Safer Journeys
March 4th, 2010 at 9:26 am by David FarrarThere is a table of probable first actions for the Government’s Safer Journeys Strategy. They are:
Raise driving age to 16.
I support this one, as I have always seen it as linked to the school leaving age.
Make the restricted licence test more difficult to encourage 120 hours of supervised driving practice.
More supervision before you drive solo sounds good to me. However 120 hours may be a bit too high. That means a (probable) parent spending two hours a day week supervising their kid for 60 weeks.
Introduce a zero drink-drive limit for drivers under 20.
I do support this one, and not just because I am over 20. I think it will be beneficial to have a clear message saying if you are under 20 you should never drive if you have been drinking alcohol. The crash statistics show too many young people don’t know when to stop, so a zero limit makes it easier for friends to intervene also.
Investigate vehicle power restrictions for young drivers.
Not so sure about this, but will be interested to see the research.
Address repeat offenders and high level offending through Compulsory alcohol interlocks and a zero drink-drive limit for offenders.
I prefer solutions that target the problem, and don’t hassle or criminalise the vast majority who are not causing a problem, so supportive of these measures for repeat offenders.
Either, lower the drink-drive limit to BAC 0.05 and introduce infringement penalties for offences between 0.05 and 0.08
Or
Establish the level of risk posed by drivers with a BAC between 0.05 – 0.08.
I remain quite opposed to the first option, even though I note they are talking infringement not criminal penalties. Quite simply the 2007 crash statistics show just two drivers killed in car crashes had blood alcohol limits in the .05 to .08 range. I’ve seen some media reports suggesting 20 to 30 lives a year could be saved by such a change. This is propaganda.
The second looks like a we’ll do it later version of the first option, but one can hope there is an open mind on the issue. I certainly would like to see some good research on the risk posed by adults with a BAC of 0.05 to 0.08, but also on the prevalence of adults who drive at that level so one can have an idea of how many people a change may affect, and what the benefits will be.
Develop a classification system for the roading network
That would be useful to know which roads are safest and least safe.
Change the give way rules for turning traffic.
This will be a major change, but I think it is overdue.
In an ideal world we would also change to driving on the right hand side of the road, so tourists who come here don’t pose such a danger, and vice-versa for NZers overseas. However the transition costs would be immense.
Tags: drink driving, driving age, road safety
March 4th, 2010 at 9:36 am
DPF I find it interesting that you support the no drink limit for drivers under 20 yet continue to support the drinking age staying at 18.
Why not tie the 2 together and either have the no limit driving level at 18 (they shouldn’t be drinking anyway) or support the drinking age rising to 20?
P.S. you need to redo your maths on the supervised training.
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 9:38 am
The DomPost reports “Cardinal Richeliu” Steven Joyce saying “he favours cutting the rate 50mcg, but was wary of getting ahead of public opinion”.
Another aspiring tinpot dictator as a minister, whom left to his own devices would impose more and more restrictions on drivers. So much for National, the party of individual responsibility and freedom. Only the yeah right missing for the perfect Tui ad.
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 9:45 am
This ” Safe Journey’s Strategy” is just propaganda.
An exercise in arse covering and a device to conceal the National government;s complete inability to deal with the real problems this country faces. Joyce is nothing but a poisonous big government socialist apparatchik.
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 9:49 am
Per Razork DPF. 2 hours per day for 9 weeks or 2 hours per week for 60 weeks.
Either way having taught a daughter and 2 sons to drive with an emphasis on “doing it until it becomes a habit” with regards to indicating, choosing lanes early, changing gears up and down, braking, starting, stopping etc I would say that most teens are quick enough to get it in 20-30 hours.
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 9:51 am
maybe true david but we all know you only really start learning to drive when you are alone in the car after your test!
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 9:51 am
Two hours a day for 60 days. Or two hours a week for 60 weeks.
Certainly not two hours a day for 60 weeks. That’s 840 hours.
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 9:52 am
WRT changing to RHS driving, didn’t Samoa or Tonga do it recently. Despite the moaning from the bus companies and wailing about what might happen, I have not heard any tales of carnage and mayhem after the changeover.
