21 Should be the legal driving age around the world - ENDS 10 APRIL, 2017

[Brad]

http://res.cloudinary.com/jpress/image/fetch/w_700,f_auto,ar_3:2,c_fill/http://www.newsletter.co.uk/webimage/1.7691327.1480840322!/image/image.jpg
In 2014, 2,270 teens in the United States ages 16–19 were killed and 221,313 were treated in emergency departments for injuries suffered in motor vehicle crashes.1 That means that six teens ages 16–19 died every day from motor vehicle injuries.

In 2013, young people ages 15-19 represented only 7% of the U.S. population. However, they accounted for 11% ($10 billion) of the total costs of motor vehicle injuries.1


In 2011, 2,776 young people were killed or seriously injured on UK roads . Rural areas top the list of places that accidents are most likely to happen.
The single biggest cause of accidental death of young people aged 15-24 is road accident.
40% of 17 year old males have an accident in their first six months of driving.
One in eight drivers is under 25, but they account for a third of people who die on UK roads.
18-year-old driver is three times more likely to be involved in a crash than a 48 year-old driver.

I have taken these two pieces from both an American statistics page and a British statistics website. In many cases show that there are high accident rates to those ages 21 and under. This is where I bring this to you, my fellow Habboxers;

21 Should Be The Legal Driving Age Around The World.

There are many pros and cons that come to my mind in this situation and I can say that you may also have some views on this as well. Before I hand this debate to you I will provide some of those pros and cons to you so that you'll have some things to go off of;

~~Pros to Changing driving age limit~~
+Reducing younger children on the roads in which they still are unable to understand their vehicle
+Insurance for adults (21yrs+) will be reduced since less individuals will not be driving
+Less Accidents on the road, which then will give more time for paramedics and officers on other issues

~~Cons to Changing driving age limit~~
-Students, and Young Drivers (those under 21yrs) will be limited for employment
-More dependency on parents until an older age


Let the Debate Begin!

This Debate will close on 10th April, 2017.


The debate is now up to you! Good contributions will be rewarded with likes and/or royalty points throughout the thread and the member who makes the best contributions throughout the month may give you any of these rewards found here (https://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=841110). Also, with contributing towards the Featured Member Debate will get you this reward! (https://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=841095)
http://habboxwiki.com/wiki/images/1/16/Debatestransparent.gif

[scottish]

The insurance would not drop for 21+, if anything it would increase as insurers just lost their biggest profit. So that point should be removed from your list of pros.

Children are not on the road. The legal age is 18 at which point you are an adult.

If the issue was young drivers not understanding their car (it isn't) then forcing a certain amount of hours lessons prior to test and harder test would resolve that.

if anything was to change it would be stricter consequences to accidents due to new drivers who dangerously drive.

Your last pro is also irrelevant, if we were to ban 40+ year olds we'd also have less users on the road so less accidents.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'm against any laws on an international level regardless of how good the idea so I am a no. :P

[hungryfront]

My generation is already basically screwed for employment even with cars, so we definitely need to keep them. If it was bumped up, it better come with lower insurance for new drivers.

Also, why not just make the tests harder? I know in Australia they have to pass theory before they get provisional, think they should do that around the world.

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

[FlyingJesus]

Children are not on the road. The legal age is 18 at which point you are an adult.

17 but yeah the insurance problems alone would force everyone off the road :P which would make it safer I guess but not exactly useful

[Brad]

The insurance would not drop for 21+, if anything it would increase as insurers just lost their biggest profit. So that point should be removed from your list of pros.
The amount of insurance per city is actually based upon the area it covers and the amount of people driving. So for example; people in Toronto where the population per square kilometer, is much greater than a smaller city, let's say Halifax, Nova Scotia that the insurance would be more due to the higher rate of accident.
So would you not think that the insurance would decrease because of the drivers on the road to decrease?

But interesting thoughts.
I'll reply a bit more on your other points a bit later.

[King-Tom]

I think it should not change, yes statistics show the younger drivers have accidents, but that's mainly the stupid people anyway.
If there was more undercover people on roads to stop any stupidity this would lower them a lot. So imo, don't change it.

[Brad]

Also, why not just make the tests harder? I know in Australia they have to pass theory before they get provisional, think they should do that around the world.

Great point made, although I'm not entirely sure on how they would be able to make it harder.

Although, I know that here in Ontario they have driving school and collision prevention, but sadly it does not reflect any better on insurance if you had it than if you didn't do it.
But great point;
Will comment on your other point a bit later.

[FlyingJesus]

So would you not think that the insurance would decrease because of the drivers on the road to decrease?

Not if the insurance companies want to survive. Less drivers is already less money for them, so they're not likely to lower costs for those remaining. Capitalism doesn't work like that

[Brad]

Not if the insurance companies want to survive. Less drivers is already less money for them, so they're not likely to lower costs for those remaining. Capitalism doesn't work like that

Mhmm, you are correct on that one.
But insurance companies have many locations, so they already know that they have teenagers/young adults (20-21yrs) coming into time to get their license, so they'll need to be insured.

I guess then what I should have said is that their equation to produce a price per driver will need to be based with more variables so that a new, maybe more expensive price, is produced.

