In 1987, to address an increasing problem of injury among young drivers, New Zealand chose a graduated driver licensing system (GDLS), in preference to raising the minimum car driver licensing age. Since 1987 the GDLS has contributed to a significant reduction in young driver injury, but a recent spate of high-profile crashes has raised public concern about young drivers and road safety. In response to this concern, a bill has been introduced into the parliament to increase the minimum driver licensing age from 15 to 16 years. In this article we critically examine some of the arguments against raising the licensing age. Our motivation for doing this is that many of the arguments against raising the driver's license age, though they have high face validity, are often presented without any supporting evidence.uOur sources for argument include Hansard (New Zealand parliament's official record), various public media, various agencies Web sites, census data, and published papers. The arguments examined against raising the age were the impact on the mobility of 15- and 16-year-olds, disadvantage to the rural sector, alternative transport options, increasing the age shifts the problem, changing the law will not change young driver behaviors, changing the law will not fix the problem, and education is the answer. For each of the topics available, data were examined to quantify the extent to which these factors would affect young drivers if the minimum driver licensing age was raised to 16 years. The evidence demonstrates that young age, independent of experience, is a major determinant of risk; therefore, raising the minimum licensing age would have safety benefits. We also show that many of the arguments against raising the age are based on either no evidence or misinformation. Though raising the licensing age would to some extent disadvantage the rural sector, it may also be in the rural sector where the greatest gains in crash reduction are made. (Author/publisher).
Abstract