[QUOTE=Shadaez;33061663]I'm 21, and not every 13 year old is immature like that. I'm sure you know the amount of terrible middleaged drivers out there, I'd trust some 13 year olds behind a wheel more than most older people. I really see no problem with having some 13 year olds drive with restrictions, and maybe some type of monitoring devices. I highly doubt they would be any more dangerous (I'd bet they'd be far less dangerous) than 16-18 year old children who need to impress all their friends.[/QUOTE]
And you think 10year olds wouldn't wanna drive just to impress their friends?
And does everyone who counters my argument just ignore my statements about insurance and petrol?
There is [I]no[/I] logical reason to put a 10-13 year old behind the wheel of a car. None at all. Kids who haven't even hit puberty or had just hit puberty not long ago, should not be put in a position where lives are at risk.
This is no exaggeration - Some decisions you make on the road are responsible for whether or not someone lives or dies, including your own life. I [I]do not[/I] want prepubescent children making those decisions, sometimes gambling with my life or others.
People die on the roads everyday, we don't need kids causing more trouble. If you think prepubescent children should be in a position where lives are at risk you need to rethink this.
When I got my license at 16 I found a job that was a 30 minute commute from my house to work which included highway driving. Working there for 6 months I never got in one car accident or even got close to being in one.
Finland has a good driving license system IMO.
scooters, down wired crossbikes and mopeds at 15. Less space in traffic, doesn't usually go over 50-60 km/h
Car at 18, cause that when people take responsibility for their own actions.
[QUOTE='[ToRn];33062880']And you think 10year olds wouldn't wanna drive just to impress their friends?
And does everyone who counters my argument just ignore my statements about insurance and petrol?
There is [I]no[/I] logical reason to put a 10-13 year old behind the wheel of a car. None at all. Kids who haven't even hit puberty or had just hit puberty not long ago, should not be put in a position where lives are at risk.
This is no exaggeration - Some decisions you make on the road are responsible for whether or not someone lives or dies, including your own life. I [I]do not[/I] want prepubescent children making those decisions, sometimes gambling with my life or others.
People die on the roads everyday, we don't need kids causing more trouble. If you think prepubescent children should be in a position where lives are at risk you need to rethink this.[/QUOTE]
Please shut up, no one is talking about 10-13 year olds jesus christ.
[QUOTE=Keegs;33063922]Please shut up, no one is talking about 10-13 year olds jesus christ.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Shadaez;33058191]I don't really see why there is a minimum, as long as you can prove you're responsible. [b]I'd say 10-13 absolute minimum[/b] and they'd be required to do lots of tests to prove themselves.[/QUOTE]
Yep, definitely not.
[QUOTE=TheHypnotoad;33052527][b]I left school at 16 to go straight into full time work[/b], could really have done with a car from that age rather than 17. I'd go for a reduction to 16, only problem I see would be older students driving to school (I still had a 50cc bike at that point to make up the rest of the year)
The main deterent to young drivers is cost anyway, it's very expensive to support yourself without being on parents insurance.
Big tip is to get a ped or bike, get a years no claims then get your car. (Bike no claims is now transferable)[/QUOTE]
How can you do full time when the age required to have full time is 18.
[QUOTE=.FLAP.JACK.DAN.;33065290]How can you do full time when the age required to have full time is 18.[/QUOTE]
Woah thats fucked up.
I dunno about other places, but here in california it feels like the DMV(Department of Motor Vehicles) does very little to stop people from being shit drivers.
I don't think you can really pinpoint a certain age. Everyone's situation is different. I know someone with a hardship license who is allowed to drive at 15 by himself for work, school, groceries, etc.
The general age of 16 appears to be fine too. Cops just need to be more strict on the texting while driving laws.
Victoria's rules are tough. We have to have 120 (possibly 240 soon) hours supervised practice with at least 10 hours with a qualified instructor I think. We have to be 16 to get our Learner's license and 18 to get a probationary license, then a year later an upgraded probationary license that lets you have peer passengers. Then after three years on that you can get your full license.
age doesnt matter.
you could put someone as old as 30 behind the wheel for the first time and they would drive like a cocky teenager
[QUOTE='[ToRn];33062880']And you think 10year olds wouldn't wanna drive just to impress their friends?
And does everyone who counters my argument just ignore my statements about insurance and petrol?
There is [I]no[/I] logical reason to put a 10-13 year old behind the wheel of a car. None at all. Kids who haven't even hit puberty or had just hit puberty not long ago, should not be put in a position where lives are at risk.
This is no exaggeration - Some decisions you make on the road are responsible for whether or not someone lives or dies, including your own life. I [I]do not[/I] want prepubescent children making those decisions, sometimes gambling with my life or others.
