Jeremy’s Little Corner Of The Web…

A friend sent me a link to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald, "Young driver curfew: off the road by 10pm". The article talks about plans to introduce a curfew for all drivers under the age of 21, so that they are not allowed on the road between 10pm and 6am, restrict the number of passengers to 1, and prevent drivers from driving cars that are "too powerful".

This really, REALLY pisses me off.

I'll deal with the third part of the plan first. According to the article:

"Young drivers could be restricted to vehicles below a specific power-to-weight ratio, in the same way motorcyclists are already prevented from riding bikes above a certain capacity at stages of the licensing process."

I partially agree with this. The number of red and green P-platers that I see hooning around the streets in souped-up cars is incredible. The other week some nut roared down the street next to Lucy's in a Holden ute (one of the new ones) at about 80 km/h in a 50 zone. Now, had a person been walking along the road, there wouldn't be much time for that kid to stop. I get the feeling that these kids think that because they have a massive engine in the car, they have to prove it to everyone by revving the engine, racing around corners, weaving in and out of traffic and driving recklessly in general. I don't see that many P-platers in old Honda civics or other less powerful cars driving in the same manner as some twit in a Holden or sik-sik Skyline. If the RTA and state government want to go ahead with this part of the plan, I have no problems. Gets rid of some of the twits on our roads.

The next part of the plan is the curfew itself. If this is introduced, anyone under the age of 21 would be prevented from driving between 10pm and 6am. The reasoning behind introducing this is valid, I agree, because there are way too many accidents involving young drivers today, and many of these would occur at night. A friend of my brother's was involved in an accident in Mosman a month or two ago, where a car full of girls in a Peugeot 206cc (with the top down) went around a corner too fast, and the car flipped (I believe… correct me if I don't have the story straight). The point is, 3 of the girls died (not sure on this, either), and the driver had her P's only for a short while.

So…. I guess the state government wants to prevent accidents like this, which is a fair call. I think they're going the wrong way about it, though. What's the use of having a license, if you can't drive for most of the time you're able to? I would not be able to see a movie after 8pm, because I would be driving home after the 10pm curfew. I would not be able to drive up the Lucy's (half an hour away), have dinner, bum around for a while, and then drive home, because it would be after the curfew. Driving to a friend's party? Nuh-uh. Out of the question as well. Driving up the North Shore to a pub to meet friends? Wouldn't work, either. I'd have to be at home and in bed by 10pm, if I didn't want to get pinned by the cops.

Perhaps instead of labelling every single driver under the age of 21 as irresponsible and accident-prone drivers, why not do something to make them better drivers? That would be the logical thing. Getting your license at the age of 17 is supposed to give you freedom, but under this plan, it's a half-assed freedom. Why not make it compulsory for all red P-platers to take advanced driving courses, so they know how to handle the car in adverse conditions (whether it's rain, mud, or just avoiding a hazard). How about actually teaching these drivers to drive responsibly? If they knew the consequences of driving recklessly, then maybe they would be less inclined to drive in that manner.

The third aspect is being allowed to carry only one passenger, which I can see a reason for as well, but… I think it's a bit too strict to enforce it on all under-21s. Having lots of passengers can be severely distracting to the driver (from personal experience), but driving with only one passenger for 4 years is just plain inconvenient, and I don't see it making that much of a difference.

I really hope this isn't introduced, and that someone in the RTA or government gives Carl Scully a good smack in the head, so he can see that this is a bad idea, and that there are other ways of reducing youth accidents on the roads.

(I should describe the system for anyone reading this post and not living in NSW, Australia. At 16, you can get a Learner's license, which allows you to drive with another licensed driver. You have to complete either 50 or 100 hours (it might have changed since I did it) and maintain a log of your trips. At 17, you can apply for your red Ps by taking a driving test, and if you're successful, you remain on your red Ps for at least a year. At 18, you're eligible to go for your green Ps, which last for two years, by taking a computer-based hazard perception test. After the 2 years are up, you take another test to move onto the unrestricted license.)