Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 81976	2007-08-12 22:37:00	Should the driving age be raised to 18 ?	Digby (677)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
580310	2007-12-03 19:59:00	Great idea, can't get 5 annoyances on back of motor cycle or could they. Lot of votes amongst those 18 year olds, they why parties are reluctant to do anything. Lurks.	Lurking (218)
580311	2007-12-03 20:38:00	Sometimes I wonder if you people realise what you're saying. Firstly you don't want youth to drive because of the menace it brings. That's fine, but when the public transport system is expanded to cater for all the 15-18 year olds who rely on it, you complain about how it'll cost you. Then when young people can't get jobs because they can't get to them, you complain about how they're not doing enough for society :waughh: Please, until the human race evolves and babies grow wings, a suitable alternative will need to be provided. So far, none has Agree with everything there, except the age for car licences: 16 is wussing out. It should be 18 - but that wouldn't be popular with politicians (voting age). I would also say that a motorcycle licence should be mandatory before attaining a car licence, held for a minimum number of years and a minimum number of kilometres travelled, before a car licence could be applied for. Motorcycle would have to be of a limited power (NOT capacity). Three years on a motorcycle/scooter with say a minimum of 4000 km a year per year would give us car drivers with a bit of road sense (might even make them more aware of two-wheeled vehicles - motorised or not - when they finally get their car licence). This gets around the crybaby argument of "it would be so inconvenient!!!" (if/when the age is raised), for those so desperate to join the grown-ups on the road who have still not attained the grand old age of 15, and for those adults who also might be a atd inconvenienced by having to drive little Johnny to school - at least they could be semi-sure he would arrive alive!!! That's a brilliant idea! Why not prove to us all how it can be done, by selling your car and only having a scooter.	V1sta (6614)
580312	2007-12-03 22:17:00	Sometimes I wonder if you people realise what you're saying . Firstly you don't want youth to drive because of the menace it brings . That's fine, but when the public transport system is expanded to cater for all the 15-18 year olds who rely on it, you complain about how it'll cost you . Then when young people can't get jobs because they can't get to them, you complain about how they're not doing enough for society :waughh: Please, until the human race evolves and babies grow wings, a suitable alternative will need to be provided . So far, none has That's a brilliant idea! Why not prove to us all how it can be done, by selling your car and only having a scooter . Well, you know what they say . . . . for every solutions, arises new problems .	qazwsxokmijn (102)
580313	2007-12-04 03:00:00	That's a brilliant idea! Why not prove to us all how it can be done, by selling your car and only having a scooter. uh, i said bike not scooter... and both are better than a bus and its better than nothing - if i'm going on a roadtrip it's actually cheaper (and much more pleasurable) to overnight courier my luggage ahead of me and ride my bike than take "the cage", and if it wasn't for my love of sportsbikes i could carry all that stuff anyway (including a tent if i'm with a group) seriously, how many of those cars parked on the motorway with only a single occupant need to be there? i bet well over half could make their commute on a two wheeler, which would free up the gridlock for the tradespeople/parents etc who actually need a large vehicle so, my point is that raising the driving age is a major blow to young workers, yet one in every thjousand is a menace on the roads - so make them ride small bikes so they can still get to work without killing innocent bystanders and i again bet it will make them better, more aware car drivers too	motorbyclist (188)
580314	2007-12-04 03:09:00	Motorcycle would have to be of a limited power (NOT capacity). please explain why... dunno bout you but i think the current system of a 250cc limit is ideal. actually i think it's one of the best "limits" the govt/LTNZ has come up with sure any inline 4 250cc (or a 2 stroke 250) has the ability to easily outperform any small car they would otherwise be driving, but if you lower the limit you'll just get more people breaking the rules. a 250 is very light and easy to handle, and compared with even a 400 they're gutless and can't really bite you unless you're pushing/asking for it. japanese regulations mean the 250s aren't too overpowered. i might add 75% of bike accidents are caused by drivers - so riding 40, 20 or 190 horses isn't going to make that much difference also, manufacturers work on cc ratings because that is very definite and matches racing standards (which use cc ratings again because they are definite and encourages better engineering) - using power ratings would mean testing individual bikes and trusting individuals wont un-govern or otherwise modify them	motorbyclist (188)
580315	2007-12-04 03:42:00	uh, i said bike not scooter... and both are better than a bus Semantics. For all intents and purposes they are the same. A scooter would probably be better in this situation anyway. seriously, how many of those cars parked on the motorway with only a single occupant need to be there? i bet well over half could make their commute on a two wheeler, which would free up the gridlock for the tradespeople/parents etc who actually need a large vehicle As would a regular, non-motor bike, but i hardly think it's practical to expect everyone to bike to work. so, my point is that raising the driving age is a major blow to young workers, yet one in every thjousand is a menace on the roads - so make them ride small bikes so they can still get to work without killing innocent bystanders and i again bet it will make them better, more aware car drivers too Like I said, prove it. Prove how one can rely on a bike to get everywhere. I'm waiting	V1sta (6614)
