I agree/disagree

Wow, I get to be the first one to contribute to this one. Good article Mr. Mair. When I got my license at 16, I thought that it was the coolest thing. I only got 7 demerits on the exam and the examiner thought that I was a good driver. No way was I ready. I only drove drunk once but that was in my twenties and for that there is not excuse, just my stupidity, and I did get home ok. As for the stuff I did when in my teens, which
was only about 11 years ago, you would cringe. Nothing with drugs or alcohol but
the fuel was pure peer pressure and pride. I did have, if one wants to say, an epiphany. I was caught racing a Scirocco down 1st ave. This family member who caught me was, I guess, the right person to have caught me in the act. He
didn't get angry, or choked but he let me
know something. He told me that my car was like a gun, it could kill someone in any moment. It is always loaded and as it happens with guns, accidents happen and people don't mean for others to get hurt but often times, people do get hurt. That
was my moment. I can pretty much say that's where I learned my lesson. As for changing the driving age, I don't know. There are still 25 year olds getting into
races, driving reckless or just plain driving stupid. But there are plenty of
responsible drivers too at 16. If I could make one suggestion, I would totally forget
the lessons on the road and make driving simulations more mandatory and testing at different stages. Pilots are tested on simulations, we have the technology, just check out the local arcades. I think 16 is fine but the learners permit should stay until 18 with a two year probationary period until 20. Any infractions between 18-20 would resulty in the appropriate ticket and the demotion back to the learner's permit, with a parent/guardian supervising when the person needs to drive again. Of course, when they reach 20, they can test again and still use the L and N system. I still think anyone caught racing should face harsher consequences. As for repeat offenders, I know that hospitals and hospices need drivers with good humour, if driving means so much to them, then they can drive around the people that wish they could drive. In conclusion, something should be taught in schools for people to appreciate driving for the privilege that it is.
A few more suggestions,
A few good tracks to lay some rubber on would work out the testosterone.
Better transit for people who need to drive, get a better bus system and less cars will be on the road.
Take care all and safe driving.

Road Rage

That is a serious problem but I think that is a problem among all age groups.

I think the driving age,

I think the driving age, (voting age, drinking age too for that matter) should be lowered to 14. There are just as many people over 19 that are bad drivers.

What needs to be done is to tighten up the process for one to get a drivers license. Drivers Ed in the schools should be mandatory.

People should also have to take a road test and written exam every 5 years to see if they are still competent.

Should also be zero tolerance for alchohol and if any (under .05) a three month suspension and over .08 a permanent ban.

Fines should also triple for violations. Speed and running red/yellow lights happens all too frequently. I walk along scott Road daily to the bus and see the morons out there.

I wonder what driving schools teach and I have serious doubts about the ICBC inspectors with all the bad drivers on the road??????? Like how do so many 'bad drivers' get a license?

Restrictions.

Are the relatively new restrictions on new drivers working? Are those "N" signs, along with the other requirements, having any effect on the number of accidents that new drivers are having? I think I'd like to see that before I pass judgment that we need changes.

Obviously, this is something the author has a personal connection to, and it is understandable why he has a certain bias. I do think, however, some data would be helpful in determining public policy. It seems to me that I remember elderly drivers to be much more a problem on the road. Is that still the case? I think the issue is much bigger and complex than simply raising the age for driving.

Some would have a long wait.

"Let everyone else wait until adulthood to exercise a very important privilege -- driving a car and doing so carefully."

Raise the driving age to 18

I believe the driving age should be raised to 18, after the majority of our little darlings graduated from high-school. Take the auto culture out of the school scene, as it is my belief that drivers ed. taught in the schools have created some of our bad driving habits.

Some notes:

- Forget the red "N" (but keep the "L") as it is more of a bureaucratic boondoggle than anything else.
- To drive, one must pass an accredited (BCAA or CAA maybe?) driver's training course like 'Young Drivers of Canada'.
- Ban bad drivers from driving. A road race that kills someone, that driver must be banned for life from driving.
- Penalize bad drivers, with fines or driving privileges. (I believe some countries in Europe fine a driver to what he can afford and curtail driving say from home to work.)
- Out a 'horse-power' restriction on new drivers.
- And here is one for the rest of us to consider, rewrite the motor vehicles act to reflect that ALL CROSSWALKS be marked (just as they do in Europe and the UK) and highways speed be adjusted upwards to reflect the modern car.

In Finland a speeding ticket

In Finland a speeding ticket is based on a fixed percentage of your income.

In Hungary there is zero tolerance on impaired driving - 0.00

And why stick it to under 19 year olds while here in White Rock with its large retired population I regularly see drivers having a "senior's moment".

My dad had an accident a year after having a stroke and couldn't tell me how he drove off of Marine Drive at Spanish Banks in light traffic and ended up in a grove of trees.

He's in your age category Rafe.
What's sauce for the goose ...

Bring back photo radar

In addition, bring it back in a very big way.

Adjusting speeding fines to income is a great idea too.

Raising the driving age won't help without taking other measures including some of the things suggested above; but as long as a 16 year old can legally own a car it's absurd not to let her drive it if she qualifies.

What Retesting?

Retesting never prevented recklessness. Very stiff fines with a loss of a license and more enforcement might do the trick. Photo Radar would also work but we have this idiotic liberal hang up about photo radar. Watch how quickly the driving changes when people know there is a police ghost car on the road.

I often see two cars driven by young clowns tearing up the streets with impunity because there is not a single police car around as most of them are parked at Tim Hortons. You throw the book at reckless drivers and that means take away their licenses and the privilege of owning a car

Yes lets keep children; children longer...

and longer and longer...

In our economy, especially if you live outside the 'big smoke' (more like big stink right now), one needs to have the ability to drive in order to earn an income greater than that found in the typical 'mcjob'. Before the bus rider crowd goes berzerk, I want to repeat if you live outside of the GVRD you need to have the ability to drive to earn an income.

To not have access to this is tantamount to economic suicide. While it is true that you can come up with some alternatives, the lack of the ability to access driving will come back to bite you again and again. By forcing access to this into an older age bracket we are going to force young people to 'grow-up' yet later in life. I was lucky in that I was able to drive farm equipment and other vehicles NOT ON PUBLIC ROADS, from the time I was 14. With the compression of urbanization expanding there are less of these roads, certainly in the Fraser Valley.

We ask that our youth suddenly become 'adults' at 19 years of age, yet really teach them nothing of that adult world and allow then only limited access to it until then. What do we expect from anyone who only gets a limited window to this world, whom is then shoved into it without having even the opportunity to have first hand knowlege.

The driving from age 16 permits this access, we already have extended the Learner period, and the New driver restrictions are 0 tolerance for booze (or other substances including certain medications!), passenger limits (outside of immediate family members in the family vehicle), and time of day restrictions (daylight only).

One has to ask, when do young people get to 'test out' any part of the physical limits of life? When I was younger I was allowed to climb trees freely, I was injured when I went too far and the branches broke = I learned to 'test' the branches. By age 9 I knew the limits of the trees and my body.
When I drove farm equipment I learned about audible RPM's, clutching, brakes and steering (with a 'tiller' on a hay maker); this equipment was incapable of greater then 15 km/h and was a tractor so wide that a 7% grade hill taken sideways was not enough to tip it over. By age 15 I knew much more about the limits of machines and that one in particular.

If we continue to push up limits like driving access by artificial things like physical age we are going to continue to 'dumb down' our young. Better to have testing limits and those seem to be highly variable. (I seem to recall hearing that Korean drivers get to come to Canada and do not take any driver's test at all, so why not - if you can - go to Korea when you are 16, get your licence, then ignore another Canadian Law?)

---cont---

Driver's ed and limits cont...

---cont---

Do not try and teach this in the 'public' schools! Can you imagine the 'option fees' for such a thing as drivers' ed?!?

Forcing a previous drivers' course on the system will only put $$$ in the pockets of those whom get the 'accreditation' and create both another bottleneck and another bureaucracy (like we are not bloated enough with them!).

The drivers that are between the ages of 16 and 19 are MINORS, they are under the legal responsibility of their PARENTS. Time to start applying the correct laws and penalties to these PARENTS when their MINOR children are causing mayhem. When the family car is on the line, dad may not be so willing to let it go for nothing because his 18 year old son continues to drive after having his NEW DRIVER permit pulled because he was driving outside the time limits or with too many passengers.

I agree with...

murdock's comment - "The drivers that are between the ages of 16 and 19 are MINORS, they are under the legal responsibility of their PARENTS. Time to start applying the correct laws and penalties to these PARENTS when their MINOR children are causing mayhem. When the family car is on the line, dad may not be so willing to let it go for nothing because his 18 year old son continues to drive after having his NEW DRIVER permit pulled because he was driving outside the time limits or with too many passengers."

That, combined with having fines that are structured to the amount of money you make would be a good thing. If a teen's rich parents are stiffed with a fine in the thousands of dollars and also with the loss of the family vehicle - that would send a strong message.

But I'm not sure I agree with his comments regarding driver education. I'm not sure the public school is the place for it, but perhaps there is a way to integrate it somehow. Those who can afford it go to the existing driving schools, and perhaps setup a provincial education / training branch through ICBC for those who can't afford the more expensive driving schools.

I also agree that there should be more control in the system when it comes to elderly people. If you have a system in place where people have to get retested every 5 or 7 or 10 years (and maybe you get tested more often as you get older - say at 60, it's every 5 years, whereas between the ages of 30 and 60 it's every 7 or 10 years); and if you have a system where once you get older that includes physical exams where your doctor gives input into whether you are okay to drive - that could help. For some older people, it comes to a matter of personal pride. I know my Dad had a very hard time adjusting to the fact that our family doctor said he could no longer drive. He was very angry about it. But then, he also took transit a lot and that was easy living in downtown Vancouver. But for suburb people - transit sucks.

Most people know how to drive - like another person said, watch at how everyone "behaves" when there is a cop car nearby. We need a system that will help reduce congestion (heavy investment in rapid transit that works), along with a system with stiffer penalties for those who break the law. And if you live up north where you depend on a vehicle for living - then maybe having stiffer penalties would make you think twice about not behaving when it comes to driving.

Certainty of consequences, not severity!

When trying to modify behaviour, the most effective course is to guarantee a consequence for every inappropriate action. The consequence does not have to be severe, but it does have to occur EVERY time.

Think about it. If you knew you would get a speeding ticket EVERY time your vehicle went over the limit, you wouldn't speed, even if the fine was really low, say, 20 or 30 bucks. As it is, most people can exceed the speed limit quite frequently and never get caught.

This raises a lot of questions about enforcement and free will and whether or not machines should do the job of a person. I'm not sure how I feel about those issues, but if we decide as a society that driving habits need to be modified, we might need to make some sacrifices.

Raise it to 91

I find it quite shocking that people are willing to discuss taking away other people's privileges without being willing to give up the privilege themselves in response to the greatest challenge we have ever faced.

Given the death and destruction that climate change could lead to, we have to question everyone's privilege to drive. Most people on the planet don't own a car and never will. There just is not enough room in most cities on the planet to make this possible. Nor is there enough steel, plastic or gas for this to be possible either.

Transit and cycling needs to be greatly improved so that people below the driving age regardless of whether it is 19 or 91 don't need a car to get around.

of course...

I think we should be giving our youth more responsibility. Of course, Rafe is promoting more rules and regulations.

Part of the problem with youth today is that they aren't given responsibility. I think young drivers should be penalized by suspensions, etc.

However, 19 - C'Mon Rafe.

. . . but let's extend it to ban cell phones

Raising the legal age (and penalties for tickets) can only help.

Sorry to hijack this thread, but we need to eliminate the use of cell phones while driving. The UK has done it with a far greater density of traffic - we should too!

Three out of four of our

Three out of four of our garndkids drive. None did at 16 or wvwn seventeen. The other grandkid doesn't drive at all. They all started on the farm driving tractors and frm trucks, but never on the publoc raods. they all took driving lessons froma accredited school and they all passed. I used to check on drivers in my union. There has to be a contion of their keeping their license. Our granfkids kids knew that if I saw them doing anything wrong, or heard of them doing anything wrong, to expect to see one wheel missing from their car or truck when they got back to the vehicle. they knew I wasn't kidding. None have ever picked up a ticket or a caution for any driving. Are they perfect examples. of course not, but they understand what is acceptable and what is not. They know of people who died driving like idiots rying to impress someone.I too got my first drivers' licenseat 15 but only because it was needed for the vehicle I was drving on the local road. Traffic is very much heavier now and , yes daily we see the idiots, tailgating putting on lipstick, on the cell phone or talking to someone in the back seat. Seeing commercial vehicles and even a bus running redlights in this town of Victoria still shock me a lot. Nobody seems to understand that a yellow light means it's time to stop or that a stale green means a yellow isn't that far away. My God some folks don't even see the fire truck or ambulance, or police car with the lights on and horns blowing right behind them. and the drivers arn't all under 20. They are just poorly trained and don't expect to hurt anyone or have their permission to drive removed from them. I find it safer and easier to drive in Vancouver than in this town

OOps I hit the wrong key, it

OOps I hit the wrong key, it was 16. I have trained kids to fly at the same age.

Here's some interesting info.

Some is contrary to what people are thinking.

From the Traffic Injury Research Foundation.

Statistics

Looking at: http://www.icbc.com/library/research_papers/traffic/pdf/Traffic_Collision_Statistics_2005.pdf

I found that 19 is one of the very worst ages for driving - much worse than 16! 19 year olds only comprise 1.44% of the driving population, but are involved in 3.08% of all collisions involving injury or death. You have to get to the 41-45 age bracket before your age group is involved in a lower percentage of these type of collisions compared to their actual percentage of all drivers. Looking at younger drivers, there really isn't a remarkable statistical difference until you hit the age of 24 or 25.

I think graduated lisences, increased penalties for risky behaviour (excessive speeding, running red lights, tailgating, etc.), and simply taking those off the road who are habitual offenders is the way to go. Increasing the age is a simplistic solution at best.

Disagree

Sorry but I can't agree. I think it's better all round to get young people introduced to driving well before we invite them to begin drinking. Some are going to abuse the privilege whether 16 or 19 just as a number of 50-year olds continue to abuse it. If the objective is to prevent young drivers from drinking or racing, etc., make the penalties much more onerous - a mandatory, multi-year licence forefeiture for serious speeding, for example, would help with an even longer term of suspension for impaired driving. Make young people appreciate that their driving privilege is probationary for at least three or four years. By the time they're 19 you'll probably have much better drivers than you would under the age change proposal.

Some posted that > "The

Some posted that > "The consequence does not have to be severe, but it does have to occur EVERY time."

