United Future

Posted at 2007-10-16 21:56:57.155. Permalink.

This driving age being lifted makes so much sense. It's my experience that if youth are going to act 'out' they begin in the early Fourth form...& then it just gets worse if they do. If parents & teachers can get youth through to the fifth form without major upsets then they have done well & the youth are usually relatively 'well adjusted'. However the ones who come unstuck as of about age 14 really cause bobsy die..for the parents, the schools & even the Police. There's that saying with many youth that 'act out' ..."he'll be ok by the time he reaches age 23!" And too often it's so true. It's 8 long years from 15 to 23, years in which mayhem, loss of life & limb for both irresponsible youth & innocent bystanders can occur.

I'd like to see something added in to this mix so that youth who have "any" problems with the Police, whether by being convicted, put on Diversion schemes or if they are expelled from school - that such have any right to drive on our roads lost to them for a significant period of time as irresponsible behaviour in our society is & will almost always be reflected in poor driving behaviours.. Yes some will say that's harsh & others who loose their licence will drive regardless until caught & at that point the penalty must be severe, perhaps '5' years loss of licence. A zero tolerance for alcohol limits must be considered for novice drivers, no matter what their age, as the drink/drive issue is still massive. Perhaps rather than putting an age limit on age related alcohol levels make it commensurate with say having had 3 years of trouble free driving before the 'youth' limit for alcohol commences & say 5 years before the adult level kicks in. People need to prove their responsible despite their age as plenty of adults drive in regard to alcohol consumption like reprobate, juvenile delinquents. This has to change by reviewing proven responsibility factors not just age limits. If a person receives too many demerit points they 'go back' & start over again on the time scales & have to work their way responsibly back. Think about how Insurance Company no claim bonuses & percentage of full premium one pays work dependant upon 'their history!"

One of the biggest issues with motor vehicles and young & learner drivers is encouraging responsible, law abiding behaviour. Collecting fines from youth who end up paying them of at $10 a week for the likes of having mates in cars when on learner licences, reckless driving, speeding & boy racer behaviour does little to help the mix. They just laugh at it all - until their car is impounded or similar!!
Just upping the age will help but it will take TOTALLY endorsing responsible behaviour and TOTALLY penalising irresponsible & dangerous behaviour not only on the roads but in certain relationships in society to really get home the message that its an absolute privilege to drive on our tax payer funded roads & causing any other persons problems or grief, causing injury or mayhem, adding to the road toll & hospitalisation & ACC costs is not acceptable nor is being an idiot at school or breaking the law of the land acceptable if you think your age entitles you to drive on our roads, think again - you have to be a responsible citizen in more ways than one especially when youthful if you want thsse privileges - don't take getting or holding a licence as a 'given'!

The message is very simple; despite your age be responsible in a motor vehicle. Until one can clearly prove that responsibility factor that person has to earn the right to not be treated as a 'novice'.

Posted at 2007-10-16 22:44:30.135. Permalink.

It's official! Polls show the whole country overwhelmingly thinks Peter's move to raise the driving age is a good idea.

A common sense move I say!

Posted at 2007-11-05 20:06:02.126. Permalink.

I reckon that changing the age will not change the reckless driving within teenages driving. No mattar what age the new drivers will still be inexperienced and werent we all the best drivers when we first started out becuase we were too scared to stuff up?

I believe that the only solution to this would be to teach drivers how to prevent irresponsible driving and what to do when it dose happen. They need to make defensive driving more practical and make it somthing you must do to be able to get your restricted. I have my restricted and had a car crash nothing big but i didnt no what to do to prevent it when the car started swerving and if i had the information it would have easily been avoided.

Also i believe that the problem is the "souped up" cars. The only way to prevent this is to restrict the cars that you can drive on your resticted lisence.

If they are going to raise the age than they need to think of the rural residents. They need to drive to be able to get anywhere so the only way to get around otherwise they need public transport. So if there thinking of raising it they need to improve public trapsnport to go to these rural places at school. My friend lives about 30 minutes out of clive and she can catch the bus to clive but then she drives the rest of the way. If the age gets risien she would have to car pool or wait in clive for her mother to finish work and get picked up

I hope this helps with ur decision and better solutions then raising the the driving age

Posted at 2007-12-30 12:32:09.586. Permalink.

iugbkjm

Posted at 2008-06-12 19:51:15.785. Permalink.

I am 14 years old and for my speech this year I argued the raise of the driving age. Some of my main points were the following:
According to statistics the main age group causing fatal road accidents are the 17-25 year old age group. If they are the ones causing the accidents, why are you looking to take responsibility away from the 15 year olds, when they're not the ones causing accidents? Also, by raising the age one year to 16, it ensures one years less experience for the learner drivers. If they had started when they were 15 then they would be more experienced than they would be if they had just begun to drive at 16. How is 1 15 year old with 11 months driving under their belt going to be less experienced than a 16 year old who hasnt even touched a steering wheel in their life?
Another reason for the governement wanting to raise the age is because of immaturity. In their eyes 15 year olds are too immature to cope with the responsibilty of a licence. This generalisation is highly unjust. Not every teen is a threat behind the wheel, most of them dont drink, dont speed and do everthing right, often in constrast to their older counterparts! While a select few are hooning around like lunatics, most arent, and once again the hoons are usually 16-17.
These hoons are usually driving cars that are clearly too powerful for them to handle. Why is there no law of the type of car a youth is allowed to drive? Car accidents are almost always caused by a teen who is driving an extremely powerful car! When teens learn to drive, they drive in little putt putt cars in nana speed, then suddenly theyre good enough to go at it on the open road with a 2000cc car! They have a legal limit for motorbikes, why should a car be any different? This lack of law is probably one of the reasons the road toll is increasing, and this is the governments fault, not the drivers. They are being encouraged to drive these cars. Also, teens are given the opportunity to earn their licences early all because of a defensive driving course, so the governement can hardly complain that teens are too inexperienced. Defensive driving course should be compulsory anyway, and they should include other compulsory courses that ensure youths have a broad, wide knowledge of the road and its dangers, so that they and others can survive on the road. 15 year olds need to be able to drive, its a hassle for them to get places they need to be without one, not only for them but for their caregivers aswell. New Zealand has a very poor public transport system, and they are non existant in small towns. People need cars to get around efficiently and effectively.
Raising the age is ridiculous. It would cause outrage in many people, including the teens that will miss out, their parents, and society. It tells the youths that they are not considered responsible enough, which is ridiculouse because most are, and most people who are not being restricted, arent, which is highly unjust. An option that does not limit the youth, but in contrast helps them would be the most ideal option.
Don't be stupid, keep the age the same.

Posted at 2008-08-03 10:16:21.538. Permalink.

Much like the person above me, I am wrting a speech at school debating the driving age. I am 15, and live in Dunedin. I have my learners licence. One of the main points in my speech is about most of these crashes are in the age group between 19-25. So why is the age getting moved up to there if the 15-17 age group is not causing s many crashes?
I personaly have only been driving for less than 2 months and it is one of thee best things, I love it. And if you are going t raise the driving age then you will need to lower the age that people can stil drive eg. like people over 80 shouldn't be driving. So why is everyone debating the age where older people also cause accidents?

Posted at 2008-08-05 17:01:23.648. Permalink.

Reading the discussions above i will say i see that the younger participants do have a point. However this does not mean i agree with it.
In my mind they are only argueing a point that will see themselves 'detrimentally affected' and perhaps are not thinking of society as a whole.
Yes, if this goes through you will have to wait longer to get your drivers licence. I think this is perhaps the only reason you feel strongly on this point (i.e.- to the rest of society it may be deemed as 'bias') Perhaps what you need to consider is that most accidents and incidents, as proved by statistics, occur to those younger inage. It is my belief anyway that the reasons behind your arguement are purely in self interest, rather than the interests of society as a whole.
You may say that this is unfair and punishes a generation for a few unlawful people, but the effects of raising the driving age can only have positive benefits for the entirity of New Zealand.

Posted at 2009-03-07 17:56:08.676. Permalink.

No, I disagree with the person above.
I truly loathe things that are unfair, and this is one of them.
Myself and the person who commented below me both have our learner licences anyway, so it wouldnt affect us.
It is simply the fact that it is ludicrous, for they reasons pointed out above.
The accidents, as proven by statistics, are mostly caused by 19-25 year olds, the age group which will not be affected by the raising of the driving age.
The reasons behind the arguments are not for anyones interest, its that the government are once again getting things wrong and making hash decisions based on unsupporting evidence. However in reply to the point you make about our reasons being in self interest, that may be, but also the effects on society have been acknowledged aswell. It makes things a hell of alot easier for parents who are sick of driving their kids around everywhere, its a lot more convienient. Quite honestly, how would it benefit society? There are still going to be accidents, I would say a lot more too since its the 19-25 year olds who cause the crashes and if you raise the age it'll give them less experience. So again I ask, what are those positive benefits?

