Ministers are pressing ahead with the idea of raising the driving age in the UK from the current 17 to 18 in an attempt to reduce the accident statistics in this age group.
The minimum legal driving age is expected to rise to 18 as part of reforms to cut the number of deaths caused on Britain’s roads by novice drivers.
Ministers are to propose a 12-month training period for new drivers, in effect preventing 17-year-olds from holding a full licence, The Times has learnt.
A consultation paper, to be published this autumn, will also suggest a zero alcohol limit for newly-qualified drivers of all ages for a year after they pass the test. Novice drivers found behind the wheel with alcohol in their blood would be forced to retake their test. Motorway driving may also be restricted to more experienced drivers.
From the perspective of a training professional, I can see flaws immediately. Firstly everyone is different and learns at a different rate. We also learn most quickly when younger rather than older. The driver who picks things up quickly will become restless taking a years worth of lessons that will not be teaching anything new – and in case ministers think in their ignorance that this is gaining experience, they are more stupid than I originally gave them credit for. Driving with a supervisor is not the same as driving alone, making decisions for oneself – and, yes, getting it wrong from time to time. Young drivers feature highly in accident statistics not just because of youth, it is because they lack that experience and twelve months worth of training is not the same thing, no matter how much ministers would like us to believe that it is.
A more rational approach would be to grant a probationary licence (similar to what happens with the motorcycle licence) that has some restrictions. Upgrading this to a full unrestricted licence would be granted following further assessment. I would not specify a set time span for exactly the same reason that I object to the arbitrary 12 month training period. I am also going to be contentious and state that I do not believe the DSA should carry out the assessments either. This could be carried out perfectly well in the private sector. My reasons? Well, partly because government agencies are notoriously hidebound and the DSA is no exception – and anyone who believes that a driving test is an assessment of competence does not understand the meaning of the word.
Let’s get that one cleared up while I’m on my hobby horse. Competence is the ability, knowledge and skills to consistently perform a task to a laid down standard. A driving test conducted over forty minutes misses the “consistently” element. It is insufficient to establish performance over a reasonable period of time in order to determine whether this is the driver’s normal behaviour. An assessment carried out by a qualified and competent assessor would cover a wider range of roads over a longer period of time. The outcome if successful could then go to the DVLA for an upgraded licence. If unsuccessful, further coaching and a reassessment. The aim here is to develop skills, not to restrict, penalise or punish, which is the approach government systems are likely to involve.
That said; if we accept that the state should be involved with licensing, then the DSA should be the licensing body for private companies offering the assessment service. Whether they are able to grasp the full meaning of competence in order to do so is a moot point, though.
Now, the zero alcohol limit. This is perhaps one of the dafter things to come out of government. Drinking and driving any vehicle is downright stupid – any intoxicating substance reduces the drivers cognitive abilities and makes them a danger to self and, importantly, others. To have a zero limit for one group and ignore all other drivers is cockeyed. Are middle aged drivers immune from the odd tipple before getting behind the wheel? So, if we are to have a zero limit, surely it should be all drivers affected… Or not… There is an alternative. A radical suggestion put forward by Sean Gabb of the Libertarian Alliance is one that I am taken with – although I am doubtful that my fellow Britons would be sufficiently open minded to accept it. Have no limits on alcohol at all and have no penalties for drinking and driving. Anyone who causes injury or death while driving under the influence would then be prosecuted under existing law; The Offences Against the Persons Act; and face the much higher consequential penalties. It’s a thought, is it not?
Finally, motorways. The reason often given in the past for not including these on the driving test is that many driving test centres are nowhere near a motorway. This problem still exists. My proposal of ongoing assessment and coaching could include motorways as one of the upgrades as and when a driver is able to access such roads. Maybe, just maybe, we could then eliminate the tailgater and the middle lane hog…
It would help if the training and indeed test covered the theory and practice of how vehicles behave at speed. Currently, you’re taught how to pass a test that involves driving slowly round town. No-one ever explains understeer, oversteer, weight transference – yet these are the things that kill people, not bumping into someone in a car park.
