they were capable of driving(addressed further on) why would we not?

Well, it all comes down to statistics - is it beneficial to give them that option once they turn 15 or is it more beneficial to give it to them at age 13, 18 or 21. Why do you think it is that no one is suggesting lowering the driving age? Drinking age? Age of sexual consent?


Correctly? according to who? You? IF you have no experience living in a rural area how would you know the importance of having a licence out there? You could not judge the social impact because you have no idea. You've never lived there.

Ah, the often encountered fallacy of "you haven't tried it yourself so you can not possibly imagine what it's like...". To extrapolate - I think you should give living in Afghanistan a go, I won't accept any reasonable explanation for not going until you've lived there for at least 5 years because otherwise you can not judge the social impact of suicide bombers because you have no idea. You've never lived there.

Teenagers survive in countries where the legal driving age is higher than it is here - I am sure the Kiwi teenagers could cope as well.


For the sake of not going round in a circle again, I will say that since the government declare that it is a right so far as any individual who meets the current age/eyesight/identity/test criteria can do it then it is a right(unless a government decides to change it or you do something to deserve having it taken away).

And that is exactly the mentality that we need to get rid off. It needs to be imprinted upon drivers that motoring is a skill, that it comes with great responsibility and that it must be taken seriously. Oh, and we need to set the bar slightly higher as far as those criteria goes.


Probably the first thing we would agree on. I definitely think the education piece of the system could be changed for the better, provided the age limits remain as they are. Whilst I don't think the lowering of the alcohol limit will actually make anything better, I would definitely take that before raising the driving age (I treasure being able to drive like the stereo type American treasures the right to bare firearms).

I hope you can see the inherent idiocy of the "right to carry firearms" - now see if you can draw the parallel to the "right to drive". Surely if you have a right to drive - the police revoking your license for any reason should be a matter for the human rights tribunal.
(And you still haven't given me any good reason why 15 years of age has got to be the age at which you shall be granted divine mandate to operate a motor vehicle.)

The issue with considering it a right is that people will tend to take it for granted - i.e. not appreciate it or be serious about it.


No I have actually had proper professional driving instruction – It was for a car when I was 15. I also did the defensive driving course around that time and as I didn't have 8 years of town/car driving experience I found it pretty good. While my proper driving/riding instruction is not as great as yours, like most rural kids I have a bit of experience that I would be pretty sure quite a few city kids are lacking. By the time I was 14 I could drive the farm truck, the tractor(with a variety of implements and I am talking the 100HP size tractor as opposed to those little lawn ones), and 2, 3 and 4 wheel motorbikes (also learned how to back a trailer with them). I also raced go karts for a year or 2. And yeah I still made a few mistakes along the way.

I'd dare say you are the exception. And for the record, I'm not too worried about rural kids borrowing their dads old banger in order to get in to civilisation. No reason why the driving age couldn't be 18 and that in certain cases one could apply for an exemption to get the license at 15 provided certain criteria were met. (If those mopeds are such a big problem.)


So would you say that the Danish system turns out absolutely no bad drivers? If it an expensive system to fund? If so where do the funds come from? Could the average teenager afford them? Does Denmark have a significantly better transport system(Air/Sea/Rail) than New Zealand? Given our population distribution do you think it would be feasible to put one in NZ? Do you have to sell a kidney to get a reasonable air service in Denmark like you pretty much have to in NZ, unless you want to Risk Jetstar?

Of course not, the Danish system turns out plenty of bad drivers - but they are bad drivers who have had to learn a lot of stuff before being handed the keys. Still, the legal driving age is only 18 and as such plenty of people are still rather immature and do silly stuff, but that would be even worse if they were 15. I can tell you though, there aren't a lot of drink driving going on - mostly only chronic alcoholics. The alcohol blood level is set at 0.05% irregardless of age, sex or experience - it was lowered from 0.08% about 10 years ago I believe. However, if your blood alcohol is above 0.03% then you are considered to be driving under the influence - while not in breach of the legal limit. Having an accident while under the influence makes you very likely to be found at fault and sometimes insurance won't cover you.

