United Future

Posted at 2007-09-19 01:09:42.727. Permalink.

fiteen is too young to drive.in the past the excuse that rural people/communities needed licences at that age to help work on the farm was reasonable as the majority of town kids had little access to cars and couldnt afford them if they had a licence.times have changed and cars are more readily available as access to credit has become easier and the type of car driven is more powerful than anything in the past.there is more traffic on the roads today than ever before and the skills needed to drive on them have increased.seventeen is a more reasonable age as in that two years you have learnt more life/coping sklls having left school,maybe working, preparing for university.seventeeen as any former teenager knows is an adult compared to fifteen.why continue to risk oung peples lives when we dont have to.driver education in schools could be part of the curriculum and by passing exams at school on road safety/driving this couldd be used as the first step to getting a license.this may encourage kids to stay in school as without that first step it could be harder to get a license.

Posted at 2007-09-19 21:47:28.426. Permalink.

I think leaving the driving age at the current level is morally unacceptable. Will this effect people in rural areas who may rely on cars and not have the luxury of public transport.. probably, yes - but transporting people under the driving age should be the responsibility of family and friends, as it was when I grew up. Will this mean that workers are stranded without transport late at night? Again, taking people to and from work should be the responsibility of family and friends, co-workers and employers. That said, we should be looking at this reform in the context of supplying more and better public transport and in the context of encouraging walking and bicycle use which has obvious crossover benefits.
I have also raised the issue of compulsory insurance a number of times. In the UK young drivers are discouraged from driving fast and modified cars because they either can't get insurance for them, or the insurance is prohibitively expensive. I learned to drive in a 950cc car, as did many of my friends and the inevitable prangs that ensued from inexperience were relatively minor as a result.

Posted at 2007-09-20 19:08:30.016. Permalink.

The only argument with any merit for keeping it so low is that there are a few who need to drive for a job (particularly farm kids apparently). If this is the case, then we could have a system of special licenses.

Perhaps the driving age should be linked to the minimum school leaving age?

Posted at 2007-09-26 19:24:17.819. Permalink.

John, I love the special licences idea! Great thinking. Sorry Joe...I hear you, but I just don't agree. In practice, this wouldn't work. Rural people don't just always work down the road from home. Sometimes the next town or more, away. (I'm talking 30plus mins one way). You can't expect kids to cycle on state highways just to get to work and you can't expect parents not to work so that they can shuttle their kids about, plus they just wouldn't get the job if the boss has to do it. We need to work on teaching our kids to BECOME responsible, not namby-pamby them and protect FROM responsiblity. Also, work may not always be in one spot, like fencing contractors or landscapers. You quite often have to travel to a different job. And if you have an appointment or some reason to leave your job during the day you'd just have to miss your whole day's work. In addition, this just encourages more vehicles on the road (car doing 2 return trips when it should just do 1) and higher fuel use and emission.
But, how about putting a restriction on the size of the motor until they reach a certain age or ability?? These kids seem intent on having these high powered cars...which, as previously stated, seem to be very easy for them to come by...well...make them work up towards getting one. I drive a V8 which has less pull than some of these Jap cars, these young ones have and honestly, there is no way I would trust them in even my car. I have also heard that young people who go out with volunteer fire brigade and St Johns to accidents have a ZERO percentage of drink driving and being the cause of accidents. Perhaps this is something also worth looking into. I got this information from the woman who runs our local St Johns training for kids, so it is valid. Another sure safe way to get kids learning how to really handle their car is to put them on the dirt roads! I never realised how much improving my driving needed till I moved north with the dirt roads! Local kids up here (that are lucky enough) also get to learn drifting in paddocks! REALLY good for getting used to still being in control and focused when your car isn't!!! I don't believe it is so much the age....but the ability and RESPONSIBILITY! Also, up the drinking age and you should save a few lives too!

Posted at 2007-10-04 22:29:47.422. Permalink.

I was a little late to start driving (mostly due to having a very obliging older brother who would cart me around) but I�m not sure that age is the issue. I know some people in their mid-twenties who are still reckless and irresponsible, in fact I know people who are much older and should know better. In my experience age doesn't necessarily mean better drivers or even wiser drivers.

