patriot1911

> The unfortunate truth is that people are human and humans make mistakes.

That's true, it's also going to stay true no matter the amount of training. That isn't to say that I'm advocating against more training, but I think the training is prohibitively more expensive (even in a context where driving isn't as much of a necessity as it is here) for a gain that I perceive to be largely negligible unless linked to stricter training and re-certification in general (which is certainly prohibitively expensive).

It hasn't been less than 18 since 1934, if not further back. Since last year it's possible to get a provisional license at the age of 17 (no earlier).

In The Netherlands, you're not taught those things when learning to drive either. What is taught, is that wet and/or especially cold conditions can cause unsafe road conditions that can lead to loss of control over the vehicle. As a reasonable person, you're supposed to know to adapt to this. This isn't specifically mentioned in the law, but it follows from one of the most basic articles of our traffic law that states that it's "forbidden to act in a way that causes or could cause dangerous road conditions or causes or could cause traffic to be hindered"

But not in The Netherlands, which he explicitly stated he was from. The real answer is that he probably wasn't driving a car.

> I was 16 at the time.

I.e. you weren't driving a car and you were underage.

I'm not saying that the legal system in The Netherlands is unreasonable or anything, but I feel like your case doesn't really represent the kind of case people are thinking of in this thread.