Raise the driving age?

[Ian]

I think engine size and no forced induction limitations are the only way, just like the 250cc bike rule.

Nope. My 4.2 litre Safari isn't dangerous to drive because of engine power, and it's not so hard to get massive performance out of a 250cc bike, or a 1300cc rotary. There are so many anomalies to make it unworkable.
The average cheap $1,000 used jap-box shopping cart can still do at least 60% over the open road speed limit.

Don't forget that the road toll has been reducing as a total over the past couple of decades, despite more cars, more people, more miles done on the road.

I fear a bit about modern cars with ABS, traction, and stability control. That makes it harder for an inexperienced driver to go past the point of no return, but also means that the speed at which the point of no return is eventually reached is much higher, and the ability of the driver to recognise, react, and learn to correct the problem is gone.

I'd go for compulsory 3rd party insurance. In the past 10 years or so, not one of the 5 or more idiots who have pranged into any of our cars have had insurance. Reason is they can't afford the premium, and the truth is the roads would be much safer with them on buses or bicycles.
I bet they all passed their driving tests, and if the tests were twice as hard, they'd have still passed them - so as popular as it may be to whine that the tests are too easy, not enough instruction etc, I'd argue that would make very little difference.

Sorry, I have to disagree with most of what you have said.
15-24 yr old don't have accidents in 4.2 Safaris because they don't drive them!
Acceleration of modern cars is one of the most addictive part of their performance envelope...and this is what we need to address.
The 'anomolies' you speak of can be taken care of (Motorsprt NZ have done it for 40 yrs in the case of rotories in a single sentence).
3rd party insurance has always been affordable Uninsured drivers have a mindset that they will not have an accident and or will not be held accountable. Why would making it compulsory change driving skill levels or behaviour? (I agree it should be compulsory, by the way, but for other reasons)
Those who call for more rigorous testing, professional driving instruction, defensive driving courses etc etc are not 'whining' as you so bluntly put it....but see these as practical measures to help deal to an appalling state of play in respect of our general driving skill set/behaviour.
I drive for a living on some of our most challenging roads, and on a daily basis see mature adults who have poor driving skills (eg following to closely on a wet road) together with a lack of knowledge of the road code (eg passing a stationery school bus at 100kph). These same mums and dads, teach by example, our kids to drive!

[Timmo]

Don't forget that the road toll has been reducing as a total over the past couple of decades, despite more cars, more people, more miles done on the road.

The road death toll yes.

The accident rate.....nope. People are having more crashes....and being saved by the better engineering of modern cars and medical care. Whereas someone may have had a crash and died in the past, today people are having a crash, getting cut out of the car, flown to hospital and having millions spent on fixing them up and rehabilitation.

I, for one, would like the emphasis shifted from reducing the road death toll to reducing the crash rate.

Edited: Correct quote notation.

[poison]

Poison wrote -
Don't forget that the road toll has been reducing as a total over the past couple of decades, despite more cars, more people, more miles done on the road.

Wasn't me, careful with the quoting...lol

[Mark]

Sorry, I have to disagree with most of what you have said.
15-24 yr old don't have accidents in 4.2 Safaris because they don't drive them!
Acceleration of modern cars is one of the most addictive part of their performance envelope...and this is what we need to address.
The 'anomolies' you speak of can be taken care of (Motorsprt NZ have done it for 40 yrs in the case of rotories in a single sentence).

Not many drive safaris, but plenty drive commodore/falcon family cars, especially in country areas. CC rating isn't a good indicator.

3rd party insurance has always been affordable Uninsured drivers have a mindset that they will not have an accident and or will not be held accountable. Why would making it compulsory change driving skill levels or behaviour? (I agree it should be compulsory, by the way, but for other reasons)

3rd party is affordable for me - I pay about $95/year for the safari, about $250 for full cover for the MX5. But if you're under 25, have had claims, and want 3rd party for a turbo jap-box, then it really won't be very affordable at all. Some young folks I've talked to mention sums like $2,000 / year for 3rd party cover only - with large excesses.

Those who call for more rigorous testing, professional driving instruction, defensive driving courses etc etc are not 'whining' as you so bluntly put it....but see these as practical measures to help deal to an appalling state of play in respect of our general driving skill set/behaviour.
I drive for a living on some of our most challenging roads, and on a daily basis see mature adults who have poor driving skills (eg following to closely on a wet road) together with a lack of knowledge of the road code (eg passing a stationery school bus at 100kph). These same mums and dads, teach by example, our kids to drive!