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 9:57 am
Joyce notes the different rates of death from road accidents between Aus and NZ; I wonder if this is adjusted for the much better roads in Aus, obtained by spending of their citizen’s taxes on productive investment rather than welfare?
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 9:59 am
I’d like to see that too. It’s quite feasible that not many people drive in the 0.05 to 0.08 range. If I go out for a meal I drive. I usually have 2-3 drinks which from what I have read should keep me comfortably under 0.05. It could more common than not for light drinkers/drivers to rarely get into the 0.05 to 0.08 range.
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 10:02 am
With a change to driving on the RH side of the road, you’d better get ready to spend up large on the right’s anathema (public transport) as the availability of cheap, good quality used cars from Japan has given a hell of a lot of people their mobility.
Stop the supply of these (LH drive) cars, and the peasants won’t be able to afford to drive for much longer…
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 10:07 am
Not included in this debate, but mentioned previously: compulsory third-party insurance (just like in Australia).
Apart from ensuring any innocent party was not left to pay for their own repairs, this insurance would have a serious affect on the purchase of “Boy racer-type” vehicles by young people. Quite simply, the insurance premiums on these cars would put their purchase out of reach of some of those people who should not be driving them in the first place.
Oh, I got my licence in 1974 under the old Give-way rule and like others, adapted quickly to the new Give-way rule when it was introduced. I don’t see it as an issue in driver’s adapting again, it should be easier now because more Kiwis today travel overseas and already have the experience of driving under the Give Way rule we are about to re-adopt.
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 10:19 am
Chris2 (172) Says:
March 4th, 2010 at 10:07 am
Not included in this debate, but mentioned previously: compulsory third-party insurance (just like in Australia).
This is the Australian equivalent off ACC on vehicle registration. It covers for personal injuries to people other than the culpable driver.
Third Party Property Insurance is required to cover damage to other vehicles or property, and unless things have changed in the last few years, is voluntary, just like comprehensive insurance.
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 10:30 am
As usual these reforms will PUNISH the law abiding and make their lives more miserable as they glumly yet again try and obey some new harsh law. Safety issues go way beyond harsh laws on drinking and driving. These laws will strike at the HEART of the social lives of kiwis especially in Rural communities. BUT I would be more impressed if the Minister had directed his reforms at the recidivist offender. That is make it zero tolerance for alcohol for any person who is disqualified from driving. They should not be driving anyway but many do. Perhaps for others maybe after the 2nd conviction a person should be banned from driving with ANY level of alcohol for a minimum of 5 years but we would still have to deal with the “mouthwash containing alcohol” problem.
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 10:32 am
I have difficulty with the zero limit for under 20s when there is remaining alcohol in the system the following day after drinking previous night. How long does it take to get all alcohol out of your system?
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 10:36 am
New Zealanders are crap drivers.
Once we get all these changes through things will be a lot better because they’ll be confused crap drivers who have a sense of moral outrage and will think nothing of ignoring laws that don’t suit them which are only ever enforced when there’s a good regular income for the coffers anyway.
Whoo freakn hoo.
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 10:47 am
All I want is left turn on red lights . 15 was fine when I started driving and with much safer cars its fine now.
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 10:56 am
Cars may be safer but they have far far greater performance AND there are many more cars and trucks on the roads now.
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 11:00 am
Better still; put the drinking age back up to twenty.
And, additionally, perhaps a lower alcohol limit for under 20s, but not zero – say 0.05 BAC.
Absolutely!
When I first got my motor bike license I was restricted to 250cc for six months I think it was.
The idea that new drivers can handle a turbo charged vehicle (or similar) developing 150+ kW (200 hp) is just ludicrous.
I believe new drivers should be limited to, say, 100 kW for the first two years after obtaining their license. Learning to drive in a lower power vehicle first actually develops better driving skills than does jumping straight into your dream car from Gran Turismo.
If the only reason we’re to change our give way rules is to pander to tourists then this is just crazy. Change for the sake of change will only introduce more carnage on our roads. I’ve been driving for 30+ years and believe that the main reason for the carnage levels we ‘enjoy’ on our roads is actually driver inattention and lack of knowledge of existing road rules.
And regarding changing to the RH side of the road – crazy!