People die on the roads everyday, we don't need kids causing more trouble. If you think prepubescent children should be in a position where lives are at risk you need to rethink this.[/QUOTE]
why do you assume younger people are worse or more careless at driving? I'd assume it's mostly about experience, so of course statistics are going to show the younger drivers getting in more accidents.
[QUOTE=.FLAP.JACK.DAN.;33065290]How can you do full time when the age required to have full time is 18.[/QUOTE]I was working full time hours when I was 16, but I was hired for 'part-time'
To all of those suggesting 18-20 for a full license. How would I have gotten to high school? In my county there's a charter school that I spent much of my later high school time at, and I had on and off campus extracurricular activities. How could I do all of that without being able to drive?
If it were 20, how would I drive my 40 miles to college every day? I've always been a reasonable and safe driver. Suggesting that raising the age limit will reduce "boy racers" and such is completely anecdotal.
[editline]1st November 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=NightmareXx;33066169]age doesnt matter.
you could put someone as old as 30 behind the wheel for the first time and they would drive like a cocky teenager[/QUOTE]
thank god someone else recognizes this is the most likely case
The problem with discussing this here, is that people come from different places which have different problems.
Here in the UK most of the roads are narrow, confusing and crowded, so driving takes a great deal of concentration. I think that the current age of 17 is pretty much OK, but I think there should be a minimum number of hours spent with an instructor.
The impression I get of the US, for example, is that the roads tend to be simpler and so the age could be lower than the UK.
Also, although we complain about it constantly (that's just the British way), we do have a comparatively good public transport system here. I managed perfectly fine until the age of 21.
I feel that people should be allowed to begin learning to drive around 16 (I believe it's 15.5 in some provinces here, don't quote me on that), and have restrictions taken off as you progress to a full license somewhere around 18.
After a year without incidents I think a person should be able to be trusted to drive without a licensed passenger, and then a year after that graduate to a full license. It's similar to the system employed here right now and it works fine.
[editline]1st November 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=st0rmforce;33067713]
Also, although we complain about it constantly (that's just the British way), we do have a comparatively good public transport system here. I managed perfectly fine until the age of 21.[/QUOTE]
That's fine in cities but in rural areas having a vehicle is almost a requirement.
16 because if people can't drive then they will suck just as bad when you make them get a license later, honestly it's not a factor of brain development, it's called practice and experience.
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;33066805]To all of those suggesting 18-20 for a full license. How would I have gotten to high school? In my county there's a charter school that I spent much of my later high school time at, and I had on and off campus extracurricular activities. How could I do all of that without being able to drive?[/quote]
It's called public transportation.
[quote]
If it were 20, how would I drive my 40 miles to college every day? I've always been a reasonable and safe driver. Suggesting that raising the age limit will reduce "boy racers" and such is completely anecdotal.[/quote]
Yeah, it shouldn't be 20, that's too high as people start getting serious jobs and workplaces by 18, and it's difficult to set up public transportation that works for everyone.
When you have just a few high schools, it's less of a challenge to set up dedicated school buses, but it does require a good public transportation service, which you may or may not have, I don't know about that.
[quote]
[quote]age doesnt matter.
you could put someone as old as 30 behind the wheel for the first time and they would drive like a cocky teenager[/quote]
thank god someone else recognizes this is the most likely case
[/QUOTE]
This is also true, but there are unfortunately a large number of people who are not mature enough to drive by the age of 16, 17, 18, even 30. I would however assume that this number decreases as people age, so what you need to do is find a middleground, and I think the age where people start at workplaces is the best age for this.
[editline]1st November 2011[/editline]
But I also think that you should be able to practice when you're 16, with a supervisor.
[QUOTE=T1dal;33058980]If your driving recklessly on a motor bike and hit it a car you're screwed but the car isn't.[/QUOTE]
How is that reason for a motorcycle (MORE DANGEROUS) to be run by younger people?
[QUOTE=Shadaez;33066410]why do you assume younger people are worse or more careless at driving? I'd assume it's mostly about experience, so of course statistics are going to show the younger drivers getting in more accidents.[/QUOTE]
You obviously missed my reply about biological maturity so I'll repeat myself: Younger drivers are more prone to accidents, partly because of their behavior and partly because of their not-fully-developed brain. His assumption is not only valid but several times proven.
[QUOTE=NightmareXx;33066169]age doesnt matter.
you could put someone as old as 30 behind the wheel for the first time and they would drive like a cocky teenager[/QUOTE]
You can't say age doesn't matter AT ALL. I mean when you start rolling back to 12 year olds, you have to draw the line somewhere.
