spin-off: raising drivers license age

[j.griff]

I am especially curious about those who favor lowering the legal drinking age, but who would rather raise the driving age.

 

I don't like age limits, period. They are...well, limiting. :D

IF people would just be responsible, and spend more time teaching their DC responsibilities of driving, let them drive as much as possible (if the age were actually LOWERED for allowing permits) with experienced adults in the vehicle- I think the incidences of wreckless driving teens would decrease. :auto:

[nancypants]

I am especially curious about those who favor lowering the legal drinking age, but who would rather raise the driving age.

 

I don't like age limits, period. They are...well, limiting. :D

IF people would just be responsible, and spend more time teaching their DC responsibilities of driving, let them drive as much as possible (if the age were actually LOWERED for allowing permits) with experienced adults in the vehicle- I think the incidences of wreckless driving teens would decrease. :auto:

 

Well, not that I completely disagree with you... but what is more easily within the government's power (and realm)? (Since their main job is protecting citizens) Teaching parents to be better parents or making arbitrary limits? As a parent the government would do a pretty crappy job so I don't think they'd do an especially good job of turning the parental mismanagement tide... but they are great with making arbitrary limits that may or may not be effective! :tongue_smilie:

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I am especially curious about those who favor lowering the legal drinking age, but who would rather raise the driving age.

 

I don't like age limits, period. They are...well, limiting. :D

IF people would just be responsible, and spend more time teaching their DC responsibilities of driving, let them drive as much as possible (if the age were actually LOWERED for allowing permits) with experienced adults in the vehicle- I think the incidences of wreckless driving teens would decrease. :auto:

 

I like the German system. Lots of public transport. No driver's license til 18 and only after formal and extensive driver's education is passed. Bikes are a widely used adequate alternative form of local transport.

 

Wouldn't work here, though.

[nancypants]

Oh and for my personal preference, our kids will not be driving until they can pay their own insurance and gas (then I'd know they were not only responsible but hard working and appreciative of the privilege of driving) so I'm suspecting they will become the friend of the LRT and bus routes. :D

[Jenny in Atl]

I just don't think most kids have the attention span or understanding of how dangerous a moving car is, and I'm not sure drivers ed really can teach that. Then add the music, cell phones, and a few friends in the back seat, and you have a recipe for disaster.

 

I also find adult drivers much more aggressive these days, at least around here. Folks no longer drive slowly through neighborhoods, they race. 45 - 50 is the norm on many roads near me, and I'm not talking the highways, there the norm is more like 70-80. I can imagine this would add to the pressure a young driver must feel out on the road that first year.

[j.griff]

AH, there-in lies my difference of opinion. I don't like to think of the govt as having the job of "protecting citizens". I disagree with that idea.

[j.griff]

I think kids are way more capable of accomplishing things, than many give them credit for. Our current society assumes they are immature arses who would rather goof off than be productive. And that IS now true for many teens, because we don't expect much from them. I think we'd be much better off if we would raise our expectations, stop all the arbitrary requirements (mandatory attendance, etc.), and set some good examples.

I see raising the driving age as prolonging their dependence and lack of freedom. I dont' see how a magical birthday will make them more capable of driving safely and responsibly. I think it's the exposure to the driving, the longer amount of time they are allowed to drive, etc. that would make the difference, not the age of the child.

 

Also, it's amusing to me to think that folks are okay lowering the drinking age to 18, but simultaneously raising the driving age to 18, so suddenly we'd have a rash of 18 yo's driving to the local bar/pub/liquor store and we obviously haven't trusted them to be responsible till now, so we probably haven't done as well a job teaching responsibility if we have to add years to our time frame of teaching such things. That sounds catastrophic IMO.:D

[snickelfritz]

My kids aren't old enough, so I don't know the specifics. In general, it requires drivers ed and a certain number of hours of practice with an adult in the car. It also limits the number of non-adult passengers and night driving. I believe there are some exceptions for night-time work and school activities and I think there are exceptions to allow drivers to take siblings places. Honestly, it seems sensible.

