KEY POINTS:
Transport Safety Minister Harry Duynhoven is right when he says that lifting the legal driving age is not a panacea. Official statistics suggest, in fact, that the two accidents on September 8 involving 15-year-old drivers in which four people died were an aberration.
But the minister is wrong to rule out raising the driving age, even if only by a year to 16. Such a step would be hugely significant in a country where gaining a licence at 15 has been a rite of passage for many years and where the age trend in other fields, such as access to liquor, has been downwards.
Nevertheless, young drivers are killing themselves and their passengers in such shocking circumstances that the time has surely come.
At least Transport Minister Annette King recognises the strong level of support for lifting the age to 16. Therefore, she has raised the prospect of Parliament being polled. More significantly, however, an increase in the age is not among safety measures that Mr Duynhoven will soon recommend to the Cabinet. These include a number of worthwhile ways to improve the performance of young drivers. But the sidestepping of the age issue suggests too much heed is continuing to be paid to those who worry about the inconvenience of making youngsters wait to 16 for their licences.
The most substantial argument against lifting the age lies in the fact that far more 16, 17 and 19-year-olds are involved in fatal crashes than 15-year-olds. Indeed, whenever people start driving, the most dangerous period seems to be immediately after they graduate from the supervised regime imposed by a learner licence to a restricted licence. At that time, many youngsters seem reluctant to abide by the licence's restrictions, especially that of not being able to carry friends as passengers.
Mr Duynhoven's main thrust is likely to be to better compel young drivers to obey those conditions. At present, the penalty, based around fines, is ineffective. Often, they are paid by parents or friends, or not paid at all. Increasing them would be pointless. The minister will, therefore, probably opt for a demerit system leading to licence suspension. That is sensible in terms of creating a meaningful penalty for breaches of licence restrictions. So, too, are the likes of a new compulsory driving course to teach young people better skills. It seems illogical, however, for Mr Duynhoven's package not to include a year longer wait for youngsters to get behind the wheel.
At 16, youngsters may be a little more mature and a little more ready to grasp the responsibilities inherent in a driver's licence. They would be even more mature when they completed the learner and restricted licence programme. And most would be much better drivers if that process had more significant penalties and was more rigidly enforced. Critics will say one year will not make much difference. If New Zealand wants to tackle the issue seriously, it should increase the driving age to, say, 18, as in the case in the likes of Switzerland. That may be so. It would, however, put the licence age well out of tune with that for school leaving.
Others will complain that rural communities will be severely inconvenienced, as will urban families that will have to ferry their children to sporting events and suchlike. But the ongoing over-representation of young drivers in crash statistics suggests a far more important issue is at stake. At the very least, the licence should be lifted to 16 for a test period as part of a package of safety measures. Only then will we see if there is any improvement.