And this could be possible in the near future... apparently they have devices that can be installed in cars to monitor driving habits. Companies are outfitting their fleets with these tamper proof devices to ensure workers are not speeding, taking longer routes / going places they are not supposed to, etc.

Perhaps it is too big brother but perhaps ICBC and insurers should be able to know the average speed you travel.

I also remember in the US they had built a highway to test a new technology whereby once you get on the highway you are no longer in control of the vehicle - the computers take over and do the driving over the long distances. If we had something like that on the sea to sky, people wouldn't be able to speed and maybe lives would be saved! But I would think that kind of technology is probably something that won't start showing up until much, much later in my lifetime (I'm 30), if not later in my children's.

Licence to kill

The old man's solution is always to punish the young. As in Rafe's case, it often comes with a meaningless mea culpa: I was a bad kid so today's kids should pay.

Rafe, if your teenage bad driving is weighing on you, surrender your license. I see plenty of drivers of every age, size, sex and ethnicity driving like they think they're in a James Bond movie -- driving cars, I might add, designed for a James Bond movie and marketed using commercials that look like scenes from a James Bond movie.

Our kids inherit the world we make for them. If today's teens are bad drivers, and only some of them are, it is because of the poor example set by their elders, who also can be bad drivers, and who made or tolerate this culture in which the car is not a means of transport but a symbol of anti-social power.

We made tobacco advertising illegal to diminish a still-legal threat. Why not regulate or ban automobile advertising, with its long history of seducing the gullible with fantasies of power? Let's seriously look at punishing the adults who design and sell cars as weapons.

Raise licensing standards, not the driving age. Regulate or ban automobile advertising. But don't punish the victims.

Would it help?

I don't think young people are necessarily any worse than 'mature' people, sadly, of both genders, all ages. There are terrible drivers on the road and most are on the phone.

Going out is dangerous. As a predestrian you need to be on your toes, so to speak. I've nearly been hit by people turning on my light, driving up on the sidewalk (but never leaving the phone) coming out of side streets, anywhere you can mention. They all need to be re-examined and properly punished. And we need to police them ourselves, reporting plate numbers, as clearly the loal constabularly can't do it all--there are just too many bad drivers.

drtiving age

Funny how in the 1930's and 40's, and for that matter even today, we put 17, 18 & 19 year olds into Spitfires, the army and navy and told them to go out and kill somebody.
I believe Rafe and all those that think the driving age be raised to 19 have to living under a rock.
Ever notice how todays younger people all wear seat belts? Thats because it was drilled into them that as soon as they got into a car the belt was to be worn, most of them trained their Parents to do the same.
If Parents and our schools were to educate the kids coming up now that cars are like missiles and really do kill people the next generation of drivers would probably survive.
Age is a small factor, training and attitude is everything.
Making kids and new drivers, no matter what age, drive around for a year or whatever it is with an "N" number in the back window is stupid.

look at the bigger picture...

It's amazing how everyone 'has an original point of view' on how to improve the asphalt lines, but everyone equally seems to think the problem can be addressed as an isolated issue.
This is not a problem of age, or skill, or training, or penalties for transgression. It is a problem of general attitude. As long as we keep teaching our youth that nice guys finish last and back that up with every action we take towards each other, this will not change. Some people are more mature, thoughtful and considerate of others when they're twelve, than others are at 45, or may indeed ever become. The considreate ones, however, do not have an easy time of it on the meatgrinder we call modern society. Ask any family, whose son or daughter committed suicide because of bullying that was not effectively addressed, or just plain collective indifference from the mass of people around them. Nothing less than a shift in the tectonic plates of our culture will change the picture.

spitfires, bombers and Trans Ams

Reminds me of a chat with a now deceased uncle who flew 30 plus missions as navigator in a Halifax bomber during WW2. He was the oldest of the crew at 21. The pilot was 19 from Saskatchewan...pulled them out of a lot of scrapes...before eventually being fatally shot down.

Maybe your less fearful at 19?..I was quite sure of my own immortality until about 40 years old.

He said he wasn`t sure if night flying through flak over Germany in `43 was as dangerous as a Trans Am loaded with kids screaming up the Squamish Highway.

Statistics from snert's link

Seem to support the view that young people ARE more likely to be involved in automobile crashes than older people:

Young drivers are overrepresented in road crashes. They represent 13% of licensed
drivers in Canada but account for 25% of all driver deaths and injuries. Although the
number of deaths and injuries have declined, road crashes remain the leading cause
of death for young people in Canada.

Young drivers are more likely than older drivers to engage in a variety of other highrisk
driving behaviours. For example:
• 38% of 16 to 19 years olds report taking a risk while driving for fun. Only 12% of
those age 45 to 54 report doing so;
• 66% of teenage drivers go driving just for the fun of it, at least occasionally.
About one-third of drivers age 35 to 54 do so;
• over 90% of young drivers report driving in excess of the posted speed limit. The
incidence of speeding decreases steadily with increasing driver age; and,
• three-quarters of drivers 16 to 19 say that they speed up to get through a traffic
light before it changes. This behaviour also decreases progressively among older
drivers.

