KEY POINTS:
Traffic Safety Minister Harry Duynhoven can hardly be accused of being a powerful and persuasive voice for change. He is, therefore, to be commended for being so forthright in his advocacy of compulsory third-party insurance as a way of tackling the "boy racer" problem. This will not eliminate the presence of young speedsters on the road. But it will, judging by overseas experience, play a significant role in reducing the risk they present to themselves and other road users.
The minister's stance makes the Insurance Council's continued contrariness all the more disappointing. The council says many of the people at whom compulsory insurance is aimed already break the law by driving without a valid licence, registration or a warrant of fitness. "Bringing in another compulsory requirement won't get them off the road," says council chief executive Chris Ryan.
His argument does not stack up. Legislation should not be shelved because it is not, or will not be, universally observed. If such were the case, repeat offenders' insistence on driving after consuming too much liquor would render the drink-driving law redundant.
It is logical to think compulsory insurance will lead many youngsters to moderate their behaviour, if only because affordable premiums will depend on having a good driving record.
Tickets for speeding or other offences will become matters of considerable importance, as will the prohibitive premiums demanded for high-performance cars. The Insurance Council predicts that, rather than opting for cars that can be insured for less, problems owners will take out insurance, then not pay the premiums. But that is not a sustainable approach.
The only valid argument against compulsory third-party insurance is that it penalises every young driver for the behaviour of a few. Not everyone who wants to drive a high-powered car is dangerous. But the death of young people in Christchurch and Mt Maunganui, and the continued over-representation of youngsters in crash statistics compared with older drivers, suggest action is overdue. The only consolation for drivers who are not part of the boy-racer fraternity is that third-party cover is comparatively cheap.
Parliament's transport select committee rejected mandatory insurance in 1994. This must not happen again. Young people's infatuation with speed makes some high-impact crashes inevitable. But, as Mr Duynhoven has pointed out, New Zealand's mix of no compulsory insurance, no restriction on what a young person can buy, cheap second-hand high-performance cars from Japan and easy credit heightens the risk. It also reinforces the fact that third-party insurance should be part of measures to address street racing.
A 2003 law change, which gave police the power to automatically impound cars for 28 days if they were being driven unnecessarily fast or doing burnouts, could be adapted for use against youngsters who do not insure their cars or do not pay premiums. But, more fundamentally, young drivers need to be taught to be more skilful. That means compulsory driver training to a far higher standard than is now the case. This was a key point of the Government's road-safety policy statement last year.
Other parts of that document were less than inspiring, as has been the Government's record in this area. On issues such as banning the use of handheld cellphones in cars, Mr Duynhoven has been unable to gain Cabinet support. This time, his voice should not be ignored. There must not be more needless deaths before street racing becomes the pastime of an extremely small minority.
