[Closed] Driving test age rise

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.

University is not free or cheap now. And your personal anecdotes conflict with the evidence.

I'm in favour of mandatory retests as well, I'm in favour of all sorts being done. Just not this.

I got the same free education that is still available, that was before the mass expansion of further education, there was no real concept of continuing in education beyond 16 for most of us from working class backgrounds.

Unemployment was probably worse then, but I have great sympathy to the young now facing the same problems we did then. It was a horrible time, I didn't get my first proper job, where I could actually start to build a career until I was 28. Most of my contemporaries were in similar positions. Which also prevented the home ownership fantasy.

I don't think housing benefit should be removed, I also think that there should be far more social provision of housing.

But non of that has anything to do with policy discussions about increasing road safety by placing some restrictions on young inexperienced drivers. Access to a car is not a god given right and is no where near as important as education or health or housing, no matter how many times you claim it is.

Tom,

its only a report not even a green paper yet - you have plenty of time to pass your test under the current rules and then join the smug world of those who won't have to jump through the extra hoops (some of which may never end up in law).

But non of that has anything to do with policy discussions about increasing road safety by placing some restrictions on younger drivers. Access to a car is not a god given right and is no where near as important as education or health or housing, no matter how many times you claim it is.

It is when those things have been ripped away from you and you need the car for work. It's as simple as that MSP, if you want to deal with the fact that to many people are on the roads and want to discourage the young from driving there are better ways to deal with it that go to the heart of the problem. As there are better ways to encourage the young to drive safely, black boxes and heavy penalties being one. Those under the age of 30 don't need to be discriminated against in a way that harms their ability to travel to work.

Tom,

its only a report not even a green paper yet - you have plenty of time to pass your test under the current rules and then join the smug world of those who won't have to jump through the extra hoops (some of which may never end up in law).

Call me a philanthropist but if that is the case I'll still be angry because I will still care about the young.

'University' is not 'Education' it's the icing on the cake. Education up to that is still free and more than sufficient to allow a person to enter adult life.

I have a very successful friend who's 'education' finished at HNC.

It is when those things have been ripped away from you and you need the car for work.

Where does it say that they are going to remove licenses from those who have them already?

'University' is not 'Education' it's the icing on the cake. Education up to that is still free and more than sufficient to allow a person to enter adult life.

Where does it say that they are going to remove licenses from those who have them already?

See my above point.

I will still care about the young

You're nieve to think that society doesn't care about the young.

The problem with the 'young' is that 'they' don't tend to have much life experience and therefore attribute everything as being anti-them.

Tom_W1987 - Member
No we're talking about increasing costs and limiting the time of travel for all those under 30 who have recently past their test.

Emmm... not really - there is nothing in the report that says the training must be with a qualified instructor that is a conclusion people jumped to. The general conclusion is that people who have spent lots of time in a car being supervised (not necessarily direct instruction) are better / safer drivers. A responsibly young driver (or his parents) might recognise that and be keen to get as much practice as possible rather than being quickest to pass his test.

The curfew is 10pm to 5am - the time when young, inexperience drivers are most likely to have the worst accidents. It seems logical to me, in fact it even seems like the sort of thing that (1) some insurance companies enforce via black boxes which you claim to welcome (2) a responsible new driver might impose upon themselves recognising that driving at those times is often more dangerous than others.

If you are currently managing without a license then I really don't see how having a slightly restricted one for 12 months is going to break you.

There is no proposal to make this 'retroactive' - it never has been the case when bringing in new licensing policies in the past. Driving licenses are issued until your 70th Birthday - and are not easily unpicked by new legislation so unless you get banned by a court, have a medical condition that requires the license to be surrendered or something else that causes it to end early you will get "grandfather rights".

Those under the age of 30 don't need to be discriminated against in a way that harms their ability to travel to work.

It is for 1 year from when they pass there test, frankly at a stage in life when previous generations couldn't afford a car. So don't be so melodramatic. I would be in favour of those same restrictions being placed on all new test passers despite age though.