I guess we’d be excluding all the Aussie and UK tourists if we did change to the RH side?
How often do we hear of Kiwis living (or visiting) in, say, the States dieing because they suddenly have to change sides of the road they drive on.
Better still; perhaps if we installed audio warning devices in vehicles rented to tourists so that if they strayed onto the wrong side of the road (especially highways) they would know about it instantaneously. Part of this would include some counter part low voltage cable run in the centre of highways and major arterial routes. This would only be necessary for those that come from countries that drive on the RH side, obviously.
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 11:03 am
raise driving age, agreed, 15 is pretty imature in many cases.
make test stricter, don’t agre, it was thurough enough when i did it 17 years ago i thought. but ht epractice hours do make good sense i believe.
zero alcohole limit, i dont agree, if they wan to head in that direction then i think it would be more apropriate to do somethign that leaves just alittle buffer, like if it 150 now the they should make it 40 lets say, just so the odd well intentioned person soesnt get cought out. and 18 should be the marker, old enough to drink and vote is the persedent of responibilty
power restrictions, this does sound fairly logical, but far to hard to empliment, what no trubos and nother over 3 litre for eg? then you cant use dads 3.8 litre comodore family sedan, and thats stupid…
repeat offenders, again i never agree with a zero limit.
lower the general limit, no, i enjoy having a responsible couple.
give way rule, i agree with the one when turnign into a t intersection when they dont have give sign as it get you out of the middle of the road, but the other illistration i dont as it will leave you out in the middle of the road…
right hand drive, get real, not until japan changes, that our source of cars
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 11:05 am
Raising the driving age is bad. If consulting the calendar is a better way of deciding who can drive than giving people a test, then we should make a better test. If the government is determined to do this, at the very least they should let 15 year olds ride 50cc scooters, preferably with no licence requirement at all as some European countries have done. People need to get around and there is no connection with the school leaving age. Public transport is actually more suitable for people going to work in the morning and home in the evening, than for going to school or after school jobs or sports.
On the 120 hours, won’t the parents just lie? When my daughters have learned to drive adequately I won’t keep riding around with them just because the government says I have to. A law that is unenforceable should be an automatic reject. And once the government realises everyone is lying to them they’ll probably change it to some high number of hours with a driving instructor instead of a parent, making it prohibitively expensive to get a licence.
A zero drink drive limit is also silly because there’s no evidence that turning 20 makes people stop drinking before they exceed the limit, and because they can’t drive home the next morning even after a couple of drinks the night before. It’s much too restrictive especially since it will mainly affect weekends when public transport is sporadic.
Lowering the BAC is a classic government response. When people are concerned about something and you don’t know how to fix it, randomly legislate in some vaguely related area and declare the problem solved. This is becoming a standard course of action for Steven Joyce.
The current give way rule is actually better for traffic flow, but obviously only if people follow it. I don’t have any strong feeling about how many people will understand the new rule compared to the old one but any change will reduce accidents in the short term just because everyone will slow down as they have no idea what the other driver is gong to do. So no doubt the change will be declared a success at that point. Also, on last night’s news the spokesmodel was asking drivers about the rules and when they didn’t know she basically declared that the current rule was obviously confusing therefore the change must be good. Except she was cluelessly asking about a situation with two vehicles turning right, not the situation they are actually proposing to change.
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 11:05 am
http://psyc.queensu.ca/target/chapter04.html As with Sweden and Iceland, changing to the right hand side of the road will result in disconcerted drivers being more careful for a couple years before accident rates return to normal. Hey, we could just change every two years!
Vote:As for blood alcohol content- another issue of risk homeostasis- self-aware drivers (a group that by no means includes everybody, or even most people over the age of 20) simply increase their following distance to compensate for impeded reaction times. It would be hard to include anyone with a BAC of over 0.20 in that group.
March 4th, 2010 at 11:08 am
120 hours of supervised driving? Yeah Right. That is between 7,000 and 12,000km of driving. 20-something trips between Wanganui and Wellington. At least a grand of fuel – probably a lot more. I couldn’t afford that on top of my normal use of my car. How many parents could?
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 11:11 am
As with everything Key does Brian he just shugs it off as a “minor inconvienience” for the greater good. He has utterly no concept of what most peoples lives are like.
