E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSInsurance and safety advocates said Tuesday that nationwide restrictions on teenage driver's licenses could save 2,000 lives and billions of dollars each year.
In a report released Tuesday, the National Safety Council, a congressionally chartered independent research agency, asked what would happen if a variety of laws known generally as "graduated driver licensing," or GDL, were fully adopted in all 50 states.
Besides saving about 2,000 lives, universal adoption would also save more than $13 billion a year, said the report, which was funded by the Allstate Foundation, charitable and research group supported by insurance giant Allstate Corp.
GDL laws include more than just legislating that teenagers can't get driver's licenses until they're 18. They also encompass bans on texting and other cellphone use while driving, restrictions on nighttime driving by 16- and 17-year-olds and limits on the number of passengers in a car driven by a teen. They're currently a patchwork, with some states' having adopted most restrictions and others' having adopted as few as one, said John Ulczycki, the safety council's group vice president for research.
Projections on death were derived from baseline data published in a 2007 report (.pdf) examining GDL laws by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, and "what we know from (that) study is that when a state passes a GDL with one component, it gets a 4 percent reduction in deaths," Ulczycki told msnbc.com.
More on graduated driver licensing:
- The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has compiled all 50 state GDL laws
- The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety maintains a list of frequently asked questions about GDL laws
- Full National Safety Council report (.pdf)
Ulczycki acknowledged that the 2007 AAA report used data that went back as far as 1994, but he said that because the safety council was looking simply at lives saved year over year, "the total number of lives saved each year" was statistically sound.
For the cost savings, the safety council used its own annual data on crashes involving teenage drivers, compiling reports on medical expenses, wage and insurance losses, police and ambulance costs, vehicle damage and costs to employers for lost productivity. The report's projections were compared to costs from 2009, when the safety council calculated that teen crashes cost the U.S. $38.3 billion annually.
Ulczycki said the council asked what the cost savings would be, based on the 2009 data, if all 50 states were to enact comprehensive GDL legislation. The answer: $13.6 billion a year.
That's a relatively recent date, meaning the council's projections for the future are unlikely to be significantly affected by the impact of inflation. That point is important because Congress is moving closer to taking up legislation to reauthorize federal highway spending. The highway bill often includes new federal roadway safety mandates — which the safety council heavily emphasized in announcing the report Tuesday.
Federal traffic safety data indicate that crashes involving teenage drivers are the No. 1 killer of teenagers in the U.S. Overall, more than 81,000 people died in crashes involving drivers ages 15 to 20 from 2000 to 2009.
Story: Ten safety tips for first-time drivers
Vicky Dinges, vice president of public social responsibility for Allstate, which funded the report, called teen driving deaths a real public health crisis."
"What's worse is that these deaths are avoidable," she said.
More news and features from msnbc.com:
Leave a Comment:
Teach your children well should be the first thing done...Not pass more dam laws!!
If we just banned driving altogether, we could reduce traffic fatalities even further.
See what I did there? What a stupid article, for stupid reasons. Please delete this article, it is a waste of computer memory.
This sort of legislation has been adopted in Australia and has proven effective. Let us be honest, driving a motor vehicle is a privilege and NOT a right, so a graduated scheme that responds to a demonstration of increasing levels of responsibility and skill is fair. I do not want to get injured or into a prang caused by some high-fiving idiot who wants to text, drink, and generally hang-out late at night with a carload of buddies claiming his or her Constitutional right to behave like an ass on the highway.
It makes sense to have teens build up some driving experience during the day without distractions of friends in the car. I remember NY state having a junior licenses when I was that age where your could only drive during the day (6am to 7 pm if I remember right) with the exception that you could drive at night for the purpose of going to and from school functions. This was until you were 18 (17 if you took driver's ed) when you got your regular license. There were no restrictions on who could be in the car with you, but I think keeping teens from having to deal with a carload of distracting friends when they first start driving is a good idea.
There is no such thing as a solution, only a trade-off. Yes, a graduates license system might reduce number of deaths but there are so many other factors that should be examined, like tougher driving exams for example. We must also consider, as I mentioned, the trade-offs. What inconveniences would be caused by this? While I was in high school (two years ago) I worked nights my school occasionally had night activities. Under this system, how would have have been able to go to these? My point is, one study can't answer all question.
@ 800#gorilla - children arent being taught well, so unfortunately laws get created as a result.
So if they pass these laws in all 50 states, and they work so well, does that mean that the insurance companies will finally stop gouging outrageous premiums for 16 - 25 year old drivers, because they're statistically considered to be a "higher risk"? No, I didn't think so.
