Driving laws must be stricter

Is it time to make the driving test longer, tougher and more relevant? Certainly.

Is it right to drag schools into the business of highway training, as suggested in a government report? Certainly not.

Schools are fully occupied meeting the plethora of Whitehall targets without having to make space in the curriculum for safe-driving lessons.

The problem facing Britain is two-fold. Firstly, young drivers are far more likely to be involved in road accidents than more mature drivers. Secondly, too many drivers opt out of all training and break the law.

There is a powerful case for making the training period longer and for insisting on formal lessons.

But this will not change the nature of young men who, despite endless warnings, still see the family saloon as a racing car and the highways as their personal racetrack.

The best way forward might be a compulsory probation period after passing the test. Drivers would have to display the P-plate, currently used informally, for perhaps one year during which time their speed would be limited.

The problem for any government is that the more obstacles they put between young drivers and the freedom of the road, the more drivers will be tempted to break the rules.

Already, an estimated one million motorists have no licence or insurance. These lawbreakers are grossly over-represented in accident statistics.

And yet the system positively encourages them. Car insurance for an 18-year-old can cost £1,000 or more. No wonder so many young drivers take a risk. Why pay £1,000 for insurance when the fine for not being insured might be a mere £150 - assuming you are caught?

Some reform is essential. But if the driving-test process is made so hard that thousands more motorists simply opt out and take a chance, we will all be the losers.

We need a system which seriously deters the law-breakers and protects young drivers from their own recklessness.

Making the P-plate compulsory and limiting new drivers to 50mph would cause howls of youthful protest but could save many lives.

______________________________________________________

Killer dogs that must be banned

Word cannot convey the horror of a five-year-old being savaged to death by a dog.

Little Elle Lawrenson, killed by her 23-year-old uncle’s pit-bull terrier, is the latest victim of dog-control laws which have plainly failed to work.

The starting point for any new legislation is simple: there is no reason on earth why any citizen should possess such a dog.

If Parliament can ban handguns it can surely ban killer dogs.

Too many children have been killed and maimed. Let Elle Lawrenson be the last.