580316	2007-12-04 03:55:00	Semantics. For all intents and purposes they are the same. A scooter would probably be better in this situation anyway. yes and no - a 50cc scooter will not do 100kph As would a regular, non-motor bike, but i hardly think it's practical to expect everyone to bike to work. i didn't say everyone! i said it's better than telling everyone under 18 they can't drive at all! Like I said, prove it. Prove how one can rely on a bike to get everywhere. I'm waiting i'm proof, and so are alot of people - and i never said everyone! infact i specifically said tradespeople and parents would not be suited to bike-only transport - disabled people and people who typically will take clients/luggage obviously would prefer a car. must i add that the petrol savings actually make it cheaper to commute on a 250cc motorbike and garage your car than to own only a car - that's right, a small bike will pay for itself within 2 years where you get the impression that i think everyone can do with only a bike is beyond me:confused:	motorbyclist (188)
580317	2007-12-04 07:26:00	for school leavers who are 16 years old, not being able to drive can make life very difficult... as usual it's only a small minority that ruin it for everyone else that said, if they leave the motorcycle licence at 15 and raise the car one, young drivers will learn how dangerous the road really is, how bad and blind drivers typically are, what the term "blind spot" means, and will find it relatively very difficult to kill people. plus they're cheap to run, less load on traffic/parking, and better for the environment! Possibly a good idea, HOWEVER - I do not agree at all =( There are MANY good drivers (in the respect being responsible) - now, driving a motorbike is A LOT more dangerous than driving a car. ^^^The reason why I got my license it to have convenience and to not have my parents having to drive me. ^^^They encouraged me to get my license A LOT. ^^^I asked if I could get a motorbike, they said no. Learning the hard way about driving/the road isn't a good idea. There are a lot of people that are in similar situations to me too, so it would create a whole new problem. If the car driving age was put up, so should the motorbike driving age. (I don't think either should be changed btw). =========================================== I seriously think this would cause too many problems. Adult drivers are just as bad in OTHER ways. By having adult drivers (in cars) and 15-18 year-old teenagers on bikes or scooters, the people in the cars would be likely to hit a large majority of the drivers on the bikes/scooters. Now by making it so that teenagers can get a motorbike license, it would mean that more teenagers would die. At the moment it's a mix. Whos to say who should die and who shouldn't? ========================================== This is only a little issue too, but what about rain - for people who live in the likes of a rural area and need to get somewhere, but it's pissing down? My two cents	TylerR (12656)
580318	2007-12-04 07:45:00	firstly, if there was more bikes we might find people actually start looking at intersections secondly, the argument to raise the limit is to stop young drivers killing people - so an alternative solution to that is bikes. we wouldn't be making it so teenagers can get motorbike licences - they already can. rain? toughen up! nearly all bike gear is waterproof... though rain riding is not fun, it's better than sitting at home unemployed overall safety in the event of an accident of course is not as good, but nowhere near as bad as many people think. i've seen guys slide down a road at 140kph without even a scratch, but then if you hit a roadside object it can be a different story.... in germany they have adopted a system of teenagers on bikes before cars, and it works just fine	motorbyclist (188)
580319	2007-12-05 05:23:00	To your second point, I'm saying that ADULT DRIVERS IN CARS wont look at the motorbikes and will CONTINUE to KILL motorcyclists. The danger on a motorbike is a lot higher than in a car, if there are more then that means more people are in danger. (You may also want to read my comment above). What I'm saying is though, there are A LOT of teenagers out there, who have their license for CONVENIENCE - after all, that's what a car is for right? A motorbike is A LOT less convenient. Surely it's better than walking, but as I'm sure a lot of people would prefer*, they would wait until they could get their car license. Lastly about rain, it links with convenience above. I don't want to be soaked then have to work a 10 hour day (or do 7 hours at school, then work for 4 hours after) and BE SOAKED before I get there. ^^Many teenagers have jobs similar to mine (talk about being dispensable)... Then, comes the safety issue of being in the rain on a bike. I have no experance or facts to back up my following statement so I'm not at all saying it IS true or not. But I think that it would be MORE dangerous on a bike in the rain than in a car. Then if it was the case where it was necessary to go a high speed (if it was unable to be controlled for whatever reason - I dunno), then that is a safty issue (wether it is in the rain - or not).	TylerR (12656)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25