We're already swamped with damned annoying inconvenient intrusive legislation in this country. I'm a middle-aged person, I object strongly to intrusion of freedom by some so-called anti "boy racer" legislation, in theory if I choose to drive up Moorehouse Ave and back, I could be charged under "anti-boy racer laws". For goodness sake, what if I want to drive up and down Moorehouse Ave all night - why the hell shouldn't I be allowed to? Because some ratbags did it while breaking countless other laws at the same time, it's fair that I lose some freedom? There were already plenty of laws in place to deal with bad driving behaviour. If our cops put some effort into enforcing existing laws - as you point out, following too closely, passing school buses too fast, then the message would get through. But they don't, they reaps hundreds of millions from speed camera tickets, and spend the loot on pathetic TV ads.

[poison]

I object strongly to intrusion of freedom by some so-called anti "boy racer" legislation, in theory if I choose to drive up Moorehouse Ave and back, I could be charged under "anti-boy racer laws". For goodness sake, what if I want to drive up and down Moorehouse Ave all night - why the hell shouldn't I be allowed to?

I have to agree with that one, the current boy racer laws are vague and completely open to interpretation by the officer on the spot. I went to an industrial area in Albany trying to set my Electronic Boost Controller away from other cars, yet this falls under the current boy racer laws, which is just ridiculous. That said I still believe that clearly defined and well applied laws would help with most problems.

The real problem is the court system giving a slap on the hand to car thieves and violent criminals. Then you see young drivers owing thousands in unpaid fines getting the fines wiped by the courts, what message does that send. How do they even get to the stage of owing so much? They should be getting sent to prison well before getting to the stage of owing thousands in fines. Once someone gets to owing a thousand they supposedly can’t pay back, they are not going to worry about incurring more fines.

[Timmo]

Then you see young drivers owing thousands in unpaid fines getting the fines wiped by the courts, what message does that send. How do they even get to the stage of owing so much? They should be getting sent to prison well before getting to the stage of owing thousands in fines.

Unfortunately, due to the cost of keeping someone in Jail, wiping the debt is usually the cheapest option for 'us' (the taxpayer)

[sprsta]

my younger brother has about $2000 in fines lost his licence 3 times and is paying his fines off at $5 a week
and hes only 18

hes the type of person we are all pissed off with and i dont shy from letting him know it

[WideOpenThrottle]

Only trouble with insurance companies is that the premiums would be horrendous,which will penalise those young good accident free carefull drivers as well.
Its like the global warming phenonemon-there are just too many things at play to be able to come up a perfect answer!

[Habanero666]

Its like the global warming phenonemon-there are just too many things at play to be able to come up a perfect answer!

Al Gore, Profit, Scam. Last I heard it's been the coldest since the mid 1940's, What a crock of shizit.

Would anyone like to buy some carbon credits or maybe some fuel?

Must be sweet to mastermind a "duopoly" $$$$$$$$$$$$

[Quidam]

Al Gore, Profit, Scam. Last I heard it's been the coldest since the mid 1940's, What a crock of shizit.

Would anyone like to buy some carbon credits or maybe some fuel?

Must be sweet to mastermind a "duopoly" $$$$$$$$$$$$

While I think it is entirely reasonable to be sceptical about the science behind global warming and the economic hardships being incurred under its name, I don't think that is (in itself) a strong basis for allowing humans to continue doing what they are doing, which is raping the planet. I genuinely believe, regardless of whether we are in fact responsible for global warming or not, sustainability is really just a niche minority practice (globally speaking). I really can't talk, I'm as much a part of the problem as everyone else who lives in a modernised country, but lets face it, we were born into this society and we either live by it's rules or separate and isolate ourselves from it. That doesn't mean you have to agree with what we are doing, collectively as a species.

I do feel that in several generations to come, there will be a reckoning when we've simply drained too many resources, and/or broken critical ecological networks that then seriously impinge on global economy and our basic way of life. Remember how all the Bees in North America just started dying out (CCD Colony Collapse Disorder)? They still don't know exactly why that happened, but the repercussions of having no bees to provide pollination services has severe global econimic ramifications. In my opinion it would be a massive stretch to shrug this off and suggest humans were not in some way responsible for this phenomena.

[Habanero666]

Best start to make for those earth sqeezers, would be turning off the TV and picking up a book.
Have you noticed how popular the word GLOBAL has become? are we surrounded by pagans??

Very correct statement, in respect to becoming aware of the direction our race is headed, please breed cautiously!

The people who cause the problem, now sell the cure.

God help us!

[Quidam]

lol

And getting back on topic, it looks like the age will rise after a strong show of public support..

Yes, it's not going to make the roads perfect, and there are many other things that can be done. But fundamentally, 15 is too young.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politic ... et-to-rise

[Ian]

lol

And getting back on topic, it looks like the age will rise after a strong show of public support..

