Proposed young driver restrictions - SA

sarrge2001 · 14-10-2011, 12:13 PM

This:

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/huge-o...-1226166616038

Now, whilst not debating whether it's right or wrong, a few paragraphs have me wondering what sort of idiots the Government takes us for.....

"Research shows that crashes are most likely to occur during the first six to 12 months of holding a provisional licence when the driver is least experienced and driving unsupervised."

Sounds fair so far.....

"Mr Kenyon said raising the minimum driving age will largely eliminate crashes involving 16 and 17 year old drivers,........"

Now on face value, this is correct - if you don't let 16 & 17 year olds drive, then you reduce the likelyhood of them having a fatal or serious crash.

".....resulting in an estimated reduction of 60 to 70 fatal and serious injury crashes each year....." Now that's fine and possibly accurate for the first two full years of the program but what happens when they turn 18 - they then go back to holding a provisional licence "in the first 6 to 12 months of driving when they are least experienced" and when "crashes are most likely to occur".

Is an extra two years maturity going to stop them getting killed or injured??

Here's a thought - train them better!!!! Give them some skills!!!!

And then there's this bit:

"The plan has been released for consultation until December 9, but Mr Kenyon said he was intending to implement all measures."

So Mr Kenyon, if you are that arrogant that you're going to bring it in no matter what others may come up with, WHY waste time putting it out for consultation?

Mr Hardware · 14-10-2011, 12:30 PM

Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics.

V8XTasy · 14-10-2011, 12:34 PM

yep it's nuts. They're basically concluding that new drivers of 18 years old (instead of 16 or 17) will have much fewer crashes

There are plenty of other ways to reduce accidents, not driving 250hp rwd cars just after passing their tests would go some way to doing it.

btw, 50% of statistics are wrong.

Kamshaaft · 14-10-2011, 01:18 PM

..a..and 49.5% are used out o context or in some misconstrued manner to serve an agenda or the product of pure lazy ignorance.

**** it. Glad I am past that ****.

Jim Goose · 14-10-2011, 01:51 PM

Quote:

"Mr Kenyon said raising the minimum driving age will largely eliminate crashes involving 16 and 17 year old drivers,........"

I love how figures can be made to sound great.... on the surface.

Instead what will happen is that 18 to 19yr olds will now crash more often because they will be the less inexperienced ones driving!

Defeats the purpose really..

Lets eliminate 17yrs old drivers on P plates... and instead have 18yr olds on P plates.... nothing changes.. except the age!

pauljh74 · 14-10-2011, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

I love how figures can be made to sound great.... on the surface.

Instead what will happen is that 18 to 19yr olds will now crash more often because they will be the less inexperienced ones driving!

Defeats the purpose really..

Lets eliminate 17yrs old drivers on P plates... and instead have 18yr olds on P plates.... nothing changes.. except the age!

In a few years the powers that be will then be scratching their heads wondering why 18 and 19 years old drivers have a spike in crashes.

Ben73 · 14-10-2011, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarrge2001

"Mr Kenyon said raising the minimum driving age will largely eliminate crashes involving 16 and 17 year old drivers,........"

Its true. Raising the driving age so 16 or 17 year olds cannot drive will of course reduce the amount of crashes they are involved in.
Not allowing 27 year olds to drive will also reduce the number of crashes that 27 year olds are involved in.
Same for 33y.o 46y.o and so on.

Venomous1 · 14-10-2011, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben73

Its true. Raising the driving age so 16 or 17 year olds cannot drive will of course reduce the amount of crashes they are involved in.
Not allowing 27 year olds to drive will also reduce the number of crashes that 27 year olds are involved in.
Same for 33y.o 46y.o and so on.

You just figured out how to stop accidents all together shhhh..

TheInterceptor · 14-10-2011, 02:04 PM

Inexperienced drivers have better chances of stacking, wether you are 16 17 or 18 its all the same.

Maturity levels? Yeh nah doesnt fly with me...

******* useless govornment.

sudszy · 14-10-2011, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheInterceptor

Inexperienced drivers have better chances of stacking, wether you are 16 17 or 18 its all the same.

