What would they like to say? The data suggests that it also takes approximately 10 years to form the skills one needs to drive. Hence why insurance rates typically decline to a meaningful degree when one turns 25.
But, like all things in life, there are tradeoffs. While road safety would no doubt improve if everyone had to spend 10 years learning and developing driving skills, there would be a lot of social consequences to keeping people from driving until so late in life. Consequences we have not been willing to accept.
We could just as easily allow medical professionals to practice without such lengthy requirements. Anyone can become a shoddy doctor. It is not hard job to do poorly. But we've selected different tradeoffs there. It is not as socially impactful if a doctor can't practice until later in life, and is arguably more socially beneficial to see them wait until their skills have really developed.
Which is why many countries have a 18 year limit for driving, plus in my country there are people pushing for mandatory regular driving tests for old people.
We do prevent people from driving a car at all until they pass a test proving that they can do so competently, and even then they typically have strong restrictions on what they can do while driving for several years to help further reduce the risk they can pose.
Perhaps a fair comparison would be if we required those who do not wish to get vaccinated to have a relevant medical degree to prove that they know what they're doing?
Learning to drive in some countries and for some individuals can take months, be hugely costly and still only result in a license that isn’t immediately transferable to other countries (eg you have to hold a license for x years before you can drive abroad and/or older than x years old).
Other countries might not even allow you to apply for a learners licence unless you have a specific visa.
So if you’re a young adult and travel a lot, it might not even be possible, let alone practical, to earn a license.
Which is precisely why I didn’t learn to drive until I was in my 30s and ready to start a family.
I disagree in part. Tougher tests have to be combined with mandatory retests to renew a license every 5-10 years, it's not just the young who drive badly.
There is a difference between having something and then losing it vs not having it yet. If you get a license to do a thing you should be able to keep doing it until you are deemed incapable and that will vary between people.
Also, plenty of children those ages drive on private property, especially farms. There are kids doing backflip jumps on dirt bikes at those ages. Many of them are likely safer to be driving than others who are of "prime" age. I drove with a 30yo who terrified me with his dangerous lack of skill.
People are variable in capacity and skill. The bureaucracy finds it more manageable to put policy in place than to determine individual skill.
I agree that people skills change over time, which is why I, as a driver, am in favor that every driver should retake the driving exam and a health exam every 2 years.
I am also in favor of enforcing this for all foreign drivers going through my country somehow, since most of them don’t really know how to drive here.
So, if you make it more time-consuming and more expensive to get a license, essentially the entire burden is now put onto the less well-off segment of society.
And I'm skeptical how much good you do. Yes, younger drivers are less safe, but I'm unconvinced that simply having some more instruction time and a test that is more rigorous but presumably not onerous really provides the equivalent of a few years of experience.
I know you're trying to make a reduction ad absurdum, but these are arguments that are actually made. For one, this is exactly the reason why we don't allow young people below a certain age to drive on public roads.
Furthermore, if I remember correctly, at least some jurisdictions have laws on the books that old drivers can have their licenses taken away if they are not able to operate a car safely anymore. I'm not sure if any jurisdictions require old drivers to actively demonstrate their competency in an exam or such, but I have definitely seen people argue for that idea.
I'm not opposed to it either, and in fact I would not age-gate it. If train drivers or airplane pilots are required to prove their competency on a regular basis, why should we not require car drivers to do the same, maybe every 5 or 10 years?
> ... as the median age driver cohort benefitting from that becomes larger
There's already a lot of benefits "in the pipeline" that take decades to fully manifest. For example, Ontario introduced the current graduated licensing scheme in 1994 [0], but that means there are still millions of increasingly older drivers on the road who were never required to pass the G2 and G tests that anyone under 40 has.
Overall, it's just absurd that driver's licenses don't require a retest every 5-10 years, but that kind of change would obviously a much harder sell to the public than giving them a pass to blame the reckless youth with one hand, and a pull-up-the-ladder type fix to the problem with the other.
IMO the only real downside of waiting till 18 is that your insurance rates are gonna be sky-high for the first few years regardless of your age when that happens. If you've held a license for 2 years with no accidents then your rates are gonna be cheaper, regardless of whether you actually drove anywhere.
That's offset by teen driver education being a fucking racket though. The entire thing is just a scheme to extract a grand from mommy and daddy.
Wait till you're 18 and suddenly the need for that course and the hours of supervised driving will vanish. Pass the driving test and the written and boom, there's your license.
For the typical (certainly US) driver, the initial training is just to get to a minimally viable set of skills so they can pass their driving test. The vast majority of people aren't taking performance driving courses to get their drivers licenses. I'd pretty much guarantee that almost every driver is more skilled 10 years after they get their license.
I wish we would re-test drivers every few years after retirement. I see 70-80 year old drivers on the road every day driving in an unsafe manner. I dread the time when I have to take my parent’s licenses away.
I think it’s funny how driving has become such a “required skill” in the states. I have a lot of friends who are in their 30s or older who haven’t ever been behind the wheel. It shows how what one person perceives as an essential skill is nothing to another person.
Most middle- and upper-class Americans take a driver’s education course (like what you’ve described) prior to receiving their driver’s license. In 10 years it won’t even be necessary because nobody’s going to be driving themselves anyway.
In aviation, there’s a “killing zone” from 50-350 flight hours (with 40 being the typical legal minimum hours for licensing and 60+ being more typical).
i would guess one decade at most in many countries. The last person to ever need a driving license for private transportation has already been born imo*
*in countries with reasonably advanced infrastructure and somewhat stable economies
The people who didn't get a driving license in 2017 because what was the point if cars would drive themselves in a couple of years may care. Even more so if they finally have to wait to 2050.
Anyway, the question was about expectations - and those came with a timeline.
Young people in the UK seem less bothered about passing their driving test at 17 - university is ahead of them, so there is no point putting money into a car - I went down this route, and am now 27 and still don't drive, and cannot see this changing unless it becomes essential to work or family. The roads are so congested where I live that the car is no longer a symbol of freedom like it had been for my parents.
But, like all things in life, there are tradeoffs. While road safety would no doubt improve if everyone had to spend 10 years learning and developing driving skills, there would be a lot of social consequences to keeping people from driving until so late in life. Consequences we have not been willing to accept.
We could just as easily allow medical professionals to practice without such lengthy requirements. Anyone can become a shoddy doctor. It is not hard job to do poorly. But we've selected different tradeoffs there. It is not as socially impactful if a doctor can't practice until later in life, and is arguably more socially beneficial to see them wait until their skills have really developed.
reply