Zero alcohol for drivers under 20.

[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?

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?

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 night

[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/poli...forms-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.