The problem with "teaching your children better" is we have no set standard for what constitutes good driving, not to mention we all think we do it better than everyone else. My father learned to drive in England and he was always going on about how poorly Americans drove: not using turn signals or using them too late, occupying the left lane when not passing, failing to yield at stop signs, and so on. Would you agree with him? Judging from the evidence I've seen on American roads my whole life, I assume not.
ORB I take issue with your assertion that driving is a privilege regardless of how many anal retentive megalomaniacs claim it so. Freedom of movement in a safe manner is a natural right. Should we ensure that drivers can drive safely? Yes! But adopting every hair-brained idea that somebody proves will save a couple lives while costing a thousand lifetimes of resources is asinine, intellectually immature, and emotionally cowardly. But I guess that's the new American way........
I'm waiting for the baby boomer generation to start getting into those lovely years where they all own Buicks and Lincolns and mistake the gas for the brake.
Teenagers behind the wheel can be emotional idiots and showoffs, give them harder tests and give parents pause before they put their baby behind the wheel of a multi-ton vehicle.
Just as importantly, have a requirement for testing every 2 years after age 60 (not 70) to ensure that drivers are still qualified to even operate a vehicle on their own!
@eltex
SERIOUSLY? A stupid article??? in a 9 year time span, 81,000 teens died in car accidents. Call me crazy, but those numbers are alarming!!! If we can so something to decrease those numbers, why wouldn't we???
Just think, if we how many billions we could save by banning all drivers until they are thirty five years old. If it works, let's just ban all cars. Big Brother is alive and doing very well.
When I got my DL in Germany it took me 2 months with about 40 hours of professional instruction (a minimum of 8 hours was required), incl. nighttime and Autobahn driving. It cost $2K and the minimum age is 18. When I got my DL in NY State it took me around one building with four stop signs and cost me a smallish fee. For my OWN safety I'd prefer if there were some strict national standards. Whatever the individual states are doing now is obviously not working so well. I see horrendous driving every day and it's only getting worse with all the gadgets people think they must use while behind the wheel.
I shudder to think of some of the terrible drivers I see, teaching their children and thinking they're doing them a favor.
If we raise the age requirements for drivers licences to 120 we would save 42,000 lives a year in the US alone.
Here's a novel idea: Start with stiff fines for idiots texting while driving!!!!!
Good point, Taziar. If everyone just stayed home, look at the savings. Couldn't be any problem with that. Why don't we just let the government tell us all exactly when we can get up, what car we drive, etc?
Our GOP brothers are always preaching less government but keep passing more freedom sapping draconian laws.
Our GOP brothers are always preaching less government but keep passing more freedom sapping draconian laws.
Our GOP brothers are always preaching less government but keep passing more freedom sapping draconian laws.
Our GOP brothers are always preaching less government but keep passing more freedom sapping draconian laws.
Our GOP brothers are always preaching less government but keep passing more freedom sapping draconian laws.
hehehe
Virginia requires 45 hours of driving time, a course called Behind The Wheel, as well as additional training with a Driver's Ed instructor via the school system.
Again, this is not a federal function. Congress should butt out.
Sorry to tell you, but insurance actuaries really know their stuff, and seniors are offered special rates because they have fewer accidents. That in spite of the fact that they have to deal with drivers who tailgate at 80 mph in a 55 mph zone and semi-drivers who should have their licenses revoked.
Ok I can understand saving lives But who saves the 13 billion? insurance companies???.. And do you think you'll see lower premiums??? ya right.. More laws to make corporate America richer.
And make them children till age 35. That would save lives also.
We seem intent on retarding the growth of people. Keep them children longer and longer. All in the name of saving lives. Sometimes saving a life comes at to high a price.
Want to save lives? Prevent cars from having radios. Do not allow cars to be built that can go faster than the law allows. Heck, prevent people from having children in cars at all, that would save lots of lives.
Stop trying to make teenagers into 5 year olds.
$13billion in savings for the insurance companies that will not trickle down to us, the policy holders. My premiums keep going up and I have no accidents and no tickets. The corporate exec are the only ones getting richer.
You're right. So as long as they have a part-time job and pay for their own insurance, they should be allowed to drive. In not, they should wait until they are 18.
Seriously, Why would we require them to buy car insurance, they are allowed to stay on daddy's health insurance until they are 26, now. Government has more than they can handle now, so why should they go farther into big brotherhood?