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 11:30 am
I still don’t like the idea of changing the give way rules. I’ve been driving for 25 years in the same way and the way I turn into intersections is just instinctual now – I don’t even have to think about it. There are people who have been driving longer than me as well. Learning a new way would be like doing your shoes up a different way when you’ve done it the same all your life.
I reckon it will be mayhem on the road if they decided to change it.
I remember a friend of mine went over to America where they drive on the other side of the road. He’d been there a few months, no problem, and then an American guy was driving him somewhere and my friend suddenly felt like he was on the wrong side of the road. He told the American guy that a joke was a joke but come on, please drive safe. The American guy didn’t know what he was talking about. My friend was so sure they were still on the wrong side of the road that he tried to wrestle the steering wheel away before his friend finally stopped the car and he realised they were on the correct side for America. Luckily nothing happened.
Sure, people can learn to give way on the other side and can do it for a while but what happens when they’re not thinking and fall back on instinct?
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 11:33 am
The report and most of the comments on here forget one major point.
South of Taupo and North of Whangarei there are considerably more rural areas (i.e, areas WITHOUT public transport) than urban areas.
The South Island particularly has a few cities and large towns dotted down the East coast and then nothing.
The report does nothing to address the significant numbers of people who can’t just hop on a bus or grab a cab to move about for social reasons except to follow the last government’s (and increasingly this government’s) thinking of making alcohol available to their own wee circle only.
The solution is simple.
If the city scum want no drink driving (ignoring the millions and millions (if not billions) of miles clocked up safely by drivers who’ve had a drink or two annually) then implement a zero limit for all AFTER they have introduced accessible and affordable (for those who prefer alcohol while socialising) public transport for ALL New Zealanders.
The same argument applies to increasing the driving age instead of introducing special licenses for 15-18 YOs (and a case could be made for those under 15 but not by me) who can show both a need and competency.
Those special licenses would restrict both areas of movement and times.
As for changing the right turn rule what a fucking joke.
These bicycle riding, chauffeured fuckwits fail to recognise one important fact, the current rule works perfectly. Only incompetent drivers have problems with it.
It would make far more sense cracking down on those incompetent drivers by attacking incompetent and inconsiderate drivers than fucking up a rule that works.
Of course this government won’t do that simply because the vast majority of incompetent and inconsiderate drivers on city streets are old farts, immigrants and the cops themselves.
Bastards!
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 11:36 am
In an ideal world we would also change to driving on the right hand side of the road, so tourists who come here don’t pose such a danger, and vice-versa for NZers overseas.
Except of course for tourists (and immigrants) from Australia, Japan, UK, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia…..
Ideal world my arse, research has shown that driving on the left is safer and countries that drive on the left have lower collision rates.
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 11:36 am
Most New Zealanders move and travel to places which drive on the left side of the road. No points.
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 11:39 am
“the vast majority of incompetent and inconsiderate drivers on city streets are old farts, immigrants and the cops themselves.”
Really? The worst drivers I’ve seen to date are predominantly young women closlyfollowed by young men. Do you have any actually evidence for your claims or shall we just play dueling anecdotal selectivisms?
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 11:43 am
I’d like to add bus drivers and taxis to the younguns Murray at least in Wellington.
Vote:Oh and Bill English’s ministerial driver
March 4th, 2010 at 12:18 pm
This is really good deduction…..
Vote:Australia has a lower youth accident rate than here, the drivers have to be older to start to learn to drive than here… therefore the age is the problem.
I put forward a superior theorem.
Australians talk funny… therefore talking funny = safer driving. Therefore all youth must learn to talk funny.
Problem solved
March 4th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
You ever heard a kiwi accent Lance? You theory just got torpedoed and went down with all hands.
As for the modern yoof accent, good grief. American street gantsa/rap/crap/pseudo black/crap spek. Exactely HOW funny were you planning on?
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 1:07 pm
Under 20 – zero limit.
Over 20 with a conviction for drink driving – zero limit
Everyone else – carry on.