[QUOTE=Cheezy;33069968]You obviously missed my reply about biological maturity so I'll repeat myself: Younger drivers are more prone to accidents, partly because of their behavior and partly because of their not-fully-developed brain. His assumption is not only valid but several times proven.[/QUOTE]
Well, I finally found a source related to what I was getting at and it proves me wrong
[url]http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/1115/2/88736.0001.001.pdf[/url]
I would still trust a limited amount of 13 year olds in very special circumstances to drive.
[QUOTE=Meller Yeller;33070182]You can't say age doesn't matter AT ALL. I mean when you start rolling back to 12 year olds, you have to draw the line somewhere.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, as I said earlier, there's always going to be people who shouldn't drive, but the amount of those people would logically decrease over time as people's brains finish developing, so age would mist definitely matter.
[QUOTE=LarparNar;33069532]It's called public transportation.
Yeah, it shouldn't be 20, that's too high as people start getting serious jobs and workplaces by 18, and it's difficult to set up public transportation that works for everyone.
When you have just a few high schools, it's less of a challenge to set up dedicated school buses, but it does require a good public transportation service, which you may or may not have, I don't know about that.
This is also true, but there are unfortunately a large number of people who are not mature enough to drive by the age of 16, 17, 18, even 30. I would however assume that this number decreases as people age, so what you need to do is find a middleground, and I think the age where people start at workplaces is the best age for this.
[editline]1st November 2011[/editline]
But I also think that you should be able to practice when you're 16, with a supervisor.[/QUOTE]
there really isn't an efficient mode of public transport that I can use with my schedule. again, I was driving at 16 and have never been a trouble. It's kind of a requirement here. I live in the suburbs and everyone here has a car that they can drive them at 16, usually one their family doesn't use much, obviously. Not really speed demon material. The number of issues we had in high school versus the number of drivers was pretty low. Why punish people who can obviously drive well enough? If we want to really go after those who have huge numbers of accidents then we would also want to limit the driving age for the elderly, but you haven't seen anyone suggest that.
[QUOTE=Mlisen14;33066069]Victoria's rules are tough. We have to have 120 (possibly 240 soon) hours supervised practice with at least 10 hours with a qualified instructor I think. We have to be 16 to get our Learner's license and 18 to get a probationary license, then a year later an upgraded probationary license that lets you have peer passengers. Then after three years on that you can get your full license.[/QUOTE]
That is incredibly strict.
At least we had to have fifty hours supervised (by this I mean our parents have to sign a waiver saying we've done our hours) on our permit (which is obtainable at fifteen) to test for a license after having had the permit for a year and being sixteen years of age... oh, in Washington it is also required to have taken a drivers' edu. class (waste of money).
Or just wait until you are eighteen and none of those requirements are required.
Or just drive like a rational person and don't even have a license.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33067755]I feel that people should be allowed to begin learning to drive around 16 (I believe it's 15.5 in some provinces here, don't quote me on that), and have restrictions taken off as you progress to a full license somewhere around 18.
After a year without incidents I think a person should be able to be trusted to drive without a licensed passenger, and then a year after that graduate to a full license. It's similar to the system employed here right now and it works fine.
[editline]1st November 2011[/editline]
That's fine in cities but in rural areas having a vehicle is almost a requirement.[/QUOTE]
Incidents should be thoroughly investigated. I know people always claim an accident is never their fault, but someone else being a dumbass could easily ruin someone getting a license in that case.
[QUOTE=LarparNar;33069532]It's called public transportation.
[/QUOTE]
Not every city has public transportation that is refined as an bustling city does. There are some cities that don't even have public transportation that are large cities. Take for instance Arlington, TX. Absolutely no public transportation.
As for my opinion, 16-17. I'm pushing 20 now and have not had an accident, fender bender, or any time of motorist incident. However, I know many kids my age that have had at least one accident. I think what would be best is a heavier graduated learners permit, as to what we have in Arizona.
16 is same in America and i have to say 18 is my max because they are letting teens/minors drive around like idiots and not get to school on time.
Ps: Texting and Driving is the worse a teen can do
17, but with several restrictions.
Over here, once you get your license (17 is the minimum age here) you have a 3 month period in which you cannot drive on your own- You've got to have someone in the car with you which has proper driving experience (at least 24 with 5 years exp. or 30+ with 3 years exp.). After that, you have two years in which the law defines you as a "new driver", in which you can drive on your own, but you can only drive up to two people with you in the car (unless one of them meets the requirements above).
Personally, I think it's a good system. From my own experience I can say that I would have bumped into several cars if my dad wasn't there teaching me how to do everything right.
Are you fucking serious?
You're saying [I]every[/I] 10-13 year old cannot drive and is going to crash and impress their friends? Hell no, you're stereotyping all of them as ignorant retards that have IQ of 50.
Yes, there are real big fucking idiots out there, but I know that quite a few people can and would drive properly at that age.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
