Should we remove the age barrier for young drivers in case..

Should we remove the age barrier for young drivers in case..

Author
Discussion

AreOut

Original Poster:

3,658 posts

161 months

Wednesday 27th August 2014
quotequote all
they drive only cars/bikes with full, not hackable telemetry? Why not allow anyone physically/mentally fit to drive if he would constantly get monitored with danger of losing the license if he ever does anything reckless (say >10-20 mph over the limit, abrupt moves etc.)?

Horse Pop

685 posts

144 months

Wednesday 27th August 2014
quotequote all
U WOT M8

MacW

1,349 posts

176 months

Wednesday 27th August 2014
quotequote all
AreOut said:
they drive only cars/bikes with full, not hackable telemetry? Why not allow anyone physically/mentally fit to drive if he would constantly get monitored with danger of losing the license if he ever does anything reckless (say >10-20 mph over the limit, abrupt moves etc.)?
Because taking a licence away from a 14 year old after he has smashed into a bus stop full of innocent bystanders is too late.

otolith

56,036 posts

204 months

Wednesday 27th August 2014
quotequote all
We already give licences to people who are not really psychologically mature enough for the responsibility. We should not extend that.

(one of them nearly took the nose off my car this morning - I was doing a turn in the road and had reversed partly onto my driveway prior to driving away, still blocking half the road. He thought the best solution to this was not to pause and see what I was going to do, but to go round me like a pinball)

Pothole

34,367 posts

282 months

Wednesday 27th August 2014
quotequote all
otolith said:
We already give licences to people who are not really psychologically mature enough for the responsibility. We should not extend that.

(one of them nearly took the nose off my car this morning - I was doing a turn in the road and had reversed partly onto my driveway prior to driving away, still blocking half the road. He thought the best solution to this was not to pause and see what I was going to do, but to go round me like a pinball)
Lucky that your age and experience meant you expected that and acted accordingly...

otolith

56,036 posts

204 months

Wednesday 27th August 2014
quotequote all
Pothole said:
ucky that your age and experience meant you expected that and acted accordingly...
Yes it was, otherwise he'd have been finding out why he pays five times as much to insure his stbox Clio than I do to insure my Lotus!

TheInsanity1234

740 posts

119 months

Wednesday 27th August 2014
quotequote all
No way.

Speaking as a 16 year old, I'd be terrified if people in my year group were given licences to drive a car.

They're bad enough in the classroom (their GCSE grades proved that) but I'd refuse to ever go within 200 miles of them if they were given a provisional.

Some people, even at 17 are just far too immature to be given the responsibility of driving a car, so imagine how much more worse it would be when you put a bunch of teenagers who think it's cool to jump out of their bedroom window and break a leg (that actually happened) in front of the wheel of a car.

Dammit

3,790 posts

208 months

Wednesday 27th August 2014
quotequote all
75% of the people who currently hold a license should not do so, increasing that number would be insanity.

IanCress

4,409 posts

166 months

Wednesday 27th August 2014
quotequote all
AreOut said:
they drive only cars/bikes with full, not hackable telemetry? Why not allow anyone physically/mentally fit to drive if he would constantly get monitored with danger of losing the license if he ever does anything reckless (say >10-20 mph over the limit, abrupt moves etc.)?
The danger isn't them losing their licence. The danger is that they might kill people. OK, you've got telemetry, but you can still kill someone without speeding.

RedBull

1,142 posts

222 months

Wednesday 27th August 2014
quotequote all
MacW said:
Because taking a licence away from a 14 year old after he has smashed into a bus stop full of innocent bystanders is too late.
A nice simple answer to a frankly daft question. Like it thumbup

Matt100HP

250 posts

116 months

Wednesday 27th August 2014
quotequote all
What a ridiculous idea. Yes, you could take their licence off them if they drove irresponsibly (almost a given for some people), but if that irresponsibility resulted in the death of other people, taking their licence off them would be too little, too late.

