Young drivers to be banned from driving at night? Watch

Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#41
Report 1 month ago
#41
(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.
0
reply
ThomH97
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#42
Report 1 month ago
#42
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?
0
reply
123543
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#43
Report 1 month ago
#43
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.
Last edited by 123543; 1 month ago
1
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#44
Report 1 month ago
#44
(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.
Last edited by Good bloke; 1 month ago
0
reply
123543
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#45
Report 1 month ago
#45
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.
(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.
Last edited by 123543; 1 month ago
0
reply
desou
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#46
Report 1 month ago
#46
(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.
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?
1
reply
123543
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#47
Report 1 month ago
#47
The case for banning 17-25-year-olds from driving at night is like the case for banning alcohol.

Stupid, statist and supercilious.
0
reply
ThomH97
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#48
Report 1 month ago
#48
(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 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'.
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#49
Report 1 month ago
#49
(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.
0
reply
the beer
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#50
Report 1 month ago
#50
(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.
What do you think we should we do about the over 80s?
0
reply
123543
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#51
Report 1 month ago
#51
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?
(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'.
0
reply
123543
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#52
Report 1 month ago
#52
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.
0
reply
desou
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#53
Report 1 month ago
#53
(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.

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.
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#54
Report 1 month ago
#54
(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.
0
reply
TG1984
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#55
Report 1 month ago
#55
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.
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#56
Report 1 month ago
#56
(Original post by the beer)
What do you think we should we do about the over 80s?
Well, obviously, they should all be euthanised.
0
reply
ThomH97
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#57
Report 1 month ago
#57
(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?
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).
0
reply
123543
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#58
Report 1 month ago
#58
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?
(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.
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#59
Report 1 month ago
#59
(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.
0
reply
123543
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#60
Report 1 month ago
#60
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.
(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).
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top

What's your favourite genre?

Rock (143)
24.49%
Pop (142)
24.32%
Jazz (26)
4.45%
Classical (32)
5.48%
Hip-Hop (103)
17.64%
Electronic (42)
7.19%
Indie (96)
16.44%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed