Licensed to Kill
Yesterday Steven Joyce finally announced he was raising the driving age. Unfortunately, he is only raising it to a timid 16 years. Still, at least we won’t have the lowest driving age in the developed world and one of the highest youth fatality rates. I find it hard to believe that there is so much heat in the debate about raising the driving age. The road statistics are quite clear. 15 to 16-year-olds have a crash fatality rate exceeded only by 80-year-olds. And that is only because 80-year-olds are killed by substantially lower-velocity collisions than 16-year-olds. Even controlling for experience, a 16-year-old who has held a license for a year is still three times more likely to die in a traffic accident than an 18-year-old with the same experience. In fact, the increased risk does not flatten out until about age 25; from where the risk remains flat until about age 70 and then starts to climb again.
a 16-year-old who has held a license for a year is still three times more likely to die in a traffic accident than an 18-year-old
”This is in keeping with what we know about neurophysiology. The frontal lobe of the brain starts to develop at around 16 years of age and is only fully developed by about age 23 (age 20 in girls). This is the area of the brain in which we assess risk, so it is hardly surprising that a 16-year-old boy makes reckless decisions. Medically speaking we should probably be extending the driving age to around 25, but this is not particularly practical.
Most parts of Australia now have graduated licenses that start at age 17 or 18. It should come as no surprise that Australia has about 60% of our youth fatality rate per kilometer driven. That is more that a third less teenagers slaughtered on our roads. New Jersey has had a graduated license system since 2001 offering a restricted license from age 17 for a minimum of a year (full license from 18 years). The fatal accident rate for 16-year-olds has halved and there have been substantial reductions in 17 and 18-year -old fatalities. Clearly the system works.
Interestingly, the increase in the driving age, somewhat immobilising 16 and 17-year-olds, has also been shown to reduced drug and alcohol use in these age groups, as an added side benefit. So when you hear 15-year-olds arguing that their freedom is being trampled on by raising the driving age, just remember that the freedom they are talking about is the one that entitles them to get slammed out of their minds on a Friday night and then wrap their car around a tree at high speed.
My idea of fun does not encompass digging bark out of the skull of a teenager in the early hours of Saturday morning.
Mr. Joyce should have ignored the ill-informed twitterings of Federated Farmers and raised the driving age immediately to 17. He will now have to engage in the same battle in a couple of years time, when it becomes crystal clear that this is what he should have done the first time.
Some journal references (sorry, only links to abstracts)
Voas, Robert and Kelley-Baker, Tara(2008) ‘Licensing Teenagers: Nontraffic Risks and Benefits in the Transition to Driving Status’, Traffic Injury Prevention, 9: 2, 89 — 97
McCartt, Anne T. , Mayhew, Daniel R. , Braitman, Keli A. , Ferguson, Susan A. andSimpson, Herbert M.(2009) ‘Effects of Age and Experience on Young Driver Crashes: Review of Recent Literature’, Traffic Injury Prevention, 10: 3, 209 — 219
Williams, Allan F. , Chaudhary, Neil K. , Tefft, Brian C. andTison, Julie(2010) ‘Evaluation of New Jersey’s Graduated Driver Licensing Program’, Traffic Injury Prevention, 11: 1, 1 — 7
Williams, Allan F.(2009) ‘Licensing Age and Teenage Driver Crashes: A Review of the Evidence’, Traffic Injury Prevention, 10: 1, 9 — 15
Related posts:
- Too Young to Die Kerre Woodham comments on the latest deaths of young people...
- Fit To Drive Once more the media appear to be wading in to...
- Pushing the Limit I see the police are attempting to revive the debate...
- Alcopopped The government is revisiting the drinking age as part of...
- Drinking to the Limit The Dominion post carries the welcome news that a reduction...
11 Comments
Leave A ReplyOne Trackback/Ping
- Did you see the one about . . . « Homepaddock — [...] Licensed to kill - Macdoctor thinks the driving age is still too low. [...]
Apr 17 10 10:39 am
The Young Drivers, Crash Facts, should be required reading for everyone.
http://tinyurl.com/y6cc3ve
Note esp. that nearly 80% of young driver fatalities (15-19) are with the unlicenced or restricted licences and ask why safe driving isn’t a compulsory and tested subject at secondary school. In fact, I’d refuse kids to leave school until they gained their licence.