I think education � good education � is vital to ensuring that our roads are safe. I went on an AA Defensive Driving course when I was still learning which I think helped me think about the other drivers on the road. However, it was all theory and no practical with most of the people on the course simply trying to shorten the gap between the restricted and full license. It also cost me around $120 which was the same as the actual full license test !

I know in some other countries they have driver education in schools which might be good idea. When I was learning to drive my parents couldn�t afford driving lessons but I did pick up a lot of bad habits learning from them. Proper driver training would help put safer drivers on our roads.

I understand the reasoning behind raising the age, but I don�t think it solves the issue - it just delays it till children are old enough to drive. It's the same with the drinking age - I understand why people want to raise it again but it won't solve the issue.

Posted at 2007-10-04 22:59:07.247. Permalink.

Just wanted to add that I do agree with the changes proposed by Peter Dunne and hope the Bill passes. I do think the changes are a positive step for the country (young drivers included) especially by increasing the time for driver's to learn good skills !

Posted at 2007-12-08 18:16:16.566. Permalink.

I have now been driving for 45 years with two accidents and I past the examinations of the day at age 15 which enabled me live on the farm and bring alight truck in each day with produce and return after school.

What appears to be forgotten that in this time period the vehicles of my youth were made of strong and heavy metal not the metal of today which is light and the thickness of a coka cola can.

Also in this time the old vehicles were 0 to 100kph in 15 minutes if you had a good stretch of road if it could reach a 100 kph (my first car was a Worsley 680 of 50's vintage) unlike todays cars you put the pedal down and hang on 0 to 100 kph in seconds and even faster

I therefore recommend that we try and protect our young by a graduated licence and time controlled ie 3 months from learner grade 1 to learner grade 2 with a review by a qualified instructor before moving up a grade a bit like a motorcycle licence as you move from the lowest cc rating to the highest cc rating or the only vehicles which can be imported are factory produced no modifications carried out to alter the engine power or lowered vehicles immediately banned and all drivers under the age of 20years have certified government goveners on them and if they are caught and have tampered with the govener they automatically lose the use of the vehicle for 1 month and a three figure instant fine.(1st offence) For offenders who are always in trouble restrict the maximum accumilation of fines to $5000.00 if they still have not paid immediate confiscation of the vehicle to be either sold by the court to help pay the fines and make the credit harder to get a car and the car to be registered in the drivers name not his/her parents older brother/sister names and compulsory insurance no insurance no car.

Posted at 2007-12-16 20:53:04.561. Permalink.

Some thoughts on proposals to change driver licensing in New Zealand

My experience of the recent Drivers Licensing system comes from my own experience of taking 3 of my children through to full licence over the last 9 years or so. My experience also includes observing the behaviour of my children�s peers with regard to driving over the same period. My children got full licences aged between 171/2 and 181/2. None of them has been involved in an accident.

I believe the present graduated system is good and provides a suitable framework for learners to gradually take more responsibility as their experience grows. Any issues with the present system are not primarily related to age � they are mostly related to poor observance of the present law. All of the highly �publicised serious accidents have involved young people breaking the rules of learner of restricted licences.

Law such as this cannot be enforced only by police. Both parents and peers have a significant role. Parents have a major influence � if they take their child driving before they have their learner licence or fail to insist on no passengers or the curfew, or they allow their children to travel with others on restricted licences, they send a message that they don�t support the law. As soon as the young people get away with it once, without sanction, they continue to break the rules.

Young people know the rules. They know which of their friends have full licences and which don�t. They need to be encouraged and supported when they choose not to travel with a driver who would be breaching the rules by giving them a lift. Often this will result in parents being asked to provide transport � they need to support the good decisions made by young people.

There is presently some discussion about �raising the driving age�. Much of the discussion is very simplistic and gives the impression the current �driving age� is 15. At present the earliest it is possible to get a full licence is about 16 years of age. In practice most don�t get it till closer to 18. People need to be clear what they are talking about when discussing the �driving age�.

From about age 18 it is often important to have a licence either for work or often as their means of getting to sports or other activities they are involved in.

