teen drivers--should they have to follow this law?

[Suzanne in ABQ]

My dh has a saying that has been passed down for generations.  I believe his dad read it in a book by Charles Lindbergh, quoting his own father: "One boy is a whole boy.  Two boys is half a boy. Three boys is no boy at all."  The saying is true of girls as well.  Basically, the more kids you have together, the more mob mentality and silliness ensues, and the less thinking tends to occur.  

Boys, especially, tend to try to show off their driving skills by driving fast, turning donuts, taking corners fast, driving with kids in the pickup bed, and other general recklessness.  I saw it in a parking lot just the other night - a boy showing off for two giggling girls, first by careening around the empty parking lot with the girls screaming in the bed, then by turning donuts in the adjacent dirt lot.  I've seen other teens riding together doing things like rocking out so hard to blaring music that the whole car was rocking, or passengers hanging out car windows while the car is moving.  I remember it even more from my own teenage days, before the restrictive laws existed.  Teens just act differently when they're with a group of friends than they do by themselves.  

Yes, there are very good reasons for those age and experience based restrictions.  And, yes, we enforce them with our teens.  So do our friends.  It's common in our community to abide with the law.  In our school carpool, some of the kids are of driving age, but they are only ever allowed to carry one other kid with them, and that is always with both parents approval, every time.

[MEmama]

Without reading other replies, I'm not sure I understand the question. Following the law has nothing to do with having a car, it's the LAW for minor drivers. If he can't abide by the law, he should have his license revoked starting yesterday.

I wouldn't hesitate taking the license away until he proves himself mature enough to have one.

(yes, I have a teen driver.)

[MistyMountain]

Yes that law was put in place for a reason and even if I was in a state without that rule I would enforce it. We know someone who lost their teen because of this.

[Janeway]

We have a similar law in our state. IF we did not have that law, it would be a rule in our home. I would take the car away from my child. Many states have a law that when a parent takes a license from a child, it is legally binding. He has been lying to you. Even if the law were silly, he agreed to these terms and he broke the rule of deception and lying to his parents.  No more car, nada. I would be tempted to let the other parents know too as pretty much, most kids know this law and those chose to break the law. What is the next silly law he will be expected to follow? And then he lies to you about? He needs to have consequences  both for breaking the law and for lying to you. Also, if he was lying to you and breaking this law, this is simply what you caught him doing. Guarantee you, there is a lot more going on.

Edited March 16, 2019 by Janeway

[Pen]

“Many states... can and do hold parents responsible when their teenager drives in a reckless or dangerous manner, and when someone is injured, the penalties can be severe. ...

Increasing restrictions on teenage drivers and holding their parents responsible for negligent driving are part of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) multi-tiered approach to reducing the level of road deaths involving teenage drivers. The strategy aimed at making roads safer includes...

• Enforcement of laws dealing with parental responsibility

The fact is, teenage drivers are more likely to be involved in fatal traffic accidents than any other age group. How much more likely? Well, NHTSA statistics show that drivers in the 15 to 20 age group are involved in fatal accidents more than three times as often as any other age group.

Teens believe that...  they are more capable ... In reality, studies have shown that teens overestimate their driving ability and underestimate the risks and hazards associated with various traffic and road conditions. They are also very prone to being distracted by things like cell phones, music and other passengers, and most especially other teenagers in the car, which is why many states are clamping down on the number of teenage passengers that can accompany a teen driver

...”

bold added , source link failed, but was related to teen driving in Oregon.  Probably teens in cave canem state are similar...

 

 

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

1 hour ago, Terabith said:

I can imagine situations in which I wouldn’t require them to follow the law, but they all pretty much revolve around an apocalypse or major disaster.  Gunman is shooting up the church?  Squeeze the whole youth group in there and get out.  Zombie apocalypse?  Pile folks in and head for the safest location.  Dam broke and we are in Nebraska with life threatening flooding?  Take people to safety.  Government is rounding up all your Jewish or Hispanic friends to take them to concentration camps!  Hell yeah, drive them to emergency shelters.  Sally doesn’t have a ride?  Call me or Sally’s mother.  If it’s not an end of the world life or death scenario, follow the damned laws.  

 

 

This is our expectation. 

[bolt.]

I definitely would expect my teen to abide by that law. For one thing, it's the law: if you can't abide by the limits, you can't have the privilege. That's just how it is. Secondly, it's a good law that saves lives. Thirdly, it's a good law that saves lives *precisely because* teens are too developmentally lacking in risk assessment skills to notice that they are taking a risk. The fact that kids think that this law is stupid and shouldn't apply to them exactly illustrates the difficulty teens have in assessing the situation for themselves. It's exactly why they need this decision taken out of their hands.

[gardenmom5]

2 hours ago, Pen said:

Yes!

My understanding in my state is if the minor driver breaks the law and that’s known to parent, the parent can contact DMV to have the minor’s license revoked until he reaches 18.  (And probably should because failure to do so likely puts some legal liability as well as ethical responsibility for anything that happens onto the adult, who, in a sense, was allowing the law to be broken.)  

Exactly how to handle this might depend on whether driving to job is needed, and whether you can believe the teen if he promises not to do it again.  If he insists he isn’t even wrong to do it, I would contact DMV to terminate the underage license.  

There are side of road crosses here and there in our area marking traffic crash fatalities, and most I know details about involved teen or young drivers.  

suspended licenses only stop people from driving who care about laws.  iow: very few people who've engaged in reckless driving to the point of getting their license suspended care if they have it or not.  they'll just drive without it.

taking the keys, is usually more effective.  parking the car at someone else's house - and they don't know where it is - is even more effective, and will dissuade kids who are determined from hotwiring the car.  (though I think that's much harder these days.).  my siblings didn't care, and both would hotwire cars.

[Valley Girl]

Absolutely. I don't care what other kids do or what other parents allow, if my teen driver were breaking the law, he wouldn't be driving. Even if he paid for the car and insurance himself. (Is he on his own policy or is the car on yours with him paying his portion?) As a minor under my roof, I have a responsibility to him and to the rest of the public. The deceit is troubling, too, because even if he promised not to do it again, how could I trust him? I'm really sorry you're having to deal with this situation, OP.

[gardenmom5]

2 hours ago, teachermom2834 said:

OP- it sounds like you have your hands full and for that I am sorry. Teens can be so trying.

But I encourage you to stand firm. This is a battle I would pick and if the other kids really are allowed to disregard the law I would probably be very skeptical of the entire peer and parent group. 🙁

It just is unlikely the disregard for authority is limited to this one law. 

I would be very skeptical that the other kids really are allowed to disregard the law.

