Young drivers to be banned from driving at night?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by desou
I didn't "miss" anything thanks, and I'd ask you to choose your words more carefully in the future.
I generally choose my words very carefully. I did not miss the fact that, contrary to the claim in your rant, the part I quoted was making a comparision between those over 25 and those under 20. I'll repeat it for your benefit and to make sure it sinks in:
teenage drivers had dramatically higher crash rates than older drivers, particularly drivers older than 25
Try to bear in mind that teenagers are those under 20 years of age and not just the subset consisting of those of 16 years of age.
Why not put a restriction on speed, if that's the real issue? It'll probably be a little easier to enforce and actually target the problem directly than some correlative aspect.
A bigger issue is how weak the law's implementation is. Every so often we get stories about someone who's been banned from driving multiple times, with who knows how many points on their (usually his) license and runs someone over while drunk, and they get like a year in prison, and get their ban extended by a bit. If the cops can't keep a known criminal from driving illegally, how are they going to do that to kids with no priors who want to drive badly?
A bigger issue is how weak the law's implementation is. Every so often we get stories about someone who's been banned from driving multiple times, with who knows how many points on their (usually his) license and runs someone over while drunk, and they get like a year in prison, and get their ban extended by a bit. If the cops can't keep a known criminal from driving illegally, how are they going to do that to kids with no priors who want to drive badly?
This has to be at odds with the 2010 Equalities Act. You can't have a law which targets people because of their age, surely.
There would be an outcry if you banned people over 75 from driving between 7-9AM and 4-6PM.
Why should it be any different for young people?
It's almost impossible to enforce. Knife crime is an epidemic, not the vast majority of sensible 17-25-year-olds.
There would be an outcry if you banned people over 75 from driving between 7-9AM and 4-6PM.
Why should it be any different for young people?
It's almost impossible to enforce. Knife crime is an epidemic, not the vast majority of sensible 17-25-year-olds.
(edited 4 years ago)
Original post by 123543
You can't have a law which targets people because of their age, surely.
Of course you can. We don't allow the sale of alcohol to young people, and you cannot buy a lottery ticket unless you are 16 or older. You cannot be held responsible for debts unless you are at least 18 years old.
(edited 4 years ago)
Yes because they have not reached the age of adulthood. The Equalities Act 2010 is very specific about how to go about legislation which is in line with it.
Legislation which discriminates against age must be 'objectively justified.' This is not 'objectively justified.'
Find me case law where there is a precedent for excluding a group of adults from a particular activity based on their age.
Legislation which discriminates against age must be 'objectively justified.' This is not 'objectively justified.'
Find me case law where there is a precedent for excluding a group of adults from a particular activity based on their age.
Original post by Good bloke
Of course you can. We don't allow the sale of alcohol to young people, and you cannot buy a lottery ticket unless you are 16 or older.
(edited 4 years ago)
Original post by Good bloke
I generally choose my words very carefully. I did not miss the fact that, contrary to the claim in your rant, the part I quoted was making a comparision between those over 25 and those under 20. I'll repeat it for your benefit and to make sure it sinks in:
teenage drivers had dramatically higher crash rates than older drivers, particularly drivers older than 25
Try to bear in mind that teenagers are those under 20 years of age and not just the subset consisting of those of 16 years of age.
teenage drivers had dramatically higher crash rates than older drivers, particularly drivers older than 25
Try to bear in mind that teenagers are those under 20 years of age and not just the subset consisting of those of 16 years of age.
I'm genuinely unsure whether you're being deliberately obtuse now.
Let me spell this out in a way that a 10-year old could understand. If you still claim not to understand, everyone here will know that you're not really interested in a discussion at all.
Statement 1: The statistic you are quoting compared drivers aged 16-19 with those aged 25+. It said nothing at all about the cohort aged 17-19.
Statement 2: It also explained that a significant proportion of the accidents experienced by those in the 16-19 category were specifically caused by those aged 16.
Statement 3: But 16 year olds cannot drive in the UK. So a cohort that looks at 16-19 year olds, that is expressly dominated by those 16 year olds, is entirely irrelevant. It contains no useful information at all about whether 17-19 year olds have a higher rate of accidents than any other cohort.
Do you understand now or are you just trolling?
Original post by 123543
This has to be at odds with the 2010 Equalities Act. You can't have a law which targets people because of their age, surely.