The curfew is 10pm to 5am - the time when young, inexperience drivers are most likely to have the worst accidents. It seems logical to me, in fact it even seems like the sort of thing that (1) some insurance companies enforce via black boxes which you claim to welcome (2) a responsible new driver might impose upon themselves recognising that driving at those times is often more dangerous than others.

Chefs work later than 10.00pm, they start young.

Who am I meant to get me to supervise me at 26 for 120 hours? My parents who live miles away or my 24 year old girlfriend that I'm living with who can't drive?

Oh that's right, I'll have to pay someone! Fish. Barrels. Gun. As I've said before, deaths could be reduced by something less needlessly intrusive.

It is for 1 year from when they pass there test, frankly at a stage in life when previous generations couldn't afford a car.

My old man had a job that needed less education than I do, got married, owned a house and a sports car by 23.

Find your evidence that younger people owned less cars then and I'll believe you.

See my above point.

Which one?

You seem very angry about something and need to take it out on something.

Driving standards in this country are appauling and this is across the board. It all stems from low standard required to pass the driving test (which for the majority was either late teens or early 20s).

As someone who 'needs their car for work' are you a member of IAM and have read and implimented 'Roadcraft'? Afterall, if something so vital to your life then you must do all you can to minimise the risk of not being able to drive.

...My old man had a job that needed less education that me, got married, owned a house and a sports car by 23.

Your personal anecdotes conflict with the evidence 😉

I'm going to be paying for my 17 yr old to learn to drive and get about sooner or later and I think this is a good thing. I've had to deal with the parents of a couple of 18 year olds who I liked and who died in unnecessary silly accidents.

There is a reason car insurance for an 18 year old costs so much. Make them safer and better and it will cost less. I think there is room for negotiation and adjustment of the final package but this seems a step in the right direction.

Tom_w1987. Being able to drive is not an inalienable human right. We learn, things change. Some things in society become easier, some harder. Tough. And at least when young people are on bikes they aren't killing anyone else. At the moment you don't sound like someone I want to be on the road with me.

You seem to have been blocked of all the things ive been privy to - were you born in 1987 as your user name suggests ?

My old man had a job that needed less education than I do, got married, owned a house and a sports car by 23.

And he had the latest iPad, foreign holidays blah blah blah.

There's so much more for people to buy these days and guess what, people buy them. The best lesson that a young person can learn is to understand their means.

The fact that you dismiss previous generations as 'having it easy' goes to show how young you actually are.

Instead of using ad hom attacks why don't you explain to me why this is a better policy than others I have mentioned. I would say that I agree with passengers not being allowed in with under 24s for 12 months...but not night time restrictions and increased costs.

Stoat would you rather your son cycled along dark country lanes to get to work, or drive?

Mk1fan, I have none of those and they actually dont cost much. Electronics are ridiculously cheap. However others, reputable newspapers even charities have been saying the same thing. So it's not because I'm young.

I believe i posted my solution above 50cc scooter for a year

Find your evidence that younger people owned less cars then and I'll believe you.

Find your evidence younger(?) people own more cars.

And a scooter is going to save lives how?

I have none of those and they actually dont cost much.

Cost more than my first two cars cost me. Indeed, If I were to look at similar priced cars today they'd be in better condition, safer and more economic.

reputable newspapers

😆

**** me theres something called inflation, electronics are thought to be ridiculously cheap by economists.

Traveling slower

Road sense

An appre?ation of what its like to be a vunerable road user.

Not wanting to spend another year on a scooter to resit test as its crap compared to a car.

My first car was a 1995 ford fiesta with 90k on clock . Cost less than my ipad

And how exactly are scooters prone to less accidents?

Yes blinkers on and looking short term.

Even the crappest car does 70mph most will do 100

No I'm just looking at youngsters lives saved because thats mostly what the argument hinges on.

A scooter crash is far more dangerous to the rider/pillion.

Decent set of lights on tbe bike and I'd love to cycle home at 1am when the roads are a lot less busy than they are during the day.

In actuality, home many young people would be able to find work because they couldnt drive after 10pm? Chefs, sure, how many of those is there? I'd rather see the death rate amongst young drivers cut and have a few folk a bit disgruntled with another year of no late night driving.