Expensive system to fund? Well, you have to pay the instructor per hour - wages are less in NZ so comparing the hourly cost doesn't make much sense but I believe it was around $40/hour when I took mine in '99, but there are lots of other expenses too. Most teenagers are given, or helped to, their license by their parents - most would be able to afford one by working if they were dedicated to it. A license all up would be somewhere between $2,500 and $3,500 all inclusive - but that's also because the government has stipulated a minimum number of instructor hours no matter how quickly you learn (and that is fucking silly). You could run a comparable scheme for rather less in NZ. Anyway, if you want people to take licensing seriously, making it expensive is not a bad way to go. I believe the fine for driving without a valid license is around the $1,250-mark.

The public transportation system is more developed yes. Domestic airfares are rather expensive and nobody really does them - the train is almost as fast and more convenient. Not cheap though - about $100 for a train ticket across the country (Denmark is small, so that's about 300 kms).


Yep. "The government says young drivers have become a lethal statistic, with 67 deaths and 506 serious injuries in crashes in the year to last September, involving at least one driver aged between 15 and 19."

So they are going to almost outlaw this group of drivers. Even those keen enough to get down the the AA on their 16th birthday, will be lucky to have a full licence by the time they are 19.

Compare : Motorcyclist 48 deaths and 430 serious injuries in 2007.

Got to be next on the banning list !

Well, those numbers make no sense without knowing what the population size of each group is.

[firefighter]

accurate statistics .

No such thing. Statistics are only samples of population, so never accurate.

[avgas]

Zero alchol under 20 makes sense - as long as it is meaningful e.g. it's not OK if putting on perfume with an alchol base 2 hours ago puts you over the limit.
The current level for Learners is suppose to be a "zero beers" level or 30mg, so I imagine this value will be used. Someone once told me that unless you dope yourself up with perfume you don't go above 15mg.

[avgas]

No such thing. Statistics are only samples of population, so never accurate.
I have to agree a bit here. Depends on interpretation. Saw a good one last night198891

[Mikkel]

No such thing. Statistics are only samples of population, so never accurate.

They are accurate - the brilliant thing about statistics is that you can even quantify exactly how accurate they are. Take a large sample and the accuracy will be good, take a small sample and the accuracy will be poor.

The bad thing about statistics is of course that they can easily be misrepresented, either by clever people pushing an agenda or by honest people who doesn't understand statistics.

[SMOKEU]

The whole system is fucked up. Sustained loss of traction is classed as a serious crime while stupid driving like failing to indicate and unsafe lane changes go unpunished.

[motor_mayhem]

Summary:

In short your entire argument about why these young people should not have a driver's lincence is based on safety. My entire point is that the issue is about MORE than safety though I know safety is an important part of considerations. As I have said the statistics you cling to do not take into account any positive externalities and that in all your posts you have failed to acknowledge any problems that would arise from a change seems to indicate that you have not considered this issue as a whole. The options in NZ are limited - Kiwirail has trouble keeping a service going in Wellington alone let alone the whole country. And the population distribution is such that it would not be viable to have an extensive train or bus service into low population density areas. Also given that the AA doesn't think the age rise is a solution and they probably know more about it than most, and generally public opinion is against it (as per http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3396729/Key-firm-as-driver-reforms-attacked).

The "good" reasons you are looking for is mobility and independance. If you really feel like testing it, cut up your licence and go and live in a rural area.

Finally refer to the AA report @ http://www.badd.co.nz/files/AA%20Saving%20ourselves.pdf - particularly page 11 - the red box and the graph that reads "The social cost of crashes by 15-year-olds is small compared to older teens as they are largely supervised drivers."

--------------------------------------------------



It only takes a few bad apples to fuck it up for the rest.
You ever wonder if that was happening to teens regarding driving?



Well, it all comes down to statistics - is it beneficial to give them that option once they turn 15 or is it more beneficial to give it to them at age 13, 18 or 21. Why do you think it is that no one is suggesting lowering the driving age? Drinking age? Age of sexual consent?
The point is to find the happy medium in utility etc. vs safety. Personally I think 15 was fine.