I think there is a reason for the learner's permit period. So they can LEARN. Our state already has a law in place banning texting while driving, you think anything has changed? The more control we give the government over our lives, the worse things get.
However, the no cell phone while driving might not be a bad idea. I'm getting rather tired of having people drift into my lane because they can't drive and talk at the same time.
seriouslynow: I'll take a highway full of truckers before I'd take one full of gray hairs any day. Especially here in my rural area where you have them all over the road, rubber-necking and trying to catch a glimpse of the corn growing. I have seen gray hairs take 5 minutes to pull into a diagonal parking space and still almost hit the vehicle parked next to them. I was almost hit by a gray hair when I was 7 months pregnant standing on the sidewalk. The gray hair pulled an illegal u-turn to park and hit the gas instead of the brakes. I agree with mandatory testing, an actual driving test, for anyone over 65. I just don't see how anyone who needs a walker to go 3 feet can safely navigate a vehicle because there just aren't any motor skills there to do so.
80,000 Deaths over 9 years = roughly 9,000 per year divided by 50 states = 180 per state. Divide that by city's of your state and it may look like my city of a million people.... 2 teens died in a crash this year. 1 was her fault and she was 19 hurting 2 other girls. The other ACCIDENT was a elder who hit a motorcycle teen driver and killed him. (they did not specify if these deaths were the fault of the teens and they did say age 14 to 20. So how does making kids wait longer to drive reduce this number by 20% ? Maybe just because that's how many of those numbers you are going to not let drive. Its gotta be darn close but we need better info than just big scary numbers to scare us into passing more laws.... Please quit letting government steel and dictate our kids lives... IMO if there is to be any law on better testing or any test for that matter, it should be one politicians have to pass before they and their Buddy's buy TV adds to get your votes, take the oath and then make laws. That test would be the US Constitution! The fed has no right dictating to states and thats the only oath. As for you boomers who fall for the fear tactics of this storys ideas without doing some harder thinking, I ask. Can't you remember what it was like to be a free kid? Did you have fond memory's? I bet so. Quit being a scared old person and give these kids the bennifit of the doubt because its mostly up to you.
Anyone that passes a beginner's driver license test by scoring less than 94 on the road skills testing should be limited to driving during day light hours for 3 years, with exceptions for work and school events. Retesting on the road skills section once every 6 months during the 3 year probation period to lift the restriction should be allowed. It takes 10,000 hours to master a skill. To think it can be done in the 30 hours behind the wheel required by our state for individuals under the age of 18 is only fooling ourselves.
The only accident we've ever had was when a teenage girl with a car full of her friends backed up into our parked car while she was chatting with her friend, not paying attention . She jumped out and screamed, "Oh no! It's my fault!"
We went into the grocery store where it happened and purchased a disposable camera. Good thing too.
About 10 minutes later, "Daddy" came on the scene and told us how upset he was because a similar thing had only happened a couple of weeks ago with his same daughter.
Later on, I decide to contact "daddy" and offer to just have him pay for the damage and not involve insurance, as it would have been cheaper that way. He didn't accept... hmmmmm....
A few days later I hear from the insurance agent how it was all our fault that this teenage girl who has been in several accidents now had backed up and hit our stationary parked car. It appears that "daddy" was trying to pull one of his own, saying we had parked backwards and was pulling out. (Interesting to note that even if all that was true, the person backing up is still the one that has to watch out).
Fortunately, we had the pictures which showed defining marks on both cars and one witness (who, by the way, "daddy" had told the insurance agent that the witness didn't see anything).
It took some work, but the blame fell back on the one who caused the mess, though I wish that we enforced laws about people lying like that, that they have to go to jail for fraud or something. It is especially disturbing that "daddy" was a nice rich butt-hole who could afford to have his daughter get into many accidents, and we were just a poor family trying to make ends meet. I can only surmise that he considered himself Christian with his notions of oppressing those horrid poor folks that crashed his daughter's car.
In any case, I support strict teen laws; preventing them from having friends in the car while driving and utilizing strict curfew hours as well. What I do not support however are more FEDERAL laws. Get the federal government out of our business and 'encourage' such laws at the local level.
b 895713 (if that is your REAL name), are you really so concerned with corporate profits that you would rather some 16 1/4 year old slam mom's suburban into your smart while texting about Justin Bieber, leaving you as like, a head in a jar for life? Now I got my license the day I turned 16, but we had no cell phones, we used actually to drive as a primary activity, not just something to do while talking. I for one would like to see a national law that forbids a cellphone to be turned on in the control of any driver under the age of 21, and to treat texting while driving the same as a dui, which is generous, as all tests shows that it's much, much worse.