Young people report driving about 300 km in a month, well below the 1,000 km
reported by older drivers.
♦ Despite the relatively low number of kilometres driven, young drivers are more likely
than older drivers to receive a traffic ticket and to be involved in a collision:
• 20% of those age 16 to 19 report receiving a traffic ticket in the past 12 months.
This compares with less than 10% among drivers 25 and over.
• 16% of drivers age 16 to 19 report being involved in a traffic crash in the past 12
months. This compares with 6% of drivers age 25 and over

You forgot one.

♦ Greater concern is expressed about specific behaviours of young drivers -- 84% of
Canadians are concerned about the use of alcohol and drugs by young drivers. This
is despite the fact that young drivers are least likely to drive after drinking.

so why not 25?

"• 16% of drivers age 16 to 19 report being involved in a traffic crash in the past 12
months. This compares with 6% of drivers age 25 and over"

Why not make the driving age 25? It is only around that age that we see a significant change in harmful collisions.

The whole "age" debate kind of sidetracks the issue of safe driving in my opinion. The current age was undoubtedly picked without much thought, but changing it now imparts certain difficulties. We'd get much further, I believe, by focusing on other strategies that have a much better chance of gaining acceptance by the general public.

Raise the Driving Age

I have long said this should be done, one just has to look at the stats to see the numbers on drivers under 19.. By giving thsi right to 16 years olds, you have to consider that they can get a learners at 15, take their licence at 16, by 18 they have been driving for 2 years, they think they know it all..but are still too young to be allowed to drink. Thier attitude is one that they will take more risks at 18 or even 19, as they think they have the ability, the stats show a different story entirely. If we take the costs of car accidents and what that adds to all the services surrounding it, it is HUGE, and the largest group of offenders are under 25. Now take a driver just getting their licence at 19, by the time thay have been driving 2 years, their maturity level is higher..they are just more sensible. 16 may have worked years ago, but no longer is a sensible or logical age to allow this enormous responsibility.

In my opinion, it's best

In my opinion, it's best that teenagers learn to drive while they're still under the influence of their parents, when they're 16. Even at 44, I remember what it was like to turn 16. Sorry rafe, you're sounding like an old f*rt.

A modest proposal

Let's cut to the chase, the fact is, no one actually likes 16 year olds. Whether you're younger or older you think 16 year olds are a pain in the ass. I say we put them in work camps out in the bush until they hit 20. Everyone will be a lot happier (except the 16 year olds of course).

Coming from a small town, I

Coming from a small town, I have to agree that outside of the GVRD is a different story for driving. Why not have different rules for the GVRD where we have a somewhat acceptable transit system? If we get young people used to transit to get to work (if they live in the GVRD), they might not make the switch to a car later, especially when the switch happens when these kids are starting to pay rent and tuition and are more likely to not have access to the family car and as much free time as when they are 16.

Some people have commented about how kids arent mature enough to drive and therefore giving them licenses should wait as well. If we do that without measures to encourage the age of adulthood to come back down to something more acceptable than...30, it might keep climbing as we keep pushing back responsibilities that are granted to kids. Perhaps a more relavent and challenging curriculum coupled with a shortening of the time spent in school. I sure didnt learn enough in school to warrant 12 years of it (dont get me started on my post secondary education...) Get kids out of school earlier and maybe they will graduate from being angsty gross teenagers sooner too!! Perhaps grade 11 and 12 could consist of apprentiship/internship programs (paid fairly of course, not this 6 bucks crap). This would increase their exposure to people of different age groups which is also important, and it puts them in a quasi-adult situation so that they can start feeling like adults, which is probably prerequisit to acting like adults.....

where are the parents role?

One could hope that the infatuation with cars could be changed?

The industry does its best to advertize the horsepower and speed their vehicles can achieve, making it a matter of status instead of a mediumn of transportation!

There are a few car models that kids would not want to be seen inside, maybe those are exactly what parents should consent to letting them drive?

Oh, did I say a bad word (consent)?

Work camps are always good

What about the economy Frank? Who will fill those 8 dollar an hour jobs?
Have you really thoughtabout it people...how will the teens get to their jobs as menials and flunkeys?

If we take away the 16 year olds driving privileges how will they get to work at the KFC and the like..what about Jimmy and the grocery stores...`specially in the `burbs..not much public transit out in the `burbs. Where I live the bus is referred to as " the loser cruiser"..or " The welfare wagon" You`d force our kids onto the " loser cruiser"? Rafe? In the age of greatness and excellence or the decade or of golden..whatever..

outside the Big Smoke

A questionable assertion. More and more towns outside of the Lower Mainland now have bus service, bicycles are very serviceable as a mode of transportation for most of the year in most of the province, and failing all else, it won't kill the nippers to have to walk a few kilometres a couple of days a week.

Having said that... I don't agree that licensing should age-based, but rather skill-based... and the current set of standards for passing are abysmally low. Unless the driving exam has changed considerably since the late 70s (when I was deemed qualified to drive) there's too much time spent finding out if you can parallel park, and too little spent finding out if you can actually drive safely.

