At which age should a person be allowed to obtain a driver's licence?

At which age should a person be allowed to obtain a driver's licence?

  • 14

    Votes: 2 2.5%
  • 15

    Votes: 1 1.3%
  • 16

    Votes: 16 20.0%
  • 17

    Votes: 13 16.3%
  • 18

    Votes: 36 45.0%
  • 19

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 20

    Votes: 1 1.3%
  • 21

    Votes: 7 8.8%
  • 22

    Votes: 1 1.3%
  • Other

    Votes: 3 3.8%

  • Total voters
    80

The Monkey

The Freeman
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
16,316
Reaction score
16
I had a discussion on another forum about the right age for people to starting dricing around on their own. I argued 18, he argued 16. WHat do you think.
 
at least 21, I don't trust anyone round where I live to drive before that >.<
 
I say until you can prove that you are not a complete retard.
 
Well 18 is the legal age here...

I remember a friend of mine was all excited about getting a drivers licence, and went to do the test as soon as he turned 18. He tried a total of 6 times and failed every single time LOL:LOL::LOL:. He finally gave up
 
16 here baby!!!! Wooo!!

I think when you can past a driving test, you should be be able to drive.
 
I've just started learning how to drive today, over 11 months after I turned 17. I wish I'd started sooner really.

I voted 17 because, well, I'm 17.
 
Damn we in America start early.

Then again in my small as town, there is no public transportation.
 
Too many 18 year olds are crashing their novas / saxos / fiestas round here and killing the 16 year old rear-seat slappers and themselves. If you ask me, 18 is still too young.

I'd say 21
 
18, sweden rule, why not. Any younger than that and things are likely to go wrong.
 
Some people it should differ. Some really mature 15 year old is better than a 21 year old moron.

Offtopic but,My friend has his and he's 15. We both work a steady job and I'm 14.
 
Some people it should differ. Some really mature 15 year old is better than a 21 year old moron.
Pretty hard for the government to determine maturity, though. An age limit is required, and anything below 18 is too low.
 
I vote 18.

There are far to many incidents involving teenagers, and the younger, the more likely they are to be overconfident, or distracted.

Overall though, I feel the BIGGER problem, is carpools of teenagers. A teenager by him/herself will drive MUCH better than a teen at the wheel with 2-3 friends in the car with them.
 
Skattmannen said:
Pretty hard for the government to determine maturity, though. An age limit is required, and anything below 18 is too low.
Yeah, the point is that at 18-21 you're legally personally responsible, no matter whether you're mature or not.
 
16.

However, it's quite different in America than it is in Europe. On the whole, we're far more open, with a lot less public transportation, so I think it makes sense for us to be able to drive earlier.

Plus, that's what we have here now and that's fine with me.
 
16.

However, it's quite different in America than it is in Europe. On the whole, we're far more open, with a lot less public transportation, so I think it makes sense for us to be able to drive earlier.

Plus, that's what we have here now and that's fine with me.
And yet, three times more people are killed per capita in traffic in the US compared with Sweden, so you've got a lot of problems with your traffic situation, and I'd be suprised to 16-year-olds driving isn't one of them. Source
 
Here it's officially 18, but I could drive a little bit at 14 and drive safely and comfortably by age 16.
 
I would say 17 for a full license. And be required to take something like an IQ test...
 
Well, as it's 17 here in England, then I say 17. Plus, I'm 17 in October! Woo!
 
17... because at 18, people tend to start college... thus requiring(or usually requiring) use of a vehicle to get there.
 
age doesn't matter. There's 40 year olds who don't drive as well, as intelligently, and/or as safely as some 16 year olds.
 
True, but the amount of people who aren't fit to drive is much higher among 16-year-olds than among 40-year-olds.
 
Instead of using arbitrary numbers as a measure of safe driving, wouldn't it be a far more sensible idea to actually teach people to drive instead of how to pass a test?
Lane discipline in this country is shockingly bad. I particularly hate the idiots who sit in the outside lane of the motorway at exactly 70mph, as if it's their personal mission to stop anyone exceeding the speed limit by even 1mph. If you aren't overtaking, get the **** out of the way.
It's no wonder really when lane discipline isn't really taught very much and the myth prevails that the outside lane is the "fast lane". And when aggressive, OTT speed enforcement ensures that the traffic is moving at identical speeds in all the lanes anyway.
 