Any discussion about the age at which the various stages can be achieved needs to provide for people to get a full licence by about age 18. If the starting point is delayed, the process will need to be shortened, giving young people less experience when they get their full licence. If the process is made longer, it could have the perverse effect of people starting sooner when they are less ready.

There are some things that could be improved in driver training and testing. There is no requirement for any experience of night driving and no testing of it. The other thing young people find difficult and need training for is route planning � thinking ahead about which exit to take, which lane to be in, where to park etc. This is usually not taught and never tested.

In summary, most of the issues at present are not about the rules but about compliance. Changing the rules is not going to improve compliance. What I believe is needed is a concerted campaign to convince all of society, but particularly parents of teens and teens themselves, that the rules, while they might be arbitrary and a nuisance in certain instances, are important in making safe drivers of our young people. It is up to all of us to support those who abide by the rules and to discourage those who don�t.

Allan Holden

Posted at 2007-12-30 12:34:27.798. Permalink.

I am a 14 year old student in Christchurch, turning 15 in the coming month, and this new debate, and possible law changes in driving age infuriates me no end. For the past year, I have been very excited about obtaining my driver's license, as I cannot wait for this independence to be able to drive! Many of my friends have recently obtained their learner's license, and love it! They are tentative, shy drivers and tend to wait for 5 minutes at intersections, just to be sure that there is absolutely NOTHING coming the other way! Another thing that all of my 15 year old friends have reported to me is how easy the test really is. None of them had any trouble passing the written paper (one or two didn't even read the road code yet managed to scrape a pass), which speaks loud and clear to me - is it really age that is causing these accidents, or simply incompetence?

I was recently reading the New Zealand Herald website, where it quoted NZ First MP Peter Brown;

"Driving should be a privilege, not a right".

I agree with this entirely - yet raising the driving age is not the way to enforce these privileges. Upon turning 15, I hope to acquire a job, yet most work-places will not hire me unless I have a steady, reliable form of transport. The christchurch bus system is adequate, yet it doesn't suffice a lot of the time that I use it, entailing at least half an hours extra walking time. I also am the proud owner of a mother and father, NOT a taxi service, and thus far have no reliable means of transport. And as all adults say to me with a hint of superiority; "Why don't you just ride your bike dear? It's what we did back in my day." I'm sorry Grandma, but sometimes it's just not practical to ride 12 kms in the rain at 7 o'clock at night in July.

What I am trying to illustrate here is the fact that in society, people require cars. (That's why you all drive them, right?) It doesn't matter if the person in question is 16 or 36, they have places to go and need sufficient means of transport to get their. But here's where the 'privilege' bit comes in - it should be a privilege to obtain this personal transport - not a right. If a 15 year old really, really wants their license (as I do) they will be willing to work for it, to study for it, to be the best driver they can be just to earn that independence and the privilege to drive. We can allow driving for practicality reasons, only for the most competent of drivers, which will bring youths to realise that you must work for things in the real world to achieve your goals, or gain privileges.

By making the driving tests more difficult, we may eliminate some of the more hazardous drivers on the road, that are less likely to concentrate or take driving seriously. People who are not going to take driving seriously at 15 are probably not going to take it seriously at 16 either, and making the learning age older is 1. going to infuriate teenage drivers that still have to be driven around with their parents when they feel independent enough to be doing so themselves already, and will provoke them to drive illegally and 2. bring the learning age closer and closer to the drinking age, allowing each one to merge into each other - and become drink driving. People at age 16 and 17 are far more likely to be going to parties then people at age 15 - let the young ones focus solely on driving for the time being, they will be focussed, nervous and trying their very best not to 'screw up'. So my proposal is, instead of raising the driving age, infuriating young drivers-to-be nationwide... make the tests harder! include both a practical and theoretical component in each test, make defensive driving courses compulsory, make people drive under all conditions, test reactions in dangerous situations - and yes, make the driver pay for it all! It should be a privilege, not a right, we as youths should have to work for it, pay for it, to prove that we really want a chance to be drivers!