No I'm just looking at youngsters lives saved because thats mostly what the argument hinges on.

It's more about lives being saved in general.

The "youngsters" have been identified as the element that needs improvement.

Riding a scooter will reduce the "collateral damage" caused by inexperience.

A scooter crash is far more dangerous to the rider/pillion.

There won't be a pillion passenger.

Aye ok . Enjoy your weekend. Im off to the hills in my car with my passenger - with my beliefs that cycling is what prevented me from going daft in my car.

Lots of the employed lads are chefs round my way. In fact its one of the main industries as my home county Is considered a bit of a foodies paradise.

Riding a scooter will reduce the "collateral damage" caused by inexperience

And it will kill more youngsters, as they'll all get 2 wheelers. When you could have speed limited their cars.

Instead of using ad hom attacks why don't you explain to me why this is a better policy

As I have stated, poor driving standards stem from low standard required to pass the test and lack of post passing monitoring. Unfortnately, most people pass their test in their late teens or early twenties.

A much greater improvement would be made in road safety if compulsory re-tests were introduced across the board. This would, however, be political suicide for any party that tried to introduce it.

What wouldn't be political suicide would be to introduce tougher standards for 'new' drivers right from the start. See above for who this is going to impact the most.

I've long since held the view that the driving test needs to be tougher. Indeed, almost imediately after my test. You seem to think that you have a 'human right' (you are not alone in this fallacy - most 'drivers' appear to hold this view regardless of age) to own and drive a car. You do not, owning and driving a car on the public road is a privilege - one available to many, but a privilege all the same.

Certainly limit the power of cars driven by the under 24s. The supervision in the first year driving does make sense too.

Hands up. I am an average driver after about 400,000 miles. But all the times I really endangered myself and others were before I was 24. These steps would have made me better.

Tom. Again, driving is not an inalienable right. Your argument that my son would be less at risk by putting others more at risk is similar to the NRAs "you'll be safer if you own a gun". Not very clever. For him given the other muppets doing the same, or society.

I dont even know how you can argue about saving young lives and then encourage them onto scooters and potentially then motorbikes.

I've got a freaking bike license, Id never ever want my child riding one. Even at low speeds (eg junctions) its mad.

**** me theres something called inflation, electronics are thought to be ridiculously cheap by economists.

Well done for completely missing the point. Woosh parrot to the forum.

This is a cycling forum. A decent pub single speed should do the trick...

Tom, re-read this;

Traveling slower

Road sense

An appre?ation of what its like to be a vunerable road user.

It is a lot easier to limit the speed of a scooter and police not having a pillion passenger.

As much as the TV shows would have you believe it is very easy for someone to drive around without a license or insurance.

Lots of the employed lads are chefs round my way. In fact its one of the main industries as my home county Is considered a bit of a foodies paradise.

So the net result would be more young chefs taking the jobs closer to where they live, rather than making journeys in opposite directions to do the same jobs further away.

At the moment the geographical limitation on greater choice of employment is passing your test and being able to afford a car, the proposed changes would just add an additional caveat that the drivers would also require an years extra driving experience. I don't see that massively changing employment opportunities but could well make a decent change in road safety.

This is a cycling forum. A decent pub single speed should do the trick...

What size tyre for the compulsary 'oppressed young person single speed before sitting driving test bike'?

Mixed feelings on this. Having grown up in the countryside having to spend another year without transport would have been difficult. Encouraging more people onto scooters for another year is not a good plan, more deaths. So whilst raising the age to 18 might sound advantageous I'm against it. I Would prefer to see compulsory "P" plates for 12-24 months after passing and any motoring offence meaning a loss of your licence with a 12 months wait for a retest.

And it will kill more youngsters, as they'll all get 2 wheelers. When you could have speed limited their cars.

Don't know the stats on that, do you ?

Deaths caused by cars vs deaths caused by scooters per mile driven/ridden.

Speed limiting cars costs money, you seem concerned with costs.

Tom_W1987 - Member
Instead of using ad hom attacks why don't you explain to me why this is a better policy than others I have mentioned.

