Petrol Girl Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 How many kids do you know who have got ASBOs? I don't know any but I know lots who can drive. So you base your beliefs that the majority of kids in this country aren't bad ones because the kids you know aren't? Wouldn't stand up in court really would it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 The accident stats back up all these measures, particularly the no passengers one. The addition of limited engine size or power for either a set period or until extra tests were passed would be good as well, although insurance costs tend to achieve the same thing in most cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 So you base your beliefs that the majority of kids in this country aren't bad ones because the kids you know aren't? Wouldn't stand up in court really would it? Neither would your assertion that they are all bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DOA1982 Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 It should go up to 30 for men and 18 for women. Yeah Right. Older drivers never have accidents do they!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 I think its a good idea to have a zero alcohol limit, and to have a set number of lessons but having no passengers would be stupid - think of the amount of extra cars that would be on the road purely because friends cant give each other lifts anymore. I dont think the age really needs to go up to 18 either, it seems unneccessary because you dont really mature between turning 17 and 18. True, it should probably be >21 for men. Unfortunately the part of the brain that is used to access the consequences of risk develops later in men than in women. On the other hand men have better spacial awareness so the risk assessment is more accurate, just the bit about consequences isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scammy Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 The no passenger rules are based on the New Zealand model. Drivers on a restricted licence in NZ cannot drive without supervision between 10pm and 5am; they cannot carry passengers without supervision (apart from spouse, children, relatives on social security benefits or those you care for as primary carer); and there is an effective "zero limit" on alcohol for drivers under 20. You have a restriction on your licence from passing your test for 18 months (under 25) or 6 months (over 25). This period can be reduced further by completing an advanced driving course. I take it that for if you just about to have lessons and not if you have alreayd been passed 2 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Googleberry Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 ...Government funding for driving lessons (especially for benefit claimants) payed for by a windfall tax on bus company profits. ... And government funding for a new car for each of those benefit claimants, paid for by even more taxes on working people perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tess Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 True, it should probably be >21 for men. Unfortunately the part of the brain that is used to access the consequences of risk develops later in men than in women. On the other hand men have better spacial awareness so the risk assessment is more accurate, just the bit about consequences isn't. 21 for men sounds a tad old, but if you bear in mind what you just said about males having better spacial awareness, that would also put the driving age up for women as well. Thats an interesting fact, i never knew that before Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 I meant assess, not access. The results of the differences speak for themselves. Men have more severe accidents (ie take sometimes big risks), women have more (but less severe) accidents, ie don't take excessive risks, but misjudge things more often. There's a reason that insurance for 17 year olds costs a fortune and that it drops quite rapidly at around 25. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darbees Posted March 3, 2008 Share Posted March 3, 2008 So you base your beliefs that the majority of kids in this country aren't bad ones because the kids you know aren't? Wouldn't stand up in court really would it? If I were in court I'm pretty confident I could easily find stats to back up my assertion, you couldn't. I'm not loopy for knowing that, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now