Posted at 2009-03-07 17:56:11.297. Permalink.

No, I disagree with the person above.
I truly loathe things that are unfair, and this is one of them.
Myself and the person who commented below me both have our learner licences anyway, so it wouldnt affect us.
It is simply the fact that it is ludicrous, for they reasons pointed out above.
The accidents, as proven by statistics, are mostly caused by 19-25 year olds, the age group which will not be affected by the raising of the driving age.
The reasons behind the arguments are not for anyones interest, its that the government are once again getting things wrong and making hash decisions based on unsupporting evidence. However in reply to the point you make about our reasons being in self interest, that may be, but also the effects on society have been acknowledged aswell. It makes things a hell of alot easier for parents who are sick of driving their kids around everywhere, its a lot more convienient. Quite honestly, how would it benefit society? There are still going to be accidents, I would say a lot more too since its the 19-25 year olds who cause the crashes and if you raise the age it'll give them less experience. So again I ask, what are those positive benefits?

Posted at 2009-04-15 08:48:35.873. Permalink.

The Injury Prevention Research Unit at the University of Otago has just released the results of its study on this issue. It concludes that "The evidence demonstrates that young age, independent of experience, is a major determinant of risk; therefore, raising the minimum licensing age would have safety benefits. We also show that many of the arguments against raising the age are based on either no evidence or misinformation. Though raising the licensing age would to some extent disadvantage the rural sector, it may also be in the rural sector where the greatest gains in crash reducation are made." Full details of the study are available at www.otago.ac.nz/ipru.

Posted at 2009-05-16 14:39:22.453. Permalink.

To whom it may concern the review of parliment to raise the driving age and its restiction has been uprised upon date 3-09-09 the driving age remains the same permit at 16 . the legal 16 year old permit driver must be accompanied by an adult/or a licence driver. a 16 year old with licence may drive untill 9 on weekdays and 10 upon weekend but must stay in region and area or town or city lived in.after a year these rstictions no longer apply and become legal drivers if your a new driver please consider these insurance sites

www.allstate.com

www.geico.com

www.Progressive.com

Posted at 2009-11-16 18:22:02.051. Permalink.

Well, it never ceases to amaze me Mr Dunne, how the Governments of New Zealand, past and present, fail to deliver.
Continual promises to invest in the youth of New Zealand have obviously failed to feature in your bill. A bill which is set to deliver virtually nothing and will in fact penalise the good youth of New Zealand to appease the vociferous few.
Your bill has addressed no support or alternatives to deal with the fallout of your proposed law.
The public of New Zealand has little or no rural public transport. Urban transport systems largely cater to clientele who pray on the young and old scaring the life out of parents and teenagers. Why do you think parents buy their teens cars?
You have given no thought to a graduated scheme where these young people could enter into a subsidised driver training programme at age 15 and graduate at 17 as approved drivers. Do you really think keeping them off the road for another year is going to achieve anything?
At least Insurance companies in NZ have the intelligence to know that if you teach people to drive properly through advanced driver training there are savings to be made, both of asset and lives and are openly offering savings for those who complete these courses.
Mr Dunne, your proposal is a knee jerk reaction to a long standing problem, one which has been around for a long time. The NZ Government has had plenty of time to work through alternatives and still this is the best you come up with?
Why not go back to the drawing board and come up with tangible alternatives instead of legislating to gain short term votes.

Posted at 2009-11-17 16:20:03.025. Permalink.

Maybe reading the speech I gave when introducing my Bill two years ago will clear up your misconceptions, and introduce you to some facts. I said as follows to Parliament in October 2007:

