Garth George's column today is the work of a grumpy old man not thinking straight. It's a punitive rant against young people driving. I have showed before that the statistics for young drivers have improved considerably over the years yet people like George, who was young during a time when there was more irresponsibility and death on the roads, want to take away freedoms across the board. Put the driving age up to 18! Put the legal drinking age up to 20! Make people with fast cars pay more insurance!
Well two can play at that. Take the driving age down at the other end when the age-risk factor demonstrably climbs again. Let's campaign against the elderly on the roads. Lower the age Garth George can drive until!
Not likely. Because we are all going to be elderly one day.
Whereas we have already been young and now resent that we are no longer. So let's blame young people for as much as we can. Let's take away their freedoms and preserve our own. Because we are old and drive sensible cars at sensible speeds. Some of us get slow and doddery and, to be frank, dangerous, but why should we all suffer? Why should we all be tarred with the same brush?
Exactly.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
This as well
Compulsory third-party insurance is long overdue and should be introduced forthwith. Its premium rates should be set to take account of the cc rating of a vehicle, turbochargers, and any other go-fast modifications.
Thus, for instance, a 1300cc car might cost $130 a year, a 1500cc car $150 ($300 with turbo or other modification), 2000cc vehicles $200 ($400) and so on up the scale to 4000cc V6s at $400 ($800) and 5.7-litre V8s at $570.
More power is equated with more accidents in a linear fashion according to his reasoning.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - overall the younger someone learns to drive the better the driver they will become in the long term.
"Greatest generation" my ass -- retired whinebags who can't handle turn signals when they drive a car... Howick in Auckland is full of them.
Sorry for going a little off topic here, Lindsay, but the 3rd party insurance argument rankles with me. Don't most insurance companies provide cover against the uninsured?
And there's no need for 3rd party insurance for personal injury cover in NZ because of the ACC system.
What might work is opening up ACC to competition so that good drivers can choose a private insurer who rewards good driving behaviour.
Geezer alert! I'm sick of young people getting such a bad rap when I'm sure they are no different to teenagers in the "olden days". Selective memory from the older people!
Insurance rates based on CC ratings send shivers down my spine. Two of my cars are in excess of 8 liters and are Classic Cadillac's which only get driven on fine days. As such they attract an annual registration of $85. I would not be happy to see that changed.
I have been involved in an accident with an uninsured driver who hit my car after failing to give way.
My insurance company handled the case which left me out of pocket for the excess. The insurance company claimed they would/could not pay the escess to me until the guilty party had settled the claim with them.
I went to war against my insurance company and after months of argument and frustration, had my claim settled. The entire episode left me feeling bitter towards insurance companies and uninsured drivers.
I suggest compulsory third party for those whose choose to live outside the fence in the badlands, is a small price to pay for peace of mind for the rest of us.
Dirk
Consider that most young people are not voters. Consider that most old farts, are voters.
Which do you think the politicians are more than happy to screw over?
Post a Comment