Agreed. It would suck in terms of case volumes for all of the idiots I see getting nabbed for txting while driving...but it has to be done...those people are nuts!
Raise the driving age 2 years and all you will do is raise the average bad driver age by 2 years.
Agreed, driving tests need to be made MUUUUUUUCH harder considering the kind of lunacy we all see every day on the road.
I'd like to go even further than that and have additional tiers for class C licenses based on the size, horsepower, mass and 0-60 acceleration of the vehicle. People need a special license to drive a motorcycle, why not have to accomplish harder and more relevant tests to own a powerful sports car or drive a giant pickup/SUV? Maybe even add a different level of liability similar to how commercial trucks have a higher burden of safety.
I'm personally tired of the US trying to act like we want safer roads and better emission standards, yet require that every vehicle is armored like an M1A1 Abrams tank because it has to withstand the impact of a Land Cruiser barreling into you at 35mph!
It's aggravating seeing tiny 100 lb, angry soccer moms driving giant behemoth vehicles and be unable to parallel park them, merge into traffic, use their blinkers, mind their massive blind spots, or just even drive remotely safe in foul weather!
As far as I'm concerned, you can still own the giant vehicle, or put your 16 year old into a Porsche Cayman S if you want. But I want them to be required to take and pass additional training to be able to drive that vehicle properly, and I want them to face an additional liability for their vehicle given the additional risk to damage that they may cause relative to something smaller, slower, lighter.
If you don't qualify for the right class of vehicle, then you're stuck with the tier that you can qualify for...retest as much as you want.
An interesting little side aspect, people that qualify for the higher tiers, but choose to drive lower tiered vehicles should be able to get major discounts on their auto insurance! This would be a great way of instantly showing that your teenager is over-qualified as a safe/skilled driver, but they will be in a vehicle where they are less likely to kill themselves or others with dangerous maneuvering
Ban all vehicles that weigh more than a golf cart. Seriously, do you really want to live in a country that has to drive only your choice of vehicle?
@ Dasvet
???
I'm not advocating banning anything other than people from owning vehicles with characteristics that they cannot qualify for.
The FAA isn't going to let you legally fly a plane until you've completed the minimum requisite number of hours of flight time and careful instruction and even then, you'll only qualify for single-engine turbo prop...there's even greater instruction for higher level planes and engine-types.
Why should we just look the other way as idiots drive vehicles they want but are entirely unqualified to operate safely when it effects all of us?
In places like Germany, they have the same difficult standards for driving a high-end sports car as it is a low-end beater...and if you can't pony-up the cash, and pass the tests, you're bus-bound.
At least with my suggestion, if you cannot qualify for the higher level tiers, but at least pass one, you could be the proud owner of a Kia Sofia or Geo Metro.
A lot of people can't qualify to drive a golf cart. Are they going to be denied a way of earning a living by an ever reaching government bureaucrat that thinks what is good for NYC is good for Montana, or vice versa? By your earlier posts, you seem to think SUV's are the biggest problem this nation has.
@ Dasvet
If they cannot pass the current driving test, then they can't legally drive a car on public roads right now.
Are you seriously advocating that people shouldn't have to be qualified to drive a car and risk the lives of other people with their actions?
What's wrong with adopting the European model for driving? Or my tiered-model with varying degrees of difficulty based on the capabilities/dimensions/mass of the vehicle?
Remember, most cars that are deemed road-worthy by the US NHTSA have to have all sorts of strength tests and safety features. The US requirements are MUCH MUCH higher than that of Europe, and the primary reason is that there are many more larger, heavier vehicles on our roads compared to them, and many are not driven by commercial carriers (that have a different level of testing and liability as well).
I say, fine! Own that large vehicle if you want, but I want to make sure that you know how to drive it, and that if you get in an accident with it, that you understand that a larger vehicle is more likely to cause greater damage at the same speeds as a smaller vehicle by simple virtue of the physical forces being exerted.
Conversely, if you want to own that high-end sports car, I want to make sure that you are not Nick Hogan or other such moron and actually qualify for the vehicle, AND be bound by an additional level of due diligence by virtue of the capabilities of the car.
We can keep the base Class C test for all of the small, low power sub compact cars. This way even the incompetent that can barely pass a driver's test can still legally drive a car to kill someone with.