The final point I am going to make is the point of drink driving. So many accidents are caused on our roads because of drink driving, and yet the accidents are still pin-pointed at our youth, which though at times may be accurate (which as shown above, I have been trying to change), it is highly unfair. If you're an adult the legal blood alcohol limit for driving is no more than 80 milligrams of alcohol for every 100mls of blood, and at a party, it's very easy to misjudge this and drive anyway, or to think in the 'if one's fine, two can't be much worse' mentality. Drinking does dull your judgement, not only in driving but in deciding whether or not you are okay to drive. So why not make it zero tolerance? An alcohol limit of zero? Because this is sure to decrease the incidents of drink driving, making people realise it's not okay to do that. Of course, as with any law, you will have people breaking it, but at least it will be less so. I see highly intelligent, respectable adults drink driving on a frequent basis - which should not be acceptable. Of course, if a fourteen year old can think of big long arguments against raising the driving age, I'm sure the whole of New Zealand can think of many reasons not to make alcohol and driving zero tolerance... "it's not practical"...yeah, neither is not allowing me to obtain my license...

Think about it, New Zealand. Food for thought.

Thankyou.

Posted at 2008-01-04 13:28:01.367. Permalink.

I am a single mother of two teenage boys and I am writing about the rising of the driving age. I am like many other people sick and tired of these teenagers and their noisy cars and doing burnouts outside our houses on the street. Unfortunately I have two living next door, every morning they leave it running for what seems forever to warm up and then they leave with the tyres burning. The blow out valve does it�s bit and the stereo, well there is no need for any one to have one in the street as the one in the car can be heard clearly.

My son is saving for a car which he will then only use for work, not school as I do not believe children in the city do not need a car to go to school. I have also stipulator to him that if he wants a car that he is only allowed a 1300cc up to a 1500cc motor maximum. I have also stipulator if he wants to modify it he is only allowed one item, be it stereo, mags or blow out valve. He is not allowed to install a noisy exhaust. I have also told him that this is all until he is over 20 years of age.

As he often drives my car when I do not need it he has been informed he is not allowed to drive it fast and if he gets any speeding tickets that he has to pay them or I will ban him from driving until they are paid. My 16 year old has also been offered a builder apprenticeship as that what he wants to be, however has turned it down to finish his schooling first and then he will defiantly need a car to carry the tools around and there are boys leaving school at 15 and then doing an apprenticeship so they need a car.

This is what I feel needs to be done to these teenagers, raising the age is not going to achieve anything and in my case makes it harder on us single mums.

So allow them to only drive a car of up to a 1500cc engine, then only 1 modifying item. Also make them pay their fines and if they are caught driving with anything else crush the vehicle in front of them no matter who it belongs to. The boys just want to show the vehicle off so if they are unable to modify the car some how it is pointless.

Also the public transport where we live is useless and we are in a fairly major route. There is no bus on a Saturday morning and after work they come just before he finishes and then nothing for an hour and then it is almost that long to get home. So a teenager would either be bored and causing trouble or else been hurt waiting.

Posted at 2008-01-07 14:50:19.918. Permalink.

I just recently turned 19 years old and I currently have my restricted license after gaining my learners license at 17 years old because I'd had obliging parents and a sister who didn't mind taking me places when I needed it. I also owned a scooter which I could drive on my learners license which my parents allowed me to do only around town, not on State highways.

I think that rising the age of driving is a good idea but only when followed by other things like enforcing restricted license rules more and such. The amount of young people who just ignore the rules is crazy and I can imagine that many crashes etc caused by youth are also caused by ones breaking the rules of their restricted licenses. Many of my friends are either very safe drivers and obey the rules etc or they don;t care about their restricted rules, ignore them and tell me they know they won't get caught. This is as much of a problem as having 15 year olds driving alone!

Yes, raising the age could cause problems for people in rural areas but I think the method of possibly having special circumstances licenses etc would be a way around that.

In other countries they have compulsory driving training with proper driving instructors. In Germany for example, many of my friends have to do 5000 hours of driving with a driving instructor before they can even consider going for their license and even then many people fail the first time around.
While I think that the driving age should be raised I think that other things need to be done as well...there is not one magic fix for this, it takes more than that.

Posted at 2008-01-10 11:35:12.548. Permalink.