"but mom, ___'s parent's let them do it."  said nearly every teen whose parents wouldn't let them do what they wanted ever...

 

1 hour ago, Thatboyofmine said:

I expect ds17 to follow the law.  That said, I’m not naive (not saying anyone here is!  I haven’t even read all the responses. Ducking from tomatoes...).  At 16 he wasn’t supposed to have anyone in the car for the 1st 6 mos, according to law.  He did a couple times and he confessed to us.  We grounded him a week or two and then let him have his car again.  As far as I know, he didn’t repeat his mistake.   I get on him about watching his speed.  I think he does pretty well as far as his driving goes.   He’s very careful, has gotten out of his stupidity phase pretty much, and he works at an auto body shop repairing other people’s mistakes, so I think he’s learned pretty well. I’d read him the riot act, cave.  Tell him to call around and gather up some insurance prices for a teen boy and tell him if he does it again before he’s legal, he’ll be responsible for paying his own insurance.  Also, threaten humiliation.  Threaten to sell the car, and buy him something from the junk yard.  Threaten to put a ‘student driver’ sign on his car.  Something like that.  I know that’s not humiliating for everyone (I drove a crap car in high school, myself), but for a teen boy wanting to scoot around with his friends, you need to hit him where it hurts... wallet & popularity are good bets.  (((Hugs))). Stay strong, mama. 

a nice big bumper sticker.

 

How's my driving?   call or text mom @ _______

nice big sticker.  in a nice prominent place.

my friend's fil has a niche car dealership.  but he has access to whatever is on the market.  so when kids/grandkids need cars, he can find one.   one time, the available car was a minivan.  no one wanted it. it wasn't cool enough.  when the kid for which it was intended, reached the point where transportation was more important than "cool" - he was ready to drive it.  and not needing a "cool car" (to impress friends, or girls) is also associated with more sane driving.

[Denise in IN]

We have a similar law and yes, I require my teens to follow it.  If I found out they were not, the consequences would be severe.  I think it's a worthwhile and well-founded law, but even if I didn't, we'd be following it.  

[Mom0012]

Yes, I would require him to follow that law.  We don’t have that law here, but I told both of my kids that they could not have any of their friends as passengers until they had been driving for at least 6 months.  The statistics are really high for teens getting into accidents when their friends are in the car.

[Pen]

40 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

I would be very skeptical that the other kids really are allowed to disregard the law.

 

It is possible that other teens are also disregarding the law.

there have been news articles about the problem that the graduated driver laws had helped to bring down teen car crash fatalities rate, but that a quarter or so of parents (I’ve seen various figures) disregard the law or are unable to enforce it

 very possibly cave canem’s son and his friends are in that group 

My understanding though is that whatever else is being done, keys confiscated etc, that parental termination of consent to drive is an expected part of what happens if a minor is violating the law and can’t be dissuaded from that.  At least for Oregon it is a simple form. And may carry a message of significant parental seriousness.  

Nothing in what cave canem wrote suggested to me that her teen is at the stage of hotwiring cars. 

[Pen]

1 hour ago, gardenmom5 said:

suspended licenses only stop people from driving who care about laws.  iow: very few people who've engaged in reckless driving to the point of getting their license suspended care if they have it or not.  they'll just drive without it.

taking the keys, is usually more effective.  parking the car at someone else's house - and they don't know where it is - is even more effective, and will dissuade kids who are determined from hotwiring the car.  (though I think that's much harder these days.).  my siblings didn't care, and both would hotwire cars.

 

Perhaps that’s so.  I don’t know statistics for minor drivers having parental consent withdrawn— though it may also be an important step with regard to parental liability, even if the teen will continue to break law.  

 Taking keys seems also to be important.  

Cave Canem may be in a legally sticky area on putting car elsewhere if the minor legally owns it.    

Here’s a link to Oregon ‘s consent revocation form. I presume other states have them too.  And not having a license could be important to a kid for other reasons too.  SAT, job applications, etc.  https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Forms/DMV/7340.pdf

[Pen]

Also, to add, I actually only know parentscwho have withdrawn license consent due to costs of insurance skyrocketing due to having a licensed teen driver.  

AFAIK there was not a problem with getting license reinstated when ready.  Far different I think than if the license is suspended due to legal action from police.  

[gardenmom5]

32 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

It is possible that other teens are also disregarding the law.

there have been news articles about the problem that the graduated driver laws had helped to bring down teen car crash fatalities rate, but that a quarter or so of parents (I’ve seen various figures) disregard the law or are unable to enforce it

 very possibly cave canem’s son and his friends are in that group 

My understanding though is that whatever else is being done, keys confiscated etc, that parental termination of consent to drive is an expected part of what happens if a minor is violating the law and can’t be dissuaded from that.  At least for Oregon it is a simple form. And may carry a message of significant parental seriousness.  

Nothing in what cave canem wrote suggested to me that her teen is at the stage of hotwiring cars. 

the way modern cars wiring is enclosed, and all the electronics - does make hotwiring more difficult.  unless you have an older car.

 

 

[theelfqueen]

I do expect my kids to follow the law.

In this case, I make an extra effort to make myself available to drive his friends/girlfriend places. To show that I'm serious about it means I have to be willing to assist. I know that his girlfriend's parents don't make an effort to give her rides places, so I want him to know that he is not to drive her places ... I make myself available. Sometimes I pay for an uber.

Edited March 17, 2019 by theelfqueen

[Fawnmoscato]

Uh, that kid shouldn't be driving. I expect a kid (or anyone) to occasionally skirt the law, cross a line of some kind, or lie to parents from time to time. Someone that lies or deceives a parent when it comes to a law that could endanger other people? No way. Kid needs his license taken away and a lesson on moral responsibility before they can be trusted again. 

My boyfriend and friend were killed in a car accident when we were 17. It's disgusting to mess around with traffic laws, and I don't have much respect for a teen that feels they are "morally superior" in this regard. 

 

[gardenmom5]

 

4 hours ago, gardenmom5 said:

I would be very skeptical that the other kids really are allowed to disregard the law.

"but mom, ___'s parent's let them do it."  said nearly every teen whose parents wouldn't let them do what they wanted ever...

3 hours ago, Pen said:

 

It is possible that other teens are also disregarding the law. 

 

other teens disregarding the law - and other teens parent's "allowing them" to disregard the law, are two entirely different things.  I stated I was skeptical they were *allowed* (as in, were granted permission) to disregard the law (inferring it was their parents who were allowing it.)