Seriously, Seriously? The insurance industry actually does this currently. Sorry, all my great ideas are already taken too. But to legislate this would take a 10 fold increase in policing and that my friend you do not want. What if getting in a car were like getting on a plane? What if you had to be breath tested just to leave your house. The biggest threat is cellphone use, not the class of vehicle. Faster cars for example have better steering and brakes, too. Some families have only one vehicle, that vehicle may be quite large. Does the new driver have to buy another car to use. Do you want to buy the car for that driver? Do you drive? Did you have your own car from day one?
I think just impound the car for however long it takes the owner of the car to clear their record, would be a better idea. Put their name on a list so that they cannot buy or rent a car till they clear their name. See how quicly the streets would become safe
@ Robin Steele
But class of a vehicle does matter, and just because the insurance industry already charges more for certain vehicle types over others, it doesn't dictate legal precedent with regard to liability of accidents the way there are for commercial drivers.
Nope. Simply bar someone from being able to be insured to drive a car that doesn't fit their class license. If they drive one anyway and get pulled over for any reason, or into an accident, administer the law accordingly just like someone driving without a license, registration, and proof of insurance.
So even the least qualified among them should be allowed to drive it? You're not really convincing with that argument. What's to stop all members from trying to qualify for the license? We're talking about a harder driving test than just a standard one...not flying the Space Shuttle.
Cellphone use is indeed a problem, but unrelated to our debate.
Class of vehicle is a significant issue!...care to review WHY the NHTSA has the various safety standards it requires of ALL vehicles that drive public roads? Read up on it. There is the equivalent of an arms-race in terms of safety features against the mass/dimensions of the vehicle threatening to impact. Read about the criticism that the Smart Fortwo group has with the crash test rating because even though it is well built, it just doesn't perform as well when an Escalade-shaped object plows into it.
Take a look at why many types of European and Japanese cars cannot be sold here (before modifications) because they don't meet those safety ratings, but read further into it...what is there such a difference in the safety tests?
It comes down to vehicle mass and size.
If we as a nation want to get serious about both vehicle efficiency/affordability and safety on the road, we need to increase the challenge for being able to drive vehicles that are capable of more destructive power, and allocate the liability for their use accordingly.
Seriously, you really, really need to go back a few months and look at the cellphone studies , you might try Jalopnic (sp.?) and you will find out that this is the real problem. These devices actually do render many drivers absent behind the wheel. This is the biggest danger on the roads today. I for example NEVER see any of the numerous ZR1s in my area speeding. You know who the wost most offensive drivers are? #1 Volvos, #2 VWs, #3older Hondas and honorable mention for those most likely to be double the limit in heavy traffic, Sport bikes (you pick the brand). You seem to contradict yourself when you state that more police won't be needed, except to arrest those folks driving cars that they do not qualify for. Sounds like a rule that is not needed, because most kids who take the Civic DX, shove an integra motor with a cheap nox in it and go to the grocery store at 108 mph will be immedialty taken off the road one way or another, without violating my rights as a property owner.
@ Robin Steele
You're deliberately trying to confuse the issue. I'm not disagreeing with you on cellphones. You keep trying to divert the conversation and attempt to disagree with my statements based on either a fear that this would lead to a more intrusive government or use anecdotal evidence.
You want to see how my statement reflects on reality, look no further than the difference in safety standards upheld by the NHTSA vs. the Europeans and Japanese.
The US demands that cars have significantly different safety features because of the greater likelihood of accidents occurring with heavier, taller, larger vehicles.
The reason why many cars are so expensive, the reason why they don't get nearly as good gas mileage, the reason why the US has more fatalities per accident than many other countries.
Unqualified people are driving heavier/larger/faster vehicles than they are capable of handling and those vehicles cause greater damage to others in accidents they are involved in!
Freakonomics
BTW, I agree with much of your anecdotal evidence regarding idiots on sports bikes and racers in Civics. I wish that police would focus more on reckless driving patterns and less on arbitrary speed limits.
How about we adopt the European model? Combine more complete instruction and drivers training with an age of eighteen for license. Let's take it further and also LOWER the alcohol consumption age to 16. By removing the taboo factor and allowing children to get introduced to alcohol earlier; they are substantially less likely drink excessively and abusively; less likely to drink just for the sake of drinking.
Most important, they will also know how alcohol effects them and ideally what there limits are BEFORE they ever get behind the wheel of a car. Combine that with better driving skills - I bet that will save lives and $$.
Age of drinking is lower in Europe, but incidents of alcohol injuries and vehicle accidents are much lower.
Good luck getting that past the morality police.
We can't even use real-world examples like Amsterdam and Portugal to end the War on Drugs(tm).