Good point made.

[scottish]

The amount of insurance per city is actually based upon the area it covers and the amount of people driving. So for example; people in Toronto where the population per square kilometer, is much greater than a smaller city, let's say Halifax, Nova Scotia that the insurance would be more due to the higher rate of accident.
So would you not think that the insurance would decrease because of the drivers on the road to decrease?

But interesting thoughts.
I'll reply a bit more on your other points a bit later.

No because there's about 60 different factors in the insurance cost as well (crime rate in the postcode, car break ins/reported stolen cars, accident rate in the area, profession, car info, etc). If you remove 17-20 year olds from the insurance that wipes off insurers most profitable age range (first time drivers <21/25 are the ones paying £2k+ a year for their first year, vs what £500 a year when you're 25+). So for every young driver you've now blocked from driving they have lost the equivalent of 4+ 25+ year olds (based on assumption 25+ is £500 a yr vs £2k for a 18-21).

Insurers aren't going to say oh okay to recover this cost we'll decrease the rate of insurance for everyone else, common sense. All prices will be raising to cover their loss of these younger drivers.

Insurance would 100% not decrease.

- - - Updated - - -


Mhmm, you are correct on that one.
But insurance companies have many locations, so they already know that they have teenagers/young adults (20-21yrs) coming into time to get their license, so they'll need to be insured.

I guess then what I should have said is that their equation to produce a price per driver will need to be based with more variables so that a new, maybe more expensive price, is produced.

Good point made.

Insurance isn't based on 1 factor as it stands, unless Canada is backwards.

[Brad]

No because there's about 60 different factors in the insurance cost as well (crime rate in the postcode, car break ins/reported stolen cars, accident rate in the area, profession, car info, etc). If you remove 17-20 year olds from the insurance that wipes off insurers most profitable age range (first time drivers <21/25 are the ones paying £2k+ a year for their first year, vs what £500 a year when you're 25+). So for every young driver you've now blocked from driving they have lost the equivalent of 4+ 25+ year olds (based on assumption 25+ is £500 a yr vs £2k for a 18-21).

Insurers aren't going to say oh okay to recover this cost we'll decrease the rate of insurance for everyone else, common sense. All prices will be raising to cover their loss of these younger drivers.

Insurance would 100% not decrease.

- - - Updated - - -



Insurance isn't based on 1 factor as it stands, unless Canada is backwards.

The list of variables that contribute, that I know, include; Age, Gender, Location, Year of Vehicle, Amount of Accident/tickets on record.
Other than that, they may use other variables in which are not displayed publicly.

I do agree, that insurance wouldn't drop, but would give insurance companies incentives to try and keep their customers as well. If one insurance company is lower, everyone will go get licensed through them.

Great post!

Also, I forgot to mention; a majority of those individuals ages 17-21 do not have their own license but are registered as secondary drivers on their parents insurance. Getting/Having a vehicle is something that some teenagers don't get until they graduate from highschool, to they'd be 18 anyways coming out.

[scottish]

The list of variables that contribute, that I know, include; Age, Gender, Location, Year of Vehicle, Amount of Accident/tickets on record.
Other than that, they may use other variables in which are not displayed publicly.

I do agree, that insurance wouldn't drop, but would give insurance companies incentives to try and keep their customers as well. If one insurance company is lower, everyone will go get licensed through them.

Great post!

Everything contributes, like I said your post code is a main factor due to reported crimes in your neighbour (thus the likelihood that your car will be randomly damaged/stolen based on crime ratings in your postcode), the cost of the car, the engine size of the car, profession (i.e. pretty sure security guards and the like have higher premiums than someone doing a 9-5 office job, then obviously someone like a police officer, paramedic etc will receive lower premiums), size of vehicle, safety rating of vehicle, your activity when driving (e.g. if you do 3,000 a miles a year you're a lot less risky than someone doing 20,000), car mods, NCB, excess, medical conditions, car security, etc.

Insurers will never publicly display what goes into their calculation for the rates they charge. Regarding incentives they already have that due to the mass amounts of insurance companies and underwriters.

[Landon]

The legal age is 18 at which point you are an adult.

The legal age to start driving with your parents in the passenger seat in my state is 14, whereas the age where you can get to school and work on your own is 15. Finally, when you turn 16, you are completely free.

[scottish]

The legal age to start driving with your parents in the passenger seat in my state is 14, whereas the age where you can get to school and work on your own is 15. Finally, when you turn 16, you are completely free.

Where?

From what I can see 14-16 in your state is Instruction Permit, unrestricted license is 17 (under 18 requires 50 hr driving affidavit).

If any state does genuinely allow under 17/18 to drive then that would be more logical to increase the age to 17/18 like most places in the world if they really are a danger due to their lack of understanding of vehicles.

[Landon]

Where?

From what I can see 14-16 in your state is Instruction Permit, unrestricted license is 17 (under 18 requires 50 hr driving affidavit).

If any state does genuinely allow under 17/18 to drive then that would be more logical to increase the age to 17/18 like most places in the world if they really are a danger due to their lack of understanding of vehicles.

14 to 16 is when it can be held - not when it is active. If you drive your hours before 15 and hand it in on that date, then you move to a restricted license. Means to and from work and school. When you turn 16 you are 'completely free' as in able to drive around when you want from 5am to 9pm. Then, when you are 16 and a half, your time restriction falls off therefore you are a normal driver.

The only thing that changes at 17 is the title of the license and 1) the amount of passengers you carry 2) the ability to call on the road

http://www.drivinglaws.org/teen/kansast.php

[scottish]

That's what I read when mentioning the above. Only the farm permit allows driving between 5-9, to work/school etc?

So you need to reside in a farm or be employed in a farm.

[Landon]

That's what I read when mentioning the above. Only the farm permit allows driving between 5-9, to work/school etc?

So you need to reside in a farm or be employed in a farm.

No sir! What I just said is for everyone. Farmers have different rules ahaha.

So for instance, I'm a city slicker. Got my instructional at 14 and was driving to school by 15. They have quite a few different sections in that list.

[scottish]

Oh, okay so you require 50 hours of driving before you can get that (based on restricted license for 16y/o rather than farm license).

50 hours is more driving than 90% of the UK do before sitting their test.

In your case, at 15 to have the restricted license you required 25 hours (again, I believe this is more than half the people in the UK take before sitting the test and getting a full unrestricted license).

[Landon]

Oh, okay so you require 50 hours of driving before you can get that (based on restricted license for 16y/o rather than farm license).

50 hours is more driving than 90% of the UK do before sitting their test.

In your case, at 15 to have the restricted license you required 25 hours (again, I believe this is more than half the people in the UK take before sitting the test and getting a full unrestricted license).

Yep, so in essence if you don't have your 25 by 15 then you don't get your restricted and need your 50 by 16 or you don't get your license. It's literally a new physical card.

[Brad]

Yep, so in essence if you don't have your 25 by 15 then you don't get your restricted and need your 50 by 16 or you don't get your license. It's literally a new physical card.

Ontario is a bit different as you get your G1 (Beginners) at the age of 16. Then you can either do driving school and then get G2 (Secondary) in 8 months, or just take your road test when you turn 17. And then it takes another year on your secondary to get your full license. That's where your second test is with highways, etc, not just in town driving.

[Landon]

Ontario is a bit different as you get your G1 (Beginners) at the age of 16. Then you can either do driving school and then get G2 (Secondary) in 8 months, or just take your road test when you turn 17. And then it takes another year on your secondary to get your full license. That's where your second test is with highways, etc, not just in town driving.

Ah I see. Here it's all in one. So you can drive the highways at 14 with a parent.

[Brad]

Ah I see. Here it's all in one. So you can drive the highways at 14 with a parent.

Now that is what would cause accidents. Having a 14yo hyped up on puberty with an 18 wheeler beside them.
But that's like, the worst case scenario.

What's your thoughts on the pros and cons that I have listed in the beginning post?

[Expling]

no keep the age at 17! 17 is a nice age i feel

haven't read the thread but my main reasoning is because some people don't have supportive families and so would need to get driving as soon as poss so they can save money on transport and have the ability to be independent!

plus if they up the driving limit then jobs that require you to be 18 and driving will have to go! my friend just got a job as a carer who goes round old peoples homes and he had to have a car!

so much disruption would occur if the limit was put up - don't change what doesn't need to be fixed!

[Charlie]

I think it should remain the same. It's the person behind the wheel, not the age of them. I'd assume it's easier to blame it on age because if you pass your test at the age of 18, people might view you as the type of person to drive a bit reckless, maybe because you're young and viewed as immature but that isn't always the case, I'm sure there is people who are 20/30 years old who drive badly and put themselves at risk, or even get into accidents. You've also got the fact that at that age, people are going to want more independence and a car will give them that, they'll be getting jobs in a time where finding a one is harder so having a car will improve their chances if they can travel further out for a job. The insurance thing isn't true either, because you'll have people passing at the age of 21 instead so the insurance for 21 year olds will be the same as the prices for 17/18 year olds now, the companies are going to want to make money, plus you'll be a new driver which will mean your cover is going to be more.

I feel if you change the age to 21, there is still going to be those who get into accidents and as I said, it's because of the person and not the driver. You're going to have those who'll drive sensibly, and those who will speed, go through lights, etc. and get into accidents. At the end of the day, it's someone being in control of a massive piece of metal going at speeds of 50/60 mph, accidents are going to happen no matter what you raise the age to, it's more a case of drumming it into people to act responsibly behind the wheel.

[Brad]

haven't read the thread
My favourite. Haha
But understandable though. It would increase cost in other places and people will be limited in jobs too because of traveling

[Brad]

Thank you to all who had participated in this Debate. It is now closed.
Remember that there are two official debates going on as well as the HxEE Debate as well!

http://habboxwiki.com/wiki/images/1/16/Debatestransparent.gif
To go to the Euthanasia debate, Click Here (https://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=841249)
To go to the Official Member's Debate: "Does Biblical Jesus Reflect Historical Jesus?", Click Here (https://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=841332)
To go to the HxEE Official Debate, Click Here (https://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=841331)