I hope you can see the inherent idiocy of the "right to carry firearms" - now see if you can draw the parallel to the "right to drive". Surely if you have a right to drive - the police revoking your license for any reason should be a matter for the human rights tribunal.
By that logic it would seem you don't believe in putting criminals in jail. See, with good reason rights such as freedom of movement should be revoked. If you see a higher than normal proportion of a particular nationality committing crime, would you advocate to have all people of that nationality put in jail? or just othe ones that do the crime?


(And you still haven't given me any good reason why 15 years of age has got to be the age at which you shall be granted divine mandate to operate a motor vehicle.)


Ah, the often encountered fallacy of "you haven't tried it yourself so you can not possibly imagine what it's like...". To extrapolate - I think you should give living in Afghanistan a go, I won't accept any reasonable explanation for not going until you've lived there for at least 5 years because otherwise you can not judge the social impact of suicide bombers because you have no idea. You've never lived there.
Teenagers survive in countries where the legal driving age is higher than it is here - I am sure the Kiwi teenagers could cope as well.

And yet you have barely acknowledged that there is any issues other that safety. People in general should be able to cope with driving on NZ roads and a high proportion do. But you are advocating for changes.


The issue with considering it a right is that people will tend to take it for granted - i.e. not appreciate it or be serious about it.
Agree



And that is exactly the mentality that we need to get rid off. It needs to be imprinted upon drivers that motoring is a skill, that it comes with great responsibility and that it must be taken seriously. Oh, and we need to set the bar slightly higher as far as those criteria goes.
Raise the bar on testing - ok. Raise the bar on age will only make some people's lives a lot more difficult and create an older class of learners.



I'd dare say you are the exception. Surely you're not making assumptions things here?


And for the record, I'm not too worried about rural kids borrowing their dads old banger in order to get in to civilisation. No reason why the driving age couldn't be 18 and that in certain cases one could apply for an exemption to get the license at 15 provided certain criteria were met. (If those mopeds are such a big problem.)
That sounds good and simple but our government is about taking a sledgehammer to what could be adjusted with a screwdriver.



Of course not, the Danish system turns out plenty of bad drivers - but they are bad drivers who have had to learn a lot of stuff before being handed the keys.
Bad drivers who have attended good classes are still bad drivers.



Still, the legal driving age is only 18 and as such plenty of people are still rather immature and do silly stuff, but that would be even worse if they were 15. I can tell you though, there aren't a lot of drink driving going on - mostly only chronic alcoholics. The alcohol blood level is set at 0.05% irregardless of age, sex or experience - it was lowered from 0.08% about 10 years ago I believe. However, if your blood alcohol is above 0.03% then you are considered to be driving under the influence - while not in breach of the legal limit. Having an accident while under the influence makes you very likely to be found at fault and sometimes insurance won't cover you.

Expensive system to fund? Well, you have to pay the instructor per hour - wages are less in NZ so comparing the hourly cost doesn't make much sense but I believe it was around $40/hour when I took mine in '99, but there are lots of other expenses too. Most teenagers are given, or helped to, their license by their parents - most would be able to afford one by working if they were dedicated to it. A license all up would be somewhere between $2,500 and $3,500 all inclusive - but that's also because the government has stipulated a minimum number of instructor hours no matter how quickly you learn (and that is fucking silly). You could run a comparable scheme for rather less in NZ. Anyway, if you want people to take licensing seriously, making it expensive is not a bad way to go. I believe the fine for driving without a valid license is around the $1,250-mark.

The public transportation system is more developed yes. Domestic airfares are rather expensive and nobody really does them - the train is almost as fast and more convenient. Not cheap though - about $100 for a train ticket across the country (Denmark is small, so that's about 300 kms).
Plane tickets beween the 3 main centres are ok if you book them 1-3 months in advance. But for anything immediate or outside those centres, you better take out another morgage on the house. Rails services are sparse to non-existant and more expensive than air travel.

