18, not 16, to drive!

[fiznat]

oh christ. look at what this thread has degraded to. hahaha well I'm all for it! hot foreign girls are the best! its like a rare treat cause you know, I get so many good looking american girls that sometimes I just need a break so I go foreign...

.............

[Bubba1]

maybe someone said this already, but i didnt read the whole thread, so ill say it again, whats the difference between a 16 year old with no driving experience and an 18 year old with no driving experience?

there are both bad drivers that need the experience of actually driving before they become better

so, who here are one of the people that magically became responsible once the reached the age of 18?

i know it sure wasnt me.

The difference is two years of maturing. But for teenaged boys with the "need for speed", or the ones that announce to the world they're good drivers without little or no real street driving experience, or have already accumulated multiple tickets, then you're right, the two years won't mean much. That driver is bad risk regardless of age. Since it's a fact that 16 yr old boys are the single highest demographic for accidents, raising the driving age is a logical and smart decision. Of course there are several 16yr olds that are safer drivers than older ones. That's not the point. If 16 yr olds as a group do not start driving a little more responsibly, don't be surprised when the minimum age goes up.

[Turb0wned]

its not somuch the age is how much your parents put into going driving with you while you have your restricted gain more experience

[skydragoness]

anyone out there who is more mature than these two whirlwinds of brainpower feel free to speak up.

i would've hated it too. but my parents would've loved it. and they would've been in the right.

i totally agree with you stutt944, 18 yrs old is young enough an age. most states do have graduated licenses with restrictions that start off at 16, but you can't get a 'real' license till 18.

and the whole: 'if you were 15/16, you wouldn't like it' is a load of crap. quit crying. i didn't get a car till i *graduated* highschool, for commuting to college and work. i worked at a shopping center that was a mile away and walked to work during good weather, or i'd get a ride from my mom. you don't truly *need* a car till your out of highschool--IMO. besides, you can spend all that extra time that one gets in highschool working to save up for a *nice* car. (which is what i'm telling my 14yr old brother to do)

proper education of new drivers should extend more than the BS few weeks they have it at now. when i learned to drive, they took me out on the road, in one to 1/2 an hour sessions, for 3-4 days. then i got a permit. even then i thought that it was too easy.

potential motorcycle owners go through more tests/education/red tape than regular motorists.

autocrossing and professional driving instructors should be part of driver's education (let's see how many pass then!) it's not just about the basic rules of traffic, it's car control too. at least that way, we'd be putting people who are capable on the roads and not complete morons.

[lessthanjakejohn]

Nah, I'd have to say its more about looking, and thinking then it is about car control. Of course its nice to say, "look at me, I can autocross so im a better driver" but that is bs... the person who pays attention and isn't lazy (checks blind spots) but drives carefully and takes turns slowly will be better off.

[Mr1der]

yup, the same idiots out there now would then try to apply autocross driving (hitting corners as fast as you can, and all the other good stuff) to daily driving and that just makes for dangerous roads. I don't really think the two years is gonna make a difference, we should take all 75+ people off the road too if we take 16 and 17 year olds off

[lessthanjakejohn]

In solo racing (autocross), you are always looking ahead, in actual driving you have to be looking everywhere (like NASCAR or F1)

[whiterps13]

i have 15 days until i turn 16, and i wouldnt want 2 years on top of that. i do understand the need for something, after hitting a tree at 55mph with a reckless 16 year old. however, i believe that laws will not solve the problem. every new driver should go through an extensive car control class folowd by a rigurous test, to prove if they can really adapt to real life conditions. skip barber for everyone ;]

[lessthanjakejohn]

That is a waste of time and money. Most people will drive well on streets if they think they have to

It comes down to maturity, caring, and experience. Lack of ability to turn the steering wheel does not cause accidents, not paying attention and just going fast cause you can does. Putting people through a program where they have to learn to control their car at high speeds and difficult situations will only make them think they are a better driver than they are.

Raising the age would fix that. But at what cost? That is what is debatable.

[Rex]

I agree that raising the age alone would not fix things.

I agree that instituting a cut off at the top would also help, but that's age-ism. Oops, I mean it's age-ism against people with the right to vote.

But the biggest difference maker would be "logged/tracked" hours of supervised driving, that included feedback. Whether it be by parents, guardians or mentors. Someone needs to be in tha car with the new driver and provide feedback and instructions. I'm sure for most 15 to 17 yr olds, it would just seem like parents riding for something else.

Lets keep in mind I think everyone here is in agreement the goal would be SAFETY on the streets.