The answer is that idiots don't respond to reason, they respond strictly to fear and suffer extreme selection and confirmation bias with a healthy dollop of circular reasoning!
Yes the age of drinking is lower in Europe, but teens there don't drive nearly as much as Americans. There is public transportation available almost everywhere, and their parents are far from overworked as Americans are and have the time to be with the kids. Also very few European teens have part time jobs as compared to American teens. In addition, the distances kids have to go for activities in Europe are generally much shorter.
Plus, being able to use the car is a great incentive for good behavior in the US. And Aussie kids drink like fish, you do NOT want them on the road.
Don't know which Aussie kids you are referring to but due to our strict drink driving laws - very few people or kids drink and drive as they will be caught and lose their licence. I get sick and tired of the racial stereotypes often banded about on these forums.
Especially about the Aussies! WTF?!
Not one day goes by where someone doesn't feed into all those stereotypes about the filthy, cheap, worm-riddled Aussies.
^_^
/btw, when did Australians become a race?
There are many flaws in this report. There are no "police costs" as they are being paid anyways. There are no "ambulance costs" as they either municipally provided and/or paid by the insurance. "Insurance losses" are not a cost as they are figured into the premiums charged. "Vehicle damage" is duplicated from from "Insurance losses". Of course the single biggest flaw in the report is that Allstate is behind it.
I had a license at 16, a permit at 15. Where I live if I didn't have those I would not of been able to have a job OR go to my highschool/college. Restricting to 18 would be way too harsh.
What needs to be done is what was said earlier, teach your children well.. better.
If anything make a certain driving school necessary, especially in certain towns and communities. That way you can't just get a parent to sign off on your hours you drove.
It is easy to say raise the driving age to 18 until you consider that there are many families who count on their children being able to work, thus the need for them to have personal transportation. Not all families live close to any type of bus system and, even if they did, they may not even want their children to ride busses due to safety concerns in certain areas. The ideas of controlling phone usage including texting should be directed toward all drivers. The limitation of others in the car and use of night driving restrictions unless for work or school functions should be considered. Mandatory 100 hour driving school with parent requirements included during this time frame would go a long way toward safety. I agree with the previous poster who said bad drivers will just be two years older. We must TEACH the skills through sensible rules not increase the age.
some of these laws are already in Oklahoma...like the limited number of passengers etc
The problem is that these laws end up putting into place all kinds of really stupid restrictions that just don't make sense in real life.
When I first got my license, I couldn't even drop my own little brother off at school in the morning due to dumb laws like these that made the assumption for me that having him in the car somehow made me a dangerous driver. It didn't, but thanks?
Hmm, most states allow passengers in the car if they are of the same family, therefore, a teen can drive siblings to school.
Yeah, in fact there are a lot of clear-cut exemptions and that is chiefly among them.
Age has nothing to do with skill. DMV gives you a permit with a paper test score of 90% but then it hands you a license to kill after a driving test skill of 70%????? that with a "honorary" amount of behind the wheel hours of driving and people wonder why our nation is so full of poorly skilled drivers? DMV is the first part of the problem and the actual skill of driving which can only come from practice and instruction is the second part.
Agreed.
We need to take the European approach and have much stricter licensing requirements than we do. I see far too many people driving that really shouldn't, or at the very least, driving a vehicle that is well beyond their capabilities to handle
Some of my favorites?
/end rant
Here is mine:
Judge: Do you know what the white sign with a black border means? [Texas]
Driver: yes
Judge: Can you read the letters and numbers?
Driver: yes
Judge: Do you understand the letters S-P-E-E-D L-I-M-I-T?
Driver: yes
Judge: Can you count the number 7-0 and reference it to the gauge behind the steering wheel?
Driver: Why these questions?
Judge: to determine the situation. apparently you do not need remedial education or driver training.
Judge: So just one more question.
Judge: when you get in driver seat of a vehicle does it empower you to be an a$$h0le or do you just wake up that way?
Driver: WTF?
Judge: this determines if you need to move closer to work or wake up earlier or if I recommend anger management.
And for gods sake, use turn signals.
I totally agree with Seriously? I read a suggestion that people should teach their children well and there would be no need for stricter driving provisions for teenagers. Most of the drivers that I encounter on a daily basis do not seem to know the written and unwritten rules of driving. There are such things as driver courtesies, some of which have been summed up by Seriously?'s comment.
