Young Drivers 16-20yrs

[Sojourner]

A Curfew wont work,

What will work is limiting the Kilowatts of the vehicle a newly licensed driver can drive to say 80KW for the first few years of their license - whilst there about it, I would also require anyone who drives a vehicle over 160KW to have to have a CAMS license so that they do actually know how to drive it properly and safely.

[Psyber]

I just came across this article:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/569 ... be-killed/

Prone to distractions:
Rebecca Ivers from the George Institute for International Health gave evidence to a New South Wales inquiry into young drivers.
She believes there are many factors that lead to young people being involved in road accidents.
"They are more prone to driving with distractions like mobile phones, with passengers, more likely driving at hazardous times, more likely to be driving old unsafe vehicles," she said. "They are more prone to reckless behaviour and an inability to recognise risk."

The inquiry's recommendations led to changes to the laws for young drivers, including restrictions on passenger numbers.
"A night restriction means that young drivers between 17 and 24 at night are restricted to only carrying one peer passenger, that is a passenger less than 21 years of age," Ms Ivers said.

Western Australia has gone further, becoming the first state to introduce a curfew keeping inexperienced drivers off the road between midnight and 5:00am.

Peter Palamara from the Curtin Institute of Technology says it is too early to gauge the curfew's effectiveness but similar programs overseas have been successful.
"Night-time restrictions and peer passenger restrictions in the US have been shown to be very effective counter measures, and the effects are anywhere between 10 to 30 per cent in the reduction of crashes for young novice drivers," he said.

[mick]

I think all the training and education in the world simply won't work. Most young males are driven by hormones, and an vastly inflated view of their driving ability, been there done that. Short of castration before puberty there is no simple solution, because of this there is talk of curfews and limiting the power of cars available to young drivers, the second option is pretty stupid, an irresponsible driver will push whatever he drives to the limit sometimes with disasterous consequences and probably ignore the curfew as well. The draconian approach is discriminatory against young females who are statistically far safer drivers than males. Almost every d*ckhead I see on the road is MALE, under 30, driving a rice burner or a late 80s or early 90s Falcon or Commodore with a loud exhaust.

[Sam_goUUUdogs]

I believe it should not be aged based, but you have to reach a certain level of education or a certain level of social responsiblity. For example, satisfactorily complete Year 11, and for those who leave school early, then they need to show a full year of full time work (backed up by stat dec from their employer) or a full years successful completion of TAFE.
Kids are able to drive at earlier levels of their education now because they spend an extra year in reception. A lot turn 16 during Year 10, or if they fail another year, during Year 9. I didn't turn 16 till early during Year 12. Who do you think, on the balance of probability, would make a more responsible driver, a 16y.o. in year 9, or a 15 y.o. who has completed Year 11?

Ridiculous, Standard education does not necessarily lead to being responsible, they are completley separate issues, you can pass year 12 with straight A's and still be an extremely irresponsible person.

[mick]

I believe it should not be aged based, but you have to reach a certain level of education or a certain level of social responsiblity. For example, satisfactorily complete Year 11, and for those who leave school early, then they need to show a full year of full time work (backed up by stat dec from their employer) or a full years successful completion of TAFE.
Kids are able to drive at earlier levels of their education now because they spend an extra year in reception. A lot turn 16 during Year 10, or if they fail another year, during Year 9. I didn't turn 16 till early during Year 12. Who do you think, on the balance of probability, would make a more responsible driver, a 16y.o. in year 9, or a 15 y.o. who has completed Year 11?

Ridiculous, Standard education does not necessarily lead to being responsible, they are completley separate issues, you can pass year 12 with straight A's and still be an extremely irresponsible person.

Agreed!

[tipper]

A Curfew wont work,

What will work is limiting the Kilowatts of the vehicle a newly licensed driver can drive to say 80KW for the first few years of their license - whilst there about it, I would also require anyone who drives a vehicle over 160KW to have to have a CAMS license so that they do actually know how to drive it properly and safely.

I agree a curfew wont work. it just means the ones that are doing the wrong thing, ( such as speeding, "hoon driving" etc) will just be breaking another law at the same time.