[C-Kwik]

I didn't read every post, but I'll throw a couple pennies in here. Laws to vary from state to state and I'll only comment about what I see here in Cali. Here, we have a permit program which is way too easy to get. Then you have to drive with a licensed driver 25 and over(if you are under 18 with a permit) for a certain amount of time. I think the minimum is 30 days. This is part of the problem. How much time does a kid spend behind the wheel with a parent while in high school? Hell, how much time does a kid spend with a parent in high school period? If it were up to me, I'd make it a minimum of a year with a permit before you can test for a license. And the driving test would become much harder. Testing should show that drivers are competent in all aspects of driving. Not just if they can use a turn signal, stop at a top sign or red light, make a three point turn or parallel park. By the time someone even tests for a license they should be very competent other wise we shouldn't give them a license.

I've spent almost the last 6 years working on auto claims. The most frequent cause of accidents is not breaking laws. Driving faster than the speed limit does not cause accidents; driving too fast for conditions does. Running a stop sign doesn't cause accidents; failing to yield the right of way does. I find that most accidents occur when one person doesn't notice the other. And in many cases both do not notice the other. Being aware and looking for all potential hazards is the best way to avoid an accident. The car that hit you that you didn't see will usually come from where you did not look.

As far as parents, I would strongly agree here, but part of the problem is that the parents aren't necessarily good drivers either. But I will say that parents should be the first to recognize when a driver is not competent take the keys away and correct the problem before giving keys back to them. I kept many tickets I got as a kid secret and when I got so many that my license was suspended and my car impounded(got caught driving with a suspended license), my mom ended up impounding my car after I got it out of the city lot. Taking a bus to work at 19 years old is an embarrassing way to learn that driving is a priveledge. But I see way too many parents just pay for more expensive insurance to continue to let their kids drive. I was forced to pay my own to continue driving. That changes things quickly as well.

[TurboKA37]

just thought i should add this: yesterday night was my first night of driver's ed. and everyone was outside the school a t the end of class waiting for rides when i witness a brand new escalade pull up and the father gets in the passanger's seat and lets the sophmore kid drive. as they pull out of the school the kid just floors it infront of the school. must have been doing about 60 in the 45 then slams on the brakes to compensate for the up coming turn. i was amazed that hes dad allowed that type of stuff. im sure he had just gotten his permit to cause u have to be a 16 to get ur permit and he is a sophmore. if i were his dad i think i might just shoot his legs off with a shotgun to make sure he never does it again.

[TurboKA37]

^ wow thats some pretty poor typing. i just finished an essay and dont feel like typing much

[lessthanjakejohn]

nice post c-kwik

before I got my license I had driven close to 250 hours, Every day that I could for 20 minutes to an hour. During the summer of that year I drove from Dallas to Amarillo on the way to Colorado. And then to Austin 3 times. I just fear that some day I may get lazy, not check both directions before pulling out of a parking space or not check my blind spot when changing lanes. Hope that never happens.

In Texas you must have a permit for 6 months....I had mine for a year.

[Mr1der]

same in TN

had mine a year too, I was all excited to drive as soon as I could

on a side note I didn't have an accident until I was 18, not that I wasn't reckless before then

mind you reckless not careless

[skydragoness]

In solo racing (autocross), you are always looking ahead, in actual driving you have to be looking everywhere (like NASCAR or F1)

i should've been more specific. i wasn't implying that we enter new drivers into sanctioned autocross events. i meant that driving instructors should teach new drivers *basic* car handling and avoidance/maneuvering SKILLS. (motorcyclists have to take these kind of tests but not regular motorists) this is what autocrossing teaches: car control. and so far as people who learn in this method being a menace on the road? bah! there already ARE people who drive on public roads like they're in a race, drafting/weaving, etc. if anything. at least some of the aforementioned training will help them avoid another car. and teach them to think while driving. this would also would be in conjunction with classroom time. and with driving instructors who do just that: instruct drivers. public-school driving programs are simply not good enough, they use teachers who briefly go over everything, with the point of getting people out of their fast. private driving schools are more substantial, and offer more seat time.

[stutt944]

here in GA (which is not where i was driver-certified, thank god) they require you have your permit for a minimum of 365 days. the permit can only be had once you turn 15 years of age.

in IL where i was raised, the drivers ed program was a semester of your soph. year in high school. the first 9 weeks of the semester were classroom teachings. weak. the second nine weeks were spent behind the wheel. this mandatory in-school driver education is just a small step towards what they should be teaching students. here in GA, you are not taught while in school, you are not required X-hours of drive time, you just gotta show up 12 mos after getting your permit and pass the lame parking-lot driving test at the DMV. they even let you fail parts of it, so long as you get a 95% or better. pretty weak.

[MrFox]

You can get a pilots licence at 17.

Eliminating the 16-18yr drivers would be taking the easy way out. There will always be a demographic which has the highest accident rate. What's next? No more licence for 25 and under males? (Thought I was going to say women drivers didn't you?)

Driver education, testing, and regulation needs to be improved across the board, not just for this particular group. Bad drivers come in all sizes and ages. There should not be a double standard, we are all allowed to drive the same cars on the same roads under the current system.

Here comes the controversial part of my post...

