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

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    I picked 21 because it is an age limit for various things in many countries (In Sweden for buying vodka as an example).
    Yes but although comparisons with other countries is fine, it might not work in another.

    (Original post by Jonatan)
    My main point was that I think the age limit should be increased.
    Many people also think this but 21 might not be to their thinking.

    (Original post by Jonatan)
    As for evidence regarding traffic accidents, thats what we have been told in traffic school over here so I assumed it was the same in Britain (that has an eaven lower age limit for driving).
    How about make the tests harder, more rigorous, more frequent etc? I'm unaware of any statistics which is why I asked, although I will look for some soon.

    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Basicly hormones and driving do not go well together.
    Indeed, and loud stereos in cars don't help either.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vladek)
    when was the last time a formula one race track went past a school, or some shops with children walking out in frount of you?

    Well....once again the Isle of Man has just the answer..... about 7 - 8 schools line the motorbike course.....which average 120+mph around a 37mile road course

    Therefore it has legal driving age of 16, un-restricted speed limit and a motoracing course running alongside schools shops and children running about.....

    The only thing between you and the track is a wall, hedge, fence or rope!

    Its greatttttt!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hossy)
    Well....once again the Isle of Man has just the answer..... about 7 - 8 schools line the motorbike course.....which average 120+mph around a 37mile road course

    Therefore it has legal driving age of 16, un-restricted speed limit and a motoracing course running alongside schools shops and children running about.....

    The only thing between you and the track is a wall, hedge, fence or rope!

    Its greatttttt!
    You crazy Manx people
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    You don't need to reach the peddles to drive my car.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Most speeding accidents are caused by younger people because they are not mature to handle what is basicaly a death trap. People don't seem to realise just how dangerous cars can be. Of course some younger drivers are perferctly mature but a lot are not and there is no way of telling in the test.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.

    I have only just spotted what you said and you sort of have a point. I often wonder if all these airbags, ant lock breaks and multi point crumple zones etc make people drive worse. People may take more risks thinking if a double decker bus crashes into me the airbags will save me. Where is a Morris Minor you know even a small bump may kill you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    no

    and i like that proposal above, though it is somewhat impractical.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hossy)
    Well....once again the Isle of Man has just the answer..... about 7 - 8 schools line the motorbike course.....which average 120+mph around a 37mile road course

    Therefore it has legal driving age of 16, un-restricted speed limit and a motoracing course running alongside schools shops and children running about.....

    The only thing between you and the track is a wall, hedge, fence or rope!

    Its greatttttt!
    8 schools on a 120mph course, 16 year old drivers, and no speed limit. Whoa, you really do have all the answers, that sounds like such a safe place to live! :rolleyes:

    What next, free automatic weapons in primary schools for kids to play with at lunchtime?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    How about make the tests harder, more rigorous, more frequent etc? I'm unaware of any statistics which is why I asked, although I will look for some soon.
    I quite honestly do nto beleive this will help as the problem is not the skill of the drivers or their ability to know what they are allowed to do and not. The problem is that many drivers ignore that little inner voice saying "someone might get hurt". Poor ability to withstand group pressure and poor respect for the law is difficult, if not impossible to test for. People will easily pass the test as they are unlikely to have a street-race when they have an instructor onboard, but that doesnt stop them from speeding afterwards. I would guess that far more car accidents are due to failuires of drivers to respect the traffic rules , rather than inability to operate a motorised car.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    I quite honestly do nto beleive this will help as the problem is not the skill of the drivers or their ability to know what they are allowed to do and not. The problem is that many drivers ignore that little inner voice saying "someone might get hurt". Poor ability to withstand group pressure and poor respect for the law is difficult, if not impossible to test for. People will easily pass the test as they are unlikely to have a street-race when they have an instructor onboard, but that doesnt stop them from speeding afterwards. I would guess that far more car accidents are due to failuires of drivers to respect the traffic rules , rather than inability to operate a motorised car.
    I am aware of this. However, with advances in technology could we have automatic cars that obey the speed map of the area using a computer? I know this will not happen very soon but surely it can be done in the future? I have seen on TV cars which do not require a driver.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    I am aware of this. However, with advances in technology could we have automatic cars that obey the speed map of the area using a computer? I know this will not happen very soon but surely it can be done in the future? I have seen on TV cars which do not require a driver.
    The disadvantage of this is twofold. Firstly it severly impairs the freedom of those people who do use their cars in a responsible manner, secondly it would require enourmous investments in technology. Also, what about emergencies? Woudl be rather problematic if you had to rush people to the hospital while obeying speed limits. I realise these problems may all be solved in some distant future, but until then I think it is better to simply increase the age limit by a few years.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Firstly it severly impairs the freedom of those people who do use their cars in a responsible manner
    How are you acting responsibly if you're speeding to start with? Speed limits are there for a reason.

