Driving Legislation

[DevilAsh]

There was a preposal by the Goverment to change the current driving laws. These would mean that you would learn to drive when your 18, not 17, and could only carry one passenger until your 20 when you would sit another exam to see if you are able to carry more people. What do you think about this? Surely we could do something as it still technically covers people under the age of 18.

[Biggs for MYP]

I think that the driving age should be lowered to 15 like in New Zealand. I think if the driving age was lowered it could possibly lower the number of car thefts and joy riders on the streets and it would give people of that age the taste of independce they crave. I then think that an additional exam should be taken at 17 to see if you are capable of carrying passengers on board!

[Nicole Harding]

I agree that the learning age should be lowered as, I think, you don't have enough experience of driving from the time that you can start to learn and the time that you can take your test.
In Australia I believe that the law is that you can start learning to drive when you are 15 or 16, but still only obtain a licence about the same age as you can here, so that you have a greater experience of driving in all weathers, for example.

Why do they want the other test, the one to see if you can carry more passengers?

[Iona Stevenson]

I'd like to see what the additional test entailed. The instructor and their mates throwing stuff about the car and singing along badly to the radio?

[:Vampiress:]

Learning to drive should be lowered to 16/17 not any lower, and you should take a test to see if you can carry passengers at 19 when you have had 2 years or more expieriance with driving.

[belinda]

l think they should actually lower the drivving age to 16 because then it lowers the number of joy riders and young people get more experience. they will actually have more to loook forward to for when they get to 16. is it not that at 16 you are a young adult so why should we be forbiden to drive then. the goverment need to reconsider changing this law, they should look at the positive side of young drivving too. for example if your parents are banned from drivving how are you going to get to school or anywhere? and besides the bus fairs are way too expensive its cheaper to drive. It should be lowered to 16!!! or let is stay the same, NO changes!

[Iona Stevenson]

--Also a car carrying only one person isn't exactly helping the issue of pollution.--

[Brucester]

I actually think the legal age of being able to hold a full drivers license (ie - be able to take your test) should be increased to 18.

Driving, in my honest, is one of the "adult privileges" in life, the same as Smoking, Drinking and the ability to vote. The age limit for all these is now 18, thus bearing more clarity on when a British person is deemed to be an adult.

Also, an idea that came from a debate at the East of England Regional Residential at the weekend (it wasn't my idea though so I won't try and take the credit for it!) was to leave the legal age to start taking lessons at 17 but to increase the age for taking your test to 18, and for a person to have had to have 40 hours worth of lessons before they are eligible to take a test. This would therefore mean that when people come to take their driving test, they would have much more driving experience and are less likely to cause an accident.

For young people, this might make the cost of driving increase, but, at the end of the day, when you can drive, you have to find the money for MOT's, Tax, Insurance, etc anyway, so maybe if you can't afford 40 lessons then maybe you're not in a financially stable enough position to be able to run a car anyhow.

And also, by logic, better drivers mean less accidents on the roads, which will mean less deaths. Surely a price can't be put on the value of human life??

[Iona Stevenson]

Would the 40 hours of lessons all have to come from a registered instructor? In my area there are a lot of farm kids who have learnt to drive various vehicles on private land long before their 17th birthdays. In my experience they book a couple of lessons to check that they've got all the manoevers sorted and haven't picked up any bad habbits then take their tests (then pass first time). It would be incredibly unfair/pointless to force them to pay for and spend time on these 40 hours me thinks.

[make.me.smile]

Here's an idea (this is what they do in France):
When you turn sixteen you can start learning. You need to take a certain amount of lessons with an actual teacher, then pass a test, and when you have succeeded in doing this, you have the right to drive with your parents. You have to drive a minimum of I think 3000km with them and when you turn 18 you take the official test, meaning you can drive alone or with people other than your parents otherwise. I think this is quite sensible as you will have 2 years of actual experience and you don't pick up your parents bad habits right in the beginning. The only problem is people who's parents don't drive for example or who don't have time. What do you think though?

[Gotlieb Alexander]

To drive one needs a certain amount of responsibility and ability, why they measure this in time is totaly beyond me.

I think the 0-passengers thing is a good idea because it prevents young people from driving for the sake of driving with friends while still allowing essential transport.

I also think it's hiddeous that one can obtain a driving license without ever driving on a motorway, i believe that there should be a compulsory driving course for motorway driving which you need to pass before you can do it for real.

I think belinda's coments are quite odd, she seems to be suggesting that the government totaly give up on buses because they charge too much for them, surely a government solution to that problem could be to charge less?

if your parents are banned from drivving how are you going to get to school or anywhere?
The same way you did for the last 16 years of your life :)

I think that we should be trying to deter young people from driving in all but essential situations and that includes investment in public transport.

[Lodi]

The same way you did for the last 16 years of your life :)


Ahh but that relies on your Parents not moving house to the middle of no where when you use to be able to walk

[Conzales]

It better not go up, im ready to drive this summer.

Watch out Britain, Conor is on the roads.