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Manolo 9:38
Redbaiter 9:45
Complete agreement from me 1:36
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 1:46 pm
How would a horsepower limit be enforced? Plenty of teenagers are resourceful enough and well-connected enough to carry out engine swaps such as dropping 200 hp+ Accord or Prelude engines into old nana Honda Civics, thereby creating something just as fast as any number of widely recognized “performance” cars. Let alone the plethora of smaller modifications such as aftermarket cams, ECUs etc that are much harder to detect.
You would need to confiscate every suspect car and run it on a dynomometer to prove whether or not it complied with the horsepower rules. This would just be unworkable.
But what you COULD quite easily do, is restrict anyone who hasn’t had a full license for 2 years to driving only vehicles with 4 cylinder engines and no forced induction (no turbos, superchargers etc). This would:
(a) prevent the inexperienced from driving the more extreme variants of cheap popular performance cars.
Vote:(b) be easy for police to enforce. “Could you pop the bonnet for me please, Sir?”
March 4th, 2010 at 3:17 pm
1 Left turn on red light with give way rule
Vote:2 introduce a driving ability test so when things go pear shaped there is an inherent ability to react.
3 Make driver re education a part of consequences for bad driving.
4 Pink sticker vehicles that are driven by drivers who have not fulfilled re education and or fine payments with a grace period of say 2 weeks.
5 presentation of current license, WOF , Rego a prerequisite for fuel purchase.
6 Compulsory 3rd party insurance requirement as part of license to be current.
7 bring our give way and intersection rules to be same as other drive on left jurisdictions.
8 As it is an offence to drive a vehicle that is not warrantable, harden up on modifieds and remove them from the road.
9 allow Learner/Probationary drivers to carry one passenger any time on the L / P license.
10 Make 50 cc scooters same rules as bycyles to give the young mobility with a minimum age say 13.
March 4th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
How would a horsepower limit be enforced? Plenty of teenagers are resourceful enough and well-connected enough to carry out engine swaps such as dropping 200 hp+ Accord or Prelude engines into old nana Honda Civics, thereby creating something just as fast as any number of widely recognized “performance” cars. Let alone the plethora of smaller modifications such as aftermarket cams, ECUs etc that are much harder to detect.
Ever heard of the Police force, they love to do things like hand out tickets.
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 4:49 pm
“Ever heard of the Police force, they love to do things like hand out tickets” – and in this country we surely give them practice! Most of this will be as effectice as the Crash hats for cyclists, and the dimbulbs this morning who want to put 10 and 11 year olds into booster seats for Gods Sake.
But it will save 10 lives they wail! And I say prove it!!
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 4:54 pm
Changing the left turn rule – great, long overdue.
Two less great things that aren’t explicitly said but are intended by the NZTA – and these haven’t yet been picked up by the media.
Firstly in the actual strategy (not the first action bullet points) there is repeated references to changing speed limits to “make roads more self explaining” and is an strong indicator that the NZTA intends changing the de facto open road speed limit on a lot of rural roads and state highways to reflect the road’s design speed. Generally, motorways and newer re-aligned sections of State Highway are designed to a 100km/h travel speed. Most other rural roads aren’t. The easiest way to tell if a section of road’s design speed reflects the posted speed limit is whether the road has corner advisory signs (55km/h, 65km/h etc) All of these roads are almost certain in the medium term to have their speed limits lowered to 80k, 70k, 60k, 50k or whatever the design speed is. This will include many state highways, and will mean some big increases in travel times if you are driving – say from Wellington to Napier. This will be done quietly and gradually, to avoid the political unpleasantness of a national blanket reduction in the open road limit.
The second theme is lot scarier. ISA. Intelligent Speed Assistance. This is where the car has a GPS unit inbuilt into the car and permanently connected to the engine electronics. The GPS unit communicates with a central (NZTA?) computer that has the speed limit for the section of road that the car is traveling on at any given moment programmed in.
There are three levels
-advisory, where it tells the driver if they are speeding (eg via alarms or lights)
-voluntary, where the system is linked to the vehicle controls (eg by limiting fuel injection) but the driver can choose when to have the system enabled
- mandatory, where no override is possible (the system automatically makes sure the driver cannot speed).
