Raise the Driving Age Limit?

I see from today’s Observer that the safety lobby is calling for a raise in the age limit for obtaining a driving licence.

Another teenage road death provoked fresh demands yesterday for the driving age limit to be raised and tougher penalties for dangerous motorists.

In the latest tragedy, a 16-year-old girl was killed when a car mounted a pavement and struck a group of youngsters standing outside a shop in Norwich. Police were last night questioning a 17-year-old on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving over the incident early yesterday.

Okay, fair point; younger drivers are less experienced and therefore more vulnerable when it comes to effective hazard perception than their older and more experienced counterparts. Consequently they are more likely to approach hazards at an inappropriate speed, fail to observe effectively and fail to respond accordingly. That’s why experience is so important. However…

Her death came hours after 19-month-old Billy Donnelly was killed when a stolen car mounted a pavement in south London and crushed his pram.

Tragic though this story is, it is a strawman, because:

Three teenagers were seen running from the scene. Last night, a 14-year-old boy arrested near the scene was released on bail until December while another boy, also 14, remained in police custody.

It is already illegal to drive a car on the public highway aged 14. Therefore, this is nothing more than emotive and misleading reporting. These boys were breaking a law that is already in place (as well as the theft of a motor vehicle), so has nothing to do with any discussion regarding an appropriate age at which an individual should be entitled to obtain a driving licence. The issue here, is one of enforcing the current law rather than imposing a new one. If the authorities cannot enforce current legislation, what faith can we have that new legislation will make any difference? The Observer is conflating two very separate issues.

Still, that apart, what justification is there that an extra year waiting for a licence will make anyway?

Campaigners called on the government to raise the driving licence age from 17 to 18, with a one-year minimum training period and pointed to the disproportionate number of young male drivers involved in road deaths. Men aged 17 to 20 account for three per cent of drivers but make up a third of convictions for dangerous driving while studies suggest that young men are almost 10 times more likely to be killed than experienced motorists.

Following that logic, the age limit should be 20…

Studies suggest that raising the driving age could cut annual road deaths by as many as 1,000.

Or perhaps they will simply delay them for a year. Statistics are all very well, but they do not tell the whole story. A new driver of whatever age is vulnerable because they lack the experience that enables them to instinctively recognise and respond efficiently to developing hazards. Despite the DSA’s attempts to do this, it is not a skill that is easily taught. This is because hazards come in all shapes and sizes. What in one circumstance is benign, in another may be deadly. A good driver will recognise the difference and deal with it without giving it too much thought. The newly qualified driver lacking that experience is more likely to miss the warning signs. Some of this skill can be imparted during practice while preparing for the test. However, even a good candidate at the time of taking and passing a driving test still lacks that valuable experience, so will be prone to error during the first few years of driving. That this is exacerbated in young men is a complication doubtless caused by the heady mix of wheels and testosterone.

The DSA has a PassPlus scheme designed to provide some post test coaching. This is a sound approach. According to the DSA, taking this will help new drivers not only by helping them develop their skills but will also lead to insurance discounts. Experience suggests that the communication links between the DSA and the insurers is somewhat patchy. These are the self same insurers who want new drivers to have that year’s worth of training.

Learner drivers should take lessons for a minimum of 12 months according to the Association of British Insurers (ABI).

The plans are backed by motoring and safety groups, such as the RAC Foundation, which said they would lead to 1,000 fewer road casualties a year.

The proposals are intended to reduce the high numbers of young drivers killed or injured on Britain’s roads.

As I said at the time of this story, where to start?

Where to start? Once again, a pressure group has opted for a “one size fits all” solution. One of my concerns here is the general nature of the statement made by the ABI. How many lessons in a year? How many hours would that be? One hour a week? Two hours a week? What about people who have intensive training over a couple of weeks?

What a new driver needs is sufficient training – and that amount will vary from individual to individual. Also, importantly, the driver’s attitude to the road, other road users and good driving is crucial.

And, to be just a little controversial, we could all do with a regular reassessment of our driving. I’m not suggesting here a repeat of the “L” test, rather an advanced observed drive. Assessment is a two-way process, allowing both the candidate and the assessor to input into the process. The DSA has changed its approach over the past couple of decades – a reassessment would be a chance to educate; something the DSA says that it would like to do. I don’t have a problem with having my driving assessed on a regular basis. I wish I could say the same about others. However, my libertarian soul balks at any form of compulsion.