I would be surprised if his friends *weren't* disregarding the law, he obviously thinks it's not a big deal and since most kids hang with kids with the same ideas, he probably hangs with kids who think 

 a lot of teens load all of their friends into the car and drive around.

is not a big deal. 

however, he's claiming *their parents" are *allowing* them to disregard the law.   this is where I call baloney.  it is likely they are just as deceptive about the practice with their parents as he is with his own parents.

[happypamama]

Of course he needs to follow that law, short of extreme emergency like Terabith said.  And of course you should enforce it.  Our law allows teens to have up to one or up to three unrelated passengers if not accompanied by a parent, depending on how long they've had the license (at least if I'm reading it right; my DD doesn't have her license yet because we don't have a vehicle that she can drive, because a 12 passenger van is a terrible new driver vehicle).  That's a law I would enforce very strictly.  I was a good, steady, reliable teen and a very safe and cautious driver, but I routinely drove and rode with teen friends to nighttime college classes.  Even well-behaved, smart teens can drive like idiots, and four or five teens in a car is eep, tbh.

[Shoeless]

Everyone has to follow the law. There is no provision in the law that says "This law must be followed unless all your friends are breaking it, and then it's totally ok to ignore it and have fun". 

If the teen feels strongly this law is unjust, they are welcome to write their state representative and provide evidence of the disproportionate burden this places on them and other teens.  It sounds like a great homeschool research topic, lol! 

[Farrar]

I cannot understand not taking the keys away or severely restricting him. I personally wouldn’t for a kid who was routinely going 5 or so over the speed limit. Or who, I don’t know... made a right on red at a no right on red sign. But this is different.

I’m totally ok with my kid making a pricipled stand against a law, but this isn’t that. He’s just being entitled.

[Pen]

1 hour ago, gardenmom5 said:

 

 

other teens disregarding the law - and other teens parent's "allowing them" to disregard the law, are two entirely different things.  I stated I was skeptical they were *allowed* (as in, were granted permission) to disregard the law (inferring it was their parents who were allowing it.)

I would be surprised if his friends *weren't* disregarding the law, he obviously thinks it's not a big deal and since most kids hang with kids with the same ideas, he probably hangs with kids who think 

 

is not a big deal. 

however, he's claiming *their parents" are *allowing* them to disregard the law.   this is where I call baloney.  it is likely they are just as deceptive about the practice with their parents as he is with his own parents.

 

Some parents:

https://www.thecarconnection.com/news/1119692_survey-most-parents-dont-enforce-teen-driver-safety-laws

 

however, life is helped by following these laws:

http:// https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/graduated-drivers-licensing-programs-reduce-fatal-teen-crashes

 

He may be telling the truth.

It appears that cave Canem isn’t immediately convinced that teens should be following these laws, nor speed limit laws , etc.

 

 But that doesn’t mean any of the parents involved are doing the right thing to not enforce the laws.  

 

 

[gardenmom5]

1 hour ago, Pen said:

 

Some parents:

https://www.thecarconnection.com/news/1119692_survey-most-parents-dont-enforce-teen-driver-safety-laws

 

however, life is helped by following these laws:

http:// https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/graduated-drivers-licensing-programs-reduce-fatal-teen-crashes

 

He may be telling the truth.

It appears that cave Canem isn’t immediately convinced that teens should be following these laws, nor speed limit laws , etc.

 

 But that doesn’t mean any of the parents involved are doing the right thing to not enforce the laws.  

 

 

some parents dont' care.  some parents do care.

in the end, what matters is: does his parent care? does his parent care enough to enforce the law so their teen is safe?   (that's not just not driving other teens, but not being a passenger in a car being driven by other teens.).  does the parent care enough to teach the teen?  does the parent care that if the teen does cause an accident, the parent might be held liable and it's their pocket that will hurt.

[Catwoman]

I think we might have scared cave canem away. 

I hope not. She’s nice. 🙂

I am curious about how she feels about this topic. We know how her son feels, but I’m not sure exactly where she stands on it. 

I hope she stands firm with her son and doesn’t let him drive without adult supervision until he develops a much better attitude toward the importance of safety and obeying the law. Her son doesn’t seem to realize it, but disregarding the law and his parents wishes could literally be a life and death situation.

Edited March 17, 2019 by Catwoman

[CAJinBE]

Another reason to add to my list of why I think the Europeans have it right with a driving age of 18. Whenever I mention to friends here that Americans can drive at 16 they are shocked.

[TarynB]

I say this as the mom of a 17 year old beginner driver - and I feel for the OP, none of this is easy: IMO, OP’s son should not be allowed to drive unsupervised, period, due to his careless attitude towards her rule, the law, and others on the road. Rather than taking his keys away now temporarily, and giving them back, he could/should continue to drive but only with a parent in the car - as continuing supervised driver training. 

Consider this:

An analysis of the risk teen drivers pose to themselves and others, as well as comparisons of driving and licensing patterns in comparable countries around the globe, suggests the age for independent driving and licensing shouldn’t be 16, but 18. Let’s take a closer look at why together.

Teens are most likely to be involved in fatal collisions at 16

 The numbers are clear: 16-year-olds are more likely to be involved in collisions, fatal or otherwise, than drivers of any other age. Specifically, the IIHS chart above notes the rate of fatal crash involvement per 100 million miles traveled was 9.1 at 16, compared to 6.6 at 17 and 3.8 at 18. From 18, the rate of fatal crash involvement remained virtually constant between 3.6 and 3.8 until drivers reached the 30-34 age bracket, at which point the rate of fatal crash involvement dropped again to 1.8. I’ve written about teen crash involvement before, and while the risks are primarily related to male teens, this is a problem we need to tackle with all teenagers and all parents.

This chart alone explains why teenagers shouldn’t drive alone at 16. Simply waiting a year cuts the risk of death by 27%, and waiting another year until 18 before independent driving cuts the risk by 58% compared to the risk of death faced by a 16-year-old driver. To put it another way, if 100 16-year-olds were involved in fatal crashes in their first (and final) year of driving, it’s likely that 42 of them would have survived their first year of driving had that cohort of 100 drivers begun driving at age 18 instead of at age 16.

If we simply delay our children’s independent driving by a couple of years, they effectively become as safe as drivers nearly a decade older. We need to give them the gift of time.

But doesn’t this just mean that 18 year olds have 2 years more driving experience than 16 year olds? What about new 18 year olds vs new 16 year olds?

It’s tempting to think that the only reason the driver death rates drop so dramatically between 16 and 18 is because all of the 18 year olds have the benefit of the 2 years of driving and hopefully not dying between 16 and 18. However, numerous studies have found this to be erroneous, whether in the US, Canada, or overseas.

