New Driving age????

[Lohman446]

wrong. NEW drivers are inexperienced, not young ones. and not all young drivers are reckless, you are generalizing again. i know some new, teenage drivers that are reckless and some that are cautious and courteous. and there certainly are older drivers that are reckless. and hopefully, young drivers will have enough time to practice to NOT stink at driving by the time they get their liscences. thats what permits are for.

This is the exact argument for not raising it to 18. There is an argument about impulse control and brain development if you were discussing raising into the mid twenties. But if you are going to do that we need to reconsider drinking, smoking, credit, military enlistment, voting, jury service.... etc. The argument for impulse control must be made to a higher age, and must include other things - I beleive experience best earned well the parents, in theory, are more in control.

[ascetic1]

Ok Slade, where the hell do you get off at trying to make me feel like a **** by retorting on everything i say???? i never made any personal argument against you, and i certainly am not criticizing what you have said..

Yes, YOUNG drivers....you can be 16 with a permit/license in some states. They are young, and some new to driving depending on the states rules, and until you show me these so called statistics on 18 year old drivers being just as bad a driver as any 16 year old, i will continue to disagree with that statement. Young, stupid kids getting behind the wheel are causing these accidents, because of their inexperience, and the way they handle themselves on the road with complete disregard for being curtious...and how can i be generalizing when i make a well educated opinion on from what i have seen first hand?? teens peeling out in parking lots, racing their friends no matter what kind of car they have, and just plain egotism... and yes, unfortunately, the other drivers on the road get punished for these "some" that are reckless..life sucks, get over it

[slade]

Ok Slade, where the hell do you get off at trying to make me feel like a **** by retorting on everything i say???? i never made any personal argument against you, and i certainly am not criticizing what you have said..

i saw someone make a statement generalizing all young drivers as bad drivers, and saying we should get them off the road, so i posted against that. you posted saying he was right, so i posted in an attempt to show you that what he said was not true, it is a GENERALIZATION. all i am trying to do is back up my point of view, i never attacked you personally, and i apologize if it came across that way.

Yes, YOUNG drivers....you can be 16 with a permit/license in some states. They are young, and some new to driving depending on the states rules, and until you show me these so called statistics on 18 year old drivers being just as bad a driver as any 16 year old, i will continue to disagree with that statement. Young, stupid kids getting behind the wheel are causing these accidents, because of their inexperience, and the way they handle themselves on the road with complete disregard for being curtious...and how can i be generalizing when i make a well educated opinion on from what i have seen first hand?? teens peeling out in parking lots, racing their friends no matter what kind of car they have, and just plain egotism... and yes, unfortunately, the other drivers on the road get punished for these "some" that are reckless..life sucks, get over it

i do not have the statistics, but i do have a certificate in my hand now saying i have spent 30 hours in a drivers ed class, during which the instructyor has said repeatedly that the driving age has been raised from 16 to 18 and even higher with no significant change in the ammount of crashes. what matters is a drivers experience, not age. and again, you ARE generalizing. you are implying that all kids are young and stupid and cause accidents, or at least thats the way it comes off. especially that origional post that i replied to. and also you mention teens racing (i fail to see how peeing is related to this at all) stuff like that does happen, but i can also mention my friend who i have driven with twice who is a very safe and courteous driver, or my sister, who is also a safe driver. you are focusing entirely on the negatives of a few (a very small minority) and completely passing over the positives. trust me, there are bad adult drivers as well as good ones. it is true that more inexperienced drivers are generally more likely to get into accidents, but it is NOT true that all young drivers are reckless. and i find it funny about how you complain about me trying to "make you feel like a ****" when im trying to defend my point of view, and then you say "life sucks, get over it."

[Lohman446]

Ok Slade, where the hell do you get off at trying to make me feel like a **** by retorting on everything i say???? i never made any personal argument against you, and i certainly am not criticizing what you have said..

