Raise drinking/driving age to 21?

[xbgs351]

Better put the voting age and defense force minimum recruitment age up to 21 in that case as well.

[prydey]

i agree with all the comments regarding parenting. the changes have to be made a lot earlier in the kids lives. trying to educate a teenager, esp one old enough to drink and drive, is a futile mission most of the time. we've all been there.

regarding the lateness of the hour these kids are out and about, society has a lot to answer for. i'll sound like an old fuddy dud, but i can see no reason for anyone being out and about in the small hours. when i was a teenager (not that long ago - 15yrs), nothing was open, no pubs or clubs etc. 24hr fast food places or servo's didn't exist. there was just no reason not to be tucked up into bed well before midnight.


changing rules won't help. changing rules just makes it harder for the honest people. all the major accidents like the one we've all been discussing involve people with a blatent disregard for authority so changing rules will have zero impact.

[UNR8D]

how about we get some facts straight first, I would have thought concentrating on the ones causing more of the deaths would have been a priority.

sorry for the crappy pic but its a cut and paste from vic roads website.

30-39 age had 22 fatalities, ditto for the 70+ age group.
16-17yo had 2.
18-20yo had 16.

now I sucked at maths but I'm sure 22 is > 16.

and running off a straight road had 63 deaths... might that be because of the mind numbingly boring 100 on perfectly good stretches of road with everyone so focused on speed as opposed to just getting to their destination safely?

[Cabbage]

Originally Posted by kezzer

Would be pointless and dumb, year 12 most people turn 18, gives them time to get their license so work and uni won't be an issue after they leave school. It would take me 3 hours to get to work via public transport if I had to wait till i was 21, instead of 25 minutes. People would be less inclined to get a job, putting further strain on centerlink and the economy in general. Not to mention public transport as it is in Vic is **********, totally unreliable.

Haven't lived in Melbourne for a few years but you should see the public transport in Sydney, it is disgusting how bad it is. Late, if they come at all, dirty, overcrowded, doesn't cover the whole of sydney, very sub standard.

As for raising the driving age, people in the country where there is no public transport will be hugely disadvantaged. In some country areas the only way to get around is to drive, you want 18 year olds to be able to take up jobs and be able to get to them. I think raising the driving age is too impractical and won't address the real issues.

Its been mentioned before but I think good parenting and peer pressure is the only way.

[tex]

Originally Posted by UNR8D

how about we get some facts straight first, I would have thought concentrating on the ones causing more of the deaths would have been a priority.

sorry for the crappy pic but its a cut and paste from vic roads website.

30-39 age had 22 fatalities, ditto for the 70+ age group.
16-17yo had 2.
18-20yo had 16.

now I sucked at maths but I'm sure 22 is > 16.

?

How about we see those figures compared to km's travelled. Hmmm, wonder which age group does significantly MORE kms.

Sure, I'm not referring to the 70+ bracket, so which one do you reckon will have the < number?

[FPV8U]

Originally Posted by tex

How about we see those figures compared to km's travelled. Hmmm, wonder which age group does significantly MORE kms.

Hrrm not you could really do the KM except on a case by case basis Tex, i drive usually between 500 & 800Km a Week (Mon-Fri @ Work) depending on Worksite locations and have done so since i was 18 (now 21) im tipping thats a bit more than most people.

[tex]

How many youngens are on the road compared to 30 - 39 yo's?

My guess, not as many, but I maybe wrong. My point is if the stats could be compared to the age groups TOTAL km's travelled, which would have the worse statistic?

His point was 18 - 20 year olds, compared with the 30 - 39 yo bracket. See where I'm going mate?

[left]

Originally Posted by jcxr

Great ideas Charlie, and what about the old loss of licence on ANY offence on your "P's". Maybe double demerit for an alcohol related offence.
My kids know of the young blokes wiped out in the crash in Mill Park, went to the same school, but in different years. Their opinions are this was always going to happen. But there MUST be ways that this can be solved. Police prescence is non existant around the area, except when the wallopers get "T" boned in a Maccas carpark.

Bit harsh? I am sure the police at Mill Park station have their hands full with all the low lives that call that area home. No offence to anyone that lives there but it IS full of d*ckheads. FWIW saw 2 patrol cars today on Plenty Road and one unmarked on Childs...

[left]

Originally Posted by UNR8D

how about we get some facts straight first, I would have thought concentrating on the ones causing more of the deaths would have been a priority.

sorry for the crappy pic but its a cut and paste from vic roads website.

30-39 age had 22 fatalities, ditto for the 70+ age group.
16-17yo had 2.
18-20yo had 16.

now I sucked at maths but I'm sure 22 is > 16.

and running off a straight road had 63 deaths... might that be because of the mind numbingly boring 100 on perfectly good stretches of road with everyone so focused on speed as opposed to just getting to their destination safely?

:rolleyes: how about a fair comparison while you're at it?

Even someone with limited intelligence can surely see comparing stats on the 30-39 year age bracket is NOT the same as pulling stats for the 16-17 and 18-20 age bracket i.e. one bracket covers a 9 year age period and one 4 years.