[Gotlieb Alexander]

Ahh but that relies on your Parents not moving house to the middle of no where when you use to be able to walk

LOL, i totaly inderstand your situation having not walked to anywhere from my house in my entire life, what realy ****es me off it that buses only seem to exist in areas you can walk aswell :(

[EmmaGallen]

No extra driving tests!!! Are you aware of how difficult the test is? the way it is now is fine. Only problem is that the test is really hard but once you pass it you can make all the mistakes you like as long as they aren't crimes.
And surely if you can drive, driving with people won't make any difference?
And the certain number of hours is unfair because there are so many peopel who can learn to drive perfectly from their parents.
Driving is difficult enough without needing extra tests and stress.

[Gotlieb Alexander]

Driving is difficult Emma,thats why i think it is crucial that we arent too liberal in who we let do it. Surely the better people have to be to pass their tests, the better the drivers on the roads will be.

I think the stresses are important as they drill in the importance of it, a driving license is great power, not simply a right of passage.

[EmmaGallen]

Driving is difficult but the tests are more difficult. The examiners look for faults and what one examiner calls a minor another calls it a major. They shouldn't test again they should just have more laws enforcing good driving.

[make.me.smile]

The whole point I was making is that you'd have more experience driving by the time you'd be able to do it without your guardian. What use are laws when people can't help but break them as they haven't been taught well enough?

[EmmaGallen]

The tests ARE really difficult. That's why it's so rare for someone to pass first time (here anyway). Not only do you have to be able to drive but you have to know the test routes by heart and deal with all the mental drivers that've been driving for 30 years.

[make.me.smile]

So wouldn't you rather have 2 years to prepare yourself for that test and in that time you gain more experience driving and you get comfortable with it, rather than just getting it over with as soon as possible?

[Gotlieb Alexander]

The reason tests are hard is because driving is hard, we can't set the testing difficulty at the level we can manage without getting stressed we need to set the testing level at the point at which it means anyone who passes is a good safe driver. Newly qualified drivers are statisticaly very bad at it and that needs to be addressed

[EmmaGallen]

I'm in no rush to do the test. But it seems pointless. My friend passed his test first time within like 6 months because he did so much work. There are some people who are just so naturally good at it.

[EmmaGallen]

Newly past drivers are the most cautious!!! Because they can get their liscences taken off them so easily. Unless that statistic is from teh amount of restricted drivers who've had their liscences taken off them.

[make.me.smile]

Cautious doesn't always mean good. Also, making the test more time-consuming etc might make some people reconsider taking it - take the bus instead!

[EmmaGallen]

But driving= freedom!!! And most people who once they begin learnign refuse to take the bus and use everything as a practise oppertunity.

[make.me.smile]

So why not make them practise for a bit longer? Seems fair to me.

[EmmaGallen]

BEcause when you're ready you might as well do the test. Imagine having to drive with ur parents in the car for an extra year and a half when ur capable of doing it alone.

[make.me.smile]

Maybe ale drivers will just have to sacrifice a little extra time for the sake of safe roads. And there's nothing wrong with getting as much practise as possible. I'd rather be over-cautious rather than the slightly dangerous alternative.

[EmmaGallen]

Currently, if driver's are bign over-cautious they fail. My sister got failed for waving someone a cross the road before she did her reverse round a corner.

[make.me.smile]

If she had more experience maybe she would've been confident enough in her driving to do her reverse round the corner while the person was crossing?

[EmmaGallen]

The person wasn't crossing. They had been walking up the side of the road and she waited. The rules are tough enough. The driving test has gotten harder since any of our parents did it but they are the ones who are "good drivers".

[ElTorro]

I've nearlly got to the time to take my test, and i've been looking at insurance and tax...

I don't know if theres any point in getting a car!

[make.me.smile]

Do you think it'd be a good idea to give people free use of public transport in exchange for them not buying a car? I'd do it...

[ElTorro]

I dunno, thats a tough one!
erm... I would if they immensely improved public transport, i mean so much as making it one of the worlds best.

[EmmaGallen]

The problem witht he public transport is you can't get where you want tgo without at least two buses.

[Gotlieb Alexander]

The problem witht he public transport is you can't get where you want tgo without at least two buses.

OOO Such a tough life isn't it

[Iona Stevenson]

I'd say that for people using these routes daily it might well be a bit of a pain. One of my friends has to get a connection home and if she misses it it's £40 + for a taxi, I think that's a bit of an issue.

I don't think that the gov. should make public transport free for all as it would be way too expensive a scheme and one that I suspect many people would choose not to use [I don't think my Dad's been on a bus in over a decade and he intends to keep it that way haha]

If you think that young people need to become better drivers then maybe the government could subsidise that extra training scheme you can do with night time and motorway driving to encourage people to improve their skills. Rather than increasing the age limit, which won't improve skills and will disadvantage those that could benefit from a licence for study or work purposes.

[Conzales]

Im getting a car soon! :D I would like an electric one but an efficient one will do.

I wouldn't have one if I lived in the city, but out here its nessesary.

Getting to Aberdeen by train is fine (20 mins vs 30mins by car).

Any where else, nope. I could get to London(by plane) from Aberdeen quicker.

[Conzales]

Do you think it'd be a good idea to give people free use of public transport in exchange for them not buying a car? I'd do it...

