I think that there should be two options available when getting your license.

The current system should remain in place, but I agree with raising the driving age for learner licenses to 17.

I also think that there should be an 'internal assessment' type option for those who do not do well in exam situations. It took me 9 years to work up the courage, from getting my learners at 16 to getting my restricted at 25 - simply because I could not handle the stress of the exam situation. I think a better way to do things is to have mandatory 'lessons' with a qualified instructor, where a number of skills are 'ticked off', and once all of these skills have been ticked off - then you get your licence.

Compulsory insurance should also be a necessity for drivers under 25.

I think night time driving is a good idea.. and that they drive a set number of hours and in different conditions. I have friends in their twenties and thirties that get anxious when driving anywhere outside of town or if its raining or going anywhere new and while their driving itself is still reasonably good they are frustrating for other motorists which leads to people doing stupid things due to impatience.

As for compulsory insurance perhaps it would be better if the driver was insured as opposed to the vehicle and that you would progressively have lower fees and a larger range of vehicles the older and more "responsible" you get with options of no claims bonuses etc. That way you would avoid the car in mum or dads name that little johnny drives. Or perhaps just limit each license so that when you get a restricted you can only drive a car 1500cc or less..

This is of course not going to stop people from not adhering to their licenses... I'd be more inclined to limit who can buy a car... they all have their pitfalls.

#2, if your going to limit the amount of power available to the learner driver, it is best done on power output, BHP/KW etc not cc rating. as there are alot of 1600cc cars out there that will outperform 2000 or 2500cc vehicles and are therefore easy to insure for young ones... Insurance companies have had it wrong for years and still do in the fact that they think something like a 1996 honda civic is not very powerful. Not giving a second thought to the 5+ different engine types available for this vehicle, one with more power than a 3.8 litre holden commodore.

time for insurance companies to wake up! and yes I'm all for compulsory insurance, no insurance, no vehicle, simple.

All good ideas but unfortunately the cost of getting a license is already too porhibitive - adding mroe training/rules on just increases the cost.

In Australia, before you go from your learner's to restricted licence (P Plates), you have to have 50 hours logged in your log book (and signed off by a qualified driver) in, I believe, a bunch of different conditions (including minumum of 10 hours night driving).

And you get a handy-dandy "P" in your window where you used to have an L. If we had a similar system, R-platers would be easier to spot for both cops checking whether they were doing things right (no passengers, and so on) and other drivers would be alerted that here is someone with less driving experience so extra caution should be taken.

(In fact, they have 2 stages of P plates and before you get to go to P2, you also need to pass a compulsary Hazard Perception Test.)

Sadly, Australia still has idiots that ignore the rules and kill each other by texting while driving, or driving home drunk after a party. But I think their licencing system is one we could learn from.

Increasing the effectiveness of driver training can only help. Compulsory 3rd party insurance would be a good idea too. CC ratings on modern cars mean nothing. Give a kid an old V8 tank and he can tootle around in that a lot slower than a modern 1600 cc import.

@ The Fridge

I don't believe cost is the issue really its that they can't be arsed and other things are more important to them than obeying the law. It doesn't matter what rules you change you are always going to have people on the road driving that are unlicensed and uninsured because you can't actually stop them from borrowing a car or stealing one or even buying one if they want to right now, they just go out and do it, and you can fine them and ban them from driving and impound their cars but it still doesn't stop them doing it. Its very frustrating really.

the_fridge #4 12:03pm "All good ideas but unfortunately the cost of getting a license is already too porhibitive - adding mroe training/rules on just increases the cost."

I disagree - if it was too prohibitive, the level of licensing would be far lower. I don't have statistics to back me up, but almost everyone I know has a license! It amounts to ~$300 (excluding any lessons) for the entire process, if you do it right the first time. And that cost is spread over at least 18 months. Given the necessity of getting it right, I don't think that's too much at all.

Dave, a thought on the numbers of road deaths up from last year. Does anyone else think that just maybe there is a flow on effect with people who would normally drive every day to work say. And who now bike walk or bus, so only use their cars at the weekend. Or those who have cut down their car miles due to fuel costs. So that when they do get behind the wheel they are not as focused. I have seen fewer cars in our town and more hesitant drivers, who scare the bothers out of me.

Make driving lessons compulsory and watch thier price go up!

Mandatory lessons at night would be very difficult during daylight savings months, more so the further south you live.

'P' plates for drivers on restricted licenses may help though.

I'ld like to see youngsters need a "character reference" from their school before being allowed a learners licence. That may improve behaviour in the class rooms too.