Maturity levels? Yeh nah doesnt fly with me...

******* useless govornment.

all the same? can you explain why a first year 25 year old driver carries no where near the risk as an 18 year old?

AMGC63 · 14-10-2011, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sudszy

all the same? can you explain why a first year 25 year old driver carries no where near the risk as an 18 year old?

You are right [personal identification removed], the change in maturity between 18 and 25 is astounding.

prydey · 15-10-2011, 12:42 AM

i'm always amused by all the people saying more training is required. its no easier to get your licence now than it was when all these people got theirs. truth be told, its probably harder!

the road toll is trending downwards. poeple who target the younger drivers have conveniently forgotten what it was like when they were young.

i had a full time job when i was 17. many people today are the same. raising the driving age will impact on the community for the worst.

Adamz Ghia · 17-10-2011, 03:58 PM

When a pilot is training to fly, he/ she is taught how to get out of sticky situations. I fail to see how we can allow our kids to get behind the wheel of a car without the skills to at least have half a chance of correcting a slide to avoid that tree or stop the car rolling when they catch the shoulder of the road (personal experience with that one). Giving them these skills doesn't fill them with over confidence, it gives them half a shot at saving their life.

v gate · 17-10-2011, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prydey

i'm always amused by all the people saying more training is required. its no easier to get your licence now than it was when all these people got theirs. truth be told, its probably harder!

the road toll is trending downwards. poeple who target the younger drivers have conveniently forgotten what it was like when they were young.

i had a full time job when i was 17. many people today are the same. raising the driving age will impact on the community for the worst.

winner winner chicken dinner.
if you want a 0 road toll stop driving now.

Falc'man · 15-10-2011, 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sudszy

all the same? can you explain why a first year 25 year old driver carries no where near the risk as an 18 year old?

You've missed the point of his post. They have to start at some point and what Interceptor is saying is that whether it's 17 or 18 they're relatively the same in maturity so delaying them another year or so won't make a difference.

sarrge2001 · 17-10-2011, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falc'man

You've missed the point of his post. They have to start at some point and what Interceptor is saying is that whether it's 17 or 18 they're relatively the same in maturity so delaying them another year or so won't make a difference.

But if he'd got the point of the post it wouldn't have helped push his agenda.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flappist

Well you have just contradicted yourself.

You are old enough to remember when drinking age was 21 unless you were in the military where it was 17.
Or BAC was .15 then .08.
Or smoking age was 16.
Or gun ownershp age was 14 (12 with parental conscent).
Do I need to mention speed limits up there in NT?

I am not saying driving at 16 is wrong just pointing out the inconsistancies.

Everytime some worm in govco decides to push an agenda they come up with all sorts of crap in an attempt to change the "law as it currently stands".

And the average idiot just accepts it.......

How could I contradict myself? I wasn't taking an opposing view, simply pointing out the disdain with which the Government treat us.

And yes - the average person accepts it - because it takes too long to change (by going through the "vote em out" process).

pottery beige · 14-10-2011, 02:17 PM

70 year old pensioners drugged up to the eyeballs on prescription pills.. far more dangerous than any P plater......

atec77 · 14-10-2011, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pottery beige

70 year old pensioners drugged up to the eyeballs on prescription pills.. far more dangerous than any P plater......

normally can't agree
or do you suggest the hormones raging through some youngsters mind have no effect , at least when you get older most of them slow down a bit , although having left the rsl recently at knockout I aint so sure either

phil.50thxr6 · 14-10-2011, 02:43 PM

Stupid govornment

flappist · 14-10-2011, 03:08 PM

Well if 16 year olds have the mental maturity to drive by themselves why can't they drink, vote, get married, go to war or go to jail?

sarrge2001 · 14-10-2011, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

Well if 16 year olds have the mental maturity to drive by themselves why can't they drink, vote, get married, go to war or go to jail?

Because thats against the law as it currently stands.

But the idea of this thread wan't to debate whether allowing 16 year olds to drive was a good idea or not, it was to demonstrate the absurdity of the justification process and the tripe which they are trying to spoon down our throats.

flappist · 14-10-2011, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarrge2001

Because thats against the law as it currently stands.