 

If I wasn't lazy, I would look it up. I did see a recent article that the number of fatalities involving teens had gone down, so it would appear to be working.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

 

Also, it's amusing to me to think that folks are okay lowering the drinking age to 18, but simultaneously raising the driving age to 18, so suddenly we'd have a rash of 18 yo's driving to the local bar/pub/liquor store and we obviously haven't trusted them to be responsible till now, so we probably haven't done as well a job teaching responsibility if we have to add years to our time frame of teaching such things. That sounds catastrophic IMO.:D

 

Well, or you could go all the way with the German system and lower the drinking age to 16.

[Ravin]

The issue with drinking and teens isn't so much that they are drinking alcohol, per se, but that they are binge drinking and drinking to excess far too often. There's no sense of moderation.

 

In the area I grew up there would need to be hardship provisions for driver's licenses; jobs in walk/bike distance for a kid in a small town or, worse, on a ranch are severely limited; likewise opportunities to participate in after school activities if they have to rely on the school bus to get home from school.

 

In cities it's different; many cities here have curfews which I don't agree with on a philosophical level, remembering the sort of teen I was, but understand on a pragmatic level, knowing the sort of problems it ameliorates. Graduated driver's licenses and delaying licensing can also help with those problems; while I plan on teaching DD to drive as soon as she's physically capable, I don't expect I'll spring for wheels or for driver's ed, etc. until she's approaching 18 (and then maybe even I'll expect her to pay for at least half the cost of driver's ed, insurance, etc.). We live where there IS public transportation, free to school kids if they live in our city limits and bother to go get a pass. It can be combined with a bicycle to get most anywhere.

[*anj*]

 

Also, it's amusing to me to think that folks are okay lowering the drinking age to 18, but simultaneously raising the driving age to 18, so suddenly we'd have a rash of 18 yo's driving to the local bar/pub/liquor store and we obviously haven't trusted them to be responsible till now, so we probably haven't done as well a job teaching responsibility if we have to add years to our time frame of teaching such things. That sounds catastrophic IMO.:D

 

Well that's kind of what I was trying to say in the other thread. If they're immature and irresponsible and you combine that with liquor and a two ton piece of machinery---lookout!

 

And let's not even mention that in some parts of the country you can buy liquor, gas, and ammo at the same place. Yikes!

[elegantlion]

I don't agree with raising the driving age. I think driving is something that is learned through doing, the experience of it. I had to drive through lots of ice storms my first year I had a license. I only learned by doing, it wouldn't have mattered if I were 16 or 18, it's still the amount of experience.

 

I won't comment on the drinking age, except to say it should be raised to 40 for some people I know.

[j.griff]

Well that's kind of what I was trying to say in the other thread. If they're immature and irresponsible and you combine that with liquor and a two ton piece of machinery---lookout!

 

And let's not even mention that in some parts of the country you can buy liquor, gas, and ammo at the same place. Yikes!

 

ROFLOL!!!!!!!

 

I don't think the alcohol would be a sudden problem for 18yo drivers, if they've been driving for a while. But if you combine the newly aquired skill, with the newly aquired access to booze all on one day, there "could" be bad consequences. I'm still "for" the lowering of the alcohol age limit, but I'm also for lowering the driving age/s. I think the requirement for a learner's permit should be more based on height/ability, as opposed to a year. KWIM?

[*anj*]

ROFLOL!!!!!!!

 

I don't think the alcohol would be a sudden problem for 18yo drivers, if they've been driving for a while. But if you combine the newly aquired skill, with the newly aquired access to booze all on one day, there "could" be bad consequences. I'm still "for" the lowering of the alcohol age limit, but I'm also for lowering the driving age/s. I think the requirement for a learner's permit should be more based on height/ability, as opposed to a year. KWIM?

 

Yeah, I hear you.

Now if only there could be a way to measure maturity because then we'd have a formula for success. And we all know that being on the honor roll or National Honor Society or whatever wouldn't help anyone to gauge maturity. The straight A, NHS, AP everything, valedictory types in my high school were among the worst partiers. By far.:confused:

[nancypants]

AH, there-in lies my difference of opinion. I don't like to think of the govt as having the job of "protecting citizens". I disagree with that idea.

 

Well, the Declaration of Independence was written on this principle. :) And I mostly agree with the Declaration of Independence.

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

 

Now, I did not say that I agree with raising the driving age. I just said, as far as the government is concerned, would it be easier (and less intrusive) for them in their goal to protect people's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, to create a whole bunch of intelligent parents who teach and train their kids as they should (which I don't think is the job of the government) or would it be easier to say, "history shows that more accidents are caused by immature drivers, hence we will raise the legal driving age to protect teen drivers and other citizens." (again, not that I'm saying they should raise it.)

 

Now I agree with you at the heart of the matter. More and stiffer laws do not make better citizens... What does ultimately make better citizens is a philosophical discussion the likes of which could not fit on this message board, part of which includes what you have said would, if carried out by the majority of people, lead to more safe and responsible teen drivers. But the fact is, we have to deal with actual current reality and actual current reality says that enough young teenagers are irresponsible enough as drivers to warrant a law. Do the responsible ones suffer because of it? Yes, inevitably, though for relatively short duration and rarely to their detriment. But something that covers such a broad spectrum of individuals simply cannot be dealt with on a case by case basis.

 

I'm with you. I do not believe in extended adolescence or in just expecting teenagers to be stupid and thoughtless. I'm all for raising expectations and setting good examples. I have no problem with the current driving age of 16 but I also don't mind that it's arbitrary. Statutory ra*e laws are arbitrary with regard to age but I personally still approve of those. There has to be a line drawn somewhere --- lines are not bad. If they were, we wouldn't want them on the roads (lines, not teens, that is). Even something as free spirited as art is only art because lines are drawn somewhere. (nod to G.K. Chesterton :tongue_smilie:)

 

And there is something to be said for the process of waiting for something and earning the privilege and responsibility of being in control of something that does have the potential to kill if misused. There are age limits for buying guns even though families who go hunting can attest to the fact that some children actually wield a gun more responsibly than some adults.

 

When it comes right down to it, I think we probably agree more than disagree. I want people to be more responsible and raise responsible kids. But still I do believe the government is supposed to set these types of laws for the safety of its citizens (if law is not primarily for safety and the preservation of basic rights, of which driving is not one, then law itself is arbitrary) so I am okay with arbitrary limits. I think it's fine to disagree on what those limits should be and that's why this line in the Declaration of Independence is so important, "it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it," and why we have a say in the laws that are made. :patriot: So if there is a large enough (or heck... even a small but devoted!) contingent of people who think all arbitrary age requirements should be abolished then :thumbup:, they should get together a lobbying group and go for it! But if the majority still favors arbitrary age limits they are probably doing so because they perceive it will lead to a safer existence (and driving experience in this instance).

 

I am not for all arbitrary laws and requirements (don't want to send the wrong message) -- don't get me wrong. I find some to be perfectly inane. Some regions of the country/world specialize in these kinds of laws. So I'd have to pick and choose which ones I thought were truly arbitrary and which were founded on good, solid research and philosophy.

 

Please forgive the length of this post. It went way longer than I meant it to... it comes from reading too much philosophy lately I think. Belaboring the point somehow becomes the norm. ((sigh)) :)

[nancypants]

I won't comment on the drinking age, except to say it should be raised to 40 for some people I know.

 

And raised to never for others! :lol::cheers2: (just kidding!!)

[Kathy in MD]

AH, there-in lies my difference of opinion. I don't like to think of the govt as having the job of "protecting citizens". I disagree with that idea.

 

The gov't is also supposed to protect the citizens from each other. You and I may be responsible, but the we can still be badly injured or killed by someone else's mistakes or poor judgement. According to an article I've seen, there are fewer accidents among new 17 yo drivers than there are among new 16 yo drivers. So if you're looking at protecting others, it make sense to raise the age.

[j.griff]

:lol:

Too many thoughts to reply to, too little time. :D

[clwcain]

AH, there-in lies my difference of opinion. I don't like to think of the govt as having the job of "protecting citizens". I disagree with that idea.

 

:iagree:

 

Which is why I'm generally opposed to the state licensing drivers, firearms, alcohol consumption, tobacco, mandatory schooling, and child labor.

 

The government should protect citizens from external threats, not from themselves. That's my job as a parent and citizen. I'll allow, in theory, for the possibility that a municipal or county government could have the authority to regulate such things.

 

But nothing at the state or federal/national level.

 

But I'll stop, lest this devolve into a rant about political philosophy. ;)

 

ETA

Hmm...reading the posts that went up since I started typing this, I can see where it's heading.

Ciao!:leaving:

[j.griff]

devolve away, I like seeing what others think about these things (I also like to see that I'm not the only one who thinks these things, :D)

[LizzyBee]

I think kids are way more capable of accomplishing things than many give them credit for.

 

I think we'd be much better off if we would raise our expectations...and set some good examples.

 

I see raising the driving age as prolonging their dependence and lack of freedom... I think it's the exposure to the driving, the longer amount of time they are allowed to drive, etc. that would make the difference, not the age of the child.

 

:iagree:

[nancypants]

 

ETA

Hmm...reading the posts that went up since I started typing this, I can see where it's heading.

Ciao!:leaving:

 

 

I hope just cause I got way too long winded (sorry!) things aren't devolving. It was meant as earnest discussion. I love earnest discussion. :bigear: I hope it heads to further discussion and nothing worse! :D

[mcconnellboys]

I agree; I think that would be true, "IF", as you say. But the problem, I think, is that most schools do not offer driver's ed any longer; whether parents will find a good driver training program for their child or not is a matter up for grabs; and whether parents will spend time driving with their children, when most no longer spend time talking or having dinner with their children is also iffy, in my opinion. Also, a lot of parents are not, themselves, truly good drivers and if they're spending time teaching their mistakes to their children, then I'm not sure they're truly learning to be good drivers. Creating some sort of organized, mandated program of study and practice might work along with lowering ages..... But I think the passenger drivers would need to be trained DL instructors, rather than just any parent.....

[nancypants]

I agree; I think that would be true, "IF", as you say. But the problem, I think, is that most schools do not offer driver's ed any longer; whether parents will find a good driver training program for their child or not is a matter up for grabs; and whether parents will spend time driving with their children, when most no longer spend time talking or having dinner with their children is also iffy, in my opinion. Also, a lot of parents are not, themselves, truly good drivers and if they're spending time teaching their mistakes to their children, then I'm not sure they're truly learning to be good drivers. Creating some sort of organized, mandated program of study and practice might work along with lowering ages..... But I think the passenger drivers would need to be trained DL instructors, rather than just any parent.....

 

Then again, people say this about homeschoolers too. :mellow: "Are you really qualified to do that?"

[j.griff]

Then again, people say this about homeschoolers too. :mellow: "Are you really qualified to do that?"

 

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner, :D

[nancypants]

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner, :D

 

See, I knew we were on a similar (maybe not exactly the same) page when it all boils down. :D

[j.griff]

Yeh, mayhaps, but you are just way too perky in your avatar for us to be very similar :lol:

[j.griff]

I agree; I think that would be true, "IF", as you say. But the problem, I think, is that most schools do not offer driver's ed any longer; whether parents will find a good driver training program for their child or not is a matter up for grabs; and whether parents will spend time driving with their children, when most no longer spend time talking or having dinner with their children is also iffy, in my opinion. Also, a lot of parents are not, themselves, truly good drivers and if they're spending time teaching their mistakes to their children, then I'm not sure they're truly learning to be good drivers. Creating some sort of organized, mandated program of study and practice might work along with lowering ages..... But I think the passenger drivers would need to be trained DL instructors, rather than just any parent.....

 

IMO, the govt rescues parents from some of their jobs, and then forces other "jobs" onto them at the same time. It's all odd, IMO. I don't know whether most schools offer drivers ed or not. I'd need to see evidence of that ( a chart or something, from someone/place reputable).

People have to learn to drive, in order to be able to drive. I am completely opposed to some madated study program on SO many levels, I can't even begin to explain.

Parents should parent their kids, no matter what. I think it's the darned drivers ed classes that are taking that responsibility from the parents- now your kids can learn to drive at school too, one hour a day. In a class with 25 other students.

If there WERE no drivers ed classes, then parents/adults in the children's lives would HAVE to teach them to drive. Or else let them figure it out for themselves, but given the parental liability for such a thing, I doubt that most parents would do that.

