Raising driving age?

**Dave Lobster** · 3rd March 2010, 09:37

Originally Posted by p.dath

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.

That's not a bad idea. It'd keep the poor people (with bag of shit cars) off the road for longer.

**Ixion** · 3rd March 2010, 09:46

So the main difference would be that brand new learner drivers couldn't drive on their own just to begin with.

Eh?? They can't now. Cage learner must have a licenced supervisor in the car at all times.

The AA have an obvious vested interest in such a proposal. It's about revenue (for AA) not safety.

How is such a "coached" scheme going to work with motorbikes? L licence can't take a pillion. Have someone follow on another bike ? " Yeah , my mate's following me, coaching like. He's got a bit left behind should be here soon. Yeah he's coaching these other 20 learners at the same time. It's a group coaching ride. "

"Oh I got my 200 hours easy. I ride to work each day and I always see this other rider on the motorway. So I got him to sgn my log book, after all he was riding on the same road as me".

**huff3r** · 3rd March 2010, 09:56

Originally Posted by p.dath

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.

I'm sorry, but i was actually a participant in one of those studies, and the "frontal lobe" section of the brain, the one responsible for risk-taking and hazard detection, is not fully developed until a person is at least 25. Raising the age that high would be pure stupidity though. The study i was a participant in was assessing the affect of training risk-management on the development of the frontal lobe, unfortunately for the AADEF (who spent millions on it) many participants didnt complete their logbokks correctly after the event, so they are still working on a valid conclusion. So no, they are definitely no more developed at 17 then they are at 15.

**Headbanger** · 3rd March 2010, 09:57

Whoa!!!!

a speech at parliament, Mr Joyce confirmed a package of measures to tackle teen drivers. The package will go to Cabinet this month. It includes:

* Raising the driving age from 15 to 16;
* Requiring novice drivers to have 120 hours' supervised practice before driving alone;
* Introducing a zero drink-drive limit for drivers under 20;
* Better education;
* An investigation into vehicle power restrictions.

**PirateJafa** · 3rd March 2010, 09:58

Originally Posted by 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

Pity that those people who see no need to stay in school through to the end of Year 13 (those moving into apprenticeships, etc) will be without any means to get to their training/jobs.

Which is why the current age of 15 was adopted - as at the time you were able to leave school at this age, and out in the countryside there is no public transport every thirty minutes. So they needed transport, else they'd be left walking for days just to get anywhere.

Not everyone lives in a city.

Originally Posted by Ixion

How is such a "coached" scheme going to work with motorbikes? L licence can't take a pillion. Have someone follow on another bike ? " Yeah , my mate's following me, coaching like. He's got a bit left behind should be here soon. Yeah he's coaching these other 20 learners at the same time. It's a group coaching ride. "

"Oh I got my 200 hours easy. I ride to work each day and I always see this other rider on the motorway. So I got him to sgn my log book, after all he was riding on the same road as me".

The coaching idea is far from foolproof. I can see many, many parents simply signing off fake hours simply because they cannot be bothered putting the time and effort into their child. Which is the exact same problem that we already have.

**huff3r** · 3rd March 2010, 10:01

Here's the study i participated in, with some very clever folks from Waikato Uni. Shame they didn't manage to come up with a decent conclusion, but they were pushing for more, and more specialised training in both hazard awareness and response.

FRONTAL LOBE STUDY

**dogsnbikes** · 3rd March 2010, 10:37

Originally Posted by Headbanger

Whoa!!!!

a speech at parliament, Mr Joyce confirmed a package of measures to tackle teen drivers. The package will go to Cabinet this month. It includes:

* Raising the driving age from 15 to 16;
* Requiring novice drivers to have 120 hours' supervised practice before driving alone;
* Introducing a zero drink-drive limit for drivers under 20;
* Better education;
* An investigation into vehicle power restrictions.

They have to get the power restrictions right,all very well for them to do everything else.....its an issue thats long over due for revamping,
and the Cars of today have so much more power,than cars we had 25/30 years ago to pick from,but even with the mini's,escorts,viva's or victor's,cortina's and datsun's 1600's or sss fitted with webbers and coby's which we considered cool then,the technogly has changed alot since then......

Most of todays Car's the kids get are made to perform and it does'nt take much for them to go and get the ECU's remapped now to give them a more powerful machine

So with planned restrictions how do they purpose to regulate the mapping as if its like some of the bike mapping if you plug the computer in unless you have the after market programe on your laptop it will only show you the standard factory settings

**Headbanger** · 3rd March 2010, 10:40

My first car was a 1.6l bright yellow Cortina station wagon.