:done:

[Mikkel]

Summary:

In short your entire argument about why these young people should not have a driver's lincence is based on safety. My entire point is that the issue is about MORE than safety though I know safety is an important part of considerations. As I have said the statistics you cling to do not take into account any positive externalities and that in all your posts you have failed to acknowledge any problems that would arise from a change seems to indicate that you have not considered this issue as a whole. The options in NZ are limited - Kiwirail has trouble keeping a service going in Wellington alone let alone the whole country. And the population distribution is such that it would not be viable to have an extensive train or bus service into low population density areas. Also given that the AA doesn't think the age rise is a solution and they probably know more about it than most, and generally public opinion is against it (as per http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3396729/Key-firm-as-driver-reforms-attacked).

So you concur that there are valid safety concerns in regards to letting young kids drive, but believe that the pros outweighs the cons?


You ever wonder if that was happening to teens regarding driving?

Of course it does - and the same is also valid for drink drivers. That doesn't make it acceptable.


By that logic it would seem you don't believe in putting criminals in jail. See, with good reason rights such as freedom of movement should be revoked. If you see a higher than normal proportion of a particular nationality committing crime, would you advocate to have all people of that nationality put in jail? or just othe ones that do the crime?

Hanging is a valid punishment for repeat offending of a serious and anti-social nature. Let's leave it at that. And no, I do not advocate painting every individual within a specific group with the same brush.

What I really dislike about your argumentation is that you consider raising the legal driving age a punishment imposed upon those who will have to wait another year or three. That argument is patently ridiculous and in stark contrast to your otherwise fairly reasonable points. An inconvenience to kids in rural areas I'll happily grant that it is, but a punishment, no.


And yet you have barely acknowledged that there is any issues other that safety. People in general should be able to cope with driving on NZ roads and a high proportion do. But you are advocating for changes.

Well, seeing as many of these initiatives are driving by the fact that the road-toll in NZ is disproportionately high compared to other western countries, I'd argue that road-safety is the primary concern for any proposed changes. That's not to suggest that a holistic approach shouldn't be applied.


Raise the bar on testing - ok. Raise the bar on age will only make some people's lives a lot more difficult and create an older class of learners.

An older, and generally more mature, group of learners - yes, that is what I have been saying all along. And you "some" should be "a few". Hell, if we removed the dole tomorrow that would make life a lot more difficult for quite a few people - still I'm sure we could easily find a large number of people who would readily subscribe to the idea without considering the possible ramifications.


Surely you're not making assumptions things here?

Yes, I was making the assumption you were being honest in relating your driving experience - was that an unreasonable assumption or do I need to consider all of your input to be of questionable integrity?


That sounds good and simple but our government is about taking a sledgehammer to what could be adjusted with a screwdriver

Maybe, and such an attitude needs to be done away with as well!


Bad drivers who have attended good classes are still bad drivers.

At least they won't have an excuse and chances are that there will be less bad drivers coming out of the classroom than went into it. Otherwise, why would you even bother with the lame excuse for a licensing system here in NZ? Why not just say "do whatever the fuck you want, no-one gives a flying fuck!"? (And for the record, that is exactly what the current licensing system says - maybe without the exclamation mark and expletives - and as a result quite a few of the people who go through it don't give a flying fuck either.)

[Patrick]

She has now had her learners for 2.5 years!

Which is another issue.... Why are learners able to sit on their scratch and win for up to 10 years. Why not give them an expiry, say after 1 year if they haven't had a crack at the restircted by then? Or 2yrs if they have... (but perhaps ban them if they can't pass the restricted...)?

[crazyhorse]

Which is another issue.... Why are learners able to sit on their scratch and win for up to 10 years. Why not give them an expiry, say after 1 year if they haven't had a crack at the restircted by then? Or 2yrs if they have... (but perhaps ban them if they can't pass the restricted...)?

I totally agree. Although it is total laziness LOL not that she hasn't passed her restricted, more that she hasn't carried on driving/riding.......