Yes, it's not going to make the roads perfect, and there are many other things that can be done. But fundamentally, 15 is too young.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politic ... et-to-rise

Correct.
Now, if the rest of us can get it into our heads that we are amonst the worst drivers in the developed world (proven by statistics), we just might be on the right path towards safer roads, IF we are prepared to collectively improve our driving skills/attitude!

[viscarious]

I do agree that 15 is young, but if you look at it in the long run, you have your full by the time your 18. Alot of people need that freedom by that age. Need work? Only job you can find is the night shift. Too bad, can't drive to work. No work. Guess I'll have to steal.

The whole mindset of the young driving community comes into play here aswell. The "boy racers " are already breaking the law. Brining more laws into effect won''t make them suddenly realise that they are a nuisance to everyone.

I do believe education, or un-education therefore, is a big contributing factor.
However not just the defensive driving type of education. By that age you've already learned your habits from your parents and movies.
It needs to be addressed to a younger audience. So that they may prepare for a future of driving safely.

[/speech]

[Mark]

Now, if the rest of us can get it into our heads that we are amonst the worst drivers in the developed world (proven by statistics)

Which statistics are these?
You can't compare NZ with say UK or USA with different population density, different "miles per person per year" driven etc etc.
The US has more road deaths per capita than NZ, the UK less. It's really stretching things to say that the correlation is because of licensing standards / driving "ability".

IMO NZ drivers are amongst the most inconsiderate in any developed country I've been in, but the "worst" - I doubt it. The roads here are perhaps on average the most dangerous of any developed country I've been in.

While you're doing your hand-wringing and pleading for more "nanny state" restriction of freedoms, look at this graph:

[Habanero666]

Wow! it looks like people are more honest these days too! Good to see

[Ian]

Now, if the rest of us can get it into our heads that we are amonst the worst drivers in the developed world (proven by statistics)

Which statistics are these?
You can't compare NZ with say UK or USA with different population density, different "miles per person per year" driven etc etc.
The US has more road deaths per capita than NZ, the UK less. It's really stretching things to say that the correlation is because of licensing standards / driving "ability".

IMO NZ drivers are amongst the most inconsiderate in any developed country I've been in, but the "worst" - I doubt it. The roads here are perhaps on average the most dangerous of any developed country I've been in.

While you're doing your hand-wringing and pleading for more "nanny state" restriction of freedoms, look at this graph:

Mark...I am not 'hand wringing' or 'pleading for nanny state restriction of freedoms' as you put it.......and this forum is not the place for such accusations.
My comments were based on the opinions of Land Transport NZ and the NZ Automobile Association (but they could both be wrong) and are in respect of our ACCIDENT rate...not injury/death rates which are influenced by a number of factors in addition to driver skill/behaviour, as I am sure you will appreciate.
My concerns are how best to upskill our drivers, modify our driving behaviour and avoid some of the totally unnecessary carnage on our roads.
I promise not to respond to your posts, if you will show me the same courtesy.

[Mark]

My comments were based on the opinions of Land Transport NZ and the NZ Automobile Association (but they could both be wrong) and are in respect of our ACCIDENT rate...not injury/death rates which are influenced by a number of factors in addition to driver skill/behaviour, as I am sure you will appreciate.

I won't not respond to your comments, this is an "Off Topic" forum. I don't try to offend, and apologise if I have done so.

The AA is not a neutral party in this, due to their involvement in the driver licensing and insurance industries. They can make no claim to represent the interest of all drivers, or "good" drivers, despite that being implied by the manner in which they issue press releases.
An example of bad logic behind "common sense" legislation in this country was making helmets compulsory for cyclists. I believe that Otago Medical School have done an epidemiological study, which showed that there was no benefit from this legislation at all, and a probable overall negative health effect. But once enacted, it's hard to get legislation revoked. The stupidity of lowering the drinking age to 18, and the reluctance by our leaders to correct that mistake is another example.

I believe that the "levelling off" trend in improvement in road accident statistics in over the past couple of years may be an indication that the state propaganda / education programme of “shock and awe” television advertisements has not worked, and that they should divert that money back to enforcement – where it’s needed.
That's unlikely to happen, because committees of the same "experts" have to admit they got it wrong, so as usual, they prefer to suggest something new.
There’s no better deterrent to any illegal activity, than having it understood that the probability of being apprehended is high. Conversely, having laws in place that are routinely ignored by a large proportion of the population - because they don’t expect to be apprehended - just generates overall contempt for the law. Nobody needs to be educated to not jump traffic lights etc – that’s got almost nothing to do with education, but everything to with their contempt for the law, and complete disregard for the rights of their fellow citizens.