But the idea of this thread wan't to debate whether allowing 16 year olds to drive was a good idea or not, it was to demonstrate the absurdity of the justification process and the tripe which they are trying to spoon down our throats.

Well you have just contradicted yourself.

You are old enough to remember when drinking age was 21 unless you were in the military where it was 17.
Or BAC was .15 then .08.
Or smoking age was 16.
Or gun ownershp age was 14 (12 with parental conscent).
Do I need to mention speed limits up there in NT?

I am not saying driving at 16 is wrong just pointing out the inconsistancies.

Everytime some worm in govco decides to push an agenda they come up with all sorts of crap in an attempt to change the "law as it currently stands".

And the average idiot just accepts it......

Jim Goose · 14-10-2011, 03:28 PM

I learnt to drive at 15.... did plenty of longish trips (100km) with my dad in his Torana... (and yes didnt have my Ls).

Look at how many farm kids know how to drive for real...
I once went driving with a pair of kids one who was about 11 and his older brother about 14... The 11yr old drove ok, but still a bit scarey.

While maturity (or lack of) is a pretty good reason, all it does is justify cotton balling teenagers a bit longer.

Better training (less time with bogan parents who drive like maniacs) and tougher testing by the RTA (or whoever) would do a lot to reduce accidents.

dimka100 · 14-10-2011, 03:55 PM

Make it the responsible age ... i.e. 18.

Also make a requirement that for every kilometer they drive they must run one as well ... to many phat kids on the streets these days ...

IDT · 14-10-2011, 04:31 PM

The alternative is to Train young drivers. As opposed to having thier parents show them how to copy thier driving (good or bad) skills. This costs money, be it from Government, Parents or the kids themselves.

Training young (or old) drivers will never ever happen in this country!

If you don't believe me then explain why, when we went to the Gov't for funding of our Youth Driver Training Program or even a pilot program. We had to deal with hurdle after hurdle thrown at us by gov't to the point we gave up. So we offered the courses as user pay and once people found out there was a small fee they become quickly disinterested. $99 for a full one day module and $400 for the full 6 module package.

People don't want to part with money for something they currently get for next to nothing. Regardless of the lives it may save.

All said, the people who scream about the licencing system are always those who already have one. If there was a rule that those who wish to change the system would first have to agree to go through the proposed changes themselves. This rubbish would never be on the agenda. They need to stop blaming kids for the worlds woes!!

lucas2 · 14-10-2011, 06:00 PM

It's a stupid idea! Driver training is where its at. Training will reduce hospital visits and strain on the healthcare system and the money saved can be put into greater driver education and training.

aussie muscle · 14-10-2011, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lucas2

It's a stupid idea! Driver training is where its at. Training will reduce hospital visits and strain on the healthcare system and the money saved can be put into greater driver education and training.

we didn't even have proper 'drivers ed' in schools like they do in usa

lucas2 · 14-10-2011, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aussie muscle

we didn't even have proper 'drivers ed' in schools like they do in usa

It's a good idea to introduce something similar in schools, say from the ages of 16 to 18, to learn about the theory side e.g. hazards. And also the practical side such as defensive driving

AMGC63 · 14-10-2011, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lucas2

It's a good idea to introduce something similar in schools, say from the ages of 16 to 18, to learn about the theory side e.g. hazards. And also the practical side such as defensive driving

The schools already have drivers ed, every kid i have anything to do with had Driver Ed at high school.

XRGhia · 14-10-2011, 06:07 PM

Coming from someone who just got their license, I reckon increasing the age limit would possibly help...

You look at it now, and most new/young drivers ARE learning bad habits from not only their parent's/relo's on the road, but also other drivers' bad habits (cutting people off, running red lights etc)....

Driver training SHOULD be mandatory for all new drivers.... From personal opinion, at least 15 hours of full driver trainer instructed driving should be mandatory to go onto your next license class (L's to P1's, or P1's to P2's)....

This is just personal opinion, but I reckon this could help a lot of new drivers learn how to be safe on our roads, and hopefully they would keep, and pass on the skills to their children/relatives when they get their license to drive...