Teenagers are not adults and they should not be treated as such. The provisions do not have to be so restrictive that it would prohibit teenagers in more rural areas from being able to maintain their normal routines, but they should be put in place for the protection of themselves as well as others on the road. While I think that it would be great for the federal government to impose these restrictions, state sovereignty should prevent this from even being a thought in the mind of the Congress. The federal government would have to order states to train police officers in order to implement the changes and possibly require more active police officers in order to maintain the programs. The federal government does not have this power, as they cannot control state budgets'. However, in order to force states to implement their own separate restrictions, the government should threaten to withhold funding for different things, such as roads and infrastructure. Everyone, including the teenagers, will be much better off.
Teenagers are not adults and they should not be treated as such.
Actually - many teens have more maturity, common sense and intelligence than a great many adults. Certainly - most sixteen year old teens have the maturity, common sense and intelligence to drive a car. While - many adults should not be allow to drive any vehicle at all.
You are right, brick, generalization type laws accomplish nothing.
"Many teens have more maturity, common sense and intelligence than a great many adults."
How many of these teens do you know? I don't know any. Part of the problem with teenagers is that adults and society sometimes think they they are way more advanced than they are. Children are children, teenagers are teenagers and adults are adults. I stated it in this manner to show that each stage of life has its different purposes, pros/cons, and benefits. Stating the obvious, that teenagers should have restrictions placed on their driving ability, is not saying that SOME teenagers aren't mature. It's simply stating that teenagers are not at the same place as adults. It's not the end of the world, the restrictions will be lifted as soon as they reach the legal age of maturity and life goes on.
Why don't we just start issuing permits at 12 instead of 14? That will make sure they are fully capable of driving by the time they are 18. Wait until they are 18 test them and then give them an actual license. Congress needs to butt out of this. The only real motives in this are what the insurance lobbyists are lining their pockets with. Insurance companies are tired of forking out the... 13 billion a year it said? That would look so much better lining their pocket books.
I highly recommend that you read up on the "reasonable person" clause, statutes and legal precedents.
I know we'd all love to have a custom-tailored set of rules for each of us to follow so that we don't all have to be told, "please don't eat the daisies," because Bob over there decided it would be a great idea!
But standards are a necessary requirement to keep everything within scope under the law that should apply to everyone.
I don't advocate invasive bureaucracies, I merely would like to apply to drivers licenses something similar that the FAA has for piloting aircraft. It's not rocket surgery, and this is not a campaign for anything other than trying to keep tools out of the hands of idiots when it comes to harming other people.
If you want to find a creative way to kill yourself, I really couldn't care less, but as soon as it even has the potential of harming someone else, or costing the rest of us money, you are now infringing on other people's rights.
people just need more exposure to driving before just going out and passing a test so easy anyone can do it. I live in STL (6 years) but lived in IL until i was 18. when it snows people here are idiots, IL is actually better (strange i know). the difference? drivers ed. is required in IL, not in MO.
or maybe we can promote karting or something, that will make people better drivers.
How about we tighten the laws for ADULTS!!!!! Especially the drunk diving laws...they are joke in most states. Multiple offenders out there all the time
Hmm, not a bad idea. Get caught driving drunk ONCE, you lose your car to the local DARE squad.
Teenagers today are more immature and have shorter attention spans than they did a generation or two ago. The driving age should be raised to 18.
That is what my grandpa heard from his father.
Sounds good on paper but the reality would probably be much different. Many teens and their families rely on their being able to drive to school and work. Also some states have much less population and traffic issues than others. While this may work in New York, Idaho or Montana would probably consider it a hardship in areas where there is no public transportation and teens must drive many miles just to get from point A to B (such as school to work).
The ability to drive in a safe manner doesn't come with age. It comes with experience. This is a state issue. Let each implement what works best for their own sitituation.
I do hate these BS-NBC news polls.
Yes, teens should have strict laws to be able to drive and graduated privileges, but no, the federal government does not / should not be involved.
The states can do it all by themselves, they do not need the drunks there (FAA) leading us.
I'm always reminded about a young neighbor girl when I read articles like this. I didn't know her name at the time or where she lived, but she must have been all of sixteen and one day when she started whizzing by my house in a cute little used convertible, all hours of the day or night. At first I kind of envied her, this young girl with her own car and her whole life ahead of her. Then I got a little worried about her being out and about on the road so much. Sometimes she had friends with her sometimes not. I probably watched her zipping around the neighborhood for a year or so, and then I read about a young girl who lived on my street being killed in a car accident, alone, 11:00 p.m. on a school night. My daughter said, yes, that was her, my neighbor. She lived with mom sometimes and sometimes with dad but apparently neither one paid much attention to her so she did pretty much as she pleased. So she died at the age of seventeen behind the wheel of a car. Who really needs to be out driving around alone on dark county roads far from home at eleven o'clock at night, a school night. Maybe a law raising the driving age would have saved her from herself. I don't know. But I still think of her sometimes, and I don't even remember her name.