There would be an outcry if you banned people over 75 from driving between 7-9AM and 4-6PM.
Why should it be any different for young people?
It's almost impossible to enforce. Knife crime is an epidemic, not the vast majority of sensible 17-25-year-olds.
There would be an outcry if you banned people over 75 from driving between 7-9AM and 4-6PM.
Why should it be any different for young people?
It's almost impossible to enforce. Knife crime is an epidemic, not the vast majority of sensible 17-25-year-olds.
There are loads of things that are age restricted, and not necessarily the of majority.
Driving is a weird one. Obviously insurance companies discriminating based on age and gender is at odds with the Equality Act, but the people hurt most don't have much political say, and it's actually for the good of everyone if the most dangerous groups are deterred from driving (uninsured drivers excluded), so the government doesn't really press for change when it would be very easy to 'win'.
Original post by desou
Do you understand now or are you just trolling?
I shall press on despite the insults.
I fully understand that you are trying to blame 16 year olds for the bad accident statistics of teenagers as a whole but that just means you need to provide evidence that what you claim is true (i.e that 17-19s are good drivers). It does not help your case if 16 year olds are utterly atrocious while 17-19 year olds are merely atrocious.
In any event, coming back to the UK the accident record of the young (over 16s) is massively worse than that of over 25s to the extent that they are involved in 25% of all accidents despite being only 7% of all drivers.
Original post by Good bloke
In any event, coming back to the UK the accident record of the young (over 16s) is massively worse than that of over 25s to the extent that they are involved in 25% of all accidents despite being only 7% of all drivers.
In any event, coming back to the UK the accident record of the young (over 16s) is massively worse than that of over 25s to the extent that they are involved in 25% of all accidents despite being only 7% of all drivers.
What do you think we should we do about the over 80s?
Where is the precedent for something being age-restricted above the age of adulthood?
Just take this statement and apply it to any other situation:
"It's actually for the good for everyone if the most dangerous groups are deterred from..."
Should men be banned from being in a relationship because they make up the vast majority of domestic violence cases?
It's not sensible legislation and will just infuriate younger people. Why not have a law against people over the age of 75 driving, I'm sure the statistics will demonstrate that they are more responsible than any other group, besides from young people, for road traffic accidents?
Just take this statement and apply it to any other situation:
"It's actually for the good for everyone if the most dangerous groups are deterred from..."
Should men be banned from being in a relationship because they make up the vast majority of domestic violence cases?
It's not sensible legislation and will just infuriate younger people. Why not have a law against people over the age of 75 driving, I'm sure the statistics will demonstrate that they are more responsible than any other group, besides from young people, for road traffic accidents?
Original post by ThomH97
There are loads of things that are age restricted, and not necessarily the of majority.
Driving is a weird one. Obviously insurance companies discriminating based on age and gender is at odds with the Equality Act, but the people hurt most don't have much political say, and it's actually for the good of everyone if the most dangerous groups are deterred from driving (uninsured drivers excluded), so the government doesn't really press for change when it would be very easy to 'win'.
Driving is a weird one. Obviously insurance companies discriminating based on age and gender is at odds with the Equality Act, but the people hurt most don't have much political say, and it's actually for the good of everyone if the most dangerous groups are deterred from driving (uninsured drivers excluded), so the government doesn't really press for change when it would be very easy to 'win'.
Merely atrocious? And, assuming your logic, what about the partly atrocious over 75s?
Original post by Good bloke
I shall press on despite the insults.
I fully understand that you are trying to blame 16 year olds for the bad accident statistics of teenagers as a whole but that just means you need to provide evidence that what you claim is true (i.e that 17-19s are good drivers). It does not help your case if 16 year olds are utterly atrocious while 17-19 year olds are merely atrocious.
In any event, coming back to the UK the accident record of the young (over 16s) is massively worse than that of over 25s to the extent that they are involved in 25% of all accidents despite being only 7% of all drivers.
I fully understand that you are trying to blame 16 year olds for the bad accident statistics of teenagers as a whole but that just means you need to provide evidence that what you claim is true (i.e that 17-19s are good drivers). It does not help your case if 16 year olds are utterly atrocious while 17-19 year olds are merely atrocious.
In any event, coming back to the UK the accident record of the young (over 16s) is massively worse than that of over 25s to the extent that they are involved in 25% of all accidents despite being only 7% of all drivers.
