teenage road deaths

[feistyredhead]

they put the engine restrictions on the bikes for the learners and all that, but what about cars and the jap imports that go like hell with hardly any engine size! they should get the age up, insurance sorted and the engine ratings sorted...till then get the coffins and the tissues ready.

[HDTboy]

My 250 goes faster than almost every car I've driven (and I've driven some seriously quick cars) or been in, and it's easier to hurt/kill myself with.
Power to weight restrictions have their merits, but they're not a cure-all.
Insurance is a financial decision and should not be compulsory in my opinion

[scumdog]

My 250 goes faster than almost every car I've driven (and I've driven some seriously quick cars) or been in, and it's easier to hurt/kill myself with.
Power to weight restrictions have their merits, but they're not a cure-all.
Insurance is a financial decision and should not be compulsory in my opinion

No offence man but you obviously have not been in many fast cars, maybe the 0-50kph time in a 250 is good but I've got a couple of cars that will out-do it from there to 230kph+.

Still, enjoy your 250!

[anhrefn]

Maybe just sitting back and letting the future users of the road just get there lisence why not make driving ed and instruction manditory? My Partner just got her car lisence and well rather than start a war at home I paid to get her driving lessons (still growing back the arms and legs but was worth it........... I hope). But yeah loosing track of where I was, why not place a restriction on a learners lisence by using the power to weight ratio of a vehicle rather than its motor size?

[scumdog]

Maybe just sitting back and letting the future users of the road just get there lisence why not make driving ed and instruction manditory? My Partner just got her car lisence and well rather than start a war at home I paid to get her driving lessons (still growing back the arms and legs but was worth it........... I hope). But yeah loosing track of where I was, why not place a restriction on a learners lisence by using the power to weight ratio of a vehicle rather than its motor size?

Good idea BUT it is just like present restictions, it's not until you are stopped by Police that these restrictions become aparent.

IF the penalties were more severe (vehicle siezure etc ) then MAYBE it may have an effect on how Learner and Restricted drivers behave when it comes to their licence status.

At the moment they don't give a fat rats arse.

[Timber020]

Third party insurance would only protect the law abiding, you think that the boy racers that are willing to seriously flout the law would all of a sudden start paying for insurance? Or would they just avoid wofs, reg and try to outrun the cops in there pocket rockets?

ALL Insurance rates would skyrocket. Look at what they have to pay overseas, its a crime what the insurance co's hang people for.

Young guys and cars are a deadly mix, always have been, always will be. You can make the faster cars illegal, you can increase the driving age (which will just completely screw over country kids) but 98% of cars made today can do over 150kmph. Little will change

[Jeremy]

I'm not concerned about the CC ratings or weight restrictions etc. I like the idea of introducing compulsory insurance.
A 16 year old insuring a 2001 WRX at $6000 a year.
A 16 year old insuring a 1978 Triumph 2500 at $200 a year.

And to make sure parents don't insure it for their children......
Insurance policies need to declare drivers under 25 years old.
To insure a driver aged 16, as a named driver under their parents insurance policy - driving a 2001 WRX, will cost........ $6000 a year!

Also - I like the European approach to licencing, I can't remember which country does this, Switzerland maybe.
16 years old - Moped Learner.
17 Years old - Moped with Pillion.
18 Year old - High powered Moped Learner.
19 Year old - High Powered Moped & Pillion
20 Year Old - Full Licence

Time to get rid of Labour and the crap policies and get some proactive parties involved - Change is Good!

That's very nice except one problem. I'd have to wait another 2 years before I'd be able to get to Uni in a reasonable time.

Anyway third party insurance doesn't change anything, all that it means is that people with money can afford any car they want. If you don't have money then you can't. Nothing's changed. And a Toyota corolla is dirt cheap even with insurance and it'll quite happily do over 130km/h.

Also you could take it one step further. Modern cars capable of higher speeds should be much safer than older cars capable of lower speeds. Which might explain the reduction over time of driver deaths as a percentage compared to population. Thus you want young people in the safest cars possible, which are going to be the newer faster ones.

And finally do you remember the "7x more likely to be involved in a crash causing injury" claim on the tv? Well I checked it out using the data available on the LTSA website. Do you want to know how they get it?

Well here's how, they take the people injured data NOT the people injured while the driver is aged between x years. So what it means is that it includes teenagers killed regardless of the driver age. So the claim is true but it's also fairly useless.

[MSTRS:Me]

Also you could take it one step further. Modern cars capable of higher speeds should be much safer than older cars capable of lower speeds. Which might explain the reduction over time of driver deaths as a percentage compared to population. Thus you want young people in the safest cars possible, which are going to be the newer faster ones.

And finally do you remember the "7x more likely to be involved in a crash causing injury" claim on the tv? Well I checked it out using the data available on the LTSA website. Do you want to know how they get it?

Well here's how, they take the people injured data NOT the people injured while the driver is aged between x years. So what it means is that it includes teenagers killed regardless of the driver age. So the claim is true but it's also fairly useless.

Sorry - have to say it. When you have a few more years under your belt, you will realise that you are talking through a hole in your arse.

[spudchucka]

Third party insurance would only protect the law abiding, you think that the boy racers that are willing to seriously flout the law would all of a sudden start paying for insurance?

Thats why a counter measure such as compulsary insurance needs to be backed up with a power to seize vehicles that aren't insured. Even in the case of runners, you would only need to identify the car by rego and then seek a warrant to go around and lift the car at a later date.

No insurance should equal no right to use the road and no right to possess a motor vehicle untill the bucket of bolts is insured.

[Sniper]

Thats why a counter measure such as compulsary insurance needs to be backed up with a power to seize vehicles that aren't insured. Even in the case of runners, you would only need to identify the car by rego and then seek a warrant to go around and lift the car at a later date.

No insurance should equal no right to use the road and no right to possess a motor vehicle untill the bucket of bolts is insured.

Im with Spud here.

[Lou Girardin]

Just to add to the debate.
Professor Isler from the University of Waikato is doing his thesis on young drivers. Research has shown that the frontal lobes of teenagers brains aren't fully developed at 15 - 18 years. This area controls risk assessment and risk management among other things. As well as this their eye control is also not fully developed.
So they may not even see a hazard, when they do they may not realise it's a hazard and if they do realise the problem,they may not react correctly.
They can be trained to function better, but the training is fairly intensive. Far more than any driving test offers.
Raising the age is the only sure remedy for these issues.
Now that the issue has been raised again, all the anti's are coming out of the woodwork including Federated farmers, who killed the last proposal to raise the age in '98.
Parents who think their kids are safer in a car than catching a bus. That was proved in Hastings!
All I can say is that Aussie kids manage somehow without driving.
I guess it's not just the kids that think it can't happen to them.

[pete376403]

I got my licence at 15 (as did most of my mates at college) in 1968. No restrictions on this licence, no curfews, no provisional, no learner or anything else. By modern standards we mid-teens should have been dying like flies. However to drive was another thing altogether. Cars were expensive back then, even old shitboxes. No parent would ever have given a kid money to buy a car, and access to the family car (which in my case was a Humber 90) was very rare. I'm on the side of restricting the power of the car kids can drive, rather than making them wait longer to drive.

[MSTRS:Me]

Cars were expensive back then, even old shitboxes. No parent would ever have given a kid money to buy a car, and access to the family car (which in my case was a Humber 90) was very rare.

Mostly for sure. In those days the average new car cost more than the average annual wage/salary and to buy one, you needed 'overseas funds' (whatever that meant). Was also the reason that used cars cost more by comparison to today.
If you could get finance, it was usually at least 1/3 deposit & 20% interest.

[scumdog]

Im with Spud here.

Me too.

How can this NOT be fair??

[Ixion]

Thats why a counter measure such as compulsary insurance needs to be backed up with a power to seize vehicles that aren't insured. Even in the case of runners, you would only need to identify the car by rego and then seek a warrant to go around and lift the car at a later date.

No insurance should equal no right to use the road and no right to possess a motor vehicle untill the bucket of bolts is insured.

Insurance in NZ goes with the car not the driver (ie you insure your CAR). This is the essence of the insurance argument. But what if the car is insured in Dad's name ? How are you going to deal with that in a roadside stop (assuming dad has 'all drivers", or has named darling son)

And if you adopt the UK idea of insuring the driver, then you have lost the "he's got a fast car " linkage.Insurance premium will just be based on history and age generally. Young drivers pay more, but the model of car doesn't come into it.

So you'd have to have a "insure THIS driver for THIS car " deal. And then , what about that driver driving another car ? Like a work vehicle. Like Mum's very slow and safe car (with her aboard ?) . Or a rental car.

Insurance is to provide a cushion against the adverse financial effects of a crash . Trying to use it to control behaviour is a perversion.

If the legislators think that certain drivers should not drive certain cars then they should pass a law accordingly. Not leave it to private companies. There is no reason at all why the law could not say "Under 25, restricted to x cc". Just as it similarly does for bikes. Stop the car, check license, OK, is car over x cc ?.

Why do you assume that rich people are automatically going to be good drivers ? Isn't part of this the "Damn rich asian kids coming here and buying expensive cars !" gripe. If daddy up in hong Kong can pay $50000 to buy darling son a Supra, why will he cavil at a few thousand a year to insure it?

Does having lots of money make you a good driver ?

What about tourists and those on overseas licenses? Will they have to arrange insurance too ?

Moreover, have you thought of other effects. Remember it won't only be the despised youth that are affected. What about older drivers ? "Oh, too old". Want to bet that insurers won't simply load horrendous premiums onto ALL fast cars, no matter who drives them. And as for those dangerous motorcycles, price THEM right off the road.

Be VERY VERY careful what you wish for . You may just get it and wish you hadn't.

And I've yet to see any real evidence, that taking all into account, young people are bad drivers. Lots of emotional bleating and highly naff statistics, but no evidence. Most I see do very well, and are a damn sight more courteous than some of the oldies.Some may lack experience and their sociability means that if things go wrong there are more people involved. But I don't think they deserve the bad mouthing they're getting.