Instead we get a pc-based test which seems to test your ability to play the test rather than to drive in the real world.
This is one of the most stupid ideas this illeberal bunch of fuckwits has come up with so far (and that is really fucking saying something).
I will tell you exactly what will happen:
First year after this is introduced. Deaths (of car drivers) go down by a few thousand (obviously because there would be a lot of 17 year olds who would have passed their tests but suddenly now cannot, so there would be a lot less new drivers on the road).
Second year. All the people who hit 18 will go out get cars and the death toll will rise significantly on the year before. Henceforth deaths per year will be exactly the same (or as near as makes no odds.)
In the mean time, in the first year, graffiti, vandalism and general crime will rise dramatically in rural areas, due to feral, pissed off, unable to drive 17 year olds.
In the mean time, unless laws re mopeds are changes, a LOT of 16/17 year olds will get mopeds who previously would have waited to get a car. Most of them will end up smeared on the road. Overall road deaths will rise.
On the other hand, what would make a lot more sense would be to introduce a law stating that anyone under the age of 25 can only drive cars with an engine less than 1000cc and less than 50bhp/ton power to weight ratio. (or something along those lines – then little rich kid would not be able to borrow daddys porsche and wrap it straight round a tree)
Oh and train ’em to drive younger. Driving is easier than reading and writing. Teach kids to drive off road, in school, as soon as they can reach the pedals.
What makes people safer drivers is experience. 18 year old drivers are no safer than 17 year old drivers.
Zorro
Centaur, it all depends on the instructor and the opportunities during the training period; do they teach people a life skill or do they coach merely for the test? I would like to think that the majority fall into the former camp. However, the testing regime is remarkably limited and fails dismally to assess competence.
Zorro, yup, they are massaging the figures. As I understand it, these proposals will have a sting in the tail for motorcycle licenses to pre-empt just the thing you point out. And, yes, absolutely, the younger the better.
It is an unfortunate fact that most fatalities on the road are caused by young men, and frequently involve young women as the victim. I do not see how reducing the initial driving age will have any real effect on these statistics. Seventeen or eighteen, are young drivers going to be less likely to behave irresponsibly once they get behind the wheel? Possibly a compulsory “P” plate for new drivers for one year, during which time they would not be able to carry more than one passenger? At least then we would be less likely to hear of so many multiple deaths in accidents involving young drivers, or would we? Do we honestly believe that at age 18, 19 or 20 young drivers will suddenly behave responsibly? And do we really believe that they will all carry the plate at all?
Anyway, not all young women are blameless. I know we’ve all seen these young people screaming round a bend which has been newly dampened by a recent shower. At least motorcycle training takes into account changes in road surfaces and associated grip, or lack of it.
I may be mature, but I am not an old fogey. I still like to drive fast when conditions allow. I do believe, however, that my advanced police training gives me a better idea of stopping distances. hazardous conditions and the poorly maintained roads than does the basic training, which currently gives inexperienced young people the belief that it is safe to sit up my exhaust pipe at 70 just because I won’t do 90 to pass a line of lorries. In short, I don’t know what the answer is, but I don’t think it’s going from 17 to 18 befor being allowed to drive.
Finally, alcohol. What a daft idea to have no alcohol limit! I’m sure we all know loads of people who seriously believe they are capable of driving after a few drinks, but are prevented from doing so in case they get stopped. Really, the only safe limit is zero. Then we all know where we stand.
A P plate is merely a target for more experienced drivers – such as the L plate. A waste of time and effort.
The problem is that young drivers lack experience and there is only one way to gain it; by driving.
Did you read what I said? Far from being a daft idea, it would mean an effective zero alcohol limit as drivers could still be prosecuted but under much more draconian laws. Unfortunately, you have done pretty much what I expected of most folk; assumed that micro-regulation solves our problems. It doesn’t. People still get behind the wheel and drive. Regulation does not stop people behaving badly. Bad legislation; such as we have, means that prosecution is less effective than it might otherwise be. A shame, I feel, that the British people are so blinkered in their outlook, that lateral thinking is beyond them.