I would, if it meant free train fares (not just for travel in my area, but UK wide).

If it were busses, nope. I would keep the car and pay for busses when i needed them.

[Matt. P]

Im getting a car soon! I would like an electric one but an efficient one will do.

I wouldn't have one if I lived in the city, but out here its nessesary.

Why not push for a fibreglass car? It saves metal, is just as strong as steel, can be repaired in about 5 seconds (just take of the broken door and click in a new one...lego style) and is so light it saves 5 times us much energy (so less money of fuel). But best of all...weight affects acceleration right, so imagine what the acceleration of this car would be...

[EmmaGallen]

Learners aren't allowed on the motorway so after you've passed your test is the first time you can go on it.

If you're to get two buses and ones runnign late nad the others early and you're to either stand in the rain for an hour you're hardly going to be happy?

Are lgiht metal cars not going to be easy to break into then?

[Matt. P]

Fibreglass is just as structually strong as steel, so it would acttually be stronger than normal cars. But it would also use much less energy (about 80% of the energy is wasted transferring power from the engines to wheel's so thats 5 times as much energy) and it would be similarly much faster.

[EmmaGallen]

Well when I can afford my own car I'll by fibreglass but in the meantime I'll drive my Ka.

[ElTorro]

talk about discrimination
my friend whos a girl has a car that im looking at, and she pays £750 insurance
i looked at exactly the same car to see what it would be for me
well...i think anywhere over a grand would be too much, but £1,880

[EmmaGallen]

It's to discourage little boy racers. But don't worry: women pay more for insurance from about the age of 26. You know the women's one Diamond? My dad phoned to put my mum and sister on and when he added his name the fee was lowered...
"nd learner driver on a car is free :D

[Al Young]

If we charged people based upon race, there'd be outrage. Que sera sera.

I think that current system works well enough.

[Spirited discussion]

If we charged people based upon race, there'd be outrage. Que sera sera.

I think that current system works well enough.

huh? insurance companies do charge people by race.

[XxJENxX]

I do partly agree with this. I have known many young people around my area to have died in car crashes. I think it would be better if you could only take your test after a year of driving. This would give young drives more experience, before they are driving with many friends.

[XxOLIVIAxX]

This is ridiculous. Britain is turning into a controll freak. I think nyone over the age of 50 should have to retake their driving test to see if they pass. Why should the young be prevented from doing something everyone else did.

[make.me.smile]

Because young people ar emore at risk nowadays. We have busier roads, we all drink more/do drugs etc. The limit of 50 is ridiculous.

[Liam Hannan]

We're no more at risk now than we ever have been. We are just more aware of the risks now.

I don't know how the human race survived until health and safety committees turned up to protect us; there must have been cadavers everywhere...

[make.me.smile]

Of course health and safety is a joke. But you must admit that there are more people there to get run over. People drive aroudn more with their friends bla bla bla. You get what I mean.

[Liam Hannan]

aye.
there's more people and more cars, but the cars now have more safety precautions and there's more traffice restrictions etc.

I think I might be venturing slightly off topic... fancy a thread on health and safety?

[Rachael1990]

although, this doesn't technically fit into the scale of things. i think that people over the age of fifty, should have to take a theory and hazard test every five years, as their ability to drive decreases.

The roads have dramatically changed from when older people started to drive, and many of them do not understand the ''rules of the road''. Many old people never actually set a driving test, therefore wouldn't it make sense to test their ability as it tends to decrease rapidly after fifty.

I decided to write this post due to personal experience. Within a short space of time i saw nearly three very close crashes which involved an older driver.

Even though national statistics show that under 21's are more likely to crash, infact the under 21's are the most knowable and up to date road users.

please discuss

thanks

Rachael

xx

[EmmaGallen]

Not over 50. Over 70.

[dgmcallaghan]

Having Read the document in which the Government proposed this idea. What they want to do is you cannot drive by yourself until the age of 18, however you can learn to drive from the age of 16.5 (16 1/2) so basically you can start to learn from a younger age but not hold a licence until you are 18. Basically they would put pressure on the insurance companies to make provisional licence holders able to get insurance on their parents cars to allow on road experiance. You would also have to have a minimum number of hours with a trained instructor before you could take your test and all driving would be kept in a log book so they could see how much practising and intruction you have had.

[make.me.smile]

So pretty much copying off France - sounds like a good idea to me!

[micafimo]

After reading what others have put, I think the age should be kept the same, 17.

As I am only 16, admittidly there is a part of me which would like the age to be lowered. On the other hand, I know it would not be sensible to lower it. Young adults, like myself, are wanting to rush their life and grow up to fast. Having the responsibility of driving safely and not putting others at risk is alot to put on a 15/ 16 year old.

Plus, if the age was lowered, everybody would be driving to school, hence the rise in obesity of children. Extreme as it sounds, I believe the younger generations would simply be encouraged to be lazy.

Adding to this, if the age rises, it would cause a stir within the community. Is there a real reason to why the age must be changed? I think not.

Finally, these are just rumours so far. No action has been took to change the age.

Rebecca :)