and those that were issued after about 1995 have photos on them too (if you haven't moved since then, like me, then you can still use the photo-less version). You'd rarely expect to have to show it - when you are young, you can be expected to show some form if ID for alcohol purchases (legal age is 18; a supermarket near me says they'll ask for proof of age from anyone looking under 25). I don't carry mine around with me (I left in in my car when I had one; even when you're stopped by the police in your car, you don't have to have it with you to show it - but you'd have to go to a police station with it later, and if they're suspicious about the details you gave of who you were, they'd be more likely to arrest you if you couldn't show your licence).
I guess harmonicon's comment from above comes from London - I'd say most people do learn to drive (
42 million licence holders, out of a population of about 61 million of all ages, but many people don't have cars in London, so fewer learn to drive there); young people tend to have either some form of student ID, or something issued specifically as a proof of age.
The really pernicious thing about this new ID system isn't the cards, it's the database behind them. It records all sort of details (eg all your past addresses), and then records every time there's a check made against your record. So the more that people demand to see the card and check it, the more detailed picture of your life the government builds up. And the government and its sub-contractors have also become a by-word for incompetence about keeping personal information secure.
The government knows it can't keep information secure: it is setting up
a database of all children in the UK, but will take special precautions about the information for children of 'celebrities' (which includes senior politicians, what a surprise), because it knows the database will get hacked. The rest of the population just have to live with their children's details being exposed to hackers.