l'il kiddies with Vehicles of Mass Destruction

[Alex Reeder]

I think, honestly, that the term "teenage" gets substituted for "rookie". New drivers of any age will make some stupid mistakes. It's just that the majority of rookie drivers are teenagers.

Great point!

[Doug@GT]

I think, honestly, that the term "teenage" gets substituted for "rookie". New drivers of any age will make some stupid mistakes. It's just that the majority of rookie drivers are teenagers.

I agree, but I think Joe said the same thing originally, adding that it's not experience, but just plain maturity that comes into play.

Teens are not as mature as adults, in general. However, after commuting weekly from Gainesville to Atlanta for a year, I can say that at least on I-85 in Georgia, it's the adults who do the crazy driving. I've not once had a teen cut me off, tailgate, brake suddenly, or weave. I did have a 65-year-old man in a Lexus cross 3 lanes of traffic and cut me off on an exit ramp last week, though.

Joe thinks the risks of having teen drivers outweigh the benefits. I do not.

[ThomasDodd]

Joe thinks the risks of having teen drivers outweigh the benefits. I do not.

I think the worst teen driving occurs during rain (total inexperience) and during weekend nights (rebellious behavior).

As opposed to the 25-40 set that's at the bars on the weekends, trhen drive home after way too much partying?

And I seldom see more than 25% of driver with their light one in poor visibility conditions. the other 75% seam to think headlight are only to help them see, instead of helping others see them. And of course they are still exceeding the posted limits, never mind the poor traction a wet road provides. The only time the slow down is when the rain is heavy enough they cannot see, but the don't turn their lights one even then.

This is adult drivers more than teens.

[Doug@GT]

I think the worst teen driving occurs during rain (total inexperience) and during weekend nights (rebellious behavior).

Correct. I posted the statistics earlier on teen driving fatalities versus time of the week. Getting teens off the roads on nights and weekends would drop their percenatage of traffic fatalities to below their percentage of the driving population.

[Rick Denney]

As opposed to the 25-40 set that's at the bars on the weekends, trhen drive home after way too much partying?

I agree with applying limitations to teens...teens of all ages.

Of course, there are already laws on the books for adult repeat offenders, if paying $8000 a year for car insurance isn't punishment enough.

To wit: The first year of driving (any age) has to be trouble-free or the driver has to take driver training again, and can't drive until he passes the test again. That would provide a mighty deterrent to novice foolishness, even from those no longer in their teens. Trouble-free is defined as ZERO moving violations and ZERO chargeable accidents, plus no more than one non-chargeable (or non-investigated) accident. Remaining trouble-free would be a requirement even if the driver is accompanied by a responsible adult when the trouble occurs.

I don't like the use of the flashers or general speed limits for teens. I do like these proposals:

1.) Limit teens to a maximum of five miles from their home. If their school or work is farther away than that, then they have to get a special waiver that specifically identifies (on their license) what routes they are allowed to take. Yes, it's a bother. No, I don't care. I'd impose the same restrictions on adults that have too many points, but who still need a car to go to work.

2.) Any sign of trouble (not just LOTS of signs of trouble as in too many points) gets the license pulled until they are bona fide adults, or a year, whichever is longer. That's the same as for novice drivers above, but it extends the period until they are adults (my vote would be 21), not just a year.

3.) No urban freeways. The five-mile limit excludes freeways, and the routes allowed for greater distances to work and school excludes freeways. Gotta prove you can walk before you can run.

4.) No other teenagers in the car without adult supervision.

5.) A curfew of 8 PM, unless driving is related to school or work, for which verifiable documentation would be required, and which follows specific routes identified on the license.

6.) No alcohol or controlled substance in the car, period. No empties, no unopened six packs, no cup in the hands of the responsible adult.

7.) Any trouble (violation of the above, moving violations, accidents, etc.) result in the child either being picked up by parents or escorted home by the police. Parent contact at the time, with full explanation of the circumstances is a requirement, and must be documented with the signature of the parent. (I once chased down a kid who was hot-rodding around in my neighborhood and had smashed the side of a parked car. When the police came, they bought his story that the car was borrowed--he had no proof of ownership or license on hand--and the cop was satisfied when an insurance card, in another name, was produced. I have no idea if the victim ever collected. I was outraged. If I had smashed a car, attempted to flee, was driving a car not my own, and didn't have insurance in my name, I'd still be paying off attorney fees.)

8.) no probable cause required to stop a teenager and look things over through the windows.

All of the above restrictions would not apply (except for remaining trouble-free and no alcohol) if there is a responsible adult (i.e., someone who can be sued, like a parent, but unlike an older brother) providing supervision in the front passenger seat.

Rick "thinking this would accommodate responsible kids without giving enough rope to kill themselves with" Denney

[Doug@GT]

Rick, if I'm ever in public office, will you be on my staff? Or, if you ever run for public office, can I be on your campaign team?

Seriously, good suggestions. I had a couple of friends who'd be alive today if those rules had been in place and enforced. And I can't think of a single person who would have been inconvienienced by them, either.

[ThomasDodd]

Lastly, buying kids a $800 beater shows them that you expect them to total the car and shows that you are not comitted to allowing them to be a good driver. I'm glad my parents bought me and my sibling a $5000 Volvo-it shows that they trust us to be good, responsible drivers. They are not delusional.

Foey. Offe to help maybe, but that $800 beater is a good idea. Kids (in fact most people) value their own spending more. If Dad buy them a $2500 car they'll treat it the same as the $800 one. If they put $800 of their hard earned cash in to it, they'll treat it better than anything Dad could buy.

BTW-it's very easy to total an $800 car just because it wasn't worth much in the first place. A typical fender-bender could do one of those in.

Again, crap. I can show you old $800 cars that will survive better than a new $35,000 car. Not saying the ocupant will surviver better, but the car will. Fender bender might scratch the paint/chrome, instead of having to replace the bumper.

[Doug@GT]

Finally, to me, one of the biggest issues is that adults don't walk the talk. Tell the kids to drive the speed limit - then go on the freeway. Very few people do it. Tell them to use their directionals, pass on the left, etc etc etc. More than just a few people do whatever in the h--- they want. Our behaviour makes a mockery of the driving laws - so what do you think the kids think? This wasn't obvious to me until I started seeing things from the kids' point of view - not many lawful approaches to driving out there. So why wouldn't a teen assume that they could drive the same way? We certainly don't apply many consequences.

Mayb eif the authorities followed the rules, too. I was coming back up from atlanta last Friday when a local police officer tailgated me for 2 miles, then swerved around me without signaling, and cut right in front of me, again withoug signaling. He was gone right after that. I used mile markers and the elapsed time on my cd player to figure out that he was going around 95-100 mph compared to my 65. In a 65 zone. I got his car number.
Called the police station (this was around 5:45): "Hello, you've reached the Flowery Branch police department. We are closed for the weekend. If this is an emergency, hang up and dial 911. If not, we will be glad to take your call Monday morning."
I should have called back Monday, but I didn't. Next time I will.
Pathetic when a 19 year old is having to police the police.

[Leland]

**moving way out from the cities but still trying to squeeze their commutes into twenty minutes.

Agreed. My commute takes twenty minutes -- if I walk. I made sure to find a place within walking distance, and I'm about a mile and a half away. Driving, it takes about 7 minutes, and that's if the traffic is bad.

Better training, better role models, better general behavior, and stiffer penalties should apply to everyone on the roads. Nobody is exempt from stupidity. The days of getting a renewed driver's license in the mail need to end. Never mind whether such a recipient is competent or not, but that act lets everyone else know that a license is pretty much a joke. Might as well send in eight cereal box tops for a new one.

[TMurphy]

New Jersey has imposed interesting restrictions on Drivers under 18 (that is, at 17, because that's the driving age here.) 17 year old drivers are not allowed to drive at night (except in cases of emergency), and are not allowed to drive with more than one or two non-family members in the car. There are more specifics out there, but I don't have time to find them right now.

Myself? Got my license at 17. Didn't use it, because I didn't have a car, couldn't afford one, and didn't really need it. Now, I'm 21, and have recently purchased a car (for only $600, Joe), and have been driving a lot more (with my father, just to get more experience.) I feel much more confident and capable of safe driving now than I did at 17. I would have been a huge danger on the road then; I was too nervous all the time. Now I feel in control, and the added 4 years of life experience has made all the difference for me.

[TMurphy]

I've been thinking about this thread a little, and I'm reminded of something my father (a truck driver, like Wayne) always said. He has frequently said that people do their best driving when they first get their license. The reason for this, according to him, is that new drivers are not totally comfortable behind the wheel, and are typically very cautious. That is, until they get more comfortable. Once people get too comfortable behind the wheel, that is when they become dangerous. Things become automatic, you stop thinking, stop being as readily alert. Add to the mix not being very experienced, and that is when disaster happens.

I posted earlier about the restrictions in NJ...here is more info, from this site: http://www.nj.gov/mvc/cit_permits/d_gdl ... ionalchart

Provisional Non-photo Driver License – Special Conditions



May not drive from 12:01 a.m. to 5 a.m. except with a written waiver from employer or religious authority. Note: hour restrictions do not apply if provisional licensee is 21 or older.



Passengers limited to one person, plus any person sharing the same residence, unless the provisional licensee or a passenger is 21 or over.



Supervising driver not required.



Everyone in the vehicle must wear safety belts.



$100 fine for violations of any of the other conditions of provisional license.




