The Student Room Group

Driving at 16

What do you guys think of having the age of being able to drive being reduced from 17 to 16?


Posted from TSR Mobile

Scroll to see replies

I'm guessing it would push insurance premiums up, in which case, no thanks. They're high enough already.
Reply 2
I don't think that there's any sensible case for it, driving requires a hefty amount of responsibility and control, so I think 17 is the bare minimum age that you should be allowed.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 3
Some states in the US the minimum age is 14 for a learners permit, and 16 for an unrestricted license.
(edited 10 years ago)
no thanks, you want to drive then get a scooter
What's the point? It will increase insurance, mean those 16 year olds won't be able to afford to drive until 18-ish anyway. Which means 2 years of not driving, which means more chance of crashing when first driving again after 2 years, which then means MOREEEE INSURANCEEEEEEEE
Reply 6
I believe it's essentially a four-wheeled moped in terms of what they can actually drive. They're not full-blown cars.


That said, I think 16 is too young, even for mopeds. The vast majority of the riders are an absolute nuisance and disregard pretty much all of the laws of the road. They make a horrific noise and are dangerous. The "test" they have to pass is far too simple and doesn't really install much responsibility into them. It's just as well the 16 year old cars are ugly as hell, which I guess will detract many of them away from it.


If they made the test more serious, I might respect it and the drivers. I'd rather they made it so that you could get your "17 year old" provisional at an earlier date and could drive 3-6 months before your 17th birthday before going for the test. I think that might give more time for young drivers to gain the extra skills required.
Reply 7
The earlier the better I think
Personally I think it should be increased to 21, bare minimum! There is so many accidents due to children (yes, children) driving too fast. You don't automatically become responsible & able to drive at 17, the same way you don't automatically become an adult when you are 18.

I'm 23 & only just recently passed my test. I waited mainly because I knew I wasn't ready to drive when I was 18, I knew my level of concentration wouldn't be good enough. In the three weeks since I've passed I've seen so much bad driving, a crash between two minors (one was applying lipstick at a red light, didn't see & crashed into the driver at front, who was on his mobile phone in one hand & was eating an ice cream in the other hand, so didn't see the lights change! It's a complete recipie for disaster.. teenagers + mobile phones + loud music + drink/drugs = bad. Not every teenager is an irresponsible driver but more often than not they are & that's why insurance premiums are so high.

Lowering the age will only make it worse.

Now personally I have friends in the car + music but I keep it at a reasonable level & will ask that my passenger/s turn it down if I find it is getting in the way of concentration. I also turn my mobile phone off before I get in the car & will only turn it on & use it as soon as I have arrived safely.
Reply 9
I don't think it should be lowered due to the fact of insurance but I don't believe it should be raised either as the post above believes.

Just because a small majority of younger drivers are irresponsible doesn't mean we all are! I'm currently learning and will quite happily stick to 40 on main busy roads but learners are encouraged to stick to speed limits. Just as many older drivers are just as irresponsible as younger drivers I think by lowering/raising the age would make no difference and anyways it makes turning 17 exciting :}


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by katiemcollins_x
Personally I think it should be increased to 21, bare minimum! There is so many accidents due to children (yes, children) driving too fast. You don't automatically become responsible & able to drive at 17, the same way you don't automatically become an adult when you are 18.

I'm 23 & only just recently passed my test. I waited mainly because I knew I wasn't ready to drive when I was 18, I knew my level of concentration wouldn't be good enough. In the three weeks since I've passed I've seen so much bad driving, a crash between two minors (one was applying lipstick at a red light, didn't see & crashed into the driver at front, who was on his mobile phone in one hand & was eating an ice cream in the other hand, so didn't see the lights change! It's a complete recipie for disaster.. teenagers + mobile phones + loud music + drink/drugs = bad. Not every teenager is an irresponsible driver but more often than not they are & that's why insurance premiums are so high.

Lowering the age will only make it worse.

Now personally I have friends in the car + music but I keep it at a reasonable level & will ask that my passenger/s turn it down if I find it is getting in the way of concentration. I also turn my mobile phone off before I get in the car & will only turn it on & use it as soon as I have arrived safely.


Think about the job restrictions that would put on many young people who need a car to get to work. I think a 6 month ban after you pass your test would stop people rushing through.

Also, maybe 'post test' sessions where you are drilled on the importance of responsible driving. Reckless driving by youngsters should also carry criminal convictions as this would be a way of stamping out stupid driving.
Thinking about it... maybe there could be something like a half-an-hour 'retest' as it were, like every year, to show that you maintain a good/safe standard of driving? Up until the age of 25 maybe. Just a quick drive with an examinuer & if they thought your driving wasn't good then they could suggest that you sign up to a compulsory advanced driving course & if you refuse you lose your license.

That might help reduce the amount of deaths on the road. It's just sad. Our town recently had a 24 year old guy who'd been qualified just under 6 months, who had taken his friends to the pub & they'd drunk a lot & he decided to drop them all home & he went at 80mph down a 30mph road & all the people in the car died. It's horrific.
Reply 12
Original post by katiemcollins_x
Thinking about it... maybe there could be something like a half-an-hour 'retest' as it were, like every year, to show that you maintain a good/safe standard of driving? Up until the age of 25 maybe. Just a quick drive with an examinuer & if they thought your driving wasn't good then they could suggest that you sign up to a compulsory advanced driving course & if you refuse you lose your license.

That might help reduce the amount of deaths on the road. It's just sad. Our town recently had a 24 year old guy who'd been qualified just under 6 months, who had taken his friends to the pub & they'd drunk a lot & he decided to drop them all home & he went at 80mph down a 30mph road & all the people in the car died. It's horrific.


What's the point? Everyone would just go into test mode for that half an hour and just go back to exactly the way they drove before after the test. No one drives like you do in the test.

I suppose it could weed out the people who fluked the driving test but it'd be a massive inconvenience for everyone else.
Reply 13
Original post by katiemcollins_x
Personally I think it should be increased to 21, bare minimum! There is so many accidents due to children (yes, children) driving too fast. You don't automatically become responsible & able to drive at 17, the same way you don't automatically become an adult when you are 18.

I'm 23 & only just recently passed my test. I waited mainly because I knew I wasn't ready to drive when I was 18, I knew my level of concentration wouldn't be good enough. In the three weeks since I've passed I've seen so much bad driving, a crash between two minors (one was applying lipstick at a red light, didn't see & crashed into the driver at front, who was on his mobile phone in one hand & was eating an ice cream in the other hand, so didn't see the lights change! It's a complete recipie for disaster.. teenagers + mobile phones + loud music + drink/drugs = bad. Not every teenager is an irresponsible driver but more often than not they are & that's why insurance premiums are so high.

Lowering the age will only make it worse.

Now personally I have friends in the car + music but I keep it at a reasonable level & will ask that my passenger/s turn it down if I find it is getting in the way of concentration. I also turn my mobile phone off before I get in the car & will only turn it on & use it as soon as I have arrived safely.




That's hardly fair on the %99 of us young drivers who are actually good drivers. Why should we suffer because of the %1 that are morons?

If they're bad after they pass their test they're probably not going to be much better when they get older. I assume they turn out to be the older morons you have to swerve around or emergency brake for on normal day to day driving.

That's cool bro. just drive on my side of the ride. Nah it's fine just pull out infront of me on a roundabout.
It's fine mr BMW I don't mind you being right up my ass.
I don't actually see young drivers doing those sorts of things.
(edited 10 years ago)
Reply 14
I think it would be interesting to look into lowering the driving age to maybe 15 but keep the unsupervised age at 17/18. That way you could learn to drive, pass your test but still have an adult with you to help you if needed and to discourage you from doing anything daft - not an instructor but just someone there if needed. It would make the transition from supervised learning to solo driving more gradual and if you've got 2 or 3 years of driving experience when you go solo you're probably less likely to do something daft. On the flip side, overconfidence could be an issue, but I think it's an interesting idea to consider.
Reply 15
I think that lowering the age is a possible idea, however maybe add extra elements to the test for them so they have to prove that they are an even safer driver.

The problem overall with age limits is that some people are responsible enough and some arn't, I know loads of 17/18 year olds who I wouldn't want anywhere near the wheel, however I know a couple of 14/15 year olds who I feel could be trusted to drive. Therefore should the ability to get a driving licence be based more off being able to pass a test (not neccessarily the test we have at the moment) rather then purely age.
Reply 16
I'm 5''7, will I ever be able to drive :frown:
Original post by katiemcollins_x
There is so many accidents due to children (yes, children) driving too fast. You don't automatically become responsible & able to drive at 17, the same way you don't automatically become an adult when you are 18.



1/3 of drivers involved in car accidents are over the age of 65. About 1/3 involve 15-25 year olds.

So age would help you avoid accidents then?

Personally I am happy with the driving age at the moment. I, at 16, don't feel ready to drive quite yet but any later than 17 would become a problem in terms of practicality.
Reply 18
You should be allowed to take lessons from 16, you should only be able to take the test when you are 17. That way you have the opportunity to get a lot more experience, and we can get rid of these talks about having a mandatory 12 month learning period, as that's effectively what it would be.

When I say lessons, I mean with a qualified instructor, not with a parent or a mate over 21 or whatever.
(edited 10 years ago)
I don't care what age you can start to drive, but you shouldn't be allowed to take the test until you are 17.

Quick Reply