    (Original post by Jonatan)
    secondly it would require enourmous investments in technology.
    But technology improves and past technology gets cheaper as new equivalents come out. So because something costs a lot of investment we shouldn't invest? Lives are at risk here.

    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Also, what about emergencies? Woudl be rather problematic if you had to rush people to the hospital while obeying speed limits.
    You're not allowed to break the speed limit in this situation anyway I don't think. There was something on the TV that even the ambulances could not break the speed limit, something to do with an organ transplant. Anyone know or has this been overruled? I do recognise when limits should be broken, paramedics being one of them of course.

    (Original post by Jonatan)
    I realise these problems may all be solved in some distant future, but until then I think it is better to simply increase the age limit by a few years.
    What's to stop the new 21 year old drivers from driving irresponsibly? You said yourself earlier here:

    (Original post by Jonatan)
    The problem is that many drivers ignore that little inner voice saying "someone might get hurt". Poor ability to withstand group pressure and poor respect for the law is difficult, if not impossible to test for. People will easily pass the test as they are unlikely to have a street-race when they have an instructor onboard, but that doesnt stop them from speeding afterwards. I would guess that far more car accidents are due to failuires of drivers to respect the traffic rules , rather than inability to operate a motorised car.
    The current situation is not perfect, so I guess we can only hope for better in the future.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    What's to stop the new 21 year old drivers from driving irresponsibly? You said yourself earlier here:
    .
    It woant stop all irresponsible drivers, but I beleive it would reduce the number of accidents quite a lot since most peopel mature quite a lot in those 5 years. Im not saying its a perfect solution, merely that I think the benefits would outweigh the disadvantages.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    Drivers should be required to take tests regularly according to the class- according to engine power and weight- of vehicle they intend to drive.
    Disagree strongly. Quite frankly if I had a expensive high performance car I'd probably be more careful with it than in some 1 litre heap of rubbish. I drive a 2.3 litre turbo charged super chipped car and have done since I passed my test. The skills I learnt in a 1.3 litre Nissan Micra with my instructor taught me all I need to know, and I've not had any serious incidents in what is now over 2 years of driving.

    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    They should be required to retake the test regularly and be subject to regular medical and psychiatric examinations.
    Why? We don't get retested for A levels or GCSE's. Medical checks for each motorist would cost a fortune. Although saying that motorists are taxed enough to probably pay for it in full many times over.

    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    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
    Doctors would love peeling hearts of long spikes before inserting them into a needy patient I'm sure. And anyway, does anyone drive expecting to crash? Therefore would cutting down on safety devices make much difference. And IF a government ever passed such a law and someone died and proof could be provided a seat belt would have saved the life, would the government be guilty of murder/manslaughter?

    Interesting points, all of them. However I can't help but disagree as you seem to making out motorists are bad and quite frankly without motorists the economy would grind to a halt.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    It woant stop all irresponsible drivers, but I beleive it would reduce the number of accidents quite a lot since most peopel mature quite a lot in those 5 years. Im not saying its a perfect solution, merely that I think the benefits would outweigh the disadvantages.
    Well I agree here. Do you have a rough estimate on the amount of reduce numbers for your proposal?