Land Transport (Driver Licensing) Amendment Bill — First Reading
[Volume:642;Page:12523]
Land Transport (Driver Licensing) Amendment Bill
First Reading
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) : I move, That the Land Transport (Driver Licensing) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. This bill arises in rather unusual circumstances. Members will recall that a few weeks ago in the House, following the recent tragic deaths in Christchurch of three 15-year-old drivers, Emma Reynolds, Melissa Norton, and Chloe Cockerell, I raised a question with the Minister of Transport, who suggested that I should seek to test the will of the House on the matter. The House very graciously, a week later, gave me leave to introduce this bill as a Government bill. It arises because of those incidents, and mounting public concern about road safety and young drivers.
The principal purpose of this bill is to raise the minimum driver-licensing age from 15 to 16 years, and to extend the length of the learner-licensing period from 6 months to 12 months. At the appropriate time I will move that the bill be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.
It is a relatively short bill, with some six clauses. The operative clauses are clauses 4 and 5, which make the age adjustments. The net consequence of this adjustment of moving the age from 15 to 16, and lengthening the period of the learner licence from 6 to 12 months, will be that the time at which a person can obtain a full licence will rise to 18½ years. At the moment, one starts the process at 15 and one can get a full licence as early as 17. The consequence of shifting the period that one starts at by a year, and the period that one can hold a learner licence from 6 months to 12 months, means that the age when the process can be completed will now rise to 18½ years.
A number of comments have been made over recent weeks about whether a change would put New Zealand out of kilter with the international norm. I note that in Britain at the moment the House of Commons is considering shifting the driving age from 17 to 18, to align it with other European nations. I note that in Australia, depending on which state one may be in, young Australians cannot take to the roads until they are at least 16 or 17. In New Zealand the age of 15 was originally struck to coincide with the school-leaving age. That has moved up over the years, and it seems appropriate to look at the minimum licensing age for drivers as a consequence.
But there are other reasons, as well, and I want to draw to the House’s attention some of the statistics relating to the involvement of young drivers in road accidents. Although it is true that car crashes that involve 15, 16, and 17-year-olds are similar overall to the number involving 18 and 19-year-olds on learner licences, those figures change dramatically when these age groups get their restricted licences and are able to drive solo. For instance, the number of crashes in the first month after gaining a restricted licence, compared with the last month that one is on a learner licence, increases about 2½ times for 18 and 19-year-olds, and about 4½ times for 17-year-olds, but there is a whopping eightfold increase for 16-year-olds, and an even greater increase of tenfold for 15-year-olds. That clearly shows that the younger the age at which a driver gets a restricted licence, the higher the chance that he or she will crash. That is really the point of this legislation.
I have heard comments from some quarters that this will adversely affect rural drivers. I even had one person contact me and say this legislation is a total outrage—that he taught all of his children to drive at the age of 12, and why should the law interfere in this way? I have two comments to make in respect of those claims. Firstly, I have little sympathy for the argument of saying: “I taught my kids to drive at 12, so, goodness knows, to hell with what the law might say.” But with regard to the legitimate case of rural drivers who may feel they are being discriminated against by these provisions, I say that that is a matter the select committee should give some consideration to. It should consider whether there is scope or practical ability to give some form of limited licence in those circumstances. I am open-minded on that point. I have some doubt about its efficacy, but I am prepared to see that matter considered.
Overall, we need to see this in the context of the consequences for young drivers of the current situation. It is certainly true that young people are overrepresented in our road-crash statistics. In the year to 31 December last year, for example, young drivers between the ages of 15 and 24 were involved in 121 fatal traffic crashes, 813 serious-injury crashes, and 3,768 minor-injury crashes. If one takes the past 10 years, 1997 to 2006, one sees that crashes involving 15-year-old drivers have resulted in some 37 deaths and 385 serious injuries. Similarly, crashes involving 16-year-olds have resulted in 146 deaths and 949 serious injuries. In other words, crashes involving 15 and 16-year-old drivers over the last 10 years have accounted for some 183 deaths and 1,334 serious injuries.
Some of those deaths have been the drivers themselves, others have been innocent victims, but the net effect has been a very serious impact on a wide range of New Zealanders at a time when, through other road-safety measures, our road toll has been reducing. The figures indicate very clearly that, as with other developed countries, the crash risk is inversely correlated with the age at which a driver starts solo driving. That is particularly so where that occurs before the age of 18.
Members may say that New Zealand is no different from other countries, that this is part of a worldwide trend, and that these circumstances, however shocking they may be, are no different from what occurs elsewhere. There is some truth in that argument. But when one looks at OECD comparative figures and sees where New Zealand fits on the international league table, one sees that we have the fourth-highest rate of road deaths for 15 to 24-year-olds per head of population. I do not think that that is acceptable, particularly when we have placed so much emphasis under successive Governments—and I note that the member opposite, Mr Williamson, during his time as Minister of Transport was very strong on these matters—on bringing down our road toll, because one life saved is one life to the benefit of this country. The net negative cost of injury, death, and the whole trauma associated with road tragedy is one that is controllable, one we can make positive steps towards reducing. The logic, to me, of making a move now to change the minimum legal driving age, to increase it to deal with these statistics, is compelling and overwhelming.
We are not talking here about removing a right from New Zealanders; we are talking about protecting young New Zealanders, about ensuring that the period during which they take their learner licensing test, through to gaining their provisional licence, and finally their full licence, is one where they can be equipped with the experience and the skills necessary to be effective drivers and where their contribution to negative road-safety statistics can be reduced.
I want to observe, as I bring this speech to a close, that there is overwhelming public support for this measure. The Television One Colmar Brunton poll on Monday night showed 82 percent in favour of it. There have been polls in newspapers showing similar figures. I think the New Zealand Herald figure was around 87 percent. Most of the people who have a vested interest in promoting road safety and better driving conditions are also in favour of this move. Finally, I note, as I began, that the parents of the three young women who were killed in Christchurch recently, in very tragic circumstances, have also expressed to the Christchurch Press their support for a change along these lines. I commend this bill to the House.

