Donald Aubrey: Maturity and age confused in debate

We need to focus on changing the culture of the next generation of drivers, and that starts well before age 16 or 17. Photo / Thinkstock

In a recent Herald on Sunday, Kerre Woodham made a compelling case that kids must prove maturity to earn their driver's licence.

That's what Federated Farmers told the Transport and Industrial Relations Select Committee and I should know, having delivered the message myself.

The tragedy of the driver licensing debate is that it has become so age-centric. Fifteen, we are told by the Government, is far too young to drive so it must become 16. Magically, that one year imparts maturity. Except what's being proposed is an effective increase in the unsupervised driving age to 17, not 16.

It's easy to find examples where a 15 year old has been to blame for an accident. Yet statistics don't lie. One point both the Automobile Association and Federated Farmers has stressed is this - the learner-licence period is in fact the safest period in a driver's life.

Put another way, the youngest driver involved in the recent 12 tragic death weekend was a legal adult.

It may be the opposite of perceived wisdom but it isn't the 50 year olds who are the safest, it's a 15 year old driving under supervision.

You cannot attribute maturity to a birth date alone. But this policy of focusing on age is on the other foot when it comes to campaigns such as Two Drinks Max. Government simply brushes aside strong research evidence that our blood alcohol level is generous.

But there is a disaster looming by lifting the driving age to an effective 17.

At the same time, the Government is looking to close up the ages for legal driving (effectively 17) and on-licence drinking (18). That's got to be a recipe for disaster. While Federated Farmers supports a zero-alcohol limit for any driver under the age of 20, we believe it puts temptation and peer pressure in the path of socially immature 17 year old drivers.

Speaking personally, Two Drinks Max has a lot to recommend it. Alcohol is a legal drug in a country that has a major problem with substance abuse. But, to borrow a cliche, it's not what we're drinking, it's how we're drinking. The best way to effect change is at the younger age.

So, what's the solution? A much greater focus on the learner driving period. That includes doubling the learner period from six months to one year. Structured driver training needs to occur at a time when young people are impressionable and teachable and focused. Anyone with teenagers knows that.

It is also a starting point to imprint the Two Drinks Max message. We need to focus on changing the culture of the next generation of drivers, and that starts well before age 16 or 17.

We have become so risk averse and protective of our young that we've denied them the chance to learn or experience risk from a young age. That is until they suddenly have access to a motor vehicle.

So instead of changing the driving age on hunches and polling, don't you think a tougher and longer licence regime is the best place to start?

* Donald Aubrey is Federated Farmers' vice-president and transport spokesperson.