Additionally, all licences should be capped with a horsepower rating and no automobile should be allowed on the road without a governor to limit the top speed to within a few kilometres per hour of the top highway limit in the country (let's say between 120 and 140 km/h). Rich kids in their Kompressors make me wonder what the hell their parents are thinking?

Driving skills

I do not think age is the critical factor. In our North American society, driving a car is considered a "privelege" very easily accessible by everyone. This is not the case in Europe or most other places on the planet.

My suggestions are:
that driving courses should be longer and more difficult to pass- and that passing this course then enables one to get a 5 year temporary license with a few restrictions. No street racing, alcohol or mind altering drugs, using distractions like mobile phones, eating, etc. Conviction for any of these would mean a license ban of 5 more years [or whatever time period is decreed based on the offense and consequeces].
perhaps rated licenses based on ability to avoid accidents [similar to system used by ICBC for defining % insurance rate we pay]would enable accident free drivers to use HOV lanes and drive at higher highway speeds.
those people who have more than ? number of accidents should have their license suspended until they pass a long and difficult driving course that they pay for.

BTW: I do believe that there should be more opportunity for drivers who want to race, to race on enclosed tracks. There needs to be more AutoX and drag race tracks and a better road race course than Mission. However, even though most accidents are a results of poor judgement, it would not hurt to have drivers learn how to control their cars under extreme conditions [max cornering and braking]. This can only be learned at high performance driving schools on closed courses.

here's another idea

Or they could obey posted speed limits which are well within the maximum cornering and braking capabilities of all cars.

Bad ideas

Rafe, I enjoy your writing (even if you can't spell "companies") and your ideas, but you're off the mark on this one. Divorce prevented me from seeing my daughter grow up at close range, and I can't know how much it must still hurt to lose her. I don't think you can make an unbiased observation of this issue.
There is a lot of FUD in these comments and a lot of wisdom. Driving, traffic, and road safety is a complex business and it doesn't lend itself to simplistic answers, either raising the driving age to 19 or some of the other brain f*rts offered up here.
I learned to drive in the 60's, and in those days traffic was much lighter, and seemed slower. Today the traffic volume is far higher and requires many more decisions and requires them to be made quicker. The concentration level demanded is much higher. This has several consequences. Firstly raising the driving age would effectively shorten the learning period for new drivers. I'd rather see new drivers start early and get car control mastered before they're thrown in the deep end of managing traffic.
The biggest advantage I had in learning was the opportunity to drive frequently after getting my license with my dad in the passenger seat. Raising the age reduces this possibility.
Photo radar is a potentially good idea that in practice always deteriorates into a money grab with no benefit to traffic safety. And that applies to almost all radar speed enforcement. Moreover it leads to a driving culture that thinks that all you have to do to drive safely is go slow enough. And that leads to exactly what you have now, a driving environment in which you go "slow enough" all the time regardless of the road and traffic conditions and fill in the blanks with cell phones, stereos, and all the other distractions.
Red light cameras *are* a good idea, and actually do what speed enforcement purports to do.
Actual tests, of the same format used to demonstrate and prove the driving impairment produced by alcohol have shown a matching impairment from the use of cell phones while driving. And that includes hands-free phone use.
John Les, who apparently lacks the reading skills to learn this, should be fired and replaced with someone competent.
In the late 60's a California study showed that once other factors such as gender, scholastic level, family financial status (it's been a long time and I may be misremembering one or two of these) were matched, high school driver education provided *no* reduction in accident rate. That didn't prevent the pompous bastards writing the editorials for the Vancouver Sun at the time from advocating high school driver education in B.C. about a week or two after running the story of the California study. Apparently poor reading skills are a long tradition in the history of bad ideas on traffic safety.

--- continued below ---

Bad ideas 2

--- continued ---

ICBC's own statistics several years ago showed speed as about number four in the list of causes of accidents. That didn't stop them from pushing the recent radar crackdown on the commuter routes of Knight St. et al. The money would have been better spent on permanent right light cameras on the intersections on those roads. But that wouldn't have raised as much money as ticketing all those drivers that don't run lights or crash at the intersections, would it?
Traffic studies have consistently shown that the most dangerous drivers for accidents are the slowest, followed by the very fastest. I don't think I'll live long enough to see the really slow ones pulled over and ticketed.
Bad ideas about driving and traffic safety abound. Let's not add yet another one, Rafe.

Well that's very interesting Danceman

Perhaps you're not aware of the following:
1. Last month Ipsos-Reid polled British Columbians on how they felt about photo radar and red light cameras...90% of British Columbians and 84% of Canadians (the poll was for the Canada Safety Council and went all across the country) supported the use of photo radar in school zones; nearly 75% of British Columbians supported the use of photo radar on highways (69% support for all Canada); and 84% of BC respondents supported red light cameras.

