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 - MemberThe 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.
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.