IMPORTANT NOTE: All holders of a Provisional Driver License whose provisional licensing period is NOT extended by MVC beyond the standard 12 months MUST upgrade to a Basic Driver License after the end of those 12 months.


Motorists who are eligible for but who do NOT upgrade to a Basic Driver License at the end of those 12 months will remain subject to MVC’s Provisional Driver License regulations and could be cited by law enforcement for violating Provisional Driver License regulations.

Not quite strict enough, but a step in the right direction, I think.

Age and maturity are certainly a factor, and a 17 year old who is not mature enough and ready to handle driving should not do so (as was my case). A larger factor, though, is experience, experience is the only way to get better. Inexperienced drivers of any age can be a problem, if they don't take the responsibility seriously enough.

[TMurphy]

Better get an amendment for that, Joe, otherwise your whole idea doesn't fly, because of this:

Amendment XXVI


Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

I, personally, have always felt it foolish for a person to be legally able to do everything but drink alchohol at 18. Do voting, serving in the military, and smoking require less responsibility than drinking alchohol??? I don't think so. My personal inclination would be to lower the drinking age before raising anything else, but, that's just me.

[Doug@GT]

- 21 would be the voting age. (sorry Democrats and MTV )

Pfft.

Like TMurphy said, that'll take a new Constitutional Amendment. Ain't gonna happen.

[Doug@GT]

the human psyche in our post-modern culture is encouraged to remain child-like until around age 21.

But the 35% that have already grown up between 18 and 21 are the ones who vote. The immature in that age range take care of your rule for you: they don't vote. Your rule would only affect those of us who actually care.

[funkcicle]

I agree with Joe for the most part. I'm young, 23, and have never been in an accident. I credit this to my parents' strict caution and common sense.

I got my learners' permit when I was 16, when I turned 17 I was only allowed to renew it. For those 2 years I drove a lot, but only with my parents in the car. When I turned 18(still in high school, I'm a January baby) I was required to take drivers ed and then got my license.

While in high school I did not have my own car.. my parents loaned me their's whenever I needed it, which was rarely, or on the rare ocaission that they'd send me on errands. I'm in full agreement with Joe that there are virtually no circumstances under which somebody under the age of 18 needs a car.

When I graduated from high school my parents paid for two thirds of my first car as a graduation gift, a $1500 car that lasted me over 3 years and 30,000 miles with less than $300 in maintenance on it(I was also taught how to TAKE CARE of my vehicle). And there was an additional stipulation--if I wanted to be on my parents' insurance policy(saving hundreds of dollars a year vs. getting insurance on my own), I wasn't allowed to have a radio in my car.

I'm the only person in my peer group to never have been in an accident or gotten a speeding ticket. I credit this to the fact that I don't take driving for granted. It's a priviledge that I worked hard to earn, and a responsibility that took years of training to prepare for.

I plan on taking the exact same approach with my kids.

[Leland]

In general, the difficulty with most teen drivers is that they don't have the opportunity to spend enough time behind the wheel to become comfortable/proficient with the relatively complex sets of mechanical actions that need to become second nature if a driver is to be competent.

So many driver's ed courses are classroom instruction, and they don't help at all with management of vehicle behavior. That's very unfortunate.

I keep thinking that the only accidents that can't be prevented are hitting a deer or when a large branch falls onto the road (both are pretty rare, aren't they?). A punctured tire can cause an accident depending on the situation. Everything else, I'm convinced, is preventable in one way or another. "I lost control" really should be stated as, "I was driving like a freakin' moron."

[cjk]

A car needs to be referred to as a "3000 pound killing machine" rather than just "the car" or "transportation".


Furthermore, I'm amazed at the loss of perspective of pedestrians who don't look both ways and walk right out into the path of my "3000 pound killing machine" even in parking lots. Try screaming "pedestrians have the right of way" on the way to the morgue.

Maybe driver's ed training should include a field trip to the morgue.


Christian

[Leland]

Furthermore, I'm amazed at the loss of perspective of pedestrians who don't look both ways and walk right out into the path of my "3000 pound killing machine" even in parking lots. Try screaming "pedestrians have the right of way" on the way to the morgue.

I've known people who would practically just walk into traffic and expect to stay safe because they had the legal right of way. Somehow, they thought I was a jerk for telling them that not only do they create a hazard by getting in the way of moving traffic, but also that the drivers could easily be paying absolutely no attention to what they're about to hit.

Side note: People wonder why I look both ways when I'm crossing a one-way street (whether on foot or in a car). I say that if someone is coming the wrong way, then they really don't know what they're doing, so I'd better be extra careful.

[CJ Krause]

***

[Leland]

You are obviously in the other 5%, as you realize this and take the necessary steps for safety.

Thanks -- I try, anyway. I also would rather take my risks on the autocross course where the worst that would probably happen is that I'd kill a traffic cone (or ten!).