they should raise the legal driving age to 18
The age at which you can legally drive varies from country to country1, but in many places it is lower than 18. In some American states it is 15 or younger. Usually you are allowed to take a driving test a year or more before you can vote or drink alcohol. As young drivers are the ones most likely to have accidents2, from time to time there are calls to raise the driving age. In the past two years lawmakers in the US states of Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois and Massachusetts have debated raising their driving age3, although these attempts are unlikely to change anything in the foreseeable future. The British government has also recently considered lifting the driving age in the UK from 17 to 184, although it seems unlikely to go ahead with this change.
This topic assumes that the age should be raised to 18, but the arguments will still work for any number higher than the present legal driving age in your state. Many European countries already have a driving age of 18, so they might debate raising it to 21. Most of the arguments will also work for a debate on limiting how young people can drive.
this is from http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/law-crime/house-would-raise-legal-driving-age-18
This topic assumes that the age should be raised to 18, but the arguments will still work for any number higher than the present legal driving age in your state. Many European countries already have a driving age of 18, so they might debate raising it to 21. Most of the arguments will also work for a debate on limiting how young people can drive.
this is from http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/law-crime/house-would-raise-legal-driving-age-18
Scroll to see replies
Nah, some people live miles away from everything and simply can't rely on lifts and public transport all the time at 17. This is why the driving ages are so low in America: everyone lives miles away from everything.
If anything something should be done about the often prohibitive costs of insurance for 17 year olds. Normally I'd say leave it to the market, but that has been distorted by the fact that insurance is mandatory.
If anything something should be done about the often prohibitive costs of insurance for 17 year olds. Normally I'd say leave it to the market, but that has been distorted by the fact that insurance is mandatory.
(edited 8 years ago)
18 is more suitable IMHO for a Londoner cars are not really needed. My physics teacher is 38 and his not even done his driving test.
Young drivers have more accidents because they have much less experience, not because they are less mature. Raise the driving age to 18 and they'll have even less experience, and consequently be even more likely to be dangerous.
A better solution would be to change it so that you have to be learning for at least a year before you can take the practical test. Maybe they could also introduce more licence categories, so that for example a stricter version of the Pass Plus is compulsory before you can drive at night or on the motorway.
Posted from TSR Mobile
A better solution would be to change it so that you have to be learning for at least a year before you can take the practical test. Maybe they could also introduce more licence categories, so that for example a stricter version of the Pass Plus is compulsory before you can drive at night or on the motorway.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Arbolus
Young drivers have more accidents because they have much less experience, not because they are less mature. Raise the driving age to 18 and they'll have even less experience, and consequently be even more likely to be dangerous.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Really? How do you measure that?
In my experience (of myself and friends) we all drove like total idiots when we were young. Through immaturity, not inexperience.
Original post by e aí rapaz
Really? How do you measure that?
In my experience (of myself and friends) we all drove like total idiots when we were young. Through immaturity, not inexperience.
In my experience (of myself and friends) we all drove like total idiots when we were young. Through immaturity, not inexperience.
Lots of people drive like idiots in empty car parks or on suburban streets at night when nobody is around, but that's not necessarily the same as being dangerous. Nobody is likely to be badly hurt if they crash under those circumstances.
My concern here is with high-speed roads and country lanes, where most road casualties occur. It's here that experience is very important for avoiding accidents. Immaturity isn't so much a factor, because it takes an even higher standard of idiocy than usual to be deliberately dangerous on those sorts of roads.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by TimmonaPortella
Nah, some people live miles away from everything and simply can't rely on lifts and public transport all the time at 17. This is why the driving ages are so low in America: everyone lives miles away from everything.
If anything something should be done about the often prohibitive costs of insurance for 17 year olds. Normally I'd say leave it to the market, but that has been distorted by the fact that insurance is mandatory.
If anything something should be done about the often prohibitive costs of insurance for 17 year olds. Normally I'd say leave it to the market, but that has been distorted by the fact that insurance is mandatory.
