The Age of the Car (Driver)

So yet another commons committee has had yet another 'knee jerk' reaction to a very complicated problem and gone for the old 'raise the age limit' ploy. Quelle suprise!

This is the link to the BBC News story I read -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6904821.stm

Now on the face of it, it may seem like a completely sensible idea, but unfortunately those are the worst kind. They trick you into believing that this rather serious matter has been under thoughtful consideration and that some deep thinking has been going on. Oh dear, how wrong we would be to believe that.

Let's look at the arguments used.
(Quoted from the above BBC online article)

• one-third of road deaths involve a car driven by a person aged between 17 and 25
• this age group however accounts for just one in eight licence-holders
• In 1992, there were 12.6 deaths on the road for every 100,000 motorists aged 17 to 20
• By 2005, the figure had risen to 19.2.

Ok, so if we believe these figures (and I've no reason to believe we shouldn't) there is obviously a worsening problem here which affects most of us, as most of us at sometime have to use the roads whether in a vehicle or as a pedestrian (road traffic accidents don't care how you use the roads, just that you are).

But what do the MPs on the committee come up with as the answer to this problem?
(Quoted from the above BBC online article)

1. people learning to drive from the age of 17, but not taking the test until they are 18
2. drivers completing a set minimum number of lessons with a structured syllabus
3. extending hazard-perception training using computer simulators to encourage better habits in young drivers-to-be
4. a zero alcohol limit for all drivers for a year after passing their test
5. banning drivers from carrying passengers aged between 10 and 20 from 11pm to 5am for a year after passing their test

Considering the main proposal (1) would an increase of a year really make a significant difference? All the figures the committee quotes use the 17 to 20 or 25 age range, so for this new law to make any sense the actual figures would have to show that the majority of deaths were caused by the 17 year old age group. Is this the case? Where is the proof to back this implication up? If this first assumption doesn't bear scrutiny then what does that tell you about the validity of the arguments and the capability of the people doing the thinking?
Looking at (2), again most people would probably say it was a good idea, but look deeper. Obviously a structured syllabus is a good idea (though not a new one, it is virtually in place already if you are paying for lessons and using an ADI) it means that every driver is taught the same information and has the same skill set once they are given a licence. However to specify a minimum number of lessons is meaningless - any number would be arbitrary and would no doubt be based on averages (average driver taking an average number of hours to reach an average level of competence). A very average answer to a problem and one which would penalise every driver who was above average and had reached competency before the specified number of lessons and who would thus have to needlessly spend more money on more lessons just because of an arbitrary number!
With (3) well here we are starting to clasp for straws now as the committee tries to justify its existence. Quite simply if this idea is needed to improve hazard perception for young drivers, then it should also be needed to improve hazard perception for older drivers. Therefore, it becomes irrelevant as being an answer purely specific to the problem under consideration.
Similarly with (4) we have a recommendation which shouldn't be age specific. Infact, if the MPs had actually bothered to do any research they would know that older bodies are actually affected to a greater degree than younger bodies for the same amount of alcohol.
(University of Florida Study, USA - Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 2009.)
So once again we have a potentially good idea of benefit to all age groups, but irrelevant as an age specific fix to the problem in hand!
And last but not least, my favourite example of flawed thinking by the committee (5). It beggars belief that so called intelligent people; and I presume we all would expect democratically elected MPs to be just that, can come up with such a stupid idea (I use the word advisedly and it its proper context). This is a very real example of how seemingly innocuous changes to the law can have a disproportionate effect on the everyday lives of honest, law-abiding people. Why should it be illegal for an 18 year old person to offer a lift to a 20 year old person at 11pm? In what kind of society should that even be considered as being within the remit of a government to impose such a restriction? But let's take it from being purely in the theoretical world to actually how it would come into play in the real world. Jane (18) has just finished her shift as a waitress and is looking to leave work. It's 1am and her colleague Sarah (20) has just heard her parents can't pick her up due to a flat battery. As the last bus has gone and a taxi would cost £30 Jane offers Sarah a lift as it's on her way. Why should this scenario (one of many I could think of) ever be criminalised ?!
:-)

Oh yes, it's oh so easy to pick holes but do I have anything constructive to put forward?

Well actually I do, but as I'm not sure anyone else in the world is reading this, I'll save it for another post, another time.