    Also sometimes if you have to rely on other transport it is often a pain, such as myself. The trains are hardly on time and ticket prices are going up, taxis are expensive anyway. You can't travel between major cities by foot often, sometimes you can by bike though. Just a thought.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tednol)
    Disagree strongly. Quite frankly if I had a expensive high performance car I'd probably be more careful with it than in some 1 litre heap of rubbish. I drive a 2.3 litre turbo charged super chipped car and have done since I passed my test. The skills I learnt in a 1.3 litre Nissan Micra with my instructor taught me all I need to know, and I've not had any serious incidents in what is now over 2 years of driving.
    Statistically you are a completely insignificant example. It isn't a matter of expense, but weight,power and lethality to the driver and others. Whether motorists are careful or careless- and it's amazing how many accidents happen because of self-claimed carefull drivers- is less important than what cars do to nonmotorists when they hit them or even scare them off the road.



    Why [retest and check motorists regularly]? We don't get retested for A levels or GCSE's. Medical checks for each motorist would cost a fortune. Although saying that motorists are taxed enough to probably pay for it in full many times over.[/quote] You don't kill or cripple people if you hit them with a GCSE. It wouldn't cost a fortune to check motorists regularly- pilots are checked regularly. They can pay for it and the reduced death and injury rate and discovered medical conditions will compensate.



    Doctors would love peeling hearts of long spikes before inserting them into a needy patient I'm sure. And anyway, does anyone drive expecting to crash? Therefore would cutting down on safety devices make much difference. And IF a government ever passed such a law and someone died and proof could be provided a seat belt would have saved the life, would the government be guilty of murder/manslaughter?
    Other organs need transplanting more often than hearts. Actually, the spike would more likely pierce the lungs, so the hearts would quite often be available. It seems that motorists subconsciously assesss the risks to themselves and adjust their habits accordingly, so making it more dangerous for motorists makes it less dangerous for everyone else.
    Interesting points, all of them. However I can't help but disagree as you seem to making out motorists are bad and quite frankly without motorists the economy would grind to a halt.
    I don't think motorists are bad, merely that most of them are careless, irresponsible and badly trained. I used to be a professional driver and I think that anyone who is in charge of something as dangerous as a car should be made to take full responsibility for what they are doing and should be very carefully checked. You underestimate the resilience of both the British and the world economy, i think. Furthermore, if you are as good a driver as you say you are it would be a very marketable skill in the future.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If a driver feels safe they are more likely to be careless. Airbags, seatbelts, driving a large vehicle, thinking you're a "good driver", and possibly even the quiet/smooth ride typical of modern and especially expensive cars (which takes away from the feeling of speed) all give you a false sense of security.

    The worst offender is definately the Hummer, which I feel should not be made available to the general public. Not only does it being very large and built like a tank make the driver feel falsely secure, it also means it's likely to totally pulverise anyone it hits, and most cars too. To quote one self-centered, overweight, Hummer-driving female American of clearly low intelligence - "I like knowing that if I bump into anything, I win". That is a TOTAL disregard for everyone elses safety but your own, despite the fact that anyone else will almost certainly come out worse, and should not be allowed.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Forget for a moment the implications of letting young people drive. How many will be able to afford it? Do you know how much it costs to insure a 17 year old male or an 18 year old? The price would only rise more the younger the driver. Which leads to a system where the only young people driving are either rich, or doing so without insurance.
    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?
    Not if their feet can't reach the pedals - a dangerous and radical suggestion.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I totally agree that drivers should be re-tested regularly to see if they are still fit to drive. Testing once every 5 years isn't too much to ask really is it?

    Driving should be a privilege, not a right.
 
 
 
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.