A Canadian study found in 1992 that novice 16 year olds were more likely to be injured while driving than novice 17 or 18 year olds, with novice drivers defined as those with under a year of experience. A meta analysis of 11 studies since 1990 found the same results: 16 year old new drivers were more likely to crash than new older drivers.

It’s not about driving experience; it’s about cognitive development and life experience. Sixteen year olds simply aren’t as ready to drive as 18 year olds. Giving them lots of training before they turn 16 doesn’t change this, whether that training comes from parents or from driving instructors. This doesn’t mean that supervised driving time is meaningless for teenagers; it’s very valuable. However, it can’t overcome, statistically speaking, the increased risk of allowing unsupervised driving before 18. A 14-year old with 400 hours of supervised driving experience is still going to be a poorer driver than a 16-year old with 200 hours of supervised experience, because training time can’t overcome maturity when the maturity gap becomes too large. By the same measure, that 16-year old with 200 supervised hours will, statistically speaking, still be a much more dangerous driver than an 18-year old with 100 supervised hours.

Delaying licensing until 18 gives parents more time to drive with their teens

Besides the maturity that comes with having two additional years of life experience, a significant reason why teenagers are safer drivers at 18 than they are at 16 is because they have more experience behind the wheel. However, what we want is to give them supervised experience so they aren’t gaining experience while engaging in risky behavior (e.g., driving at night, driving with passengers, having minimal supervised hours, etc). To that end, when we require our teens to wait before obtaining their licenses, we can spend more time driving with them and modeling and monitoring safer driving tactics. We can take the time to choose safer vehicles for them rather than simply choosing the cheapest ones we can find because we feel pressured to reward them as soon as they turn 16.

Remember: teenagers driving in and of itself isn’t the problem; most teens manage to drive responsibly enough while under their learners’ permits or while taking their drivers’ tests to obtain licenses. The problem is that when teenagers drive on their own, there is a strong tendency for them to leave behind responsible driving habits and engage in risky behavior. The more time we spend driving with them, the more likely they are to internalize safe driving habits that they’ll be more likely to use when we don’t drive with them.

Sweden and Norway don’t license their teens until  they turn 18

Finally, it’s worth considering the practices of countries with significantly safer driving cultures than those domestically. Sweden and Norway feature two of the lowest auto death rates on the planet per capita (at <3/100,000 people, compared to roughly 10-11/100,000 in the US), and both countries also feature the lowest rates of child auto fatalities on the globe. What do they do to keep their youngest drivers safe?

You guessed it: both countries restrict the age of licensure for car driving to 18. Both countries allow supervised driving before 18, just as in the US, but neither country allows teenagers to get behind the wheel without adults until they turn 18, without exception. They have extensive driver preparation and training programs as well, and in Norway, in particular, it can cost up to $4,000 to obtain one’s license before all is said and done, due to the various safety classes one must take on the way to licensure.

What can we take away from all of this?

Driving is a serious responsibility, not only for the driver but for every other citizen who may be impacted by the driver’s competence. In Sweden and Norway, where citizens are less likely to die from auto traffic than in any other wealthy country on the planet, no one drives a car before s/he turns 18. There’s just too much at stake. On the way to driving at 18, teens get lots of supervised practice, take lots of classes, and need to prove their competence in a number of ways. They take driving seriously there. Here, we lose approximately 2,600 13-19-year-olds each year. It doesn’t have to be this way. We can change the driving culture.

However, it starts with changing how we view driving, and how easily we’re willing to turn over the keys to our children. We can’t wait for the laws of 50 states to come together toward best practice; there isn’t a single state that’s following best practices yet. But as parents, we can take the first steps and make sure we aren’t putting our children in harm’s way any sooner than necessary, and not a minute before we’ve shared everything we know with them about safe driving. The stakes are too high to treat driving as a simple rite of passage.

 

—https://www.thecarcrashdetective.com/when-should-teenager-get-drivers-license-not-before-18/  (bolding mine)

Edited March 17, 2019 by TarynB

[Farrar]

To be fair, sometimes I let my kids get away with something I know I can/should come down harder on because arguing about it just isn’t worth what it will turn into. The energy I’ll expend on it won’t justify the means. In this case though, the energy should be worth it, even though it’s likely to be very high. 

[Carol in Cal.]

Something to consider--it's relatively easy to tell a teen to stand up to peer pressure but that doesn't necessarily enable them to do it.

It's a good idea when requiring this to practice with him.  Do some role playing, help him think through what to say *in the moment*.  

[Meriwether]

Yes, my kids will follow that law strictly. They'll follow the speed limit, too, if they want to drive. Dh and I often drive about 5 miles over the limit, because that is about how it goes here. When my kids are driving, they are getting passed all the time. Still, they'll drive the speed limit or be parked. Driving is a skill that takes a lot of practice to become proficient. One of my kids is almost proficient; I'll feel comfortable with her driving alone in a couple of months when she gets her license. But I'll only feel comfortable with her driving alone, because I know she will follow the law and be careful while driving. Ds14 is doing fine, but he is a year behind on practice from Dd15.

[Scarlett]

The law in OK is that only one non family member under 21.  Since ds ran around with several friends older than 21 this was rarely an issue for him.  But the bigger issue was driving past 10.  Several times in that 6 month period I would go pick him up rather than let him drive home last 10.  It would make him so irritated but hey whatever.  It is such a short time.....just follow the law kids.  

[Valley Girl]

7 hours ago, Catwoman said:

I think we might have scared cave canem away. 

I hope not. She’s nice. 🙂

I am curious about how she feels about this topic. We know how her son feels, but I’m not sure exactly where she stands on it. 

I hope she stands firm with her son and doesn’t let him drive without adult supervision until he develops a much better attitude toward the importance of safety and obeying the law. Her son doesn’t seem to realize it, but disregarding the law and his parents wishes could literally be a life and death situation.

I didn't get the sense that she supported her DS not obeying the law. It seemed to me that she is likely on the receiving end of grief from him about it, which, let's face it, can get pretty ugly sometimes. (Been there.) I hope she feels supported. I know I find it helpful to know a good number of other parents feel the same way when I'm faced with being told how unrealistic and out-of-touch I am--to phrase it more kindly than that message is often delivered. I know it shouldn't matter, but parenting can be a lonely endeavor some times.

Edited March 17, 2019 by Valley Girl
Typo

[gardenmom5]

5 hours ago, CAJinBE said:

Another reason to add to my list of why I think the Europeans have it right with a driving age of 18. Whenever I mention to friends here that Americans can drive at 16 they are shocked.

 there are places where teens can drive at 14.  (and not just on the farm)

3 hours ago, TarynB said:

I say this as the mom of a 17 year old beginner driver - and I feel for her, none of this is easy: IMO, OP’s son should not be allowed to drive unsupervised, period, due to his careless attitude towards her rule, the law, and others on the road. Rather than taking his keys away temporarily, and giving them back, he could/should continue to drive but only with a parent in the car - as continuing supervised driver training. 

