Legislation that could save lives

It is a rite of passage for millions of young people. They reach their 17th birthday, have a few driving lessons, pass the test and take to the road. And then what? For thousands of teenage drivers the dream of unlimited personal freedom turns into a nightmare of death, injury or trauma.

Enough is enough. Common sense tells us that a few hours behind the wheel is not enough to prepare anyone for driving in this busy, overcrowded island with 30 million vehicles on the roads.

Today, the Association of British Insurers proposes that learner drivers should take lessons for a minimum of 12 months with no test before the age of 18. The RAC Foundation estimates this would save 1,000 road casualties every year.

These are two organisations we ignore at our peril. The insurers know, from hard financial experience, the terrible cost of inexperienced drivers taking to the roads. The RAC Foundation is a leading authority on the rights and responsibilities of motorists.

Strangely, the Government, so keen to play the nanny state in so many other areas of national life, seems reluctant to act on this latest advice.

The Department of Transport says it favours “incentives rather than regulation.”

What astonishing complacency. Only about six in every 100 driving licences are held by drivers aged under 24. Yet this age group accounts for more than a quarter of driver deaths and serious injuries.

What sort of “incentives” do our masters in Whitehall think would reduce this dreadful carnage? Or is the truth that this administration is more concerned with winning the youth vote than with saving young lives?

Here is a proven, sensible way to cut roads deaths and spare thousands of families the agony of the police officer’s knock on the door in the early hours.

If this Government does not have the moral courage to act, then the sooner it makes way for another, the better.

Someone has to find the money

Help the Aged says that half of those approaching retirement may be forced to sell their homes to pay for nursing care.

This is a traumatic step - but what is the fair alternative?

Buying a house has always been seen as a sure-fire investment and the ultimate hedge against a rainy day.

If the fates decree that we need long-term nursing, then that rainy day has surely arrived and, sadly, it is time to turn the investment into cash to meet the cost.

In an ageing society it would be wrong for the taxpayer to foot the bill for nursing care in order that millions of home owners may pass on their entire estate to their children.

Life is a lottery. We cannot expect to be winners every time.

Popular stories:

• Video - John Richards’ charity golf day
• McFly fans cause traffic mayhem
• Video - Jasper Carrott talks Blues
• Video - Wolves legends on current side
• Pets stolen for cruel dog fights