|
|
|
Learn and Live - 23rd February 1990
The ‘Learn and Live’ Campaign was established in 1989, to raise the issue of the need for a degree of experience and a minimum age for supervising drivers. It has attracted considerable support from the public, road safety bodies, driving instructors, the media and politicians from all parties.
The Department will be aware of the level of public interest in this issue. It should be clearly understood that a large number of people whose lives have been affected by tragedies concerning road accidents involving learner drivers are not all able to add their voices to the ‘Learn and Live’ Campaign.
The Minister is to be commended for the prompt action he has taken in accepting that age and experience conditions should be applied to supervisors of learner drivers.
It is particularly pleasing to note that views are invited on the balance of age and experience and not the basic principle.
The setting of an age and experience qualification to ensure that supervisors are able to exert control over a learner driver is welcomed.
This is of primary importance in the case of young learner drivers who statistically have the most car accidents. The growth of two-car families and the large number of teenagers sitting driving tests at a young age highlights the fact that the 17-25 age group is most at risk.
It is acknowledged that there is no statistical base detailing accidents involving learner drivers and supervisors by age. This is a serious gap in the road safety information which should be filled. As a consequence it is a matter of subjective judgement as to the most appropriate minimum age level to be applied.
In the absence of detailed data on learner driver accidents, it is appropriate to look at road accidents in general to determine where the greatest risks are. All available evidence highlights that under 25 drivers have the greatest number of accidents and are therefore at greatest risk. Given the lack of experience and a natural tendency to irresponsibility, bravado and peer pressure this is not surprising.
Traditional controls such as the cost of car purchase, loaded insurance premiums and the high running costs of car ownership tended to ration the number of under 25s who owned or had unrestricted use of a car.
However, in recent years cars have become more available to the young and it now commonplace for 17 year olds to sit and pass their driving tests as soon as possible, and to have a car available for their use. This enables them to act as supervisors for similarly aged learner drivers. The reasons for this are many and varied, but reflect the way society has become more affluent and more reliant on personal as opposed to public transport.
Statistics from the Department of Transport show that each year since 1985 some 74% of those who have passed driving tests have been in the 17-25 age group.
The purpose of a minimum age limit on supervising drivers is to ensure adequate control can be exerted. A major factor for young people in learning to drive is peer pressure. Therefore for a supervisor to exert the required control, he or she should be distanced in age from their charges. This suggests the minimum age for supervising drivers should be 25 years old and not 21 as the consultation document proposes.
In addition, to the minimum age is the need for specific experience criteria. The proposal is that a supervisor must have held a full driving licence for a minimum of 3 years. A with the age requirement this is largely a subjective judgement. For practical reasons the lower the age requirement the longer the experience criteria should be. It would therefore seem reasonable assuming an age requirement of 25 years for the experience criteria to be 3 years.
The Department’s proposals include applying the same conditions to HGV and PSV drivers. However, it is clear that the requirements for HGV/PSV are very different from those applied to car drivers.
The link drawn between HGV/PSV and car drivers is therefore of questionable relevance. As a consequence there is no need to apply the same requirements to learner drivers of heavy goods vehicles and public service vehicles as should be introduced for car drivers. The question of additional costs for compliance would therefore not apply.
It is hoped that preventative measures are taken to avoid the need for enforcement. In order for the proposed changes to be fully understood, a carefully targeted information campaign will be required. The DVLC is one source of information. Suitable ‘flyers’ could be included with provisional and full driving licences and with any replacement licences (for change of address etc.) sent to all those drivers under 25 (or perhaps 28) years of age.
In addition, a targeted campaign in schools, colleges and universities should be undertaken to ensure the target audiences are aware of the changes. Driving Test Centres and Driving Instructors also have a role to play in spreading the word, as would insurance companies and the ABI.
At the time of the announcement, press coverage should be sought to maximise impact. In that regard, and given the ‘Learn and Live’ Campaign’s involvement, we would happily play a positive role with the Department, to ensure intensive press interest.
Parents should also be targeted, otherwise they may unwittingly endorse illegal supervision by use made of the family’s second car.
It is to be hoped that tough penalties will be enforced by the Courts. With the relatively high disposable income of the under 25s, a fine of £400 or less is too low.
In addition, 2 penalty points in not an appropriate penalty. However, discretionary disqualification, if applied for short periods (i.e. 3-6 months) would have a sobering effect on both the learner and the supervising drivers. This short, sharp shock approach is found to have significant impact amongst the young. The threat of depriving an under 25 year old of personal mobility has a considerable deterrent effect.
The Courts would need clear guidance on this point to ensure uniformity of sentencing across the country.
It is welcomed that the changes expected would take effect from mid 1990 onwards.
Any delay in this timetable could lead to unnecessary deaths and injury to youngsters.
The ‘Learn and Live’ Campaign welcomes the DTP’s proposals but advocates a minimum age limit of 25 for supervising drivers; it also emphasises the need for a structured and programmed public information campaign to ensure the changes are widely understood.
The Campaign and its advisers would welcome the opportunity to discuss a suitable PR/Advertising Campaign with DTP officials, if that would be helpful.
|
|
 |
|