And I still managed to be ordered off the road within a week, and then told to sell it or the cops would pull me up every time I drove it.

Lmfao.

**CookMySock** · 3rd March 2010, 11:20

Originally Posted by Ixion

The AA have an obvious vested interest in such a proposal. It's about revenue (for AA) not safety.

Organisations such as AA should be reminded(compelled?) to declare the extent of their vested interest.

Originally Posted by Ixion

How is such a "coached" scheme going to work with motorbikes? L licence can't take a pillion. Have someone follow on another bike ? " Yeah , my mate's following me, coaching like. He's got a bit left behind should be here soon. Yeah he's coaching these other 20 learners at the same time. It's a group coaching ride. "

"Oh I got my 200 hours easy. I ride to work each day and I always see this other rider on the motorway. So I got him to sgn my log book, after all he was riding on the same road as me".

I think coaches should be fined if the newbie gets fined. Gee watch newbies behave now ay!! Oh yeah, put one foot wrong and someone ELSE gets the bill, and and watch your pissed-off coach drop you like a hot brick. No coach - no ride!

You don't need an enormous amount of training for bikers. Bikes are very simple to operate in comparison to cars. Newbie riders only need a few initial hours of firm handling, and then sternly told to practice what they have been shown until it comes out their ears, and to keep their speed down until it they can track a corner properly (which does take some experience, but not much training.) Perhaps it might help to have a safe off-the-road environment to practice in, but I don't think that is essential.

What is not happening, that needs to happen, is bikers aren't forced to learn to steer properly.

Steve

**Mikkel** · 3rd March 2010, 11:43

And the best thing yet: The ridiculous give-way rule may be about to be changed.

**SMOKEU** · 3rd March 2010, 12:02

The government really should teach people how to drive properly instead of raising the minimun driving age. I see far too many idiots in their 40s who can't drive properly. They don't indicate, they do dangerous lane changes, they hold traffic up etc.

**p.dath** · 3rd March 2010, 12:10

Originally Posted by Ixion

Eh?? They can't now. Cage learner must have a licenced supervisor in the car at all times.

The AA have an obvious vested interest in such a proposal. It's about revenue (for AA) not safety.

How is such a "coached" scheme going to work with motorbikes? L licence can't take a pillion. Have someone follow on another bike ? " Yeah , my mate's following me, coaching like. He's got a bit left behind should be here soon. Yeah he's coaching these other 20 learners at the same time. It's a group coaching ride. "

"Oh I got my 200 hours easy. I ride to work each day and I always see this other rider on the motorway. So I got him to sgn my log book, after all he was riding on the same road as me".

This is pushing my recollection, and I haven't read up about the Victorian model; but the 200 hours was only discussed in relation to new car drivers. I don't know what the requirements are for motorcycle riders.
If I recall correctly, the 200 hours was simply recorded in a journal. I recall the word "coaching" being used. Perhaps this was more than someone with a full licence (which would make more sense) - because as you say, learners have to have someone with them now.

The AA driver education foundation is a not for profit association.
http://www.aa.co.nz/about/events/aa-...s/default.aspx
I don't see they have anything to gain by an increase in revenue, but then I do like my world looking rose coloured.

Originally Posted by huff3r

I'm sorry, but i was actually a participant in one of those studies, and the "frontal lobe" section of the brain, the one responsible for risk-taking and hazard detection, is not fully developed until a person is at least 25.

I agree with you about the development age of 25. However, may I suggest that perhaps you don't need a 100% fully developed brain before you can start driving and providing benefit. The question is, how much development does it require ...

**p.dath** · 3rd March 2010, 12:11

Originally Posted by SMOKEU

The government really should teach people how to drive properly instead of raising the minimun driving age. I see far too many idiots in their 40s who can't drive properly. They don't indicate, they do dangerous lane changes, they hold traffic up etc.

So you are saying the Police driving standards are too low?

**Ixion** · 3rd March 2010, 12:18

I suspect the 120 hours thing will be just a gesture. Mum Dad or older mate signs off the hours. If every new driver had to have 120 hours of paid for instruction (a) the cost would be about $10000, (b) there would be nowhere near enough instructors - for cars let alone motorcycles.

I'm thinking the rationale will be to address the fact that the restricted test is a joke. People can get their learners, hardly drive at all, just wait 6 months, then sit and pass the restricted. With the 120 hours thing , in theory they have to have actually done some practice.

But how can it work in reality if it is juts Mum Dad or mate sign it off? Is the tester going to investigate the signatures in every logbook presented by a candidate? I doubt it.

Once again, an example of law making by people who are themselves law abiding and incapable of grasping that the less law respecting will simply write in whatever is required and sign it with a squiggle.