Editorial: Lifting the driving age is the easy bit

To many New Zealanders, the only contentious thing about the Government's intention to lift the driving age to 16 will be why it has taken so long.

That the change is finally in train is as welcome as it is overdue. It is not a panacea for the country's poor track record of teenagers killing and maiming themselves and others on the road. Nor are any of the other measures in the package announced yesterday, whether aimed specifically at teenagers or the driving population at large. New Zealand's efforts at reducing its road toll are at a stage where only incremental improvements can be expected; the most that can be hoped of any individual measure is a chipping away at the toll.

The various changes announced yesterday seem sensible enough, although many come with fish-hooks or will open the way to further debate. That need not be the case with the driving age. It is a no-brainer. The current 15-year-old restriction is among the world's lowest and there is ever-mounting evidence that children in their mid-teens are too immature to be in control of modern, high-powered cars. It was traditionally aligned to the school leaving age, a logical-enough connection in itself, but that has since moved to 16. As every road user knows, the most at-risk drivers are those under 25. By taking those at the lowest end of the 15-25 age range off the road, the high-risk group will be diminished. Driving will surely be that little bit safer for everyone else.

The main argument is the one tiresomely wheeled out by the farming lobby, which somehow regards the difference of 12 months between when children can get behind the wheel to be an infringement of the rural community's liberties. The point has been made before and bears repeating: it is a question of inconvenience, not deprivation, as to whether a young rural-dweller has to wait a year longer to drive themselves places. The Prime Minister was spot on when he noted this week that if the flipside of that inconvenience is a single death avoided on the road, it is a sacrifice worth making.

Changing the driving age is actually one of the easiest steps available to the Government in trying to improve the crash rate among young drivers. An element of the problem is unmanageable. We will always have to contend with the foolhardiness and lapses of judgment that are part of adolescence and can have tragic consequences when played out behind the wheel.

Only slightly easier to deal with is the concern of Nelson paediatrician Nick Baker, that driving inexperience, not the age of the driver, is what really matters. The Government's proposal to address this – a requirement that learner-drivers achieve a quota of supervised driving hours before being allowed to drive alone – sounds potentially nightmarish to administer, and will have to be scrutinised closely before it is imposed. As with any licensing regime, making the system too complex encourages avoidance. But improving driver skills at the licensing stage and continually reinforcing the responsibilities that go with a driver's licence must continue to be the focus.

- © Fairfax NZ News

Newest First

Oldest First

ROSCOE   #1   12:58 pm Mar 05 2010

It won't hurt to raise the driving age from 15 to 17 or 18, as it is correct that the drivers are extremely immature at 15 years. For starters how can most 15 year old finance a car loan when they are still attending school? The problem is motor vehicles of todays standards are far too powerful for a "juvenile" to operate.My constant request has always been,are most of these young deaths within the metropoltan areas or on the "open" road, where the speed limits are higher ? It would make interesting research to see the ratio of the age groups, say 15-25,26-45,46 onwards that are fatally involved on the suburban roads against the "country" roads. My last response is "No pedal to the metal" and "think before you drive" and we will have our loved ones with us alot longer.

Ad Feedback