2. Before 1996, when BC introduced photo radar there were an average of 510 road fatalities in each of the preceding 5 years;

3. Photo radar operated for almost 6 years in this province and the average annual death rate sank to 412 during that period - a savings of about 100 lives per year;

4. Since Gordon Campbell ended photo radar in 2001 deaths have increased to an annual average of 449 per year (for the next three years we have statistics for) an average annual increase of 37 or so.

5. BC studies showed a dramatic decrease in speed where photo radar was used and a 25% reduction in daytime unsafe speed related collisions; an 11% reduction in traffic collision victims requiring an ambulance to attend and a 17 % reduction in daytime traffic collision fatalities.

Certainly the photo radar effort could be improved and enhanced, but it actually produced results and to pretend anything else is just nonsense.

There was another study done in Australia last year that looked at 26 photo radar studies from all around the world. In this sample the number of crashes were reduced between 14 and 72 percent once Photo radar was installed and fatalities were reduced between 40 and 46 percent.

Perhaps it is only members of Mr Campbell's small circle of friends who think such results don't mean a little more than than how quickly the masters of the universe can wheel their mercs and bimmers into work every morning.

Statistics

Quote:
______________________________________
4. Since Gordon Campbell ended photo radar in 2001 deaths have increased to an annual average of 449 per year (for the next three years we have statistics for) an average annual increase of 37 or so.
_______________________________________

Studies have also shown that traffic deaths decline during economic downturns and rise again during economic upturns, which I think corresponds to the BC economy during the times in question. Gross statistics of that sort are essentially useless and prove nothing. They're in the same class as the bogus statistics used to prove that high school driver education reduced accident rates.

We've also had a great increase in cell phone use between those periods. But simple minds love simplistic solutions.

photo radar

Hey, if surveillance cameras are considered appropriate to monitor the behaviour of Skytrain passengers I don't see why auto drivers shouldn't be subject to the same level of watchfulness.

Simple minds

Perhaps you'd care to try that one on the 75% - 90% of British Columbians who disagree with you.

And, you might also be interested in this research study which seems to show pretty conclusively that the drivers YOU think cause all the problems actually don't.

As I said, don't take my word for it, the facts are available to everyone - it's only Gordo and his gang who think the rules shouldn't apply to them.

Have a look dance man:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9272/index1.html

Wow, Rafe's getting even

Wow, Rafe's getting even crankier in his old age.

1. When comparing minimum ages, note that Canadians can be drafted at age 16 but not vote until 18 (federally). Also compare to the age of sexual consent. The real issue here is that the voting age should be lowered.

2. Driving at 16 gave me the chance to expand my social life and be independant. It also enabled me to pick up my younger siblings and help my parents, as I was finished school at 3.15 while they didn't get off work until 5.00 or 6.00. In a rural community, family mobility is extremely valuable.

3. Driving at 16 also gives many teenagers the opportunity to learn to drive under controlled conditions - their parents' cars and rules.

4. There are many bad drivers of many ages. Certainly we've seen news stories of teen drivers killed. Two teens from my town were hit side-on by a thirty-something driver running a red light while high on drugs in a stolen car. The street racing issue seems correlated with youth, but doesn't stop at 16 or 19. It's a complicated issue which may also have a lot to do with overprivileged young men with fast cars and little supervision.

5. Experience makes better drivers. Drivers learning for the first time at 19 will have the same problems as drivers learning for the first time at 16. Japan requires incredibly expensive, time-consuming licenses for adults only (18, I think). The result is a greater number of poor adult drivers - they learn later in life or have had fewer opportunities to practise.

Right, I forgot to mention

Right, I forgot to mention one of the better ideas Japan has adopted. bpithers above says this is true of Hungary as well. Japan has zero tolerance on alcohol for drivers. This eliminates all the confusion around blood-alcohol limits and makes the job of the police simpler. At parties, drivers simply don't drink.

I'm more concerned about drunk drivers than I am about teenagers. My experience suggests that teenagers get older and smarter, while many drunk drivers sober up only to make the same mistake again and again.

Quote: ______________________

Quote:
____________________________________
Perhaps you'd care to try that one on the 75% - 90% of British Columbians who disagree with you.
____________________________________

A few years ago a majority of Americans thought Saddam was responsible for 9/11. Should I have changed my opinion on that?
Survey results can be manipulated by how the question is asked.
My apologies for not reading your link, but the pdf reader is temporarily uninstalled on this computer. But I don't want to hijack this into a debate about photo radar. Neither of us is going to have a conversion on the road to Damascus anytime soon on that issue so let's leave it rest. I did appreciate your contribution in your first couple of posts and nothing in my last one was meant as a slight to you. Photo radar was only one of several attempts at solutions to accidents that I mentioned.

And I would second the ideas iamcur expressed. I had the good fortune to be let loose by my dad in snow at an early age at a time when the streets were relatively empty and I learned car control at the cost only of bouncing off a few curbs. My sister crashed a VW Beetle backwards, not speeding, on a damp street because she hadn't.
The lower mainland hasn't had a proper road course since Westwood disappeared. Mission, despite good intentions, is a bit of a joke. Some part of the street racing energy could be diverted to a proper track. Never all, but any part would help.