These systems (especially the mandatory one) are being trumpeted as a great and effective road safety tool, and I’m sure that they are. The big problem is that the Big Brother and Nanny state implications of having every private vehicle tracked and monitored by the Government is incredible and far surpasses ANYTHING that even the previous Labour Government dreamt up! Worried about the populace heading down to the beach to see a Tsunami – simple! A few clicks on the national speed computer and you can get the speed limit instantly reduced to zero on roads heading to the coast. What about a Green government coming to power and limiting by computer what days and distances you can drive? I might sound like a paranoid loony here, but it’s all possible with today’s technology.
What if the whole system gets a virus and crashes? What if they outsource it to Telecom???
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 6:24 pm
Murray (4632) Says:
March 4th, 2010 at 11:39 am
“the vast majority of incompetent and inconsiderate drivers on city streets are old farts, immigrants and the cops themselves.”
Really? The worst drivers I’ve seen to date are predominantly young women closlyfollowed by young men. Do you have any actually evidence for your claims or shall we just play dueling anecdotal selectivisms?
Anecdotal be fucked.
I’m a professional driver who is constantly dodging the bloody no-hopers – old farts, immigrants and the cops.
As a group young people make up the best drivers although not the bloody quietest. (I’m also an old fart.)
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 6:50 pm
I note DPF’s first item is a full frontal attack on non-voters, who therefore constitute very convenient whipping boys and girls for the continuation of failed practises.
I have yet to see stats that show 15-16 year old drivers have a disproportionately high accident rate, and also note that this blunderbluss approach disqualifies females as well, who are shown to have a lower rate than males.
For people who constantly raise cries for freedom, all we see is just more restriction based on emotion and prejudice, not to mention the usual bully-boy attitude.
And making a sweeping statement of aligning school leaving age with driving age is just propaganda that sounds nice but is baseless in fact ie no evidence. It’s just a belief. Think belief; think usually wrong.
I got my licence at 15 (one week after) as it was essential for home requirements with a father always working and a non-driving mother.
I have read before that it is the 18-24 group who are over-represented in the road toll, not 15-18, so If you are going to target people, target those who are the problem, not those with the least effective voice.
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 7:37 pm
RRM: This is just a stupid idea because the cars that the useless pricks are driving are not cars with more than four cylinders, and very rarely have forced induction. They’re just rubbish Japanese econoboxes with stupid subwoofers weighing them down. Stopping decent people who happen to be under 20 from owning decent BMWs.. Holdens.. Fords is an awful idea.
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 7:37 pm
And I would add that it is patently ridiculous to throw kids onto the job market in today’s car dependent environment, while pleading to pay them f-all so they can sweep floors, or such like, without the means of getting to work. Public transport only fulfils a tiny portion of our work transport demands.
A few years ago I lived in Mt Albert and worked in Penrose, very convenient and quick by car, but I would have had to allow about 1 1/2 hrs to go by bus, as it went through Onehunga first, or two trains and a decent walk.
Far better, surely, for them to leave school competent and confident drivers. In fact, a case could be made that a driver’s licence should be obtained at school!
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 9:15 pm
from nanny state to granddad state.
Vote:March 4th, 2010 at 10:56 pm
The worst drivers in Auckland are BMW drivers, followed by RAV-4/Pajero/4WD drivers. They refuse to indicate. They drive at 40 in front of you up to the lights – then go straight through a late orange. They’ll push ahead in front of an intersection by queueing in a turning or bus lane. They overtake dangerously around motorway exit ramps. I really hate them.
Ban BMW owners from the road. I’m not sure if wankers buy BMWs, or BMWs turn them into wankers. Either way, BMW drivers are wankers. I’m not sure if it would improve road safety, or just increase the number of Audis and Mercs, but it would make me less angry.
Vote:March 6th, 2010 at 10:55 am
“More supervision before you drive solo sounds good to me. However 120 hours may be a bit too high. That means a (probable) parent spending two hours a day week supervising their kid for 60 weeks.”
Another srategy to keep the drones busy and diverted from political havoc.
Vote:March 6th, 2010 at 10:57 am
Unless you aren’t aware, women own the roads and expect first preference without acknowledging you.
Vote:March 6th, 2010 at 10:58 am
Which is why, as Bob Jones said, women cause the accidents.
Vote: