Driving And Swimming

This describes one of those peculiar situations where choices don't make much sense. Car driving lessons are nearly always funded. They are so important, it being necessary to drive a car. Swimming lessons are, however, not considered very important. The one is potentially lethal and the other is life saving.

A swimming ability could last a lifetime and indeed being able to swim could prolong that lifetime. It can begin from a very early age and be many years longer than a driving career, which doesn't (legally) start until 17 years of age. Knowing how to swim is critical, especially if on board a boat that may capsize. Wearing a life belt may give a sense of security, but so can a seatbelt in a car: travelling at 70mph and being involved in a accident the seatbelt will not be much use. Knowing how to drive is not critical, but is perceived as being the more important. Perverse thinking.

• It's an interesting example of double-standard: at 17 years of age, the young person is legally enabled to drive a car and place their life at risk, but to do the same by using alcohol the age limit is raised to 18 years old. The dangers or alcohol seem to be appreciated so why is the availability of alcohol not curtailed? Profit and government taxes always prevail and clear winners when common sense is in the air.