JC
Apr 17 10 5:11 pm
As I point out in my post a 16yo is 3 times more likely to be involved in a fatal MVA than an 18yo with similar experience. It is therefore not merely driving experience that is a problem here but risk assessment as evidenced by the excessive numbers of head-on collisions in the stats you cite. Making 12 yo learn to drive just moves the fatalities down into their age group.
Apr 17 10 6:31 pm
I don’t want the age reduced, I want kids to come out of school with a licence plus the education on road safety that goes with it. I’ve been a trustee for an outfit that looks after bad boys, and one of the best ways to reduce offending is to teach driving skills and get them a licence.. often its the first formal attainment of their lives and helps turn them around.
The car is such an integral part of life and employment that it makes sense to incorporate driver education and training at school.
JC
Apr 17 10 7:58 pm
Ah, Sorry, JC. Misunderstood. I quite agree that driver education should be a part of your last few years at school. It may also induce some of the early leavers to stay. Actually attaining your license makes good sense too.
Apr 17 10 8:59 pm
Okay – so I went to university at 17, got a degree and did not even try to learn to drive until 23. Are you saying you would have made me stay at school until I had a drivers licence (not license)?
Apr 17 10 9:19 pm
I think JC is suggestion that Driver Ed is part of the curriculum. I can’t see how one could make it compulsory, or even if that would be a good thing.
Apr 17 10 9:30 pm
Surely there are more accidents in the 15 to 19 age group of people with learner and restricted licences holders because there are a greater number of learner and restricted licences in the 15 to 19 age group. Even the transport web site acknowledges “This reflects the high number of learner and restricted licence holders in this age group.” How many 50 to 55 year olds do you know with learner or restricted licences? The statistics also show there are more accidents on rural roads and at night so maybe a curfew and a restriction on driving on 100 kph roads could be a half way position that acknowledges 15 to 19 year olds are young adults who generally deserve trust and respect while reducing the greatest risk factors.
Apr 17 10 9:42 pm
Julie
I do not disagree (though maybe JC would) but the McCartt article I cite in the post clearly shows that an 18 yo on a restricted license is less liable to die that a 16 yo. Therefore the logical conclusion is that raising the driving age will reduce these fatalities. The New Jersey data certainly confirms this. Raising the driving age halved the death rate of 16yo but also made substantial inroads of the death rates in 17 and 18 yo.
Apr 17 10 10:44 am
Another thing is the speed and power of today’s cars. When I got my first car it was considered pretty darned fast – it was an Austin 1300 GT with 70HP. It did 0-60 in 15.6 secs with a top speed of 92mph (147mph)
It would have been extremely hard to get a faster car, not because they were unavailable but because the insurance would have been prohibitive. Insurance in the UK has to take into account all the risks (the ACC doesn’t bear the brunt of them there) so the insurance companies had to charge according to the true cost of risk. Which meant that anyone under 25 found it almost impossible to drive a powerful car, which meant in those days, anything with more than 100hp. A 1.5 suziki swift has more power than that nowadays.
Now I realize that today’s cars are safer but that doesn’t mean that today’s drivers are. It just means that accidents are a little less severe. But given the increased energy at which they take place it means that even more accidents would be fatal if cars were not safer.
Thus I agree with moves to limit the power of cars that younger drivers are allowed to drive. But also I would suggest that (a) road vehicle insurance should be mandatory, at least 3rd party – even countries like Thailand have come to realize the benefits of this and (b) some mechanism is put in place to make road vehicle insurance pay for the human cost of injury/death as is the case in most countries. This would make insurance more expensive (but would reduce ACC premiums). For example, to insure a turbo car like a Subaru WRX costs several thousand dollars in Australia, but only about $500 here.
Apr 17 10 5:13 pm
New Jersey’s graduated license limits the power of vehicles under restricted license.
Apr 17 10 11:38 am
I was thinking along the same lines, and wondered if there might not be a compromise solution – similar to the above comment.
Let under 17′s apply for a license to drive a 50cc moped. If they really need mobility that badly in rural areas, let them ride something just above a bicycle.
Actually, you don’t even need to do that. Bicycles with a 300w electric boost are still regarded as bicycles. That’s what the drunk drivers in south Dunedin use apparently.
scrubone´s last blog ..Volcanoes and Global Warming