[nancypants]

Yeh, mayhaps, but you are just way too perky in your avatar for us to be very similar :lol:

 

And you, my friend, are way too hairy and piratey in yours! :lol:

[j.griff]

Arg! :lol:

[nancypants]

Arg! :lol:

 

Oh and if it's any consolation I look like a perfect hag right now. Perky is not even on the radar.

[LizzyBee]

I don't know whether most schools offer drivers ed or not.

 

It's still offered in NC. I would rather my kids learn to drive in drivers ed rather than from me, because drivers ed cars have brakes on the passengers' side for the teacher. At least, they did when I took drivers ed.

[j.griff]

Oh, I'm fine with your perkyness, *I* am just NOT a perky type person.

Sorry to hear your perkyness is on hold today. Hope your little one is feeling better very soon.

[nancypants]

Oh, I'm fine with your perkyness, *I* am just NOT a perky type person.

Sorry to hear your perkyness is on hold today. Hope your little one is feeling better very soon.

 

:grouphug: Thanks. I just hope the rest don't get it!

[j.griff]

LOL, what a visual. Sick stinks, (in this case- literally :lol:)

[Danestress]

I am especially curious about those who favor lowering the legal drinking age, but who would rather raise the driving age.

 

I don't like age limits, period. They are...well, limiting. :D

IF people would just be responsible, and spend more time teaching their DC responsibilities of driving, let them drive as much as possible (if the age were actually LOWERED for allowing permits) with experienced adults in the vehicle- I think the incidences of wreckless driving teens would decrease. :auto:

 

 

I think that sounds like an absolutely wonderful theory. And in practice, I see many more people killed by teen drivers. I think there is pretty solid research that teen brains are still developing in some key areas, even into their 20s. The crash rate amongst teens appears not just to be a matter of experience, but also brain development. No 16 year old wants to hear it, and I understand how badly kids this age want to be allowed freedom. I wish we had better public transportation so that they could have that freedom without so much risk to other people.

 

But allowing kids to drive at 12 just because their parents have decided they are ready? No thank you.

[Heather in the Kootenays]

making it more difficult for kids to get licenses quickly. As the parent of a 16 yo who would be totally responsible, it's a bit of a pain BUT

 

a police officer friend of mine who specializes in traffic issues believes it's saving lives.

[Sandra in NC]

He'll be 18 this month and he doesn't want to drive. Consequently, he doesn't practice. I'm afraid that he'll finally get his driver's license at 21 or 22 (after college) out of necessity, but still, he won't have much practice. Will he be a better driver at 21? I doubt it. I think experience is the key and he won't have that.

[Only me]

To me it doesn't seem like a good idea having so many new drivers heading off to college. My dd is in no hurry to get her license and because she switched high schools this year she won't be able to take driver's ed until this summer. She will get her permit next month but since she has to have it 9 months before she gets her license she won't get it until she is a few months shy of 17. Quite honestly I think that 17 is a better age than 16.

 

On the other hand if she had to wait until she was 18 she would turn 18 in July and then head off to college in August. I trust her completely but I think that newly licensed teens shouldn't necessarily drive everywhere the minute they get their license. Also if a teen is still living at home when they first get their license it can be more closely monitored.

[Colleen]

I like the German system. Lots of public transport. No driver's license til 18 and only after formal and extensive driver's education is passed. Bikes are a widely used adequate alternative form of local transport.

 

Yep. Bikes and scooters. (Ooh, how I'd love a Vespa!) But even having my two older guys ride their bikes up to town (less than three miles) is seen as an oddity around here. People ask in surprise, "Did you ride ALL the way up here?!" And needless to say, the almighty Automobile Drivers in this country are far less accustomed to, and tolerant of, bikes and scooters than they are in other parts of the world. (As you know, of course, Pam...I'm just rambling...!)

[j.griff]

See, *I* was looking forward to getting a bike of my own when we move, and hopefully living close enough to the necessities (a good grocery store, library, etc.) that I could bike to them, and that 13yod can bike to when she's more confident riding near/on the streets. But then, a FHP officer (friend of mine) told me NOT to ride a bike or walk in Pensacola. He gave a horrific number of hit and runs, hit pedestrians, etc. for that area. I'm a bit nervous now. If it were anyone else, I'd brush it off as fearmongering. I may still do that, LOL, but it has me thinking.