raising the driving age

[rh71]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/09/....html?iref=mpstoryview

I know the actual number is different from state to state right now but would this help or hurt in terms of safety vs. gaining experience earlier? I've always seen HS kids at 16/17 drive around recklessly if they have their peers in the cars. It's just more reason for them to take more risks. Would the jump to college-age as the earliest to get a license make a difference? Then again you have the issue of driving experience. Getting a later start could mean accidents just the same. But then they have a bit more maturity on their side... and probably more practice before the actual full license.

 

[TwiceOver]

I think 16 is reasonable, 17 is probably the "sweet spot". It is the 14 year olds around here that scare me with their driving.

 

[Turin39789]

need stricter testing and relicensing requirements.

 

[MedicBob]

Originally posted by: Turin39789
need stricter testing and relicensing requirements.

For all ages.

 

[ed21x]

16 is fine, but they should extend the permit age 2 years until 18 so teenagers won't be allowed to drive others, and officially get their license after HS.

 

[waggy]

i started driving at 14. but i couldnt drive without having a parent with me (mom couldnt drive for health reasons. but had to get to the doctor office). i drove a lot from 14-16 (when i got my full license) and i think it made me a better driver. i only got once ticket from 16-24 and i could have faught it and won. i was never in a wreck or drove reckless.


i think haveing them start younger but with a parent in the car would help.

 

[Sukhoi]

Originally posted by: MedicBob

Originally posted by: Turin39789
need stricter testing and relicensing requirements.

For all ages.

I wonder how many lives would be saved if people were taught how to maneuver their vehicle in emergency situations, not that very slowly rolling through a stop sign at an empty intersection is the most dangerous thing in the world.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: TwiceOver
I think 16 is reasonable, 17 is probably the "sweet spot". It is the 14 year olds around here that scare me with their driving.

You can drive at 14 in South Dakota?

 

[paulxcook]

Raising the driving age won't help anything. Most idiot drivers I see are not teenagers anyway. Old people, middle-aged people, men and women, there are inept drivers out there and the stupidity doesn't discriminate. As someone said the driving tests need to be more challenging for ALL ages.

 

[TwiceOver]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: TwiceOver
I think 16 is reasonable, 17 is probably the "sweet spot". It is the 14 year olds around here that scare me with their driving.

You can drive at 14 in South Dakota?

Yes, during daylight hours without any other occupant, during night with an adult with a valid driver's license.

 

[R Nilla]

Originally posted by: MedicBob

Originally posted by: Turin39789
need stricter testing and relicensing requirements.

For all ages.

:thumbsup:

I don't think age is an issue. The issue is that it's far too easy to obtain a license. There are plenty of folks, old, young, and in between that simply should not be on the road.

It seems like all you need is eyesight (and barely at that) and a pulse.

But with that said, I know I'd hate to have to go to the DOT/DMV to any greater extent than I already do.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: TwiceOver

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: TwiceOver
I think 16 is reasonable, 17 is probably the "sweet spot". It is the 14 year olds around here that scare me with their driving.

You can drive at 14 in South Dakota?

Yes, during daylight hours without any other occupant, during night with an adult with a valid driver's license.

Holy Shit. I would think there are some kids at age 14 that can't even see over the dashboard.

 

[spacejamz]

the biggest reason why the driving age should be raised is pure and simple: Cell phones

when I was 16, we didn't have that as a distraction while driving...

you have teenagers now who think they know everything, constantly talking/texting on their phones while driving...couple that with their feeling of invicibility (I know I had that when I was that age), and it is a recipe for trouble...banning teens from using cellphones while driving is a token gesture at best as most will keep doing it until they get caught...

 

[George P Burdell]

Drivers ed and driving license test are both lacking in quality.

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: R Nilla

Originally posted by: MedicBob

Originally posted by: Turin39789
need stricter testing and relicensing requirements.

For all ages.

:thumbsup:

I don't think age is an issue. The issue is that it's far too easy to obtain a license. There are plenty of folks, old, young, and in between that simply should not be on the road.

It seems like all you need is eyesight (and barely at that) and a pulse.

But with that said, I know I'd hate to have to go to the DOT/DMV to any greater extent than I already do.

Agreed. stricter testing for first timers getting their license, and regular strict retesting to renew your license.

 

[rh71]

Originally posted by: paulxcook
Raising the driving age won't help anything. Most idiot drivers I see are not teenagers anyway. Old people, middle-aged people, men and women, there are inept drivers out there and the stupidity doesn't discriminate. As someone said the driving tests need to be more challenging for ALL ages.

I don't think idiocy or retarded/bad drivers hold a candle to actual statistics...

More than 5,000 U.S. teens die each year in car crashes. The rate of crashes, fatal and nonfatal, per mile driven for 16-year-old drivers is almost 10 times the rate for drivers ages 30 to 59, according to the National Highway Safety Administration. Many industrialized countries in Europe and elsewhere have a driving age of 17 or 18.

 

[paulxcook]

Originally posted by: R Nilla

Originally posted by: MedicBob

Originally posted by: Turin39789
need stricter testing and relicensing requirements.

For all ages.

:thumbsup:

I don't think age is an issue. The issue is that it's far too easy to obtain a license. There are plenty of folks, old, young, and in between that simply should not be on the road.

It seems like all you need is eyesight (and barely at that) and a pulse.

But with that said, I know I'd hate to have to go to the DOT/DMV to any greater extent than I already do.

At the risk of sounding like a crotchety old bastard, I've been saying for years that there should be different levels of license that regular people can qualify for. Not like CDL, but kind of like the difference between a permit and a license, only expanded.

If you are a bad driver you would get a BD license, and you'd have to take tests regularly.

If you're a great driver you'd get a GD license and you'd get the kind of license that is handed out to everyone.