I advocate the introduction of various "endorsements", in addition to the basic license, which a applicant must qualify for in order to operate specific types of vehicles. I.E. Endorsement for vehicle dynamics for high performance cars; Rollover education for SUV drivers; Loading and Jack-knifing knowledge for towing... ect.

Application specific education will help reduce the strain and expense of an involved driver education while improving the quality of individual programs, making it tolerable to both the applicant and the government. Grandma Jane doesn't need to learn Autocross in order to to drive to the bingo club! (Unless she's driving a Mustang :pface )

In addition, grouping vehicles into endorsement specific catagories can encourage auto makers to produce better, safer, more efficient vehicles, via the particularities of qualifying a vehicle for endorsement.

Bring on the flames!

[stutt944]

Eliminating the 16-18yr drivers would be taking the easy way out.

isnt that the idea? seems like the best place to start to me... at least until the licensing is severely overhauled.

I advocate the introduction of various "endorsements", in addition to the basic license, which a applicant must qualify for in order to operate specific types of vehicles. I.E. Endorsement for vehicle dynamics for high performance cars; Rollover education for SUV drivers; Loading and Jack-knifing knowledge for towing... ect.

i've never heard this theory before, but it sounds like a solid plan. i have always been in favor of extreme licensing. there are too many situations that present themselves in the real world that inexperienced drivers cannot cope with. we must present them with these situations beforehand.

sidenote: has anyone else noticed just how many people drive around with their hand to their ear talking on a phone? it's sickening. even hands free is too much of a distraction. at home, people cant even talk on the phone and realize whats going on around them. how do the expect to safely drive a car?

[Bubba1]

I agree with you completely about the cell phones, stutt944.

Back to 16yr olds vs 18 yr olds and the maturity of each. Ever wonder why 16yr olds can't vote but 18 yr olds can? Or why the drinking age went from 18 to 21 instead of 18 to 16? One word...maturity. There are plenty of mature 16 yr olds out there, but there are a whole lot more of them that are not mature enough to understand the responsibilities.

[stutt944]

:Werd

[skydragoness]

:Werd

[TurboKA37]

i think the amount of maturity increase from a 16 to 18 yr old doesnt out weigh the reasons for a 16 yr old to be driving. fact is, most 16 yr olds need a way to get around for jobs, sports, friend's houses, etc... and not everywhere has public transportation so u cant give liscenses just to the suburban kids and not the inner-city kids.

[themadscientist]

I was a knucklehead at 16 and I see no change in that trend. I think it's ok for 16-year olds to be liscenced but they should be watched. First speeding ticket revokation for oh let's say four months. I mean a serious one not one of those 37 in a 35 BS ones cops give you so they have a legitimate reason to look in your car, racing or 20mph over, something like that.Everyone should have a chance to prove they can act right, if not then punish them.

[stutt944]

here in ga, 24mph over or more is automatic 1yr suspension for minors.

[themadscientist]

sounds fair to me. How much for an old guy driving drunk, darned-near nothing? Oops did I say that, I didn't mean too honest Pilgrim;)

[stutt944]

hehe...ummm...mandatory jail time, i'm pretty sure. and it usually comes to somewhere around 1500 bucks for court fees and probation officers and what not.

what i dont get is that one guy who got pulled over for the 45th time on a dui or something like that. don't you think they'd catch on to the problem around, oh say 20 dui arrests?

[MrFox]

here in ga, 24mph over or more is automatic 1yr suspension for minors.

How much for an old guy driving drunk, darned-near nothing?

Why the double standard? Why should a 16yo going 24+ mph be hung out to dry, but not a 18yo?

Everyone should have a chance to prove they can act right, if not then punish them.

I'll rather have them prove themselves in a controlled testing enviornment then out on the streets.

Punishment often comes too damn late.

[stutt944]

i think a lot of the "minor 24+ license suspension" has a lot to do with the fact that 18 and older can live out in the free world on their own, and they "need" a car more than a minor. minors are in HS (or should be) and it is 100x easier to restrict them by taking away the license. 18 and up people (i.e. the rest of the world) usually have a greater obligation requiring their license.most minors reasoning for needing a car/license is they have to get to work. but why are you working? to pay for the car, the car's gas, dates, cds and stuff, marijuana, etc. its not totally a need based situation at that age. (mind you, 99% of the time...which might as well be 100% because to the gov't and statistic-takers...theres always those one-percenters. and who really cares about them anyway):cwm27

[themadscientist]

passing a test does not give any hint as to whether the kid will wrap a sticker-tuned Honda around a pole at stoopid speeds. Testing is needed to prove proficiency and I agree it's too easy but doesn't indicate maturity. Unfortunately the only alternative to waiting until the kid screws up is to deny the chance at all and that is not fair to the mature 16-year olds who drive safely and there are some. I wasn't one of them but I am not the safest 31-year old either:(