Original post by Good bloke
I shall press on despite the insults.
I fully understand that you are trying to blame 16 year olds for the bad accident statistics of teenagers as a whole but that just means you need to provide evidence that what you claim is true (i.e that 17-19s are good drivers). It does not help your case if 16 year olds are utterly atrocious while 17-19 year olds are merely atrocious.
In any event, coming back to the UK the accident record of the young (over 16s) is massively worse than that of over 25s to the extent that they are involved in 25% of all accidents despite being only 7% of all drivers.
I fully understand that you are trying to blame 16 year olds for the bad accident statistics of teenagers as a whole but that just means you need to provide evidence that what you claim is true (i.e that 17-19s are good drivers). It does not help your case if 16 year olds are utterly atrocious while 17-19 year olds are merely atrocious.
In any event, coming back to the UK the accident record of the young (over 16s) is massively worse than that of over 25s to the extent that they are involved in 25% of all accidents despite being only 7% of all drivers.
Press on with your blatant trolling? Please don't.
Look, you made a mistake. You claimed that the link I posted contained a claim that provided evidence that teenage drivers in the UK (ie those aged 17-19) were statistically more accident-prone that those aged 25 and above, even after controlling for experience.
We now know, as I have patiently explained, that that is not the case. YOU made a false claim. YOU need to apologise and retract your claim. YOU have zero evidence for your claim, so you should probably stop repeating it as you and I and everyone else knows that you're lying.
I HAVE provided evidence for my claim, that you have been unable to challenge in any way.
This debate is over. I have proven my point, whereas you have embarrassed yourself with your repeated antagonistic behaviour and clearly deliberate obtuseness. You've not just made false claims that you are unable to provide evidence for, you've made specifically and clearly false claims about a source that I posted that you were apparently unable or unwilling to read with sufficient care.
Now please stop trolling and leave the thread.
Original post by 123543
Where is the precedent for something being age-restricted above the age of adulthood?
Until quite recently you had to be 21 in order to stand as an MP in the UK. Candidates for the office of President of the USA have to be at least 35.
There are many restrictions on those under 25 when it comes to renting a car.
I completely disagree with you!
Original post by desou
Press on with your blatant trolling? Please don't.
Look, you made a mistake. You claimed that the link I posted contained a claim that provided evidence that teenage drivers in the UK (ie those aged 17-19) were statistically more accident-prone that those aged 25 and above, even after controlling for experience.
We now know, as I have patiently explained, that that is not the case. YOU made a false claim. YOU need to apologise and retract your claim. YOU have zero evidence for your claim, so you should probably stop repeating it as you and I and everyone else knows that you're lying.
I HAVE provided evidence for my claim, that you have been unable to challenge in any way.
This debate is over. I have proven my point, whereas you have embarrassed yourself with your repeated antagonistic behaviour and clearly deliberate obtuseness. You've not just made false claims that you are unable to provide evidence for, you've made specifically and clearly false claims about a source that I posted that you were apparently unable or unwilling to read with sufficient care.
Now please stop trolling and leave the thread.
Look, you made a mistake. You claimed that the link I posted contained a claim that provided evidence that teenage drivers in the UK (ie those aged 17-19) were statistically more accident-prone that those aged 25 and above, even after controlling for experience.
We now know, as I have patiently explained, that that is not the case. YOU made a false claim. YOU need to apologise and retract your claim. YOU have zero evidence for your claim, so you should probably stop repeating it as you and I and everyone else knows that you're lying.
I HAVE provided evidence for my claim, that you have been unable to challenge in any way.
This debate is over. I have proven my point, whereas you have embarrassed yourself with your repeated antagonistic behaviour and clearly deliberate obtuseness. You've not just made false claims that you are unable to provide evidence for, you've made specifically and clearly false claims about a source that I posted that you were apparently unable or unwilling to read with sufficient care.
Now please stop trolling and leave the thread.
Original post by the beer
What do you think we should we do about the over 80s?
Well, obviously, they should all be euthanised.
Original post by 123543
Where is the precedent for something being age-restricted above the age of adulthood?
Just take this statement and apply it to any other situation:
"It's actually for the good for everyone if the most dangerous groups are deterred from..."
Should men be banned from being in a relationship because they make up the vast majority of domestic violence cases?