Right off the bat I just have to say, I agree with increasing the minimum the age limit.

The UK government has found a way to restrict the amount of motorcyclist licenses received every year and protect the inexperienced the best way possible but the system needs to be modified to apply to NZ.

I'll try to give a modified example:
1. First write the theory test
2. Receive 4-8 hours of classroom and on the road training with a registered driving instructor before being allowed to drive on L plates. The 4-8 hours will give instructor time to teach the new driver in any areas that he/she is lacking and to see if they feel the new driver is safe to be allowed to drive on public roads. The max cost of this needs to capped to stop new drivers being ripped off, N$250 is what is cost me for 8 hours. After they get the compulsory basic training certificate (CBT) they can drive on L plates in vehicle with a engine size under 1300cc/90hp.
3. After they passing their driving test for full license they need to be restricted to a engine size by their age. 1300cc/90hp less for under 18 years of age and 1600cc/110hp or less for under 20 or 21 years of age.
4. Any new drivers under 25 will be restricted to 1600cc/110hp or less in their first 2 years of having a license.
5. Young farm workers can get a agriculture vehicle license/permit to use on roads when they have to use the public roads with agriculture vehicles.

If NZ did something similar it could work very well in the long run but whoever brings this in will get a lot of flack in the beginning for it sounds like a very restrictive idea but actually it's not at all. This method will restrict inexperienced driver to lower horsepower and this should help lower accidents where the power/performance of the car if far greater than the driver experience behind the steering wheel.

The only problems I can see it that smaller cars reach their performance limit faster and boy racers will overstep that line and cause a accident. Engine modification/performance needs to be able to be checked if need be, otherwise a turbo can be added as a after market part which will make the whole exercise obsolete and this is why there should be a horsepower cap as well.

Insurance tend to keep young people in small cars in the UK but the insurance industry sucks the consumers dry and young people get outrages quotes. The UK government should have made strict guidelines before putting in compulsory insurance (I pay happily for insurance just to have each of mind that I can repair/replace my car if some idiot drives into me).

I might be wrong and there is a better way of doing this, it's just an idea of a system that once in place that will create some jobs and bring safety levels of new drivers up to a certain minimum level. NZ could be the country that shows the world the right way of bringing new drivers onto the roads rather than being a country that has alarmingly high number of death on the roads.

In the end it doesn't matter what you implement you can't make everyone happy. You will also have some people who will bend or break the rules and there is nothing you do will stop that so try to help the majority and not the minority.

Posted at 2008-02-06 13:25:48.355. Permalink.

No! The driving age is fine as it is!
Im fourteen and i think im ready to learn how to drive!

Its about confidence, Skill and luck not about statistics.

Just because Peter Dunn is being a complete downer and thinking of all the bad things that happen when teenagers drive instead of the positives Eg. Life experiences, responisbility, Self independence and Just The next generation travellers!

Why should we miss out when generations before us got to drive at 15 and never had a single incident when they were teenagers.

Stereotyping every Teenager isnt fair!
We should get our say!

I know that if the bill passes, being the next generation of voters, i will have NO intension of voting for a party who pushes this law into action!!!

Posted at 2008-02-20 00:19:02.589. Permalink.

We get all over-dramatic whenever teens are killed in crashes. So we look for a simple solution. Hey, have we forgotten that the annual kill rate way back when we only had 3/4 of the present population was over 800 lives. Now that we have reduced this slaughter (since the introduction of seat belts and graduated licensing) to close to half of that earlier number we appear to be setting unrealistic goals. Yes, it is a tragedy that lives are lost on our roads, but it is also the risk that comes of using such forms of transport. And yes there is a high proportion of young drivers, but you will find it is the same in other countries with higher entry age limits. Learning drivers regardless of their age are at high risk primarily because of inexperience and raising the age bar only post-pones the issue. One huge question that needs to be answered is, has there been a dramatic increase in the percentage of crashes related to young people in the past 20-30 years, say over the first 3 years above the entry driving age i.e. 15-18yrs? And how does this compare with the figures from countries overseas, with higher entry ages, for their first 3 years of driving i.e. 18-21yrs?
The easiest solution is to assume that the age is the main problem, but is it age or attitude?
Almost all of the latest teen crashes highlighted on the TV have occurred as a result of the drivers breaking the law (attitude), usually through driving on restricted licenses with passengers (mates). Driving with mates was recognized as a major contributor years back, hence the graduated system with the built in passenger restrictions. However, if this was better enforced, and there were tougher penalties for breaking this, the issue would dramatically change.
Lets be careful that we don't miss the real issue here. And lets not assume it is physical immaturity when it could be primarily a lack of policing existing laws.

