BF2S Forums Driving Age in the UK to become 18

Turquoise wrote:

I wish the drinking age was 18 here.

Here we can go out to pubs and clubs and drink anything

BUT

Whe cannot Buy alcohol in the booze shop until we are 20

Bertster7 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

I agree with you.  While I don't smoke marijuana, nor would I if it were legal, it really shouldn't be illegal.  But where does that belief break down?  Should all substances be legal?  Should narcotics no longer be controlled?  Heroine?  Cocaine?

That's the problem with that argument.

Eh... let's just start with legalizing the soft drugs, and then we'll discuss the harder ones.

No substances should be banned. Heroin, Cocaine, PCP, Crack, Weed, Alcohol etc. all should be legal.  This destroys the black market in them and removes a massive chunk of money from the pockets of criminals. It's a great solution to the drug problem, instead of catching the drug dealers, just drive them out of business.

Good points, but I think we can agree that this process would not happen overnight (nor should it).  Change must be gradual and comprehensive.

Last edited by Turquoise (2007-12-30 00:12:35)

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

mcminty wrote:

Proposals in the MPs' report, called Novice Drivers, include:


people learning to drive from the age of 17, but not taking the test until they are 18

drivers completing a set minimum number of lessons with a structured syllabus

extending hazard-perception training using computer simulators to encourage better habits in young drivers-to-be

a zero alcohol limit for all drivers for a year after passing their test

banning drivers from carrying passengers aged between 10 and 20 from 11pm to 5am for a year after passing their test

What is the current arrangement with driving in the UK?


In Australia (New South Wakes at least), we can start learning from 16, but are not able to take the test for our P's (provisional licence) until we are 17. We have to complete a mandatory 50 hours of driving during that time, but it's being/has been increased to 120 hours. We then hold our Red P's for a year. After that is a computer hazard perception test then the Green P's for 2 years (before a full licence).


The proposals cited from the article don't seem that bad in terms of Zero BAC (blood alcohol content). For P's here its 0.00 BAC. It's just a pain for the morning after a party... sometimes we can't drive until midday.

We also have the passenger restrictions from 11pm - the driver and one passenger. This is total bullshit: it destroyed the Designated Driver scheme.

yer i prefer queenslands system.... L's at 16 (have to be accompanied by a licenced driver) P's at 17 (dont need to be accompainied... but cannot drive certain turbocharged cards and 0 BAC) 21 = full licence.

Bloody hell, i hate Victoria's driving system. Literally everywhere in the rest of the country you can drive solo at 17. In Vic, we can get our L's at 16, then the minimum age to go for your P's is 18, so thats 2 years driving, plus we need 120 hours before we can go for the test. And with new laws coming in were on red P's like NSW for one year, and green for 3, before a full licence. We've always had the harshest road rules relating to young drivers, but at least the rest of the country is coming into line with the graduated licencing scheme. Sucks that i need to wait another year to get my P's after just turning 17.

Bout the only reason i can think for our higher age limits would probably be, besides the whole safety issue, is victoria isnt a trade heavy state like the rest of the states. Lots of people in the other states will leave school early to go and get a trade apprenticeship, whereas you wont find as many leaving in Victoria, at least till after year 12. The whole system is one year behind the rest of the states in age, and the government wonders why theres a skilled labour shortage.

Last edited by Hawk390 (2007-12-30 05:43:15)

I say that give them their licence when they're 18 like they do in Finland. It has worked well... Altought our learning methods and materials are bit more harder than they might be somewhere else. I don't know... forget this message.

Last edited by Finnspec (2007-12-30 10:10:52)

I'm sorry but I am totally against this. The Government and media focus on young drivers when older drivers can cause the exact same problems, if not more due to poorer responsiveness and perhaps vision. At age 16, of course I am anxious to start taking driving lessons the second I turn 17 to be able to get to places. I don't drink. I don't smoke. I'm always alert even as a passenger in a car, and yet they want to move it up a year?