Thankfully, even if this ridiculous idea was a reality, the insurance premiums would almost certainly keep most of them off the road. Look at "black box" quotes for a 17 year old, they're still far from cheap.

paranoid airbag

2,679 posts

159 months

Wednesday 27th August 2014
quotequote all
Dammit said:
75% of the people who currently hold a license should not do so, increasing that number would be insanity.

+1.

AreOut

Original Poster:

3,658 posts

161 months

Wednesday 27th August 2014
quotequote all
otolith said:
We already give licences to people who are not really psychologically mature enough
well that is the first problem, how to determine if someone is mature enough? Age is not the good measure, smeone matures with 12-13 years (so that you wouldn't believe how that "kid" thinks), someone never...

otolith

56,036 posts

204 months

Wednesday 27th August 2014
quotequote all
AreOut said:
otolith said:
We already give licences to people who are not really psychologically mature enough
well that is the first problem, how to determine if someone is mature enough? Age is not the good measure, smeone matures with 12-13 years (so that you wouldn't believe how that "kid" thinks), someone never...
Of course there is a distribution, but there are robust statistical trends in areas like attitude to risk-taking and impulse control.

willmagrath

1,207 posts

146 months

Wednesday 27th August 2014
quotequote all
TheInsanity1234 said:
No way.

Speaking as a 16 year old, I'd be terrified if people in my year group were given licences to drive a car.

They're bad enough in the classroom (their GCSE grades proved that) but I'd refuse to ever go within 200 miles of them if they were given a provisional.

Some people, even at 17 are just far too immature to be given the responsibility of driving a car, so imagine how much more worse it would be when you put a bunch of teenagers who think it's cool to jump out of their bedroom window and break a leg (that actually happened) in front of the wheel of a car.
I second this as well. When I was 17 a few years back, I remember some of the 'lads' from my school driving around uninsured and doing handbrake turns on the streets around school. No idea of the danger! Really annoyed me that i was £2500 insurance when he was paying nothing!!!!!

hotchy

4,468 posts

126 months

Wednesday 27th August 2014
quotequote all
I think we should change it to 21 tbh. I remember the stuff my "friends" got up to at 17.

Matt100HP

250 posts

116 months

Wednesday 27th August 2014
quotequote all
willmagrath said:
I second this as well. When I was 17 a few years back, I remember some of the 'lads' from my school driving around uninsured and doing handbrake turns on the streets around school. No idea of the danger! Really annoyed me that i was £2500 insurance when he was paying nothing!!!!!
I remember something similar, but the 'lad' in question went one step further than no insurance; he used to drive about unaccompanied on his provisional licence and he thought he was amazing for doing so.

You won't be surprised to hear that he binned his car the first time it snowed; trying to "drift" his 1.2 Clio around the roundabout outside Tesco. Annoyingly, by this point, he did have a licence and insurance so he didn't get done for it.

AreOut

Original Poster:

3,658 posts

161 months

Wednesday 27th August 2014
quotequote all
otolith said:
Of course there is a distribution, but there are robust statistical trends in areas like attitude to risk-taking and impulse control.
so why not limit that at 30 or 35 but 17/18? Many people mature more from 25 to 30 than from 15 to 25.

and why is the 17yo kid allowed to drive an F1 car next year then? Those are significantly more dangerous than usual Clio 1.2 albeit it's all done in relatively controlled environment.

Durzel

12,258 posts

168 months

Wednesday 27th August 2014
quotequote all
Horse Pop said:
U WOT M8
+1

OP was hard to parse.

otolith

56,036 posts

204 months

Wednesday 27th August 2014
quotequote all
On the road, because we have to balance the need for personal mobility with the risk to others. That's why we allow 17 year olds to drive. Objectively, early twenties would be safer, but people need to get about as functioning adults and our transport system is heavily car based.

On the track, everyone taking part knows and accepts that motorsport is dangerous. It's a risky activity and in racing it rewards calculated risk taking.