I still dont think limiting the killowatts would work either. how do you determine the appropriate limits? 160kw is extreemly low. the current model commodore and falcons six cylinder base models have more power than that. is it fair to force a family to purchase another vehicle for their adolescent to drive cos the family wagon has "too much power"?

Even non hoon type vehicles have significantly more power than that level. the current model honda legend, which i would not consider a "hoon car" has well over 200kw! By forcing families to purchase another car just to allow their child to learn to drive it will force more and more young people into the older type of cars that are missing all of the current safety features now available, possibly increasing the injury\death rate when they do invariably crash? As said earlier, the target group will push whatever they drive to their or their vehicles limits, reglardless if it is an underpowered 4 cyl or oer powered 8.

The education if it exists should be focused on no the driving itself, but the consequences of bad decisions on the road. what happens when you dont concentrate, or speed, or drag race. show them how badly it can go wrong if they dont give their car the respect it should have.

[FlyingHigh]

I believe it should not be aged based, but you have to reach a certain level of education or a certain level of social responsiblity. For example, satisfactorily complete Year 11, and for those who leave school early, then they need to show a full year of full time work (backed up by stat dec from their employer) or a full years successful completion of TAFE.
Kids are able to drive at earlier levels of their education now because they spend an extra year in reception. A lot turn 16 during Year 10, or if they fail another year, during Year 9. I didn't turn 16 till early during Year 12. Who do you think, on the balance of probability, would make a more responsible driver, a 16y.o. in year 9, or a 15 y.o. who has completed Year 11?

Ridiculous, Standard education does not necessarily lead to being responsible, they are completley separate issues, you can pass year 12 with straight A's and still be an extremely irresponsible person.

Quite true, but surely it is a more accurate guide to responsbility than simply age. Further, if people are not responsible enough when they have finished Year 12, how the hell are they going to be responsible two years earlier?

This is the whole thing about this issue - you are not going to find a set of rules that suits everybody, especially the age group we are talking about.

[Pidge]

There should not be a curfew. People are only concentrating on the minority as usual. The majority of people drive properly and obey the rules.

[Psyber]

A friend of mine bought each of his 3 kids an old Volvo as they got their licence, on the grounds of reliability and safety.
He had a newer one himself - he needed a station wagon for his business.
Then he fell off his BMW 1000cc road/trail bike and finished up in hospital...

Joking aside, I agree that generalised curfews are not the answer because people vary so much.
However, given the high accident incidence in the age group, I can see why it appeals to governments and the Police, as in the story I posted a link to.
It penalises a small part of the population unnecessarily but it makes the statistics much better ,and makes the government look good thereby.

[interested observer]

A friend of mine bought each of his 3 kids an old Volvo as they got their licence, on the grounds of reliability and safety.
He had a newer one himself - he needed a station wagon for his business.
Then he fell off his BMW 1000cc road/trail bike and finished up in hospital...
Joking aside, I agree that generalised curfews are not the answer because people vary so much.
However, given the high accident incidence in the age group, I can see why it appeals to governments and the Police, as in the story I posted a link to.
It penalises a small part of the population unnecessarily but it makes the statistics much better ,and makes the government look good thereby.

If my old man bought me a Volvo he and I would have ended up in hospital..

[Sam_goUUUdogs]

I believe it should not be aged based, but you have to reach a certain level of education or a certain level of social responsiblity. For example, satisfactorily complete Year 11, and for those who leave school early, then they need to show a full year of full time work (backed up by stat dec from their employer) or a full years successful completion of TAFE.
Kids are able to drive at earlier levels of their education now because they spend an extra year in reception. A lot turn 16 during Year 10, or if they fail another year, during Year 9. I didn't turn 16 till early during Year 12. Who do you think, on the balance of probability, would make a more responsible driver, a 16y.o. in year 9, or a 15 y.o. who has completed Year 11?

Ridiculous, Standard education does not necessarily lead to being responsible, they are completley separate issues, you can pass year 12 with straight A's and still be an extremely irresponsible person.

Quite true, but surely it is a more accurate guide to responsbility than simply age. Further, if people are not responsible enough when they have finished Year 12, how the hell are they going to be responsible two years earlier?

This is the whole thing about this issue - you are not going to find a set of rules that suits everybody, especially the age group we are talking about.