Sorry for your neighbor. However, her biggest problem seemed to be a lack of parental supervision.
My state allowed16 year old teens to get their full license - no nonsense involved. Yes there were irresponsible teens - most of who were drinking and driving or just plain reckless. However - most teens were safe, responsible drivers. Why should those teens be punished because of a few 16 year old teens who are not responsible? Now a teen can't get an unrestricted license until 18 - and must have an adult driver in the car until then. Restrictions my generation didn't have - and - we did just fine - better than many 18 and older. Every year some "genius" comes up with a new law based on questionable data.
And - in case those researchers haven't noticed - most accidents are now caused by drunk drivers and cell phone users - mainly by those 18 and older. Media reports here - indicate that accidents involve a wide range of ages - and - are not clustered in any one age group.
Mike Boyer is on to the idea. The nanny-state idea that we *restrict* access to cars and driving opportunites is utter bull@!$%#. W.R.T. drunk driving the Scots have solved this problem: You do not drive drunk. Ever. Period. Concept? YOU DO NOT DRIVE DRUNK. Repeat after me: YOU. DO. NOT. DRIVE. DRUNK. EVER. EVER. EVER. Drink in the pub, no problem -- walk home. Drink and drive? Loose your license forever and ever. AMEN.
Compare this to Vermont: "What? You naughty boy! You're driving drunk, again? Well! Slap yer grandma and tap your wrist (again). What? Driving drunk again. Well, slap yer grandma and tap your wrist (again). [Repeat two verses 7 times ]. Killed someone DWI? Oops. Well slap yer grandma and tap yer wrist. Go ahead and sleep it off and awake to drive in the morning! (repeat verses after "Killed", ad nauseum)."
just ban talking on cell phones while driving....It will save a lot more money, not to mention all the tickets people would get....just last week I saw a mcdonald's truck driver on his cell phone, and the roads were crappy...put down the stupid phone and drive. And if this isn't that big a problem with teens, then maybe they need A LOT more driver's training, because they didn't learn enough
The driving laws show how backwards the US is on some issues. The logical thing to do would be to raise the driving age and lower the drinking age. Driving a car at age 16 is more dangerous than having a drink at age 16 or 18 or whatever
People give their kids a set of keys and turn them loose at 16, then wonder why they get killed. No one is mentally mature enough to drive until at least 18. I am all for tougher laws on teen driving.
j
Sorry, but I got my license at 16 and over the next decade I drove over 500,000 miles without causing one SINGLE accident or getting a single ticket, not even a PARKING ticket...
Not only that, but the very day I turned 16 and got my drivers license I opened a lawn mowing business that would have been impossible without my license and I employed around 5 people that year. The next year I employed nearly 20. The next year I employed 49, most of these people were under 18 and also could not have earned that independent work experience if they didn't have their licenses before 18. (Not one of them crashed on the job or got a single ticket while on the job).
As a result of getting my license at 16 I was invigorated with an entrepreneurial spirit that lead to opening several more businesses over the years and employing dozens more people. If I had to wait 2 more years to get my license the only employment option I would have had for those 2 years is washing dishes at the local restaurant which likely would have trained me to become dependent upon doing mediocre work for mediocre pay by the time I was 18.
So no, your statement is completely false. It's also completely ignorant on a purely logistical front as any sample size in the millions (there are millions of 16-18 year olds) is statistically guaranteed to represent just about every possible type of person. This is supposed to be the land of the free. Let's stop punishing everyone because SOME people are dumb. It's detrimental to the spirit of our country and it's just plain ignorant.
I think we should de-regulate the driving laws. All these pesky laws in the way of my forward progress. I want to be free to drive as I want, where I want (sidewalks if necessary) and I don't need some politician in DC telling me how fast is safe. I know how fast safe is and damn it, I am an American and I have rights and freedoms. If I want to put a push bar on the front of my SUV and push your slow moving ass out of my way then I should have the right to do so. If you don't like it, stay out of the left lane. And as far as saving lives, too bad. We have the right to choose in this country and we should be bound to the consequences of our actions. Personal choices equal consequences and I should be free to experience them as I see fit. Besides, 75mph is for pussies!! Hey government, stop crutchin' my groove!!
@s-4082383...touche.
You really made me chuckle with that one!