The only cheap way to get around is on a 125 moped
Britain has some of the safest roads in the world. I don't think imposing additional restrictions with the suggestion that this will improve safety is really a priority.
We already have a rigorous testing system. There's no great flaw in it. You cannot test for irresponsible or reckless behaviour once someone is not being monitored, and equally no amount of rigour in the testing system will change that new drivers are less experienced.
Original post by Azurite
I think that they should make the Driving Theory Test and Practical Driving Test much more vigorous, but still allow 17 year olds to drive.
We already have a rigorous testing system. There's no great flaw in it. You cannot test for irresponsible or reckless behaviour once someone is not being monitored, and equally no amount of rigour in the testing system will change that new drivers are less experienced.
Original post by Arbolus
Young drivers have more accidents because they have much less experience, not because they are less mature. Raise the driving age to 18 and they'll have even less experience, and consequently be even more likely to be dangerous.
A better solution would be to change it so that you have to be learning for at least a year before you can take the practical test. Maybe they could also introduce more licence categories, so that for example a stricter version of the Pass Plus is compulsory before you can drive at night or on the motorway.
Posted from TSR Mobile
A better solution would be to change it so that you have to be learning for at least a year before you can take the practical test. Maybe they could also introduce more licence categories, so that for example a stricter version of the Pass Plus is compulsory before you can drive at night or on the motorway.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Agreed, except for the 2nd part.
Experience is what makes you a good driver. Raising the driving age just delays getting that experience, which is just pointless.
The 2nd part is unnecessary and would be difficult to organise. If you are capable of passing a driving test after just a few months (if you drive around with your parents while you're also having lessons, that's not unrealistic) you should be able to drive.
Loads of bad young drivers know how to drive properly from lessons, they just don't want to because driving everywhere fast is more "fun". More restrictions on driving tests won't change that. A better solution is to be much stricter with things like driving bans when found driving irresponsibly or dangerously.
being a **** driver has nothing to do with age once your feet can touch the pedals, wtf is this?
Original post by Arbolus
Young drivers have more accidents because they have much less experience, not because they are less mature.
I don't think this is true. From what I can recall, accident rates are generally higher in inexperienced young drivers compared to older inexperienced drivers. A great deal of accidents occur not due to experience but due to over-confidence.
Original post by Dez
I don't think this is true. From what I can recall, accident rates are generally higher in inexperienced young drivers compared to older inexperienced drivers. A great deal of accidents occur not due to experience but due to over-confidence.
This. I'm actually surprised at the number of people claiming that age has NO bearing on it.
If 2 people pass their tests, one aged 40 and the other 17, which is more likely to drive around at very high speeds and take dangerous risks? Come on.
A lot of 17 year olds need their cars to get to their jobs. We can't on one hand say we need more young people to take up on-the-job learning instead of staying on at school when they're not suited for it, and on the other hand say to them that there won't in-fact be any way for them to get to said job.
Original post by e aí rapaz
Really? How do you measure that?
In my experience (of myself and friends) we all drove like total idiots when we were young. Through immaturity, not inexperience.
In my experience (of myself and friends) we all drove like total idiots when we were young. Through immaturity, not inexperience.
I'd say it is a combination.
Sounds good to me. What do i sign
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by e aí rapaz
This. I'm actually surprised at the number of people claiming that age has NO bearing on it.
If 2 people pass their tests, one aged 40 and the other 17, which is more likely to drive around at very high speeds and take dangerous risks? Come on.
If 2 people pass their tests, one aged 40 and the other 17, which is more likely to drive around at very high speeds and take dangerous risks? Come on.
Well obviously, but I still fail to see how raising the age to 18 will make a blind bit of difference. Are we really to believe that somebody who is a reckless idiot at 17 will magically become responsible and fit to drive the second they turn 18?
Original post by Greenlaner
Well obviously, but I still fail to see how raising the age to 18 will make a blind bit of difference. Are we really to believe that somebody who is a reckless idiot at 17 will magically become responsible and fit to drive the second they turn 18?
True.
...Maybe we should raise it to 21
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