,

I'd take the keys (and any copies), but I agree he needs more direct supervision.  and those would be the only times he was driving.

we taught four kids to drive.  not a one of them could get their license  until I was comfortable as a passenger with them driving.  it was interesting how there was something "different" when that came.  how long it took, would vary.  and for that reason - even though the DMV says they're supposed to have 100 hours, ,I was worried less about hours and more about if they had passed that threshold where they "felt" ready.

our kid car was a 4cylinder stick gutless wonder.  no radio.  no passenger side mirror (which FORCED them to turn around to look when they were backing up. -which is what you're supposed to do.  heard a few too many teens ask how they saw what was behind them while backing up without a mirror. - because they never turned around.) a friend's teen used their back up camera on their 15 passenger van. creative parking... - so backup cameras and parking sensors aren't a replacement for practice.  the lines across were not lined up so he couldn't use them.  I was taught to do it that way too.    now, I'm regularly backing in where there are no lines across of any kind.

just a funny aside - 1dd just sent a minion with her boss to Europe.  she was snickering loudly - at home at least - because her boss can't drive a stick and had to go two hours out of their way just to find a rental car that was an automatic in Europe.

56 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

Something to consider--it's relatively easy to tell a teen to stand up to peer pressure but that doesn't necessarily enable them to do it.

It's a good idea when requiring this to practice with him.  Do some role playing, help him think through what to say *in the moment*.  

this is why kids should always be allowed - encouraged even - to "blame mom or dad".  my parents won't let me.  if my parents find out they'll ground me until I'm 50.

there are kids who don't want to do something, but are afraid to stand up to peers.  but if they can blame mom or dad, they'll do it.

[MysteryJen]

That is definitely the part of the law my dd2 complained about the most. But hey, it was the law and it is only 6 months. For a parent, 6 months is quick, for a teen, 6 months is forever. 

But I agree with theelfqueen that you have to make it easier for your kid (kids do break this law all. the. time- almost always without parental knowledge). During those six months, I let her drive to friends houses and then paid for Ubers for them. I talked to parents about doing that so everyone was on the same page. And 6 months passed as I promised and she is a good driver (best of my kids so far) and she does follow the curfew rules and takes her driving ability and privileges seriously. 

It is frustrating for teens- a year with a permit, and the graduated restrictions. It does seem forever to them and a little sympathy and creative problem-solving, along with outlining the serious consequences of breaking this law goes a long way.

 

[PeterPan]

6 hours ago, CAJinBE said:

Another reason to add to my list of why I think the Europeans have it right with a driving age of 18. Whenever I mention to friends here that Americans can drive at 16 they are shocked.

Oh don't worry, now they want 16 yos to vote too. 

[MysteryJen]

But God forbid they have a beer before they turn 21.

 

[gardenmom5]

2 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

Oh don't worry, now they want 16 yos to vote too. 

16 yos. who think they know everything... where's my fainting emoji?

[gardenmom5]

7 minutes ago, PeterPan said:

Oh don't worry, now they want 16 yos to vote too. 

 

5 minutes ago, MysteryJen said:

But God forbid they have a beer before they turn 21.

 

 

voting age used to be 21 - but 18 year olds were being drafted for Vietnam. people were protesting they couldn't even vote - but they could go to war.  (this isn't a judgment - this is a fact.)

[Farrar]

If the majority of people on this board is going to say that they never go a mile over the speed limit or have never made a U-turn at an empty intersection with a no U-turn sign, then I honestly won't believe it. I'm sure some of you drive like 80 yos, but realistically, people break driving laws all the time and our kids see us do it. I mean, there are roads where everyone is driving 5-10 over, places where I routinely idle the car in a no parking area, places where I get so turned around and I realize that if I don't take a U-turn, I'll have to spend time on a highway in the wrong direction and I'm just going to do it. And my kids see me do that stuff. And I honestly think it's not that huge a deal.

I think if this were my kids, my tactic would be to emphasize two things. One, that new drivers don't have nearly as much flexibility in those things safely and statistics bear that out. And two, that this law is different. This is more like texting and driving or driving under the influence or driving without a license. Not even remotely okay. I think teens are sophisticated enough to understand that some laws are not properly depositing your recycling or not mowing your lawn and others are hurting people and this is one of the latter.

[Pen]

2 hours ago, Carol in Cal. said:

Something to consider--it's relatively easy to tell a teen to stand up to peer pressure but that doesn't necessarily enable them to do it.

It's a good idea when requiring this to practice with him.  Do some role playing, help him think through what to say *in the moment*.  

 

That’s a good point.  

There are also internet TIPS available, from car insurance places etc, on how to say No.  

It may  be harder having not said No from the start.  But being able to blame it on parent may help a lot.  

 

 

Possibly it would also help if Mom were to talk with the parents of the other kids involved.  It is possible that several are not allowing it, but just did not know it was happening.

[Arctic Bunny]

45 minutes ago, Farrar said:

If the majority of people on this board is going to say that they never go a mile over the speed limit or have never made a U-turn at an empty intersection with a no U-turn sign, then I honestly won't believe it. I'm sure some of you drive like 80 yos, but realistically, people break driving laws all the time and our kids see us do it. I mean, there are roads where everyone is driving 5-10 over, places where I routinely idle the car in a no parking area, places where I get so turned around and I realize that if I don't take a U-turn, I'll have to spend time on a highway in the wrong direction and I'm just going to do it. And my kids see me do that stuff. And I honestly think it's not that huge a deal.

I think if this were my kids, my tactic would be to emphasize two things. One, that new drivers don't have nearly as much flexibility in those things safely and statistics bear that out. And two, that this law is different. This is more like texting and driving or driving under the influence or driving without a license. Not even remotely okay. I think teens are sophisticated enough to understand that some laws are not properly depositing your recycling or not mowing your lawn and others are hurting people and this is one of the latter.

Absolutely. They can see when we’re speeding a bit; they know we’re okay with the consequences (a ticket - much different consequences for a new driver). They also see us *not* driving after even one drink, and *not* texting and driving, because killing someone is not a consequence we are okay with.

[Pen]

2 hours ago, Scarlett said:

The law in OK is that only one non family member under 21.  Since ds ran around with several friends older than 21 this was rarely an issue for him.  But the bigger issue was driving past 10.  Several times in that 6 month period I would go pick him up rather than let him drive home last 10.  It would make him so irritated but hey whatever.  It is such a short time.....just follow the law kids.  

 

They could be in a place where it’s not allowed till 18,so perhaps 2 years, not 6 months.  I think that the emphasis should be on following the law and how risky teen age driving is. Not on it only being 6 months.  Even if they are near another state with a lesser time before teens can take young passengers doesn’t mean it is right or safe to do so. 

40 minutes ago, Farrar said:

If the majority of people on this board is going to say that they never go a mile over the speed limit or have never made a U-turn at an empty intersection with a no U-turn sign, then I honestly won't believe it.

 

Laws are different in different places—where we are U-turns are not allowed unless specifically posted that they are allowed.  It is a law often broken because people don’t know it’s the law. 

More important though for teen driving is that it doesn’t tend to be breaking the law as a mile over the speed limit, or a U turn with no other traffic for miles...   it’s often significant speeding, driving under the influence, driving tired, eyes off road, texting, talking, reaching for music players, doing donuts, and deliberate...another currently popular thing right now, what are they called? Drifting?  Where the teens suddenly brake and turn so as to go fish tailing along the road? 

It isn’t just teens who do these things, but it is almost never a 30 - 50 year old female doing donuts, and the “drifting” thing. 

We live in a rural area where teens often come to drive wild—hence probably why there are so many roadside crosses in our area. 

The parents likely think they went to the library or a friend’s house to study.  

[Frances]

5 hours ago, TarynB said:

I say this as the mom of a 17 year old beginner driver - and I feel for her, none of this is easy: IMO, OP’s son should not be allowed to drive unsupervised, period, due to his careless attitude towards her rule, the law, and others on the road. Rather than taking his keys away temporarily, and giving them back, he could/should continue to drive but only with a parent in the car - as continuing supervised driver training. 

Consider this:

An analysis of the risk teen drivers pose to themselves and others, as well as comparisons of driving and licensing patterns in comparable countries around the globe, suggests the age for independent driving and licensing shouldn’t be 16, but 18. Let’s take a closer look at why together.

Teens are most likely to be involved in fatal collisions at 16

 The numbers are clear: 16-year-olds are more likely to be involved in collisions, fatal or otherwise, than drivers of any other age. Specifically, the IIHS chart above notes the rate of fatal crash involvement per 100 million miles traveled was 9.1 at 16, compared to 6.6 at 17 and 3.8 at 18. From 18, the rate of fatal crash involvement remained virtually constant between 3.6 and 3.8 until drivers reached the 30-34 age bracket, at which point the rate of fatal crash involvement dropped again to 1.8. I’ve written about teen crash involvement before, and while the risks are primarily related to male teens, this is a problem we need to tackle with all teenagers and all parents.

This chart alone explains why teenagers shouldn’t drive alone at 16. Simply waiting a year cuts the risk of death by 27%, and waiting another year until 18 before independent driving cuts the risk by 58% compared to the risk of death faced by a 16-year-old driver. To put it another way, if 100 16-year-olds were involved in fatal crashes in their first (and final) year of driving, it’s likely that 42 of them would have survived their first year of driving had that cohort of 100 drivers begun driving at age 18 instead of at age 16.

If we simply delay our children’s independent driving by a couple of years, they effectively become as safe as drivers nearly a decade older. We need to give them the gift of time.

But doesn’t this just mean that 18 year olds have 2 years more driving experience than 16 year olds? What about new 18 year olds vs new 16 year olds?

It’s tempting to think that the only reason the driver death rates drop so dramatically between 16 and 18 is because all of the 18 year olds have the benefit of the 2 years of driving and hopefully not dying between 16 and 18. However, numerous studies have found this to be erroneous, whether in the US, Canada, or overseas.

A Canadian study found in 1992 that novice 16 year olds were more likely to be injured while driving than novice 17 or 18 year olds, with novice drivers defined as those with under a year of experience. A meta analysis of 11 studies since 1990 found the same results: 16 year old new drivers were more likely to crash than new older drivers.

It’s not about driving experience; it’s about cognitive development and life experience. Sixteen year olds simply aren’t as ready to drive as 18 year olds. Giving them lots of training before they turn 16 doesn’t change this, whether that training comes from parents or from driving instructors. This doesn’t mean that supervised driving time is meaningless for teenagers; it’s very valuable. However, it can’t overcome, statistically speaking, the increased risk of allowing unsupervised driving before 18. A 14-year old with 400 hours of supervised driving experience is still going to be a poorer driver than a 16-year old with 200 hours of supervised experience, because training time can’t overcome maturity when the maturity gap becomes too large. By the same measure, that 16-year old with 200 supervised hours will, statistically speaking, still be a much more dangerous driver than an 18-year old with 100 supervised hours.

Delaying licensing until 18 gives parents more time to drive with their teens

Besides the maturity that comes with having two additional years of life experience, a significant reason why teenagers are safer drivers at 18 than they are at 16 is because they have more experience behind the wheel. However, what we want is to give them supervised experience so they aren’t gaining experience while engaging in risky behavior (e.g., driving at night, driving with passengers, having minimal supervised hours, etc). To that end, when we require our teens to wait before obtaining their licenses, we can spend more time driving with them and modeling and monitoring safer driving tactics. We can take the time to choose safer vehicles for them rather than simply choosing the cheapest ones we can find because we feel pressured to reward them as soon as they turn 16.

Remember: teenagers driving in and of itself isn’t the problem; most teens manage to drive responsibly enough while under their learners’ permits or while taking their drivers’ tests to obtain licenses. The problem is that when teenagers drive on their own, there is a strong tendency for them to leave behind responsible driving habits and engage in risky behavior. The more time we spend driving with them, the more likely they are to internalize safe driving habits that they’ll be more likely to use when we don’t drive with them.

Sweden and Norway don’t license their teens until  they turn 18

Finally, it’s worth considering the practices of countries with significantly safer driving cultures than those domestically. Sweden and Norway feature two of the lowest auto death rates on the planet per capita (at <3/100,000 people, compared to roughly 10-11/100,000 in the US), and both countries also feature the lowest rates of child auto fatalities on the globe. What do they do to keep their youngest drivers safe?

You guessed it: both countries restrict the age of licensure for car driving to 18. Both countries allow supervised driving before 18, just as in the US, but neither country allows teenagers to get behind the wheel without adults until they turn 18, without exception. They have extensive driver preparation and training programs as well, and in Norway, in particular, it can cost up to $4,000 to obtain one’s license before all is said and done, due to the various safety classes one must take on the way to licensure.

What can we take away from all of this?