A fairer comparison would be 30-39 and 18-25 (even though that is still not equitable but to make you happy it's to the advantage of the younger group). The math is 22 and 34 respectively according to that table. Consider adding a few more from the next age bracket 26+ to be really fair and I think the young'uns "win" the numbers game hands down on this.

Someone please correct me if I am wrong. Very hard to see that table.

[Cabbage]

I was just thinking back to when I got my licence and trying to remember what is was like back when I was a similar age to kids in the recent crahses. I can remember by dad hammering into me to be careful on the roads and not to hoon around. I can remember my mum harping on about not getting into cars with friends who were drunk.

I was not a total angel when I got my licence for the first time, I can remember speeding, going out to a dirt road (i lived in the country) and doing a few do'eys but I kind of knew where the limit was. I knew what was too much and that my parents would tear strips off me if I was caught.

I can vividly remember "racing" a mate (VB Vs Vh commodore) on a back road both with 2 to 3 people in each car and I remember thinking at one point this is dangerous and I backed off. It was like my parents voice in the back of my head. I backed off despite my mates calling me soft. In all reality it probably wasn't that unsafe, it was a wide, sealed straight back road and we weren't going all that fast (140km)

I can also remember I had certain friends who I wouldn't get in their cars because I didn't trust them, they were always driving on the limit and I felt unsafe. I knew which of my mates cars I would get into because they were responsible.

Growing up in the country where there is no public transport the only way to get home is to drive. I lived on a farm outside town so when you had a few drinks at the pub you had a dilemma. I'm sure there were occasions when I drove home over the limit, not by much, but most of the time I heard my mum's voice in my head telling me not to drink drive. And I took this advice almost always and stayed at mates places in town. (My mum actually thought i had driven home drunk one night when I arrived at home at 2am with the front of my vb Commodore wrecked. She started tearing strips off me until she saw the Kangaroo's guts in my headlight and grill and I hadn't had a drink at all).

I guess the point I'm trying to make and many others have mentioned is that it is your parents that teach you to be responsilbe and what the boundaries are. I pushed the limits like most young people but at the end of the day my parents taught me when to pull up. I knew where the line was. I'm lucky I guess many don't have good parents like I do. Parents have to teach their kids what is acceptable, to have respect for themselves and other people. I know I will be teaching my kids.

We had laws in place that should have stopped the crash in Mill Park but didn't so I'm not sure more laws would have any greater impact. For the kids that don't have good roles models at home I guess peer pressure and education is the best bet. I guess the sad thing is that no matter what we do this type of thing will continue on some level, you might be able to stop it being your kids though.

Clinton

[GTpilot]

Originally Posted by UNR8D

how about we get some facts straight first, I would have thought concentrating on the ones causing more of the deaths would have been a priority.

sorry for the crappy pic but its a cut and paste from vic roads website.

30-39 age had 22 fatalities, ditto for the 70+ age group.
16-17yo had 2.
18-20yo had 16.

now I sucked at maths but I'm sure 22 is > 16.

and running off a straight road had 63 deaths... might that be because of the mind numbingly boring 100 on perfectly good stretches of road with everyone so focused on speed as opposed to just getting to their destination safely?

Pointless statistics, are you a journalist??
This shows ages of Road fatalities, not ages of people causing them.

[UNR8D]

tex how the *#*# are you going to get that figure? my parents for instance do barely 100K a week, and ill go close to 500-700 depending on what im doing, Everyone is different due to work/life commitments etc hardly see how its relevant.

when I was 18/21 i was on the road alot more than I am now, cruising/seeing mates/work etc and that's the least represented in that graph?

[UNR8D]

no facts are obtained from http://www.tacsafety.com.au/jsp/stat...globalNavID=20

this is using their own crash data from people who compile the statistics.. not me just doing my own manipulation.

so let me get this straight, you want the facts, you get the facts, then set about argueing with the facts.. WTF.

[GTpilot]

Originally Posted by UNR8D

no facts are obtained from http://www.tacsafety.com.au/jsp/stat...globalNavID=20

this is using their own crash data from people who compile the statistics.. not me just doing my own manipulation.

What I mean is, by selecting "driver" at a statistic, does not mean that driver caused the accident.
My best mate was driving to work and was killed in a head on. Someone else veered onto his side of the road. Under that criteria, he would be listed. however he did not cause the accident.

Another thing to note whilst on the subject of single dimention stats, My mate had shared in a joint three days earlier. Toxscreen showed THC in his system, he became a stat of driving whilst under influence of drugs, having THC in his system, He was hardly stoned three days later. :

[tex]

Originally Posted by UNR8D

tex how the *#*# are you going to get that figure? my parents for instance do barely 100K a week, and ill go close to 500-700 depending on what im doing, Everyone is different due to work/life commitments etc hardly see how its relevant.

when I was 18/21 i was on the road alot more than I am now, cruising/seeing mates/work etc and that's the least represented in that graph?

Man, no need to swear.. :

Think about it in terms of the total number of people in those age brackets.

Now, obviously there is going to be a heck of a lot more people in the 30 - 39 yo bracket than the 18 - 20 yo bracket?

