top of page

We need to better support young drivers and older drivers equally: it’s not a competition!

  • 20 hours ago
  • 6 min read

Updated: 14 minutes ago

In this blog, Dr Ian Greenwood reflects on the need for a fair, evidence-led approach to road safety policy, and why efforts to reduce road danger should apply equally to all road users.


By Dr Ian Greenwood

Is it just me, or is too much of the road safety discourse pitting one group against another or suggesting that proportionate interventions are somehow penalising drivers, but not those who choose alternative modes? Reducing road danger for everyone and reducing the number of people killed or seriously injured in road traffic collisions seems to be something we should all be able to sign up to, isn’t it? And there are four recent surveys which build on previous evidence for this from government’s own national travel surveys and reports from charities which answer my question. The recent ones are worth spending a little time on:

  1. In a joint survey, the Institute for Public Policy Research and More in Common (August 2025) found strong public backing for a bold national casualty reduction target, and a willingness from the public to make real changes to achieve it. Read it here: IPPR

  2. The Road Safety Trust (October 2025) suggest that the public back further policies to make roads safer, such as support for a mandatory eyesight tests for drivers over 70 (82%), and updating the licensing system for new drivers (72%). Read it here: Road Safety Trust


  3. You Gov (November 2025) asked a focused question on the degree of support or opposition for the introduction of a graduated driver licensing system (GDL) where “new drivers are restricted from driving in certain conditions, such as at night or with a car full of passengers.” It showed 69% support (‘strongly’ or ‘somewhat’), and 21% oppose (‘strongly’ or ‘somewhat’) its introduction. Read it here: You Gov

  4. In Brake – the road safety charity’s report on young driver safety, there is strong support for strengthening the licensing system for young drivers (72%) and that all road users should be protected from known risks (89%). Read it here: Brake


Having read all four surveys, it is reasonable to conclude that the degree of public support is largely positive, even strong, and appears to be strengthening over time. Yet, in some circles, the complexities and challenges which affect both younger and older drivers is oversimplified and framed as a competition or the language is skewed. Which age group is associated with greater risk and harms, and who are the most “dangerous drivers?" This is worth exploring as an example of the debate sometimes framed as a competition. Some argue that younger drivers, particularly young male drivers, are more dangerous, whilst others argue that older drivers are less able to respond quickly to changing driving

conditions, particularly in the dark, are at greater risk and susceptible to injury trauma,

notably older female drivers. The truth is, dangerous or risky drivers do not arrive with a badge on identifying them as such, and all drivers, of any age, have their strengths and weaknesses: though we often hear drivers tell us they are all much better than the average!

"I always return to the stance that we should reduce road harm for everyone, regardless of their age or how they travel. But it seems to me that the policy debate is sometimes couched as one group against another or avoiding interventions for fear of not picking on one group or another."

In a period where we should commend Ministers in the Department for Transport, for

publishing the first Road Safety Strategy in fifteen years since 2011 (1), which, arguably, did little to move us forward to protect road users and reduce the number of people killed or injured: sadly, it was characterised by no targets, funding cuts, localism and policy dilution (2).

Fast forward to 2026: some would say the government has taken too long to publish the

Road Safety Strategy which they tell us was one of the Department for Transport’s most important priorities. I agree with those with this view. If it had been as urgent as stated, why did it take so long? But I give Ministers huge credit for persevering with their promise. Depressingly, governments of all colours believe there is little obvious political benefit to governments or politicians to prioritise road death and road danger, but there should be as reducing road danger is widely supported (see above).


But this degree of support does not filter through strongly enough to the higher levels of government who may be ill-informed, disinterested or simply juggling many competing demands.


When surveys ask what the public’s priorities are, transport, and especially road safety, rarely feature. When the economy, immigration and asylum, crime, and lots of other policy issues crowds out the discourse (3). However, when asked about road safety specifically, there is general support, and any fear of a political backlash is “overpriced in many politicians’ views” and 87% of daily drivers would accept a journey time delay if it made roads safer (4).

So, what is odd is the influence, or seemingly a lack of influence, that increasing public

support for road safety interventions which save lives has on government policy action. There is a lot in the new strategy, though some are disappointed that it does not go far enough, and better support for young drivers is often cited as one example. We are told that the new strategy from the Minister, Lilian Greenwood will be “the biggest shake up to our driving laws for decades” and that government “takes road safety very seriously and reducing those killed and injured on our roads is a key priority”(5).


But the degree of support from elsewhere in government is not obvious. But optimism is still lurking. Returning to the theme of this piece, is there a differential route to policy for different

age groups where the approach should have been fair and consistent? This is illustrated by how government describes support for older drivers as compared to support for younger drivers.

Government tell us it is ok to focus on (penalise?) older drivers where there is an available

evidence base of interventions for reducing death and serious injury from their collisions. That’s a good thing and why mandatory eyesight tests for drivers over seventy is proposed, but why not for other age groups? We are told that this policy decision was shaped by Coroners who have issued Preventing Future Deaths reports. At the same time, government tell us they do not want to “penalise” (focus on?) young drivers by post-test support as if implementing available evidence-based interventions to reduce road death and injury from their collisions is a bad thing. And here the influence of Preventing Future Deaths reports from Coroners seems to be missing.

Can this approach to policymaking remain credible and be sufficient to achieve the

welcome, and rightly challenging casualty reduction targets? As the plan by the Department for Transport was to consult widely in five defined areas, including proposals on younger and older drivers, and review evidence or commission further work elsewhere, there remains an opportunity to reverse back into an equitable and fair approach and follow the full evidence in both areas.

"It is reasonable to ask with this in mind, why the formal evidence from Coroners features in proposals for older drivers, but not for younger drivers."

If there is to be licensing change for any or all age groups, or modes of transport such as for motorcyclists, the evidence needs to be applied evenly.

Government know there is a huge problem in need of their attention, priorities need to be

directed by the data, and solutions need to have strong evidence that they reduce death

and injury. They know that. Proposals in the strategy include slowing drivers down, fixing

decaying road infrastructure, a shift from blame to learning through the Road safety

investigation branch, or the use of technology need to be resourced. Road safety interventions are to support all road users, and when Coroners and the road safety community advise government through processes such as Preventing Future Deaths reports that the risk factors which impact older drivers and younger drivers need to be addressed with equal determination, government needs to respond. Action in one area and not another will distract us away from following the evidence to following the politics. I do retain my optimism. An imperfect strategy with ambitious targets is far better than what we have had over the past decade or so. And let us hope it fulfils the ambition promised and not end up like the 2011 version which did little to reduce road death and serious injury.

I continue to give credit to Ministers for their ongoing commitment to the road safety

strategy in a complex and difficult political environment. But that support will diminish, and it has with some already, if the driving principles are not applied equitably. There is an opportunity to redress the balance by a focus on what Coroners tell government on the need to implement a graduated driver licensing system. The promised “gear change” needs to be for all high risk groups.


About the author: Dr Ian Greenwood’s 12-year-old daughter, Alice, was killed in 2008 when a speeding young driver collided with the family’s vehicle in Derbyshire. Alice died in the collision, while her mother, Juliette, and younger sister, Clara, were both seriously injured. The teenage driver and his passenger were also killed. Driven by a desire to understand the causes of such tragedies and help prevent further loss, Ian later completed a PhD exploring the political factors that influence road safety policy. He now campaigns to end road death and is a passionate advocate for stronger driver licensing systems to better support young drivers in Britain.



 
 
bottom of page