[Quidam]

Before I say anything more, I do want to say that personally I appreciate everyones thoughts and comments on this thread.

Reading something you don't agree with is really just an opportunity to challenge and examine your own belief systems. Resulting in either affirmation or perhaps even a change in view point. No point in being completely rigid in ones own opinion unless you believe a closed mind is a good thing.

It seems to me everyone here agrees that the goal is safer roads, we just don't necessarily agree on how to get there, and a big part of that is what you believe are the underlying causes.

I think everyone here is making some great points.

Mark, yes I agree the AA should not be regarded as nuetral, they are a commerical enterprise and their primary goal is to make money and stay in business. On the other hand, I could not disagree with you more with regards to bike helmets.

I was a competitive cyclist for many years, and like most cyclists, I did not at all appreciate the law that told me I had to strap on a helment when it was 30 degrees and I was on a 4 hour training ride. But if I had not been wearing a helmet (as required by law) I probably wouldn't be here now posting on this forum. I hit gravel on a steep hill and went head first into the tarmac. I have a permanent scar under one of my eyes and my helmet shattered into pieces on impact, as in fact it was designed to do (the outer netting held the pieces together)

It was a bizarre experience to stand up and see everying rotated 90 degrees and then slowly watch the horizon re-adjust itself back to normal -I really did take a massive knock. So regardless of what the stats might say about the lack of value in requiring people to practice common sense (and wear a helmet) I can only thank the heavens that law was in place because without it, I probably would not have been wearing one. I simply wasn't aware of just how dangerous falling off your bike can be. I think most people who have yet to have a serious crash probably all feel the same way -until it happens.

[Mark]

On the other hand, I could not disagree with you more with regards to bike helmets.

Here's a site dedicated to the subject:
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/zealand_helmets.html

Not disputing the possibility or probability that a helmet saved you life or prevented serious injury. I also suspect that although a "training ride" and not a competitive event, regardless of compulsion (or lack of it), helmet riding when "pushing the boundaries" is a very good idea.

The observation that there's almost no bicycle use for transport compared to 20 years ago, as opposed to use for recreation is very evident where I live (Christchurch).

The data is interesting - many things that seem so "common sense" actually aren't.

Denmark is a country NZ should perhaps look to for some guidance on cycle helmets and other policy relating to cycling in general.

[Habanero666]

Saved myself some damage wearing a cycle helmet!

[Mark]

Saved myself some damage wearing a cycle helmet!

So did I. That damned hailstorm in '94 coulda concussed me!

On a more serious note, I've never really had a proper car accident, but managed to fall off motorbikes on the road and track a few times at speeds up and possibly exceeding 180 km/h or so. Despite the apparent randomness of rotation (pitch, yaw, and roll) whilst hurtling through the air at high speed, replayed over and over in slo-mo possibly due to psycho-active side effects from painkilling medication for injuries received, I never put so much as a tiny scratch on a helmet.
I understand that the common injury from rollover on MX5s is arm/hand damage, regardless of whether a style/roll bar is fitted.
No - I wouldn't ride a motorbike "sans helmet". I was a bit lucky when I fell off.

But if I want to take the Raleigh 20 to the corner shop and back, I really really REALLY resent wearing a helmet.

Same when I'm on my boat. By law, if I get off my boat in to my dinghy to go and have a rum (or two) with the people in the boat anchored next to me, I need to wear a life jacket (unless my dinghy is over 6 metres long!) Yet I can jump in to the evil dangerous shark infested sea completely naked and perfectly legally tow my dinghy (with my shorts and rum bottle in it) behind me. I can drink rum until I can't stand up. Then at 2am I can jump in my dinghy to go home without a care in the world, because I've never seen a harbourmaster after dark.

The law is an ass, and it's all there because people asked for it - with good intentions!

[Quidam]

But that's the thing Mark, people get so emotive about the inconvenience of wearing a helmet, because no one is expecting or intending to be in an accident, that's why it's called an accident.

Based on that logic you could argue the same about wearing a seatbelt when driving down to the Dairy.

Remember you could be doing everything right and still be the victim of someone elses stupidity on the road, and it only takes a second.

[Mark]

But that's the thing Mark, people get so emotive about the inconvenience of wearing a helmet, because no one is expecting or intending to be in an accident, that's why it's called an accident.

Based on that logic you could argue the same about wearing a seatbelt when driving down to the Dairy.

Remember you could be doing everything right and still be the victim of someone elses stupidity on the road, and it only takes a second.

Sure, but there's plenty of good evidence to show that seat belts work, and the inconvenience of using them is small.
But the inconvenience of a bike helmet is much higher, and the evidence that there is an overall benefit to society is very poor.