Some good suggestions ...

But, I have to wonder what happened to all the drunk driving road blocks? I haven't been through one for years. I remember 7 or 8 years ago getting stopped all the time at various points near the Second Narrows. Wouldn't getting the drunks off the road be a huge impact in making our roads safer? What happened?

Dance man

If I thought you'd read the material from the Australian study - and forgotten about the Rand one - I wouldn't have a problem.

Your argument just isn't sustainable on the facts, without dragging opinion into it and the analogy with Americans and Saddam is just lame - as I'm sure you know.

The Campbell Government isn't even willing to use photo radar on a death trap like the Pattullo Bridge so anyone who says they actually care more about making the roads safer than the previous administration did has a very long row to hoe, in my opinion.

I loved Westwood too, in the old days, but we live in the world of today and photo radar (among other things - not necessarily keeping 16 year olds off the roads) is something we need now. In my opinion.

By the way, under the current rules, the earliest a driver can drive unaccompanied -assuming he gets his learner's permit on his 16th birthday - would be at age 17. Then he or she needs to hold a Novice license for two years (with no offences) before obtaining a full Class 5 license. That sounds a lot like 19 to me.

[It can be shortened by 6 months if a novice driver takes an approved course of driver education.]

Therefore, as I see it, under the current rules, Rafe's suggestion would mean a new driver wouldn't get a full class 5 until he or she was 22 if the age for a learner's permit were increased to 19.

I doubt even he would favour that.

Road blocks

"what happened to all the drunk driving road blocks?"

ICBC stopped funding them. I commute by motorcycle and regularly ride home late at night. So I had the dubious pleasure of being stopped and harrassed to produce my license (for class 6) nearly every time in them because the cops used them as fishing expeditions to write other tickets. I saw someone of whom I have personal experience who has drug and alcohol issues ride through one unstopped one night near the entrance to that bridge.

Then a year or two later my car was hit by a drunk while stopped at the light at 6th and Main. He bounced off a couple of other vehicles but I took the brunt of the damage. While the rest of us exchanged information, the drunk moved over to the passenger seat of his car and sat there. Two of us had cell phones and phoned 911. No injuries, no cops would come. The drunk (one of the other parties had briefly talked to him and he reeked) then got out of the car and walked away. The car was a Budget rental. A week later ICBC wrote off my car. Budget had not even replied to requests to come in and talk by that time. Obviously the cops didn't care.
Why not? Why wouldn't they attend every accident on a weekend night (this was near midnight Sunday)? Because they know if they did not personally witness someone at the wheel it won't stand up in court.
And the MADD types continually calling for stiffer penalties? The problem is getting convictions. Stiffer penalties might even make judges more cautious in convicting.

These issues aren't simple.

convictions

"The problem is getting convictions."

Which is why road blocks are so worth it. They have a strong chance of getting one. Maybe with ICBCs new found wealth, they should put some of that money back into the counterattack program.

And, where is MADD? They pretty much let Campbell off the hook and then disappear? I don't know whay anyone would donate to them anymore.

Convictions?

Mais Non!

Wasn't that precisely the problem with photo radar?

No conviction necessary - those little pictures of the licence tags of the offending bimmers and mercs were the whole problem, weren't they? The masters of the universe - who think it's okay to speed whenever they please - didn't like being called to count for it. Because they're such superior beings, in their high performance rides, that they can speed, talk on their cell phones, check the market on their blackberries and drink a low-fat latte on the way to work to boot. Just check the letters to the editor whenever there's a piece in any local paper calling for a return to photo radar.

Moreover, that's the reason why they lobbied so hard with their buddy Gordon to ditch photo radar the moment he got elected.

The fact that it slowed traffic down too and led to reduced carnage on the highways notwithstanding. The masters of the universe run according to different rules - just like the Premier.

Where was that?

If it actually did that significantly I'd be willing to bet that photo radar would still be in use.

I can't wait

I can't wait for my son to be able to drive. He is 14 now, and this is his second summber working. We have been teaching him to drive on the back roads for 2 years now.

Of course I wouldn't buy my son a car when he is 16, he will have to drive mine or drive my mother around. I came from a very poor family and using the truck was a responsiblity and almost a chore with 3 other sisters to drive around.

When we did drink we drank at home with my mom. No need to drive anywhere.

let's set the bar higher

I agree with Mair entirely and have been banging on about this for years (mostly to hostile response) The point made earlier about the fact that 16 year olds can't drink, vote etc. but can get into a potentially lethal weapon is salient. Let's take a leaf out of the European model (specifically Britain) which has its minimum driving age at 18 and which additionally sets a far higher bar for passing the test. ( I lived there for 15 years and although I had been driving for 8 years here in Couverville, when I moved there knew that I had to take some driving lessons before I could take and pass the rigorous test in London. Every year in June far too many newly minted drivers celebrating graduation, passing driving tests etc. are killed and/or kill because they are not ready for the responsbility which comes with driving a car.