Now of those, how many have got their licence?

Now for every young bloke that goes cruisen, travels a bit for work, racks up a few ks, how many 30 - 39 yo do you reckon drive for a living. Now that leaves the the rest of that age bracket, that from your perspective drive less, km's unknown, but multipiled by a hell of a lot more licence holders. then lets add the two together? That will be a bigger number than the number added up from the 18 - 20 yo bracket.

Divide that number, by the deaths for that age bracket, which is going to be "worse"

My point is not to argue the raw numbers of deaths, but rather to put it into another perspective..

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by left

:rolleyes: how about a fair comparison while you're at it?

Even someone with limited intelligence can surely see comparing stats on the 30-39 year age bracket is NOT the same as pulling stats for the 16-17 and 18-20 age bracket i.e. one bracket covers a 9 year age period and one 4 years.

A fairer comparison would be 30-39 and 18-25 (even though that is still not equitable but to make you happy it's to the advantage of the younger group). The math is 22 and 34 respectively according to that table. Consider adding a few more from the next age bracket 26+ to be really fair and I think the young'uns "win" the numbers game hands down on this.

Someone please correct me if I am wrong. Very hard to see that table.

You're right... the widely identified "danger" bracket is 16-25.... Statistically twice as likely to die on the roads as any other 10 year age spread group.
UNR8D you're right.. math isnt your strong point... you just shot yourself in the foot...

[UNR8D]

your saying statistically that is correct but failing to post up the evidence.

I'm not the one who designed the graph/or the way its written its just what is available a the time of trying to answer a question, have a go all you like I was just trying to bring some factual information to the table.

tex, I'm over swearing... kicked the dog now i feel better :P

in regards to what age does what kind of driving, its a very big variable, at 23 I owned a limo and drove it for a living, so doing 3000+k's a week slightly out does your average 35yo ;).

[UNR8D]

Pointless statistics, are you a journalist??

no risk assessment and fraud investigation for one of the big 4.. behave yourself ;).

[Cabbage]

Originally Posted by UNR8D

no risk assessment and fraud investigation for one of the big 4.. behave yourself ;).

Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon or Hawthorn??

[left]

Originally Posted by UNR8D

your saying statistically that is correct but failing to post up the evidence.

I'm not the one who designed the graph/or the way its written its just what is available a the time of trying to answer a question, have a go all you like I was just trying to bring some factual information to the table.

Agree that they're "facts" but it's how they were skewed. What you presented was biased. You compared age groups that were in-equal in numbers. You can't say look at deaths on 30-39 age group and compare to 16-18 only (example only for emphasis). The math doesn't add up. One group is going to have waaaaaay more people in it than the other. It's not fair and it's not fact either.

It's been shown again and again that young people are over presented in car accidents causing death. Your table does actually confirm this...

[platinumXR]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

All great ideas if people comply...... if they dont follow the rules the rules are pointless......

Nail on head.

[UNR8D]

Originally Posted by left

Agree that they're "facts" but it's how they were skewed. What you presented was biased. You compared age groups that were in-equal in numbers. You can't say look at deaths on 30-39 age group and compare to 16-18 only (example only for emphasis). The math doesn't add up. One group is going to have waaaaaay more people in it than the other. It's not fair and it's not fact either.

It's been shown again and again that young people are over presented in car accidents causing death. Your table does actually confirm this...

Last time I checked READING a post and replying means to read ALL OF THE POST.

The data is written that way by TAC I didn’t re write it nor amend it in any way FFS how HARD is that for people to understand. :

if you have the time and patience then rewrite it yourself, up to you as I personally CBF, figured people would prefer to look at actual figures rather than what comes out of the news papers/gov ads to push their own agenda's but it seems your just hell bent of flaming someone for taking some time to get the 'facts' from a formal site to bring in perspective to an argument.

Im not a P plater or lost my licence so it doesn’t bother me personally, but the fact that some of you after going thru your younger years, misbehaved and survived it now seem to think that because someone else a generation behind you does it suddenly the world is about to end. get over yourselves.

on top of that, it seems like you want to make them suffer for a minority group who don’t know how to behave, despite rules/regs already in place, if they are already bound by rules they choose not to abide what makes you think that more rules are the answer?... by the mere thought of this stupid topic, you would be making 18-21 yo suffer in job opportunities amongst other less important issues because of a minority beyond that where do you stop?... drinking age 21, gambling 21? Joining defence force 21?... HOW LONG DO YOU WANT PPL's hands held? They have to grow up at some stage.

[left]

^^ Two words: brick wall.

Take the time to read a few posts here in reply to the guff you've written and then tell me "how hard is that for people to understand"

[UNR8D]

Originally Posted by left

^^ Two words: brick wall.

Take the time to read a few posts here in reply to the guff you've written and then tell me "how hard is that for people to understand"

brick wall? sorry im not a contractor, yellow pages might be of some help.

I stand by the fact of what I have said so far in this thread, I simply posted a link from TAC website, if you have an issue with how they post their stats take it up with them NOT me :togo: