[Closed] Driving test age rise

The cost of lessons and, after passing the test, insurance is putting lots of young people off learning to drive in the first place, anyway.

The only people who benefits from all this is the bureaucrats who we need to feed ...

The only people who benefits from all this is the bureaucrats who we need to feed ...

And young people.

I assume you based this insightful and thoughtful decision based on the age data and crash data

During this stage, drivers will face the curfew and all those under 30 will be banned from carrying any passengers also under 30.

Exactly how do you carry your kids around, or are folk going to be banned from breeding until middle age too? Tis bollocks, whoever wrote it need sacking and public ridicule.

Exactly how do you carry your kids around, or are folk going to be banned from breeding until middle age too? Tis bollocks, whoever wrote it need sacking and public ridicule.

I think that is for the 12 month post test probationary period only. 30 does seem quite high though.

The cost of lessons and, after passing the test, insurance is putting lots of young people off learning to drive in the first place, anyway.

But is it actually putting them off driving?

During this stage, drivers will face the curfew and all those under 30 will be banned from carrying any passengers also under 30.

So we can't employ anybody unless they're over 30 years of age.

The lack of experience is the issue this will always exist no matter how older they are when the pass their test.

I actually think this would be a good idea. That is how it is here in Germany. A young person can only take the test once they are eighteen and they are only allowed to drive with an instructor until they have taken their test. I can remember back when I took my test in the 80's it was perfectly legal for me to drive with a provisional licence with a friend who had passed his test a week earlier as an 'instructor'.

Great, I was going to get my license in about a year so me and my missus can both commute together and save money over trains. I also need to travel before 5am or after 10pm for work reasons.

They're infantalising everyone under 30.

"I can remember back when I took my test in the 80's it was perfectly legal for me to drive with a provisional licence with a friend who had passed his test a week earlier as an 'instructor'."

thats not been the case for a number of years.

im all for making it more difficult to get your licence - make people realise its not a god given right to be able to drive.

if its harder to get then they might actually make some attempt at trying to keep it instead of driving along on phones , doing make up , reading maps / books/reports.

what id really like to see is a mandatory 1 year probhation period on a 50cc scooter - and the same as a punishment for those that lose their licence through speeding (but not drink driving) and claim hardship.

drink driving should be a blanket ban regardless of circumstances.

That is how it is here in Germany. A young person can only take the test once they are eighteen and they are only allowed to drive with an instructor until they have taken their test. I

UK sounds better.

You can practise your driving with an accompanying driver if they:

are over 21
have had (and still have) a full licence in the same category as the vehicle you’re driving, for 3 years

So we can't employ anybody unless they're over 30 years of age.

No. You couldn't employ anybody under 19.

Or under 30 with a probationary license.

(How many people do you employ that have been driving less than a year anyway)

Ah right I misunderstood it then. 😳

No. You couldn't employ anybody under 19.

We don't now for driving regulations.

I actually think this would be a good idea. That is how it is here in Germany

Road Deaths per million (2012)
Germany 44
UK 28

A quick google shows that the 25-29 age range has a dramatically lower death rate than the 16-24 range.

I'm going to be really really fuming if this goes through.

The cost of lessons and, after passing the test, insurance is putting lots of young people off learning to drive in the first place, anyway.
But is it actually putting them off driving?

No, they always find a way of getting on the road, even the ones who are going to Uni and won't drive for 3 years are desperate to get a full licence as its one more " feather in the cap " when applying for work.

I think the plans are unenforcable and it's just a slow news day.

"A quick google shows that the 25-29 age range has a dramatically lower death rate than the 16-24 range."

and how does that data correlate with age folks passed their test ?

id imagine that 16-24 has alot more Newly qualified drivers than the 25-29 range....

But is it actually putting them off driving?

Based on unscientific "talking to my students", far fewer of them are driving in their second year here than were ten years ago, or [s]twenty[/s] 18 years ago when I was that age.

@ trailrat I'd still wager if you controlled for that it would be considerably lower, by extension of that argument 50 year olds who learn to drive should go through the same process.

KSI figures are going down because cars are safer these days and the risk of being killed or seriously injured is a lot less than 20 years ago with the same impact or force in an accident.

Driving attitudes in this country are getting worse, just targeting the new drivers mean it will take years and years for everyone who has been on this scheme to be exclusively on the road.

Attitudes in Full Licence Holders need to be changed as its them who filter attitude down to the younger people.

by extension of that argument 50 year olds who learn to drive should go through the same process.

And they will.

The same rules will apply to [b]all[/b] new drivers regardless of age

(If they happen at all)

(If they are passed) The same rules will apply to all new drivers.

Wrong! All new drivers under 30.

"These restrictions would apply in full to any newly qualified driver below the age of 30"

How about retesting old ****s as well?

Fair enough. I was listening to it at 4am on radio 4 and must have misremembered that bit.

Thought I'd gotten out of being treated like a child once I looked old enough not to be caught by the under-25 alcohol policy.

So my generation are having housing and job seekers support ripped off them, the NHS dismantled ready for when they get older, no more free higher education, increased taxes to pay for too many old people, little job creation for the young and no ability to get on the housing market.....and we're also now getting clamped down on in this fashion by those who had ****ing everything compared to what we do now.

The same rules will apply to all new drivers regardless of age

Seems I wasn't the only one who misunderstood. 😆

Twenty-two percent of fatalities on Great Britain’s (GB) roads in 2011 occurred in collisions involving a driver aged 17 to 24 years old (DfT, 2012). In 65% of these collisions the fatal injuries were sustained by passengers or road users other than the young driver.

For a demographic that drive 5% of the mileage.

I can kind of see why they want to do something to improve things.

Then put black boxes in the cars and link them to police stations...dangerous driving sorted.

New drivers would also face a curfew between 22:00 and 05:00 unless a passenger aged over 30 was in the car.

So my daughter, who is currently learning, and finishes work at 10, would be able to drive to work (there's no other practical way of getting there as its in the middle of nowhere), but then be stuck. Great. Better to have it so they are the only occupant ie no distractions / peer pressure as this appears (from the press) to be a significant factor in accidents.

It recommends a one-year "learner stage" beginning at 17, during which drivers would have to total at least 100 hours of daytime and 20 hours of night-time practice under supervision.

At £25/hour = £3,000 😯 I'm signing up to be a driving instructor! Guaranteed work!

So putting driving limits on new drivers between the ages of 18-30.... That's an awful lot of potential voters to lose..
Can't see that being brought in....

At £25/hour = £3,000 I'm signing up to be a driving instructor! Guaranteed work!

I was wondering about that.
If those 120 hours have to be with a qualified instructor, it could be a shrewd move.

The current average is something around 45 hours lessons to pass.

That would instantly jump to 120 hours (minimum)

Quite an increase in business.

Purely subjective like, but looking SWSD junior's circle of school friends, ALL of those who passed their test on or near their 17th birthday had significant accidents not long after. These ranged from the amusing - knocking over parents front wall three times, to the not amusing - several months in intensive care.

It certainly put junior off learning to drive untill she was in her 20s.

interestingly everyone i know that passed on intensive courses soon after their 17th birthday either crashed seriously or got banned pretty quickly.

one of my mates got pulled for doing 60 in a 40 the afternoon after his test - then stuck the car on its roof that night.

there's no other practical way of getting there as its in the middle of nowhere

Great, another bonus, people will have to start making choices without the almighty car ruling all decisions.

So msp how sre rural youngsters meant to find work? No empathy and very narrow minded.

How do they buy a car in the first place without a job? How did they manage 20 years ago before every teenager expected to run a car as soon as they turned 17? How about a bicycle or a moped?

No empathy and very narrow minded.

Exactly my thoughts on "car society".

How do they buy a car in the first place without a job? How did they manage 20 years ago before every teenager expected to run a car as soon as they turned 17? How about a bicycle or a moped?

A 1000 pound corsa + 900 quid for driving lessons + 1500 to 2000 for insurance is a hell of a lot easier than that plus another 3000 quid and still needing to give them lifts.

These policies make it harder and harder for young adult to become independent which as the Guardian has pointed out is psychologically damaging an entire generation.

Exactly my thoughts on "car society".

Instead of penalising the young to further your hippie views you should first start dealing with the underlying reasons why people need to commute in the first place. Which is a lack of ****ing reasonably priced houses around economically prosperous towns and cities.

Instead of penalising the young to further your hippie views you should first start dealing with the underlying reasons why people need to commute in the first place

You mean parents choosing to live in locations where there is no work for their children.

They are talking about restrictions for 1 year from the point they passed their tests, in order to allow them to gain some controlled experience.

I would prefer young drivers not to die, the idea that cars are essential for independence is rather new, selfish and absolute bullshit.

last time i checked you could get a moped age 16.

this is how all my friends who were rural got about.

What kind of world do you live in msp? Many people don't choose to live where they do, they have to.

No we're not talking just about restrictions we're also talking increased costs. And how do you justify restricting a 29 year old and not a 40 year old new learner when the older generations have the highest rates of drink driving?

No you're talking bullshit. How do young adults cope with commuting if areas to live near to jobs are ridiculously expensive as are trains. Champagne socialist hippie with no idea about the world the young are now entering?

Maybe not perfect changes, but something should be done. Even if it's just making the test most complete and more difficult to pass.

It can be hard when your young and need to get about the place if your anywhere rural, for any reason, whether its work to to socialise. I didn't have a car until I graduated from Uni, either cycling or busing it everywhere when I was younger then borrowing the parents car when I was a bit older and could drive.

I learned to drive when I was 17, spent a long time learning with the parents then a weeks worth of intensive lessons. No accidents or tickets in the 9 years since, but thats quite possibly because I didn't drive all that much until recently and had a long time learning.

Not really sure where I'm going with this, or what the solution is, but the stats show that we need to do something....

when the older generations have the highest rates of drink driving?

Which is against the law no matter what age the driver 🙄

Yeah but this policy isnt it nobeer. Take the age down to 24 for no passengers, drop the time restrictions and introduce black boxes. Keep costs the same as well.

Otherwise we'll have a nation of young adult with learned hopelessness too reliant on their parents and unable to compete in the globalised economy.

i approve, make it so.

There's even a chance it'll make driving for kids cheaper. Fewer crashes = lower insurance innit.

it might even teach the kids some usefull life lessons: You can travel a surprising distance if you walk/ride a bike. There are these things called buses. Motor vehicles are bloody dangerous - driving one is a big responsibility.

Fewer crashes = lower insurance innit.

No, just more profit for the insurance companies. It won't drive insurance down by 3000 pounds a year either, will it? Which is probably the expected rise in tutoring fees with this piece of legislation.

There are these things called buses. Motor vehicles are bloody dangerous - driving one is a big responsibility.

I couldn't get a bus to my only job in my late teens and early twenties. I had to cycle on country roads at 1am, which is more dangerous than driving.

Law of unintended consequences, kids might start buying more motorbikes or cycle more on dangerous roads! Both of which do have higher fatality rates per miles covered when compared to driving.

so we agree that driving standards aren't high enough? - perhaps a little more training might help...

...I had to cycle on country roads at 1am, which is more dangerous than driving.
...Both of which do have higher fatality rates per miles covered when compared to driving.

not true.

For sure, more training, if the government subsidises it. Seeing as we're going to be paying through our ****ing noses for the rest of our lives for senile healthcare for people who got cars cheaply, had a free education, had a decent NHS system etc etc

Cars weren't cheap when I was young, I like most of my friends couldn't afford one till my early 20's even though I had passed my test at 18. I made do for several years occasionally driving my parents car.

Cheap cars for all, really is a very recent thing, and not something that previous generations have experienced at all.

Cars are not a right enshrined in the tenets of law.

I had to cycle on country roads at 1am, which is more dangerous than driving.
...Both of which do have higher fatality rates per miles covered when compared to driving.

The stats I've seen suggest cyclists are 10 times more likely to be killed on the roads than car drivers.

Cheap cars for all, really is a very recent thing, and not something that previous generations have experienced at all.

It was cheaper than it is now. Fair enough, you being cared for properly in your old age by the state doesn't have to be enshrined into law either.

Whilst the real costs of things like housing were also lower, meaning you could spend more on driving. Unless of course you want to try to argue that you lot didn't have it massively easier.

Tom_W1987 - Member

The stats I've seen suggest cyclists are 10 times more likely to be killed on the roads than car drivers.

science says you're wrong:

[url= http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1212/06122012-cycling-risk ]linky[/url]

and, not only are individuals safer if they themselves are travelling by bike, they're less of a risk to other people.

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/english-cyclists-20-times-more-at-risk-than-motorists-24218/

YES! Let's get more youngsters cycling on the roads instead of driving! That will reduce fatalities for sure!

Ahwhiles, note "between the ages of 17-20" not "17 and 30".

Science Fail. So it's not even certain that this policy would reduce lives lost on the roads.

so, would you suggest more, less, or no change, to the amount of training for young drivers?

considering that they're disproportionately dangerous, and a little experience really does seem to help a lot.

Yes more experience, at the expense of the taxpayer Think of it as a redistribution of wealth to the young who are being screwed left right and centre by the older generations.

Also blackboxes. I think they're a great idea and because I'm used to being spied on due to growing up with facebook and the NSA I'm totally cool with it.

Heavier penalties for causing death by dangerous driving, instant 6 month bans for speeding just one time for the under 24's? There's lots you can do without impeding law abiding young adults from being able to get from A to B for work.

[i]YES! Let's get more youngsters cycling on the roads instead of driving! That will reduce fatalities for sure! [/i]

Well in the long run it probably would.

I don't know if it's true but I heard on the radio recently that the #1 cause of death for 16-24 year old girls was 16-24 year old male drivers.

I'd be all in favour of raising the qualification age if I was sure it wasn't just delaying the inevitable over-application of testosterone.

Well in the long run it probably would.

Medical Science will see to it that you can weigh 450lbs and still live to 90.

Also blackboxes. I think they're a great idea and because I'm used to being spied on due to growing up with facebook and the NSA I'm totally cool with it.

Firstly. Facebook is not "being spied on"

It's pretty much the opposite in fact. It's almost "forcing" information on people if anything.

Secondly. The NSA couldn't give a toss about you, I wouldn't worry about that too much.

Whooosh!

That was mostly sarcasm, but the point remains the same. Why would I care about a blackbox when I post a lot of personal info on facebook anyway, which is accessed through a phone that utilizes gps?

Whooosh!
That was mostly sarcasm, but the point remains the same.

No shit Sherlock.

May I ask why you felt the need to clarify counter-terrorism policy then?

May I ask why you felt the need to clarify counter-terrorism policy then?

Sarcasm ?

(Whoosh!)

[img] [/img]

I was trying to lighten the mood.

You seem to getting a bit angry, ranty and sweary.

Maybe it's your age that's making it difficult to control your emotions ?

Okay okay you out smart arsed me....you got me...I surrender 😛

[img] [/img]

Age and experience always beats youth and enthusiasm in the end.

Okay, now you're just trying to goad me 😐 😀

Sssssshhhhhhhh

The grown ups are talking 😉

(I'm going out for a drive now anyway, see yaaaaa !)

WHatEVuh ahhhh Bett it'$$$ Yo' Mumss RiiIDE ChU OL' PUsSayayy

[img] ?1375039490[/img]

"Whilst the real costs of things like housing were also lower, meaning you could spend more on driving. Unless of course you want to try to argue that you lot didn't have it massively easier."

meanwhile back in the real world - wages were also lower.

Note real costs, house prices and rent have gone up massively versus wages over the past 30 years.

So back in the real world of proper economics, you're wrong. Dead wrong. This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Whilst the real costs of things like housing were also lower, meaning you could spend more on driving. Unless of course you want to try to argue that you lot didn't have it massively easier.

Yeah life was dead easy leaving school in the mid 80's there was no unemployment, education was fantastic for all, everyone could afford a Ferrari and a mansion, there was no poverty and the lifelong possibilities were endless.

In reality the past is a false utopia that never really existed.

Some stuff was better back then, some stuff worse. In balance I think life is pretty much the same now as then save for a few extra technological trinkets.

Okay, except you got a free or reasonably cheap education, could get on the housing ladder at 23, okay you weren't old enough to not be affected by the erosion of the NHS but you're probably in a better position to pay for private healthcare that I will be because of the easier leg up you had, unemployment is as bad or if not worse than then, rents more expensive, you had the welfare state to fall back on if you came out of university without a job.

So yeah, it was totally as hard back then as it is now. What we should do now is make it even harder by restricting the young's ability to travel to jobs and remove their housing benefit so they can't afford to live near their job in London or wherever.

Brilliant plan you've got there hey! Completely out of touch. Trail Rat didn't even have an inkling that house prices were higher in real terms - living in a bubble you lot, you really are.

Basically, we're talking about raising the test-age from 17, to 18. do we really need the melodrama? (as much fun as it is)

No we're talking about increasing costs and limiting the time of travel for all those under 30 who have recently past their test.

...unemployment is as bad or if not worse than then

Unemployment in 1985 was 12%

It's now 7.7%

Break that down into age categories and take into account zero hour contracts.

You still get a free education now.

I know lots of people in their early 20's buying property (no, not the 'rich')

I also know lots of people who 'have' to have a new smart phone every 6-months plus the ltest tablet, laptop, game etc....

I have finite money so decide what it gets spent on (if at all).

Driving is not a necessity for the vast vast vast vast vast majority.

With more people on the public roads than ever before it is even more important that driving standards are increased.

Quite frankly, I'm in favour of mandatory re-tests every 10-years, when you reach 65 and then every 5-years.