Raising driving age?

[slofox]

RNZ news is full of the plan to raise driving age to 16 (or 17) from the current 15.

Good idea or bad idea?

[munster]

My eldest son got his licence at 15 and he's had no issues. We wouldn't let him drive his car till he had insurance and the excess saved up.

If John Key waits till Christmas, like he said on the news tonight, then my daughter will squeeze in too. My youngest son will have to wait.

I didn't get mine till the day I turned 17 (my choice).

It's too subjective. My eldest seems OK, his mate is a loon who's been busted twice for having passengers when on his restricted. and then I know 20+ years olds that shouldn't have a licence.

In NZ we don't teach people how to drive, we teach them how to pass a drivers lecence test.

The 4 weeks I spent in 1989 doing NZ Army Specialist Driver training is still saving my life today.

[CookMySock]

My kids (15,16) show little restraint on the road, especially riding in a group. It's been great teaching them all the bits about riding and driving, but now they have skills, knowledge, and bravery, safety is a real concern.

They'll cut my legs off for saying it, but I think putting the age up is a useful tool for parents keeping things in check.

I do wonder if the govt is trying to keep kids in school longer.

Steve

[YellowDog]

For parents who care about and disciplined their kids, the age is not such an issue.

Many parents I have met with teenage kids don't seem to get involved in their kids lives enough and IMO - 15 or 16 is far too young.

This does raise serious logistical issues for young people in remote locations and I agree that it is unfair to punish such people because some young irresponsible fools abusing their privileages. Maybe there needs to be a way to allow such remotly located people to have restricted driving access due such circumstances.

One subject that does concern me is that allowing a 15 or 16 year old kid on the road in a high powered motor vehicle without the need to have insurance to offer a degree of protection to other road users is complete madness.

[huff3r]

Yep, all raising the driving age will do is raise the bracket of high accidents from "15-21" to "16-22". The fact is they have to learn sometime, and when they are learning they will make mistakes. I doubt many accidents are caused soley by kids being stupid, but rather are because of inexperience, which can only be fixed by more driving! Not by raising the age.

I know for a fact that none of my crashes have been caused by me "being a young hoon", but rather caused by me not knowing how my car was going to react to a situation, and they have all been after i turned 18, even though i've been driving since 2 days after my 15th birthday!

[Headbanger]

Raise it to 20.

[huff3r]

Raise it to 20.

And have the high-crash zone being 20-25 then? All you'll do is kill more older people. No matter what age you make it, they will still have to LEARN sometime, meaning they will still be SHIT drivers sometime.

[Gareth123]

One subject that does concern me is that allowing a 15 or 16 year old kid on the road in a high powered motor vehicle without the need to have insurance to offer a degree of protection to other road users is complete madness.

Compulsory third party would fix that. The more "hotted up" your car, the more you pay. Although I do prefer the American way of sorting insurance, you as a driver are insured to drive anything. The car isn't insured.

[howdamnhard]

It's about time.

[YellowDog]

Compulsory third party would fix that. The more "hotted up" your car, the more you pay. Although I do prefer the American way of sorting insurance, you as a driver are insured to drive anything. The car isn't insured.

Huh ! - What about if someone steals it ?

So far as young accidents go; from what I have seen - the biggest distraction young people face is other young people in their cars with them.

How about: Motorbike only from 15-18 with a multi-level structured training approach. The young transport problem is therefore solved and they have to learn to ride properly before being able to arm themselves with a 4 wheelled deadly weapon at 18.

[Dave Lobster]

How about: Motorbike only from 15-18 with a multi-level structured training approach. The young transport problem is therefore solved and they have to learn to ride properly before being able to arm themselves with a 4 wheelled deadly weapon at 18.

That sounds like the best way to do it to me. But 21, rather than 18. People would then have four or five years' experience on two wheels, and might stick with it, rather than selling their soul and buying a car.

[slofox]

My own feeling is that raising driving age by one year to 16 is useless. I'd make it 18 - to align with right to vote, buy booze, get shot for your country, etc etc

[p.dath]

Yep, all raising the driving age will do is raise the bracket of high accidents from "15-21" to "16-22". The fact is they have to learn sometime, and when they are learning they will make mistakes. I doubt many accidents are caused soley by kids being stupid, but rather are because of inexperience, which can only be fixed by more driving! Not by raising the age.

I know for a fact that none of my crashes have been caused by me "being a young hoon", but rather caused by me not knowing how my car was going to react to a situation, and they have all been after i turned 18, even though i've been driving since 2 days after my 15th birthday!

I supported the increase in the driving age when I made by submission on the issue. I supported an increase to the age of 16 initially, to gauage the effect, and if needed, subsequently an increase to 17.

I don't believe it will simply shift the accident "bump" on the graph to those at the new driving age.

In the studies I have seen, the core issue is to do with the development of the brain, and the ability to asses risk and process threats around. By 17 these areas of the brain have developed significantly more.

This issue has nothing to do with training or experience. It is simply an issue of average brain development.

[p.dath]

Compulsory third party would fix that. The more "hotted up" your car, the more you pay. Although I do prefer the American way of sorting insurance, you as a driver are insured to drive anything. The car isn't insured.

I initially supported compulsory third party insurance in my submission, but have since come to the conclusion that the economic impact is not worth the cost of bringing in the legislation.

The AA showed me a study they did on the issue. I can't remember all the numbers now, but something like 93% of all those involved in an accident already had some form of insurance. Something like just under 7% of the remainder were drivers who could not get insurance because they had no licence, had a suspended licence, stolen vehicle, etc.

So by making insurance compulsory we were only like to see "point something" of a percentage increase in insured accidents. It seems that NZ's as a whole like to have accident insurance for their vehicles.

[p.dath]

That sounds like the best way to do it to me. But 21, rather than 18. People would then have four or five years' experience on two wheels, and might stick with it, rather than selling their soul and buying a car.

FYI, if I recall the numbers correctly, the AA told me they were wanting to see the "Victorian" model introduced, which required learner drivers to have something like 200 hours of "coached" driving time with someone that has a full licence. So the main difference would be that brand new learner drivers couldn't drive on their own just to begin with.