New Driving age????

[Lohman446]

My suggestion? Let kids go to and pass 2 years of drivers ed, pass a tougher driving test, and get a license when they turn 18. If the government can't trust someone to operate a deli slicer until they're 18, what makes them think someone can safely operate a vehicle when they're 16?

I had considered that as well, stronger training is obviously one step. The problem I see in allowing freedom at 18...

[story] When I was 18 I decided I wanted a Corvette, my parents supported me in it, I had a good job and the money to do it. So I bought one. This car was well used, and I never did crunch it or get a ticket in it. I did, however, manage to make a 1200 mile trip in about 18 hours, and that includes stopping for meals at restaurants. That was the normal use of this car. It was reckless and dangerous, I know that now. The point is, most teenagers I know exhibit some degree of narcisism - and I was the "model" student, near perfect grades, no partying, no driving tickets, worked, etc. It was dangerous enough, how much more dangerous would it have been if I had had less experience? [/story]

The concern I have, is at 16 your parents have a distinct say over the vehicle you "learn" to drive in. Granted some teenagers get "hot" cars but not the majority. What would teenagers, able to get a loan at 18, buy for there first car? Would it be a reasonable car? Some would be, but many would not be and I don't want people with minimal experience getting that experience in cars with tremendous performance, and the generally unforgiving suspension systems that come with them.

I support graduated licensing, and think that we have made good steps towards a safer way of learning to drive. I think moving to 18 to get a liscense would not help solve the problems they are trying to - it may delay them for two years.

[Lohman446]

I think cutting 16 year olds out of the picture, and putting permit restrictions on 17 year olds, will help the problem immensely. 18 year old may not be perfect drivers, but they do a better job than 16 year olds.

This is where we disagree. Let me skip your graduated system - permit to liscense for a moment. Well statisitcally 18 year olds have less accidents than 16 year olds I would attribute that not to the age difference but the difference in driving experience. The study here does not support that 18 year olds will be appreciably less risk prone based on brain development. I think it is a misconsideration of statistics to say 18 year olds are better drivers (less accidents / tickets) soley because of there age. I think there are other variables there that have much more effect. I assert that it is the driving experience that plays a major factor in the statistics that show they are safer. For those that do not get licenses to 18 I assert there "safer" behaviour is based on a more responsible parenting model that has taught them better thoughout life and has taught them to judge there own maturity better and as a whole, exhibit less risky behavior.

Edit: Or I could say I don't care. I assert that this change (without others) would be at best minimally effective, and at worse may worsen the problem. Then again, it doesn't directly affect me.. maybe I shouldn't care.

[SlartyBartFast]

Parents have a legal and moral obligation to have control of there children (under 18 for this argument) using something that has the potential to easily kill. If they do not have this control then they need to seek assistance.

If I allow my child to use a gun and he kills someone with it, I am clearly in the wrong.

Why are cars different?

Well, by your own logic then, anyone under the age of 18 shouldn't be allowed without a parent or guardian in the car.

[SlartyBartFast]

You can't restrict licenses past 18 though, because at 18 you are an adult.

Not true. You can still put restrictions on adults. That's what the law is all about.

[Lohman446]

Well, by your own logic then, anyone under the age of 18 shouldn't be allowed without a parent or guardian in the car.

The statement could be taken to mean that, I assure you the logic behind it does not support that. The word reasonable in there may have made it clearer. What I meant was this - if your child represents a danger by driving that a reasonable person should have be aware of, you have a moral a legal responsibility at that point that you must act on. Things are going to happen, tragedies that are not the parents fault, but these 16 year old kids with reckless driving habits, a lack of maturity, or an attitude that make them dangerous should not be driving, and it should be the parents who assure that they are not - within reason.

[ascetic1]

Lohman446-
However, I think we are not using good research of what would happen. Simply moving the driving age to 18, will, in my mind, only delay the problems 16 year old drivers have until they are 18. I would rather have those problems at 16, when in theory, the parents should have some oversight. As stated above they have a legal and moral obligation to have some control over there 16 year old, however unfair the teenager thinks it is.

Here is something that I disagree with. First of all, not to put you down or make you feel bad or anything, but how old are you? For example, you take a sophmore in Highschool, roughly around 15-16 years old, and give them a car. Then take an 18 year old with 2 years driving experience and give them a car, who is more likely to be a responsible and considerate driver? OR even better, just compare the attitudes and behavior of the two... My logic tells me that an 18 year old would be. Now even though I havent looked into the studies regarding the brain development, here is one thing I have seen, states are now implimenting the required age for the death penalty to be 18, instead of 16 in some states. They say this is because of the same deal, brain development, stating children dont know what they are doing at that age.(personally, i would disagree with that, because if any "child", at 16, had stabbed to death his mother, or shot his bus driver in the head because he was caught smoking pot in the back of the bus definately knows what the hell he is doing with that weapon, and has the intention to kill with it, and yes these are true stories seen on the news) In addition to that, with the "hot" cars, many parents do buy their children expensive cars for their first time, at least from what i have seen at my highschool...Honda Tiburon worth about 30k, a hummer 2 worth 48k, BMW worth at least 50k...and then there are the kids who borrow their parents cars, but for the most part they own them...Tell me any kid with a hummer wont use it recklessly, or go off-roading or what not...Kids do doughnuts and burnouts in the lot daily, for what reason i dont know, just to show off their ride i guess but its sheer ignorance reflected in their actions..The GDL (graduated drivers license) program is very efffective, because it gives drivers a chance to learn before they single-handedly drive on the roads. There should be sticter, more rigerous testing, because I have taken them already and anyone could do it! Its that simple...someone can be given a 2500lb piece of metal and hurl it down the road at 50+ mph...if the age is heightened, it would lessen the stupidity of drivers under the age of 18, becuase of more supervision and training, with the parent to watch over and guide their actions... and for whomever asked, i live in ocean county, nj....

[Lohman446]

Here is something that I disagree with. First of all, not to put you down or make you feel bad or anything, but how old are you? For example, you take a sophmore in Highschool, roughly around 15-16 years old, and give them a car. Then take an 18 year old with 2 years driving experience and give them a car, who is more likely to be a responsible and considerate driver? OR even better, just compare the attitudes and behavior of the two... My logic tells me that an 18 year old would be.

Ahh.. but you have hit on part of what is the base of my argument not to just arbitrarly move it. Ok.. you used to get your liscense at 16, now its 18. Your conclusion is valid (I think), however, it does not prove that the 18 year old, because of age, is a better driver. I would assert it was experience that made him a better driver and the age was not a major contributing factor. So there is a flaw in reasoning, in my mind. And I dont take discussion as anything more than that, an intellectual exercise.

I'm 26, I'd like to be able to attribute some of my boneheaded life choices to brain development, rather than just stupidity

[SlartyBartFast]

if your child represents a danger by driving that a reasonable person should have be aware of, you have a moral a legal responsibility at that point that you must act on.

And how the :cuss: are you going to know if your child is a danger? If everytime they drive the family they're polite, well mannered and never break the speed limit, does that guarantee they'll drive the same once thheir IQ is decimated by teenage groupthink when they're driving 5 friends around in their clapped-out subcompact?

[txaggie08]

i say, forget the whole age limit crap(no even going to go into that discussion). Lets have competency tests to get liscenses. there goes half the drivers on the road today..........

[Lohman446]

And how the :cuss: are you going to know if your child is a danger? If everytime they drive the family they're polite, well mannered and never break the speed limit, does that guarantee they'll drive the same once thheir IQ is decimated by teenage groupthink when they're driving 5 friends around in their clapped-out subcompact?

if your child represents a danger by driving that a reasonable person should be aware of, you have a moral a legal responsibility at that point that you must act on

Your right.. there are times when you cannot foresee it, but most legal standards have a reasonable person provision, and I would include it in my comment. If you have no reasonable reason to suspect dangerous behavior than you cannot be expected to stop it, morally for certain, and most likely legally (I have to leave an out legally - the law, especially civil law, sucks and is good at assigning blame).

[Southpaw]

The new insights into the teen brain might help explain why efforts to protect young drivers, ranging from driver education to laws that restrict teen driving, have had only modest success. With the judgment center of the teen brain not fully developed, parents and states must struggle to instill decision-making skills in still-immature drivers.

If this is true is this meet your standards? It may not be the lack of experiance but the inability to make rational decisions!

[Lohman446]

If this is true is this meet your standards? It may not be the lack of experiance but the inability to make rational decisions!

No....

You probably want a reason. I beleive that the standard of reasonable care needs applied by a case to case basis by the parents. I am wary of any government intrusion into the freedoms and responsibilities we now have. I don't mean to make this political, but I just ned to state that to start with. If we were basing it off this study we would restrict driving until that brain was (normally) fully developed - say 25. But how do we do that. If we admit that driving needs to wait until 25 then so do other things. Contractual financial obligations (credit), military service, and many other things. You get the idea on this... we can't use this as justificaton for one thing and then ignore it for others.

[maxama10]

What about infastructure? Are our roads meant for such a mass of drivers? Do we need to perhaps expand more? what do you all think?

edit: also Lohman446 i completely agree with your last post.

[Timmee]

And how the :cuss: are you going to know if your child is a danger? If everytime they drive the family they're polite, well mannered and never break the speed limit, does that guarantee they'll drive the same once thheir IQ is decimated by teenage groupthink when they're driving 5 friends around in their clapped-out subcompact?

I believe that the parents have a responsibility to make sure their son/daughter is mature enough to handle the responsibility of driving. My parents thought that I wasn't mature enough to drive at 16, so they made me wait. Were they right? I don't know.

I believe that making new drivers (not just kids) go through more than a few months of drivers ed would help gain them the experience necessary, as well as teach them what can/will happen if they take a cavalier attitude towards driving (my suggestion is 2 years of drivers ed). Maybe during that time, they may drive outside of drivers ed, but only with their parent/guardian with them (nobody else).

[Hairball]

I'm of the opinion that we just make the license tests actually challenging and something that WILL filter people out of getting a license. This way, young people and old people alike who suck at driving won't be a danger.