The licence age is already at least 16 as you have to have a so called learner licence for at least a year. A Learner licence is not a licence to drive a car in any practical sense because you have to have a licenced person with you- Mum and Dad are still having to ferry you around albeit from the passenger seat. The learner licence is merely a licence to learn and why everyone should be required to learn for at least a year is absurd. If you can learn faster and pass the test why should you be treated like a halfwit who needs a years worth of lessons? If a 15 year old is not responsible enough to drive the parent is in a difficult situation. They may not want them to drive now but they may want them to drive when they are older. The licence takes too long to get. You cannot delay the start because when you deem they are now more responsible they would have to wait another year before they can sit the restricted test. The restricted licence gets a little more practical but you cannot babysit- who wants a babysitter who must leave by 9.45pm or earlier to get home on time. Also forget movies- they finish too late, also forget virtually any evening activity if you live more than 30mins drive away as very few finish early enough. Finally what is the full driving test for? You already passed a practical test for the restricted licence. If you were too dangerous to drive without passing this test why do you have to drive for at least a year and a half before you can sit it! The Australian system makes far more sense. Sit one test, use a P plate for a year, then if you are not caught doing anything wrong in that year it automatically becomes a full licence. No double jeopardy tests and no 10pm curfew.

All of the proposals announced by Steven Joyce are not only nanny state, they are unlikely to work. New Zealanders drive far more than those in other countries therefore the risk is higher. We learn to drive at such a young age because there are few alternatives to getting around, I mean look at our public transport it's a joke.

The accidents do not begin to significantly occur until the age of 18-25 which is the age group with the most annual road deaths. These people are likely to be on full licences or in some cases restricted licences. Has anyone not considered that perhaps they haven't been taught to drive as effectively as we need to. Raising the age make our 18 year olds worse at driving simply because they will lack the experience and shift the fatalities up how many years you increase the age.

That NZHerald poll was a fail. When you ask the public to vote on issues that do not affect them directly they will vote out of spite. 80% of the participants must have no intuition as an increase to age 18 is unworkable in New Zealand on so many levels.

As for the zero blood alcohol limit, it's futile. Eventually when the driver sobers up and deems themselves fit to drive they could be convicted for having a trace of alcohol in their system which could by no means impede their driving ability. Strangely enough, the government don't plan to lower the adult BA rate. It's ridiculous that a learner driver aged 20 can consume more alcohol than a fully licenced driver aged 19 before putting themselves over the legal limit.

If the government has any smarts, they will reintroduce an incentive to undergo approved practical driving education (whereas one could sit their restricted exam in less time)... make defensive driving compulsory, and look at the three current exams to progress through the graduated licence system. For me the restricted licence exam needs a big overhaul as this is the medium between any driver beginning to drive solo and learning to drive with a supervisor.

Clearly all the idiots that believe rising the age is a good thing easily forget when they got their licenses.

People learn better at that younger (albeit only slightly) age. Start at 15, have the full license before 18, and be a fully licensed driver by the time you finish college and are off into the real world. It's out the way and enables you to have no restrictions on driving once you are working/studying.

I for one, whilst I am 19 (and got my full at the beginning of last year) think this rule change is ridiculous. It further hinders young people and makes it harder for them to be in the real world. Who wants to be 20 and still be restricted in when they can drive and who they can have with them?

Yes, be all means restrict engine sizes, make the zero alcohol limit, give more demerit points for offences, as these are the things that cause young people issues with driving and actually impact them, but changing the age doesn't help at all.

Well, I have sympathy for the rural teens (over 15) and their parents and have no problem with an exemption for them.

Otherwise 16 is OK and the focus should be on restraint of driving hours (overnight ban), type of vehicle - for the first year of a licence at any age and under 18.

There should also be a complete ban on any alcohol in the car of anyone under 18.

As for alcohol levels of drivers, they need to be in two categories minor infringment and criminal (zero and adult rate for those under 18)(as is and 120 or 50 and over 100 for adults).

The actual accident risk focus needs to be on those who repeat offend, not blanket policy by profile.

Do we then need to raise the voting age as well?

Dan #4 a zero limit for all would be possible maybe in urban areas with public transport, but what about rural people who, say, go out for dinner and have a wine, or have a couple of beers at the local watching the game? Such a move would destroy the social fabric of rural NZ, which is already taking a beating from draconian enforcement of drink driving. The problem with drink driving is not the limit, it is the recidivist offenders who will continue to ignore the limit no matter what level it is set at. You can't legislate for those people, unless they start taking their vehicles away, which I don't believe they will do. So tightening the rules is simply making life more unfair on the majority that tend to play within them anyway.

The inconvenience placed upon a few must be allowed to override the safety of the many. After all - we have to apease the young these days, make life as easy as possible for them.

National needs to implement some of Australias laws - their hoons law for one. And also lowering of the power of cars for learners (or even up to a certain age). There is no need for any 20 year old to need to drive a V8 Commodore. Lowering the power will also by default take care of the boy racer problem.

Give the Police more teeth in these matters and grow a backbone National. Do whats best for the masses instead of the few.

This is a joke, could you imagine the rammifications if the driving age were put up to 18 or 20? Many of you people who beleive the driving age is too young need to remember what it was like when you were young and how rediculous it is to even propose that rule.

An absolute zero limit is not practical.

How many hours/days after a night out would someone be at 'zero' alcohol again?

What exists currently for under 20s is a practical zero limit - one beer without food puts them over. Much fairer than what is proposed.

Why not just extend the current under 20s limit to all ages?

nanny state rubbish - leave it all alone I say

There are too many things which need fixing from the last government. If JK were to set them all straight completely, he would not be re-elected. No one wants to be the one who has to tighten their belt or be affected by law changes. It is unfortunate that the rights of the individual seem to outweigh the rights of society, as a whole and it is the individual who gets to vote. While some of these kids don't get a vote (next time up), they have influence over parents and siblings who do. While 18 is a good age to start driving, some people never become responsible adults.