Fair point, but if for example you were to use education as a guide and say year 12 is the minimum, you then have people getting there license when, or around about when they turn 18, which imo is just asking for trouble, one thing that SA has got right is the age to start driving and the age to start drinking are at different times.

[Psyber]

A friend of mine bought each of his 3 kids an old Volvo as they got their licence, on the grounds of reliability and safety.
He had a newer one himself - he needed a station wagon for his business.
Then he fell off his BMW 1000cc road/trail bike and finished up in hospital...
Joking aside, I agree that generalised curfews are not the answer because people vary so much.
However, given the high accident incidence in the age group, I can see why it appeals to governments and the Police, as in the story I posted a link to.
It penalises a small part of the population unnecessarily but it makes the statistics much better ,and makes the government look good thereby.

If my old man bought me a Volvo he and I would have ended up in hospital..

Ahh.. Prejudice and image...
I've never owned one, but I've driven a few as loan cars. Comfortable, solid, reliable, and surprisingly don't perform badly once you get up to speed.
They don't corner like Saabs or Porsche though, but they were better than the Fords or Holdens around at the time.

[FlyingHigh]

I believe it should not be aged based, but you have to reach a certain level of education or a certain level of social responsiblity. For example, satisfactorily complete Year 11, and for those who leave school early, then they need to show a full year of full time work (backed up by stat dec from their employer) or a full years successful completion of TAFE.
Kids are able to drive at earlier levels of their education now because they spend an extra year in reception. A lot turn 16 during Year 10, or if they fail another year, during Year 9. I didn't turn 16 till early during Year 12. Who do you think, on the balance of probability, would make a more responsible driver, a 16y.o. in year 9, or a 15 y.o. who has completed Year 11?

Ridiculous, Standard education does not necessarily lead to being responsible, they are completley separate issues, you can pass year 12 with straight A's and still be an extremely irresponsible person.

Quite true, but surely it is a more accurate guide to responsbility than simply age. Further, if people are not responsible enough when they have finished Year 12, how the hell are they going to be responsible two years earlier?

This is the whole thing about this issue - you are not going to find a set of rules that suits everybody, especially the age group we are talking about.

Fair point, but if for example you were to use education as a guide and say year 12 is the minimum, you then have people getting there license when, or around about when they turn 18, which imo is just asking for trouble, one thing that SA has got right is the age to start driving and the age to start drinking are at different times.

Even though it contradicts my argument, that is an excellent point Sam, and I agree. So we gos round and round in circles
(Of course we could raise the drinking age, but the reasons for that are another argument )

[mick]

A friend of mine bought each of his 3 kids an old Volvo as they got their licence, on the grounds of reliability and safety.
He had a newer one himself - he needed a station wagon for his business.
Then he fell off his BMW 1000cc road/trail bike and finished up in hospital...
Joking aside, I agree that generalised curfews are not the answer because people vary so much.
However, given the high accident incidence in the age group, I can see why it appeals to governments and the Police, as in the story I posted a link to.
It penalises a small part of the population unnecessarily but it makes the statistics much better ,and makes the government look good thereby.

If my old man bought me a Volvo he and I would have ended up in hospital..

Ahh.. Prejudice and image...
I've never owned one, but I've driven a few as loan cars. Comfortable, solid, reliable, and surprisingly don't perform badly once you get up to speed.
They don't corner like Saabs or Porsche though, but they were better than the Fords or Holdens around at the time.

I owned a 1975 Volvo for a while and I agree, they were not a bad car, at least technically 10 years ahead of the Falcon and Commodore of the same era. Good open road car would sit solidly on the road with good handling and possible to cruise at 140km/h all day, with good economy, not bad for a 2 litre 4 cylinder back in 75! Even had a reasonably serious accident in mine, I was T-barred at an intersection by a guy who ran a red light in a big 1980 Valiant. I drove away he didn't. Today I think drivers of large 4WDs (any make) have assumed the "wanker" mantle previously held by Volvo drivers, - although the Porsche Cayenne with its ultra low profile tyres is the ultimate "never off the bitumen" wanker 4WD, closely followed by "riced up" privately imported Nissan Sylvias and Toyotas.