Instead of using arbitrary numbers as a measure of safe driving, wouldn't it be a far more sensible idea to actually teach people to drive instead of how to pass a test?
Yes. There is a lot more training needed.

Lane discipline in this country is shockingly bad. I particularly hate the idiots who sit in the outside lane of the motorway at exactly 70mph, as if it's their personal mission to stop anyone exceeding the speed limit by even 1mph. If you aren't overtaking, get the **** out of the way.
hah I know exactly what you are talking about. But most of the time when that happens here the people behind get impatient and then don't drive safe...

The most common thing I've come across is the space people put between themselves and the next car. They move over late when passing a slow car and cut in front too early. As well as quickly passing and cutting off a slower car instead of getting behind to take their exit which is coming up asap.

A friend of my brother's moved to Minneapolis which is a lot busier than here. Her driving habits have changed a lot when she came back down to visit. Riding really close to other drivers bumpers. Guess thats what happens when you drive downtown in big cities.
 
age doesn't matter. There's 40 year olds who don't drive as well, as intelligently, and/or as safely as some 16 year olds.

I agree to a point, if you look at the general age groups there are going to be more mature 18 year olds than there are 16 year olds. However there will always be exceptions and these are the people who cause stupid accidents.
I think you should get your license at 18 but have to go through a test to make sure your not an idiot.
 
60 year olds dipshits are far more dangerous drivers than 16 year olds. At least the 16 year olds are on fewer meds.
 
60 year olds dipshits are far more dangerous drivers than 16 year olds. At least the 16 year olds are on fewer meds.

Hahaha...

Or so you think, they're all drugged up on Oxycontin and Vicodin.
 
They should make it harder to pass and make a height requirement (as long as the person can see over the steering wheel), then if they can do the hard test (harder if your younger?) and see over the wheel, then they should be allowed.
 
Instead of using arbitrary numbers as a measure of safe driving, wouldn't it be a far more sensible idea to actually teach people to drive instead of how to pass a test?
Thats what happens in the states.
In Wisconsin you take a 6 month course on how to drive. Pass the course and a Temps test you get your "Temps", where you can drive with a parent. Then you take 6 1 hour long driving lessons where the driver instructer teachs you how to drive, you go though all traffic menuvers, parking cars on hills with/without curbs.
You're also required to get a total of 30 hours driving with your parent before you can take your drivers license test. Usually 20 hours day, 10 hours night driving.

Then you can finally take your test. Around here it's taken quite seriously. Then again, it's Wisconsin! You start driving at 16, and you've probably starting to drink at 12 - 14.
 
Meh, some people just shouldn't. My friend doesn't even look when changing lanes on the freeway... Oh, yeah, and after a concert we got into a car accident because he though we were at a four-way stop, but we weren't. A split-second difference and I would have died. I really hate driving with him.

In fact, being in a band with him is sort of frustrating, too. He never really learns anything new...
 
Thats what happens in the states.
In Wisconsin you take a 6 month course on how to drive. Pass the course and a Temps test you get your "Temps", where you can drive with a parent. Then you take 6 1 hour long driving lessons where the driver instructer teachs you how to drive, you go though all traffic menuvers, parking cars on hills with/without curbs.
You're also required to get a total of 30 hours driving with your parent before you can take your drivers license test. Usually 20 hours day, 10 hours night driving.

We have the same sorta thing down under, not perfectly the same in each state but; A written multi choice test when you're 16 - must get... I think 75% to pass {I got 75%}.
Then you can drive with your parent or full dirver next to you - they advise having 120 hours of driving time.

Once you pass a driving test you then can drive by yourself but with limits - No Drinking while driving, 0.0 BAC instead of a 0.5 BAC and only certain power ratios in cars.
 
Here you have to get 70% on a test, drive for 9 months with a parent (6 months if you take a 3 week drivers ed course (3 days per week), then you take another test for your regular license.

Funny thing is I'm going for my motorcycle license soon (I just turned 16 and thats the legal age for motorcycles) and I have to pay $85 CDN for a test, get 80% (multiple choice), then right away I get my full license! (You get your license within the same day)
 
When I got my license I first took drivers ed for a few weeks over the summer through my school. Was very easy. Watched some videos, mini quizzes and of course driving. Then when I went to get my license the next year I just took the written/computer test. The DOT only had certain days (random) where they would require you to take their driving test and only if you did not take drivers ed.
 
Back
Top