It's not sensible legislation and will just infuriate younger people. Why not have a law against people over the age of 75 driving, I'm sure the statistics will demonstrate that they are more responsible than any other group, besides from young people, for road traffic accidents?
Just take this statement and apply it to any other situation:
"It's actually for the good for everyone if the most dangerous groups are deterred from..."
Should men be banned from being in a relationship because they make up the vast majority of domestic violence cases?
It's not sensible legislation and will just infuriate younger people. Why not have a law against people over the age of 75 driving, I'm sure the statistics will demonstrate that they are more responsible than any other group, besides from young people, for road traffic accidents?
Two that spring to mind are adoption and being a driving instructor. Then there's also the challenge 25 stuff where you'd treat people you believed were 18-24 differently to those you believe are older, despite them doing something they are perfectly entitled to do.
As I said, the Equality Act would be very easy to enforce on insurance companies. The government just doesn't have enough reason to (younger people don't vote as much and older people don't really care), and quite a lot of reason not to (more accidents, traffic and pollution, and higher premiums for everyone else).
Indeed, you did have to be 21 in the UK. The USA candidature law is exactly that - in the USA. Their legal protections are most definitely not a standard we should hold ourselves to.
These car companies are technically defying the text of the equalities act, but they're unlikely to be challenged over it, unfortunately. It is direct discrimination under the equalities act. Has any court ever upheld the practices of said car rental companies in the UK?
These car companies are technically defying the text of the equalities act, but they're unlikely to be challenged over it, unfortunately. It is direct discrimination under the equalities act. Has any court ever upheld the practices of said car rental companies in the UK?
Original post by Good bloke
Until quite recently you had to be 21 in order to stand as an MP in the UK. Candidates for the office of President of the USA have to be at least 35.
There are many restrictions on those under 25 when it comes to renting a car.
There are many restrictions on those under 25 when it comes to renting a car.
Original post by 123543
Has any court ever upheld the practices of said car rental companies in the UK?
I have no idea. Another driving example is that you cannot accompany (i.e. supervise) a learner driver until you are 21 years of age.
1) Adoption - You may be able to adopt a child if you're aged 21 or over (there's no upper age limit) and either: single. married. in a civil partnership.
2) Driving instructor - In order to register for driving instructor training, you must be aged 21 or over. The only obstacle, which could potentially be seen as indirect discrimination is that you must have a clean record for 3 years. However, again, assuming you learned at 17, you would still satisfy this criterion.
3) The challenge 25 thing is a bit of a grey area. There is clear legislation guiding shop employees on asking for ID which doesn't defy the equalities act.
2) Driving instructor - In order to register for driving instructor training, you must be aged 21 or over. The only obstacle, which could potentially be seen as indirect discrimination is that you must have a clean record for 3 years. However, again, assuming you learned at 17, you would still satisfy this criterion.
3) The challenge 25 thing is a bit of a grey area. There is clear legislation guiding shop employees on asking for ID which doesn't defy the equalities act.
Original post by ThomH97
Two that spring to mind are adoption and being a driving instructor. Then there's also the challenge 25 stuff where you'd treat people you believed were 18-24 differently to those you believe are older, despite them doing something they are perfectly entitled to do.
As I said, the Equality Act would be very easy to enforce on insurance companies. The government just doesn't have enough reason to (younger people don't vote as much and older people don't really care), and quite a lot of reason not to (more accidents, traffic and pollution, and higher premiums for everyone else).
As I said, the Equality Act would be very easy to enforce on insurance companies. The government just doesn't have enough reason to (younger people don't vote as much and older people don't really care), and quite a lot of reason not to (more accidents, traffic and pollution, and higher premiums for everyone else).
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- So will we be banned from driving petrol cars in 2030
- No insurance
- Car insurance issues
- Driving supervisor
- Car insurance for new drivers
- Car insurance new drivers
- What would I get out for this essay I wrote for english language paper 2 question 5
- what is double liability ?
- Life
- Will paying £1,900 a year for insurance as a new 21 year old driver be a lot?
- New Driver Insurance
- cheaper insurance after a write off?
- Car Insurance, DOC (drive other cars) UNDER 25
- Car Insurance
- Big Four - speeding conviction
- wanting to learn to drive
- 2 Insurance Policies on One Driver? Marmalade/Veygo
- Who can sign for someones provisional drivers licence?
- Insurance is really high for new drivers
- Mercedes a200d 2015
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day 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 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day 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 ?