Posted at 2010-01-13 10:25:27.336. Permalink.

Thank you for posting the speech - though I am trying to attain information on what the situation on the bill is now and has there been any changes to the Driving Age gazetted?
I am concerned at how normalised a very young driving age has become in NZ without any consideration to the vastly different country you live in now compared to when this age first became legal. Consequently I can't imagine 15 year olds driving the streets of Melbourne, where I grew up. Not only did we have to wait until we were 18 to drive by ourselves, we then had to go on to a 'P' plate (Provisional)display system which warned other drivers on the road that we were 'new' drivers in the system. In NZ there is no system to highlight who are new or restricted licence holders are. Also, if you haven't lived overseas, you will not realise that there is an extremely slack attitude to the display of 'L' Plates here in NZ. I have seen many incidents on the open road in NZ, of parents letting their learner's drive without them to the ridiculous situation of parent's who cannot be bothered to take them off the car when the learner is not driving. Lifting the driving age is just one facet of improvements drastically needed. Lifting the age to 16 is hardly a great improvement - but considering how 'normalised' a young driving age is in NZ...it is better than nothing. Though without other measures such as education/strict plate displays & introduction of a P plate ssytem...it is a good as nothing.
All states of Australia except SA (16), have a driving age above 17. None below 17 in Europe aside from the Isle of Man (16). USA is the only country who are aligned with NZ in driving ages - good to know we are aligned with them huh? Oh..& Ethiopia - they do 14. As the adilts of this country we condone the present driving age and are threfore all responsible for the death of those three young women in Christchurch. I feel ashamed we have not done better by our youth.

Posted at 2010-02-06 15:45:33.329. Permalink.

I disagree with the proposed law. I am 14 and live in the country, it is very hard to get around as a teenager, my parents are getting sick of having to drive me and my sister around as we live far away from pretty much anywhere and if i had the chance to be able to drive myself to these places it would help lower the havock in our daily lives. I think that the bill won't prevent accidents from happening as the majourity of them happen whist the drivers are between the age of 18-25. Rather than change the age of being alligible for a lisense they sould make it compulsory for drivers to complete a defencive driving course. This would help the safety of people on the road, and keep everyone happy. If you think about, everyone who is dissagreeing with me, was able to get their lisence when they were 15 yrs old and would consider them selves as safe drivers. If they end up putting the driving age up, all thats going to happen is the statistics of the age of drivers causing accidents is going to rise by 2 years or so, because the drivers will be just as inexperienced as a younger driver sarting at the age of 15 compared to someone starting at the age of 17. But i agree that we should have to be on our restricted lisence for a minimum of a year instead of 6 months, as this would help give learning drivers a longer chance to get experience. And really in the end its a personal choice of how old we are when we learn to drive. Its not compulsory, so you don't HAVE to get it as soon as possible, if your not comfortable with your children getting their lisence at 15 then don't let them. But for some of us it would help alot to not have to worry about little things in our lives that could potentially help our parents out alot.
My Grandad is a poltition for national and supports me in my opinion to the proposed bill, and we think that peter dunne should really have a good think about it instead of just throwing it in our faces straight away and not having a long good think about the apects of people who don't live in the city and who DON'T have Public transport avaliable to them. thanks for reading and consider what i have said.

Posted at 2010-03-03 11:23:21.887. Permalink.

one of the problems with this whole deal is now there is going to be a hell of a lot less sober drivers when these teens turn 18. So i guess you're going to have to raise the drinking age ae? just you wait until this generation of young people that you're blaming for decades of society's misguided conformism to grow up and become part of the voting public, i.e. the only part of the public you even seem to care about. i'm telling you they are probably going to vote for the legalise cannabis party, at least the voters will know that their governments policies are harmful.