Etc, etc.

Accidents, speeding tickets, and the like would work to downgrade your license to the next lowest level. I think the motivation of not having to go to the BMV every 6 months or year or whatever would be enough to make people slow down, or get off the cell phone, or whatever they need to do to not be idiots.

 

[SneakyStuff]

Originally posted by: MedicBob

Originally posted by: Turin39789
need stricter testing and relicensing requirements.

For all ages.

This, and I originally wasn't very happy about it, but my state (MD) is considering a cell phone ban like DC. I think that would help with a lot of younger drivers on the road.

 

[Vehemence]

Should only be able to drive between the age of 25 and 28.

 

[rh71]

Originally posted by: SneakyStuff

Originally posted by: MedicBob

Originally posted by: Turin39789
need stricter testing and relicensing requirements.

For all ages.

This, and I originally wasn't very happy about it, but my state (MD) is considering a cell phone ban like DC. I think that would help with a lot of younger drivers on the road.

Most cellphone drivers I see are actually adults who seemingly don't give @ shit that there is a law. To be honest, I can't remember the last time I saw a young kid driving with a cellphone at his ear. *shrug*

 

[Q]

Originally posted by: dNor
Should only be able to drive between the age of 25 and 28.

Win

 

[paulxcook]

Originally posted by: rh71

Originally posted by: paulxcook
Raising the driving age won't help anything. Most idiot drivers I see are not teenagers anyway. Old people, middle-aged people, men and women, there are inept drivers out there and the stupidity doesn't discriminate. As someone said the driving tests need to be more challenging for ALL ages.

I don't think idiocy or retarded/bad drivers hold a candle to actual death statistics...

More than 5,000 U.S. teens die each year in car crashes. The rate of crashes, fatal and nonfatal, per mile driven for 16-year-old drivers is almost 10 times the rate for drivers ages 30 to 59, according to the National Highway Safety Administration. Many industrialized countries in Europe and elsewhere have a driving age of 17 or 18.

So then the question would be whether or not this has to do with them being younger, or them being new drivers. Is a 17 year old that much more likely to be responsible than a 16 or 15 year old? At what age would you see a significant difference? 18 won't work because you'll have parents and employers bitching about their kid/burger flipper can't get to work without mommy driving him. I think you'd see a real, measurable negative economic impact from that alone.

 

[rh71]

Originally posted by: paulxcook

Originally posted by: rh71

Originally posted by: paulxcook
Raising the driving age won't help anything. Most idiot drivers I see are not teenagers anyway. Old people, middle-aged people, men and women, there are inept drivers out there and the stupidity doesn't discriminate. As someone said the driving tests need to be more challenging for ALL ages.

I don't think idiocy or retarded/bad drivers hold a candle to actual death statistics...

More than 5,000 U.S. teens die each year in car crashes. The rate of crashes, fatal and nonfatal, per mile driven for 16-year-old drivers is almost 10 times the rate for drivers ages 30 to 59, according to the National Highway Safety Administration. Many industrialized countries in Europe and elsewhere have a driving age of 17 or 18.

So then the question would be whether or not this has to do with them being younger, or them being new drivers. Is a 17 year old that much more likely to be responsible than a 16 or 15 year old? At what age would you see a significant difference? 18 won't work because you'll have parents and employers bitching about their kid/burger flipper can't get to work without mommy driving him. I think you'd see a real, measurable negative economic impact from that alone.

It's most likely risk & inexperience which you can't tie to a specific age but it doesn't hurt to have them "practice" for longer, which inherently means an older age. I don't equate retarded/bad drivers with inexperienced ones. People can be terrible drivers all through their life despite driving every day. Apparently these bad drivers (usually slow) are just a menace on the roads but don't necessarily cause accidents like those of a risk-taker who over-corrects due to inexperience.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: rh71

Originally posted by: paulxcook

Originally posted by: rh71

Originally posted by: paulxcook
Raising the driving age won't help anything. Most idiot drivers I see are not teenagers anyway. Old people, middle-aged people, men and women, there are inept drivers out there and the stupidity doesn't discriminate. As someone said the driving tests need to be more challenging for ALL ages.

I don't think idiocy or retarded/bad drivers hold a candle to actual death statistics...

More than 5,000 U.S. teens die each year in car crashes. The rate of crashes, fatal and nonfatal, per mile driven for 16-year-old drivers is almost 10 times the rate for drivers ages 30 to 59, according to the National Highway Safety Administration. Many industrialized countries in Europe and elsewhere have a driving age of 17 or 18.

So then the question would be whether or not this has to do with them being younger, or them being new drivers. Is a 17 year old that much more likely to be responsible than a 16 or 15 year old? At what age would you see a significant difference? 18 won't work because you'll have parents and employers bitching about their kid/burger flipper can't get to work without mommy driving him. I think you'd see a real, measurable negative economic impact from that alone.

It's most likely risk & inexperience which you can't tie to a specific age but it doesn't hurt to have them "practice" for longer, which inherently means an older age. I don't equate retarded/bad drivers with inexperienced ones. People can be terrible drivers all through their life despite driving every day. Apparently these bad drivers are just a menace on the roads but don't necessarily cause accidents like those of a risk-taker who over-corrects due to inexperience.

They can cause the accident but not be involved directly themselves, and then it won't show up on any statistics.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: SneakyStuff

Originally posted by: MedicBob

Originally posted by: Turin39789
need stricter testing and relicensing requirements.

For all ages.

This, and I originally wasn't very happy about it, but my state (MD) is considering a cell phone ban like DC. I think that would help with a lot of younger drivers on the road.

that and limiting the number of other kids in the car. you get 4 boys in a car and they tend to show off and push the limits.

i think kids need a Drivers ED course, getting the licence should be far harder then it is today (and so should keeping it)