Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Remove Age Restriction on Driving. watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    If someone is good enough to pass a driving test, they should be allowed to drive.

    No prejudices based on age.

    What do you think?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mik1a)
    If someone is good enough to pass a driving test, they should be allowed to drive.

    No prejudices based on age.

    What do you think?
    no, because it is whether they are mature enough to handle the responsibility of having the lisence.

    if a 7 year old could shoot a gun accurately, it doesn't mean you would give them a gun???
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    As Mr Homosexual stated you need more than driving ability to handle the responsibility of a car and you need to be mature enough to make quick, sensible decisions. Plus how young can you go? A 10 year old wouldn't be able to reach the peddles.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mik1a)
    If someone is good enough to pass a driving test, they should be allowed to drive.

    How do you decide what is "good enough"?
    Another much more modest proposal:
    Drivers should be required to take tests regularly according to the class- according to engine power and weight- of vehicle they intend to drive. They should be required to retake the test regularly and be subject to regular medical and psychiatric examinations. Drivers should be forbidden to have safety belts or other safety devices but there would be long sharp spikes sticking out of the steering wheel. This would probably increase the death rate for motorists a little, but reduce it a lot for everyone else. To solve the problem- on another thread- of insufficient organ donors motorists would agree to give their organs after their deaths [ why not before their deaths?] to others as a condition for receiving the license.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr_Homosexual)
    no, because it is whether they are mature enough to handle the responsibility of having the lisence.

    if a 7 year old could shoot a gun accurately, it doesn't mean you would give them a gun???
    Accuracy isn't the only thing being tested. You won't be given a gun if you're mad. Perhaps tests should be slightly modified to take account and to ensure that the driver, however, old, is mature enough.

    (Original post by Amb1)
    As Mr Homosexual stated you need more than driving ability to handle the responsibility of a car and you need to be mature enough to make quick, sensible decisions. Plus how young can you go? A 10 year old wouldn't be able to reach the peddles.
    Then the 10 year old wouldn't pass his test, would he?

    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    How do you decide what is "good enough"?
    The tester decides, like they have always done.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    How do you decide what is "good enough"?
    Another much more modest proposal:
    Drivers should be required to take tests regularly according to the class- according to engine power and weight- of vehicle they intend to drive. They should be required to retake the test regularly and be subject to regular medical and psychiatric examinations. Drivers should be forbidden to have safety belts or other safety devices but there would be long sharp spikes sticking out of the steering wheel. This would probably increase the death rate for motorists a little, but reduce it a lot for everyone else. To solve the problem- on another thread- of insufficient organ donors motorists would agree to give their organs after their deaths [ why not before their deaths?] to others as a condition for receiving the license.
    1) A car is/can be a weapon capable of killing many and should be treated as such. I do think however that teaching driver ed in schools might be a good idea, if only to try and teach these horrible sh*ts that joy ride how to sodding drive. (think of it like sex ed - you aren't encouraging it, just showing how to do it safely).

    2) History lesson for those who didn't know - organs used to be plentiful due to the high numbers of deaths on the road. THen seatbelts came in and the numbers of deaths fell massively. I personally agree with the idea that everyone should be organ donors on an opt out basis? The individual objections mean nothing to me - its for the greater good of the society and the only harm it does to people is through their moral objections.
    J
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr_Homosexual)
    no, because it is whether they are mature enough to handle the responsibility of having the lisence.
    I've seen some very irresponsible drivers who are old enough anyway.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    how about a system on cars that lets you only drive if you swip your license? would have to make it a pretty amazing system though
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    I've seen some very irresponsible drivers who are old enough anyway.
    Yes, and there are some responsible people that are under 18.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mik1a)
    Yes, and there are some responsible people that are under 18.
    you can drive when you're under 18, at 17. Basically the law will never change becouse people who make laws are over 18 and have a little bit more sense. Deal with it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mik1a)
    Yes, and there are some responsible people that are under 18.
    There are indeed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    I've seen some very irresponsible drivers who are old enough anyway.
    yeah, so take them and then subtract a few years, and what do you get? even worse :rolleyes:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vladek)
    you can drive when you're under 18, at 17. Basically the law will never change becouse people who make laws are over 18 and have a little bit more sense. Deal with it.
    Go away. Or debate. Your choice.

    (Original post by Mr_Homosexual)
    yeah, so take them and then subtract a few years, and what do you get? even worse
    No, people vary. It's a foolish generalisation to say everyone below 17 is irrespobnsible.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mik1a)
    Go away. Or debate. Your choice.



    No, people vary. It's a foolish generalisation to say everyone below 17 is irrespobnsible.
    I believe he was saying that in general, the people who are irresponsible at 30, are even more irresponsible at 17 and under. Not that everyone who is 17 or under is irresponsible.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    A five year old is imature meaning they are unable to understand peoples feelings, do things to impress their friends and really cannot understand consequencies for their actions meaning they would be likely to drive dangerously.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fleff)
    I believe he was saying that in general, the people who are irresponsible at 30, are even more irresponsible at 17 and under. Not that everyone who is 17 or under is irresponsible.
    indeed i was my dear fleff
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr_Homosexual)
    indeed i was my dear fleff
    once a jerk always a jerk.

    (not calling you a jerk btw, just clear that up
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vladek)
    once a jerk always a jerk.

    (not calling you a jerk btw, just clear that up
    lol. i was wondering...

    its whether someone would become less of a jerk with time or not... :rolleyes:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr_Homosexual)
    lol. i was wondering...

    its whether someone would become less of a jerk with time or not... :rolleyes:
    We'll just have to speak to Tom in 30 years... Oops, did I just say that outloud? :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fleff)
    We'll just have to speak to Tom in 30 years... Oops, did I just say that outloud? :rolleyes:
    lmao...

    >on floor in heap, laughing<

    being a lil harsh today aren't we? :rolleyes: (not that its undeserved at times :cool: )
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.