Posted at 2008-11-01 16:01:44.446. Permalink.

I do not think that increasing the age of getting your licence will change the way young people drive. There are many people in their early 20's who are just as immature as youth in their late teens. I think changes should be instead made to things such as the cc rating of cars they are allowed to drive before getting their full. Also the defensive driving course is in a classroom, how do you learn to drive at a desk, how do you know what it feels like to loose control of your car and how to correct it if you are not in a car?

Posted at 2008-11-08 18:12:44.066. Permalink.

i think it varies from person to person. some people are mature enough at the age of 15 to start driving, but some arent. personally only now that i am 17 am i starting to learn how to drive, because up until now i wasn't sure if i was mature enough to be in charge of a vehicle, it definitely depends on the person.

Posted at 2009-11-20 19:37:09.519. Permalink.

I do not believe that 15 is too old to have a licence.
By raising the age for driving, first of all the teenagers that ARE being reckless drivers are STILL going to drive and be destructive, it wont stop a lot of them. I think that it is extremely unfair on all the responsible 15-18 year old drivers, when there are more responsible 15 year olds than irresponsible drivers. The driving age does not effect most boy racers and what not either, as they are mostly about 20. Second, We all have to learn how to drive at some point, changing up the age from 15 to 16 or 17 will not change the amount of crashes in my opinion as the drivers are all learning the same things, just at a different age. Also, at 15 a lot of children are not drinking, but in about a year a lot more do drink, so it is MORE dangerous.And as a lot of people say, you can't teach old dogs new tricks. It is better to teach younger people. 15 year olds are being treated as 0 year olds in the case of driving, and I feel this is a terrible way to treat the children. It's a two year difference, come on! It's not like maths, where the equations get more difficult each level! It's driving! It doesn't get any more difficult! You start the car, you move, you keep to responsible speeds, I think signs saying "50" km will be seen and registered in a 15 year olds brain the same as a 17 year olds brain. And by time the drivers are 17 they will be better drivers than what the 17 year olds just starting to drive are. Give the kids a break, they know more than we feel they know. They are begining to mature and 15 years old is the PERFECT time for them to be learning.

Posted at 2009-11-20 19:53:45.152. Permalink.

Also for my above comment, there is a reason for restricted licences, and that is to see if the driver is a good driver that knows rules. If they don't, THEY DON'T DRIVE ALONE UNTIL THEY PASS! So the people that pass their restricted licence are ready to drive alone, they are responsible enough. And for a country with a lot of country and not much public transport, I feel it is very important to have a restricted or full licence by time the kids go to university, because by time a lot of people are 17, they are off to university, and then they have to find their way to the uni because a lot of people who go to uni have family far away, in a country or something, and they would have to find someone else to help them learn everything. And also a lot of people have jobs far away from where they live and they can't always rely on their parents or something to take them out to their job as PARENTS ALSO HAVE RESPONSIBILITIES AND JOBS. It is silly.

Posted at 2010-01-28 08:24:46.721. Permalink.

I am fourteen years of age and am planning on getting my learners licence next year in mid year. Because of this law young people longing to drive have to miss out, because some people (parents) they have raised there children to know nothing but drink driving and speeding, causing car crashes, deaths of innicent children and adults. If you look at the bigger picture it traces back only to the history and behavior of the family.
The police dont have to give a licence to the person who applied for one. If you dont pass the test then you dont get a licence it is that fair! police should judge people by there personality and behavior because if there going to have attitude on the road then they should'nt drive!
PLEASE! I am just young but every person deserves a chance. don't put the driving age up it will diserpoint the children who will have to wait an extra 3 years!
thankyou