Yes, YOUNG drivers....you can be 16 with a permit/license in some states. They are young, and some new to driving depending on the states rules, and until you show me these so called statistics on 18 year old drivers being just as bad a driver as any 16 year old, i will continue to disagree with that statement. Young, stupid kids getting behind the wheel are causing these accidents, because of their inexperience, and the way they handle themselves on the road with complete disregard for being curtious...and how can i be generalizing when i make a well educated opinion on from what i have seen first hand?? teens peeling out in parking lots, racing their friends no matter what kind of car they have, and just plain egotism... and yes, unfortunately, the other drivers on the road get punished for these "some" that are reckless..life sucks, get over it

The bold part - raising the driving age to 18, judging by the study on impulse control, is likely why changing the driving age from 16 to 18 is going to have minimal effect

[ascetic1]

Since i have not made any attack against what you have said slade, there is no reason to be up on the defensive

i do not have the statistics, but i do have a certificate in my hand now saying i have spent 30 hours in a drivers ed class, during which the instructyor has said repeatedly that the driving age has been raised from 16 to 18 and even higher with no significant change in the ammount of crashes. what matters is a drivers experience, not age.

Based upon what you have said in the past, you probably have not read the article included within this thread.

"Already, on average, two people die every day across the USA in vehicles driven by 16-year-old drivers. One in five 16-year-olds will have a reportable car crash within the first year."

"Sixteen-year-old drivers are involved in fatal crashes at a rate nearly five times the rate of drivers 20 or older"

"Most states have focused their fixes on giving teens more driving experience before granting them unrestricted licenses. But the new brain research suggests that a separate factor is just as crucial: maturity. A new 17- or 18-year-old driver is considered safer than a new 16-year-old driver."

These are just some of the facts found out through researchers, and if it isnt age that is being discussed in this thread, then why are we even talking??

[Lohman446]

Since i have not made any attack against what you have said slade, there is no reason to be up on the defensive



Based upon what you have said in the past, you probably have not read the article included within this thread.

"Already, on average, two people die every day across the USA in vehicles driven by 16-year-old drivers. One in five 16-year-olds will have a reportable car crash within the first year."

"Sixteen-year-old drivers are involved in fatal crashes at a rate nearly five times the rate of drivers 20 or older"

"Most states have focused their fixes on giving teens more driving experience before granting them unrestricted licenses. But the new brain research suggests that a separate factor is just as crucial: maturity. A new 17- or 18-year-old driver is considered safer than a new 16-year-old driver."

These are just some of the facts found out through researchers, and if it isnt age that is being discussed in this thread, then why are we even talking??

I bolded what I think is the reason for success in the "waiting" until a later age to give licenses. Its not the age that is the contributing factor. I agree with the fact that 18 yr olds are less likely to be in accidents than 16yr olds - its a provable fact. I disagree with the why. Simpy raising the driving age, without doing something about experience, will not solve the problems. I agree with your statistics, but I do not beleive the conclusion you base on them is accurate - it misses the big variable besides age - experience.

[ascetic1]

Lack of experience, is why i agree with raising the age limit, in order that teens GAIN experience..

[Lohman446]

Lack of experience, is why i agree with raising the age limit, in order that teens GAIN experience..

Let me ask you this, wouldn't you gain experience by starting training at 14? The basis of that article for raising the age was brain development - based solely on age and not experience. Thats why I think its made an error in its argument.

[ascetic1]

Well, i would have to disagree with you on the point of giving a 14 year old any use to a car, because they are immature due to their age, and they have no prior experience...These two points are the basis of my opinions, and i have made that clear in my prior posts.

[SlartyBartFast]

i do not have the statistics, but i do have a certificate in my hand now saying i have spent 30 hours in a drivers ed class, during which the instructyor has said repeatedly that the driving age has been raised from 16 to 18 and even higher with no significant change in the ammount of crashes. what matters is a drivers experience, not age.

And how many paintball airsmiths will tell you over and over that closed bolt is more accurate?

Without statistics, opinion is worthless.

I haven't seen anyone say all young drivers are bad. Just that statistically they are.

Statistics according to the quoted article also hold that it is not just level of experience that affects probability of fatal accidents but that age plays an important role.

[SlartyBartFast]

Let me ask you this, wouldn't you gain experience by starting training at 14?

Perhaps, but training without practice is pointless. How do they get the practice? Any restricted liscence that doesn't let you get out and do serious driving on your own is worthless.

Then, you get into the maturity and brain development part. You can't legislate maturity and you can't test for it or enforce it. So, you have to raise the bar high enough till the risk to society is acceptable.

[Lohman446]

I could post a pretty good argument I think that 14 year olds listen more to adults than sixteen year olds, at least from what I remember and thus training a 14 year old would be more effective.

My point is, for those of you falling back to the argument of "the 18 year old is more experienced" you're not advocating only raising the age you are advocating a better education system. I would argue that the success seen from such things is not due to age but do to that education and more experience.

The research on impulse control, while interesting, does not present (in and amongst itself) a conclusive argument to support raising the driving age.

I would point out that you are advocating more experience - more training - and more education more than just raising the driving age. Which, if we are going to discuss more training perhaps there are more effective ways than just raising the age that may not be as "restrictive" to those who want/need to drive at 16 because of family issues.

[SlartyBartFast]

I would point out that you are advocating more experience - more training - and more education more than just raising the driving age. Which, if we are going to discuss more training perhaps there are more effective ways than just raising the age that may not be as "restrictive" to those who want/need to drive at 16 because of family issues.

I for one am advocating both.

The money and effort required to enforce training, standards, and restrictions on younger drivers is likely to be far to high to justify.

[slade]

Since i have not made any attack against what you have said slade, there is no reason to be up on the defensive

Based upon what you have said in the past, you probably have not read the article included within this thread.

"Already, on average, two people die every day across the USA in vehicles driven by 16-year-old drivers. One in five 16-year-olds will have a reportable car crash within the first year."

"Sixteen-year-old drivers are involved in fatal crashes at a rate nearly five times the rate of drivers 20 or older"

"Most states have focused their fixes on giving teens more driving experience before granting them unrestricted licenses. But the new brain research suggests that a separate factor is just as crucial: maturity. A new 17- or 18-year-old driver is considered safer than a new 16-year-old driver."

These are just some of the facts found out through researchers, and if it isnt age that is being discussed in this thread, then why are we even talking??

you said you wont beleive what i say "until you show you me these so called statistics", and then you try to say you have not made an attack against what i have said?! you are questioning the creditability of what i have said, and i responded to say that what i heard DID come from a creditable source, a trained driving instructor, not some hobo in an alley.

and the first two of those quotes completely supports my argument. the driving age is 15.5 - 16.5 in 49 of the 50 states. that means that 16 year olds are probably at least 90% of all the newly liscenced drivers on the road, and therefore are more susceptible to getting into crashes than older (and thus more experienced) drivers. and as for the last quote, considering what i have heard from my drivers ed teacher, the extra 1-2 years of waiting before getting a liscence does not significantly effect the chances of crashing.

Lack of experience, is why i agree with raising the age limit, in order that teens GAIN experience...

umm... what? stop posting before you hurt yourself. driving experience has nothing WHATSOEVER to do with the driving age. a 40 year old that has just started driving will have the same experience as a 14 year old that has just started driving...

Well, i would have to disagree with you on the point of giving a 14 year old any use to a car, because they are immature due to their age, and they have no prior experience...These two points are the basis of my opinions, and i have made that clear in my prior posts.

umm, dude, you just missed the entire basis of lohman's argument...

And how many paintball airsmiths will tell you over and over that closed bolt is more accurate?

Without statistics, opinion is worthless.

I haven't seen anyone say all young drivers are bad. Just that statistically they are.

Statistics according to the quoted article also hold that it is not just level of experience that affects probability of fatal accidents but that age plays an important role.

i guess i forgot to mention that my drivers ed teacher is not stating opinion, what he is saying comes from statistics that he has seen of countries or states that have raised the driving age to 18, with no significant change in the change in the chance of a driver crashing. one country analized when/how the crashes occured, found out they were usually night or while there were friends in the car, lowered the driving age to 16, but imposed operator restrictions for 16-17/18 year olds, not allowing them to drive at night or with friends, and that greatly reduced the crash rate. other areas (including my state) have done the same. i have never seen the exact statistics, but my drivers ed teacher has. he just didnt give them to us.

and the guy who said "we need to get those young punks off the road" certainly implied that all young drivers are bad.

[ascetic1]

yes of course i am questioning the credibility of your argument, becuase what you base it off is just hearsay...unless you have hard,concrete, written evidence that has been proven, your words are meaningless..

why dont we just hand out permits to anyone willing to learn, regardless of age? sound good slade? it will give them the "experience" they need, and will disprove the idea that age has something to do with being a good driver

come back when you learn something, then feel free to share it with the rest of us ok?