I would say that I agree with passengers not being allowed in with under 24s for 12 months...

but not night time restrictions and increased costs.

Stoat would you rather your son cycled along dark country lanes to get to work, or drive?

* the one definite exception to this rule is young drivers in small cars full of their mates racing around at 11pm.

Certainly limit the power of cars driven by the under 24s.

Quick question before I reply to poly, how will young on call doctors who have just got their licenses get to hospital quickly late at night? I suppose we'll just import more 30 plus filipino doctors. Or keep youngsters in university aka young adult day care centres until they are 30.

The proposed new rule means younger people from the UK will be rendered uncompetitive in the job market/business that requires driving/traveling. Making a living will be much much harder if you are young.

Whoever are proposing this new rules really do not see the bigger picture ...

Overseas young people will still drive happily in UK with international license while companies that need to employ driver will only employ them from other EU nations.

Therefore, it's better to employ people with full driving license from other EU nations.

There you go another nail into our heads.

🙄

p/s: the amount of death from car accidents of 63.7 million UK population is rather irrelevant really ...

Excellent thread, full of passion and misleading arguements. As a dad with two sons of 21 & 19 who do drive, anything which helps reduce the risk of an accident is a good idea. As part of the deal that we made with them after they passed their driving tests was no driving after 10pm and no taking your mates in the car for 6 months.

Our test is not the most difficult to pass in Europe or the most expensive, so making it more difficult and/expensive to pass is not a good argument.

Any changes in the law will affect a small number of people more that others. Sadly that is just reality.

Saying that it was not fair that previous generations had it easier is just sad. We do not live in the past, we live in the present so deal with today. If you don't like the rules that have been suggested then raise public opinion and get them changed. But to do this you will need to provide evidence of the impact and alternatives.

sadmadalan - Member

Any changes in the law will affect a small number of people more that others.

In this case if this go ahead it will affect generations of young people because they will not be as mobile as they want.

🙄

for a few months.

the answer is simpler but no where near as profitable

low cc lightweight foam rubber cars

Tom_W1987 - Member
Quick question before I reply to poly, how will young on call doctors who have just got their licenses get to hospital quickly late at night? I suppose we'll just import more 30 plus filipino doctors. Or keep youngsters in university aka young adult day care centres until they are 30.

If having a full (not probationary) license is a prerequisite for the job then they will fit in the training at some point before they get to the end of their 5+ yrs of medical school and qualification. If they are smart enough to be doctors I'm sure they'll be smart enough to work that out as a requirement for their career. Or of course they could do the same as doctors of my generation did when working 72 hr on call shifts and sleep in the hospital.

I'd be surprised if many doctors are currently finishing university without a driving license. I'm also not convinced that newly qualified doctors travelling in the middle of the night, with the stress of that job plus the pressure of getting to a patient, the likely fatigue of long hours and being inexperienced behind the wheel is really a good mix.

The Tories do seem to be coming out with some control-freaky policies. If we want young people to be better drivers then teach them to be better drivers - better skills, better attitude, greater sense of responsibility.
Putting restrictions on how and when they can drive could well just drive up resentment and resistance, rather than grow understanding.
A fair few older drivers could do with remembering they set an example to younger drivers too...
We do need to sort out the self-entitled 'I should be allowed to drive however and whenever I want and sod the costs to everyone else' attitude.
It kills 2000+ people a year and massively contributes to keeping kids from playing out in the street and the population at large riding bikes, which is also contributing to the 30k+ deaths per year from obesity-related causes

brooess - Member
The Tories do seem to be coming out with some control-freaky policies.

If we want young people to be better drivers then teach them to be better drivers - better skills, better attitude, greater sense of responsibility.

You didn't read the report then. Here are a couple of quotes "No properly-evaluated [attitudes] intervention has demonstrated a reliable reduction in novice driver collisions" and "In those interventions that have been evaluated, some short-term positive effects have been shown on attitudes towards road safety, but these tend not to last beyond a few months, are not consistent, and do not guarantee safety benefits."

You can't legislate for attitudes.

I'm less concerned with the entitlement to drive attitude and more worried about the entitlement to work!