Driving is a serious responsibility, not only for the driver but for every other citizen who may be impacted by the driver’s competence. In Sweden and Norway, where citizens are less likely to die from auto traffic than in any other wealthy country on the planet, no one drives a car before s/he turns 18. There’s just too much at stake. On the way to driving at 18, teens get lots of supervised practice, take lots of classes, and need to prove their competence in a number of ways. They take driving seriously there. Here, we lose approximately 2,600 13-19-year-olds each year. It doesn’t have to be this way. We can change the driving culture.

However, it starts with changing how we view driving, and how easily we’re willing to turn over the keys to our children. We can’t wait for the laws of 50 states to come together toward best practice; there isn’t a single state that’s following best practices yet. But as parents, we can take the first steps and make sure we aren’t putting our children in harm’s way any sooner than necessary, and not a minute before we’ve shared everything we know with them about safe driving. The stakes are too high to treat driving as a simple rite of passage.

 

—https://www.thecarcrashdetective.com/when-should-teenager-get-drivers-license-not-before-18/

Yet some people on this board think we are infantilizing teens when they choose to wait until 18 to get a driver’s license and instead walk, bike, or use public transportation.

[Pen]

5 hours ago, TarynB said:

I say this as the mom of a 17 year old beginner driver - and I feel for her, none of this is easy: IMO, OP’s son should not be allowed to drive unsupervised, period, due to his careless attitude towards her rule, the law, and others on the road. Rather than taking his keys away temporarily, and giving them back, he could/should continue to drive but only with a parent in the car - as continuing supervised driver training. 

Consider this:

An analysis of the risk teen drivers pose to themselves and others, as well as comparisons of driving and licensing patterns in comparable countries around the globe, suggests the age for independent driving and licensing shouldn’t be 16, but 18. Let’s take a closer look at why together.

Teens are most likely to be involved in fatal collisions at 16

 The numbers are clear: 16-year-olds are more likely to be involved in collisions, fatal or otherwise, than drivers of any other age. Specifically, the IIHS chart above notes the rate of fatal crash involvement per 100 million miles traveled was 9.1 at 16, compared to 6.6 at 17 and 3.8 at 18. From 18, the rate of fatal crash involvement remained virtually constant between 3.6 and 3.8 until drivers reached the 30-34 age bracket, at which point the rate of fatal crash involvement dropped again to 1.8. I’ve written about teen crash involvement before, and while the risks are primarily related to male teens, this is a problem we need to tackle with all teenagers and all parents.

This chart alone explains why teenagers shouldn’t drive alone at 16. Simply waiting a year cuts the risk of death by 27%, and waiting another year until 18 before independent driving cuts the risk by 58% compared to the risk of death faced by a 16-year-old driver. To put it another way, if 100 16-year-olds were involved in fatal crashes in their first (and final) year of driving, it’s likely that 42 of them would have survived their first year of driving had that cohort of 100 drivers begun driving at age 18 instead of at age 16.

If we simply delay our children’s independent driving by a couple of years, they effectively become as safe as drivers nearly a decade older. We need to give them the gift of time.

But doesn’t this just mean that 18 year olds have 2 years more driving experience than 16 year olds? What about new 18 year olds vs new 16 year olds?

It’s tempting to think that the only reason the driver death rates drop so dramatically between 16 and 18 is because all of the 18 year olds have the benefit of the 2 years of driving and hopefully not dying between 16 and 18. However, numerous studies have found this to be erroneous, whether in the US, Canada, or overseas.

A Canadian study found in 1992 that novice 16 year olds were more likely to be injured while driving than novice 17 or 18 year olds, with novice drivers defined as those with under a year of experience. A meta analysis of 11 studies since 1990 found the same results: 16 year old new drivers were more likely to crash than new older drivers.

It’s not about driving experience; it’s about cognitive development and life experience. Sixteen year olds simply aren’t as ready to drive as 18 year olds. Giving them lots of training before they turn 16 doesn’t change this, whether that training comes from parents or from driving instructors. This doesn’t mean that supervised driving time is meaningless for teenagers; it’s very valuable. However, it can’t overcome, statistically speaking, the increased risk of allowing unsupervised driving before 18. A 14-year old with 400 hours of supervised driving experience is still going to be a poorer driver than a 16-year old with 200 hours of supervised experience, because training time can’t overcome maturity when the maturity gap becomes too large. By the same measure, that 16-year old with 200 supervised hours will, statistically speaking, still be a much more dangerous driver than an 18-year old with 100 supervised hours.

Delaying licensing until 18 gives parents more time to drive with their teens

Besides the maturity that comes with having two additional years of life experience, a significant reason why teenagers are safer drivers at 18 than they are at 16 is because they have more experience behind the wheel. However, what we want is to give them supervised experience so they aren’t gaining experience while engaging in risky behavior (e.g., driving at night, driving with passengers, having minimal supervised hours, etc). To that end, when we require our teens to wait before obtaining their licenses, we can spend more time driving with them and modeling and monitoring safer driving tactics. We can take the time to choose safer vehicles for them rather than simply choosing the cheapest ones we can find because we feel pressured to reward them as soon as they turn 16.

Remember: teenagers driving in and of itself isn’t the problem; most teens manage to drive responsibly enough while under their learners’ permits or while taking their drivers’ tests to obtain licenses. The problem is that when teenagers drive on their own, there is a strong tendency for them to leave behind responsible driving habits and engage in risky behavior. The more time we spend driving with them, the more likely they are to internalize safe driving habits that they’ll be more likely to use when we don’t drive with them.

Sweden and Norway don’t license their teens until  they turn 18

Finally, it’s worth considering the practices of countries with significantly safer driving cultures than those domestically. Sweden and Norway feature two of the lowest auto death rates on the planet per capita (at <3/100,000 people, compared to roughly 10-11/100,000 in the US), and both countries also feature the lowest rates of child auto fatalities on the globe. What do they do to keep their youngest drivers safe?

You guessed it: both countries restrict the age of licensure for car driving to 18. Both countries allow supervised driving before 18, just as in the US, but neither country allows teenagers to get behind the wheel without adults until they turn 18, without exception. They have extensive driver preparation and training programs as well, and in Norway, in particular, it can cost up to $4,000 to obtain one’s license before all is said and done, due to the various safety classes one must take on the way to licensure.

What can we take away from all of this?

Driving is a serious responsibility, not only for the driver but for every other citizen who may be impacted by the driver’s competence. In Sweden and Norway, where citizens are less likely to die from auto traffic than in any other wealthy country on the planet, no one drives a car before s/he turns 18. There’s just too much at stake. On the way to driving at 18, teens get lots of supervised practice, take lots of classes, and need to prove their competence in a number of ways. They take driving seriously there. Here, we lose approximately 2,600 13-19-year-olds each year. It doesn’t have to be this way. We can change the driving culture.

However, it starts with changing how we view driving, and how easily we’re willing to turn over the keys to our children. We can’t wait for the laws of 50 states to come together toward best practice; there isn’t a single state that’s following best practices yet. But as parents, we can take the first steps and make sure we aren’t putting our children in harm’s way any sooner than necessary, and not a minute before we’ve shared everything we know with them about safe driving. The stakes are too high to treat driving as a simple rite of passage.

 

—https://www.thecarcrashdetective.com/when-should-teenager-get-drivers-license-not-before-18/

 

Thanks for posting this.

Maybe it is a good thing that there’s a trend now for teens not to rush to get licensed as young as they can.  

[Farrar]

7 minutes ago, Pen said:

Laws are different in different places—where we are U-turns are not allowed unless specifically posted that they are allowed.  It is a law often broken because people don’t know it’s the law. 

More important though for teen driving is that it doesn’t tend to be breaking the law as a mile over the speed limit, or a U turn with no other traffic for miles...   it’s often significant speeding, driving under the influence, driving tired, eyes off road, texting, talking, reaching for music players, doing donuts, and deliberate...another currently popular thing right now, what are they called? Drifting?  Where the teens suddenly brake and turn so as to go fish tailing along the road? 

It isn’t just teens who do these things, but it is almost never a 30 - 50 year old female doing donuts, and the “drifting” thing. 

We live in a rural area where teens often come to drive wild—hence probably why there are so many roadside crosses in our area. 

The parents likely think they went to the library or a friend’s house to study.  

It's pretty obvious when the no U-turn sign is right there, as is the case at every intersection where it's not allowed in my not-a-state and both the bordering states.

Teens around me don't drive wild for fun. Or, really, drive at all for the most part. That's what the bus is for. And it's free for teens. Maybe this is an issue in rural areas, but in a city, that simply wouldn't even work. There's nowhere to drift in my neighborhood. You'd just hit another car unless it was like 3 am on a weeknight. Regardless, that's not the issue we're talking about. This kid got caught doing one specific thing. So now suddenly he must be suspect for a whole host of other bad driving behavior? I don't buy it, logically speaking. And why bother accusing him of these random possibilities. What he did was bad enough to take the keys away or knock him back to learner's permit privileges or something for awhile.

My complaint is that several people above are saying that a teen going just a few miles over is just as bad as breaking this law. I strongly disagree. And I think when we act like all laws are equally bad, that can lead kids to not think any of them that they don't want to follow are all that important.

[TarynB]

3 hours ago, Frances said:

Yet some people on this board think we are infantilizing teens when they choose to wait until 18 to get a driver’s license and instead walk, bike, or use public transportation.

I'm the poster who shared the article and I'm the one you quoted. I'm not sure if you're commenting about what I posted or if you're just making a general comment, but I'll respond anyway. I'm one of those who firmly doesn't believe in infantalizing our teens; with mine at 17, I'm quite hands-off and about as non-helicopter as you can get. I actively disapprove of the trend of young adults delaying getting their driver's licenses. 

DS got his driver's license at 16, is now 17. He is driving all the time, but he's driving only with supervision by an adult. I definitely don't want to send him off to college with no or very little driving experience. According to the article I shared earlier, stats show teen driving is dangerous but longer supervised driving practice makes it less so.

Edited March 17, 2019 by TarynB

[Frances]

13 minutes ago, TarynB said:

I'm the poster who shared the article and I'm the one you quoted. I'm not sure you're commenting about what I posted or if you're just making a general comment, but I'll respond anyway. I'm one of those who firmly doesn't believe in infantalizing our teens; with mine at 17, I'm quite hands-off and about as non-helicopter as you can get. I actively disapprove of the trend of young adults delaying getting their driver's licenses. 

DS got his driver's license at 16. He is driving all the time, but he's driving only with supervision by an adult. I definitely don't want to send him off to college with no or very little driving experience. Stats show teen driving is dangerous but longer supervised practice makes it less so.

I was agreeing with the countries that make teen wait until they are 18 to drive alone. I was also referring to comments on other threads where some posters think teens who wait until they are 18 to get a driver’s license are being infantilized. You don’t need a driver’s license to drive under adult supervision, only to drive alone. Every teen I’ve known who has waited did it for two primary reasons. First, they think it is better for the environment to walk, bike, or use public transportation. And second, they think it is a grave responsibility that should not be taken lightly. They are not being transported everywhere by parents and they are regularly practicing driving.

Edited to add that in fact, all of the teens (now young adults) I know who waited until 18 for a driver’s license were the same kids who were getting themselves to most of their activities by walking, biking, or using public transportation by the time they were teens. It was primarily the ones who were being driven everywhere by parents who got their license at 16.

Edited March 17, 2019 by Frances

[PeachyDoodle]

Unfortunately, walking, biking, and public transportation are not options in some (many?) areas of the country. My kids have no choice but to drive (or be driven) wherever they need to go. I don't think it's infantilizing to keep teens from driving until they are 18. But it would certainly make life more difficult for some 16- and 17-year-olds, especially those who need to work.

[Frances]

6 minutes ago, PeachyDoodle said:

Unfortunately, walking, biking, and public transportation are not options in some (many?) areas of the country. My kids have no choice but to drive (or be driven) wherever they need to go. I don't think it's infantilizing to keep teens from driving until they are 18. But it would certainly make life more difficult for some 16- and 17-year-olds, especially those who need to work.

I understand it is different in different parts of the country. That’s why I disagree with people who make a sweeping generalization about it being infantilizing when teens wait until 18. Although as I noted above, it was interesting to me observing my son’s friends and acquaintances, all of whom could readily bike, walk, or use public transportation. Those who waited until 18 were the same ones getting themselves places regularly at much younger ages than those who got a license at 16. And in general, the ones getting a license at 16 were also the ones being given cars by their parents, rather than buying their own.

Edited March 17, 2019 by Frances

[Farrar]

The implications of having all teens wait until age 18 to get their licenses in the US - a spread out nation of exurbs without good public transit - is radically different from in a small European nation with good public transit.

I'm not for it or against it per se... I just think saying "they do it that way in small, urban, good public transit European nation" is going to be really different than here. Since I live in a city with decent public transit, I can tell you a lot fewer teens do drive. Many of the teens I know don't have their licenses at all and aren't planning on them. I know a teen who suddenly realized she might need it because of where she's going to college, but until that point, I don't think she had any interest.