Novice drivers should be banned from carrying passengers aged between 10 and 20 late at night, the report adds.

What an absolutely load of BS. So I couldn't take my brother home? "Sorry buddy, I have no cash for a taxi, stay in town for the night." I knew the Government here was screwed up but never this much.

If anything, older drivers are more likely to cause accidents if they are in a car. I'm not happy with this at all. My brother has 6 points on his license - 3 for speeding. He was on his R plates doing 70 (the speed limit) on a motorway when the maximum speed he was allowed to do was 45. I dare someone to do 45 on a motorway, you are being an even more dangerous driver - especially in the likes of fog when cars are going about 75 and you are 30mph slower in the same lane, cars must dodge you just to stay on their path. The other 3 was for going through a yellow-red light (wasn't quite red but had gone off yellow) so it's kind of x-x there.

Young drivers aren't the problem. And the sooner the Government realizes that, the better.

Bertster7 wrote:

kylef wrote:

Young drivers aren't the problem. And the sooner the Government realizes that, the better.

Young drivers are a very big part of the problem. Most of it in fact. This is reflected in their insurance costs.

Government figures show that one-third of road deaths involve a car driven by a person aged between 17 and 25, although this group accounts for just one in eight licence-holders.

Young male drivers are the biggest cause of death of young women in Britain. Almost one in two drivers killed at night is under 25.

Pretending it isn't so, just because the suggested restrictions would have a negative impact on you, is just daft.


Personally I think anyone over 65 should be required to take a test annually to demonstrate they can still drive properly too. But the big issue is keeping young drivers off the road until they're more responsible - I think 21 would be a good age for people to start driving.

21 my ass. No way.

jord wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

kylef wrote:

Young drivers aren't the problem. And the sooner the Government realizes that, the better.

Young drivers are a very big part of the problem. Most of it in fact. This is reflected in their insurance costs.

Government figures show that one-third of road deaths involve a car driven by a person aged between 17 and 25, although this group accounts for just one in eight licence-holders.

Young male drivers are the biggest cause of death of young women in Britain. Almost one in two drivers killed at night is under 25.

Pretending it isn't so, just because the suggested restrictions would have a negative impact on you, is just daft.


Personally I think anyone over 65 should be required to take a test annually to demonstrate they can still drive properly too. But the big issue is keeping young drivers off the road until they're more responsible - I think 21 would be a good age for people to start driving.

21 my ass. No way.

I suppose. 25 would be best - since that's where the statistics start getting better. Certainly 17 is too young. 17 year old kids cannot be trusted with cars.

jord wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

jord wrote:

21 my ass. No way.

I suppose. 25 would be best - since that's where the statistics start getting better. Certainly 17 is too young. 17 year old kids cannot be trusted with cars.

Yes I can

No you can't, and in 10 years time, you'll agree with me.

Airwolf wrote:

Story taken from here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6904821.stm

and

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh … est127.xml


Having just turned 17 and gaining my provisional license, I have to say I am totally against this. I have been waiting for so long to drive at 17 when all my friends had their birthdays in June. I have mine in December an yet again the government (because it's the government) thwarts us.

The driving test is to be a 12 month course, hoping to reduce accidents and broaden new drivers' experience. I can live with that, in fact I'm all for it. It's the fact it's going to rise to 18 that really bothers me. 1 year. what difference exactly?


I know for some of you it's going to be very easy to say "oh it's 1 year, get over it" and also it's very easy to not be empathetic because most of you are over 18 and have your license. Sorry, it's the fact that I've spent a year smiling through people bragging about passing their test, and I was all excited to get my test done this year sometime.


If this goes forward, I dunno. I guess I'll have to wait.



no, no it isnt
everyone thinks it is
but it isnt
so dont worry
i just got my provisional
if this was true i wouldnt have
on the dvla website it says "WE ARE NOT ChANGING THE CURRENT AGE"

its all a rumour

Again, the few idiots spoiling it for the most of us who actually use cars for purposes other than street racing.




/Airwolf's first DST topic.