One of the legislative proposals involves increasing the age at which teenagers can get their licenses to 17 1/2. I’m really not 17 1/2 will be any different from 16 1/2; the difference is how much experience someone has behind the wheel. I supposed you could argue that the increased maturity of 17-year olds (as opposed to 16-year olds), justifies the change, but I’m not sure there’s any great difference.
I also don’t know about the continued focus in increased enforcement of sanctions against junior operators, particularly the restriction on having other young passengers (under 16) in the car. The argument in favor of this provision is that other teens can distract the driver and make an accident more likely — probably true, unfortunately. On the other hand, what about the Designated Driver issue? It does seem better to have one kid driving a bunch of drunk kids home rather than them all forced into their own cars for fear of being pulled over. Some posters might reply that in an ideal world no teens under 16 would drink, but…well…some of them do, and some of them always will, and that has to be accounted for in the law.
On the other hand, I like the focus on increased driver training (50 hours beyond the wheel with a parent sounds good). In my book, increased driver training, rather than increased enforcement of somehwat arbitrary age or passenger limits, is the best weapon against teen car accidents. And when Baddour said
the kids told me driver’s ed is a joke
I wanted to slap him five! Through all the discussions of changing the teen driving laws, driver’s ed has largely survived unscathed. It’s been six years since I took it, and Baddour is right: the class was an utter joke. Maybe not all driver’s ed schools are like that, but in mine we had classes where we would watch movies, tell jokes, and not learn very much (the actual driving lessons were useful, though). Then, when the state test came around, it was administered by a disinterested trooper who made me drive down the street, back up and parallel park, and drive back to the RMV. If we could do something to make the requirements for driver’s ed schools and the driving test more clear, we’d be doing a lot to help with the problem of teen car accidents.
By making the age 17 and a half to get a license(to operate a vehicle without another licensed driver with you)why bother to go (and pay for) driver’s ed if you wait 6 months just take the test without the course. This will have an impact on driver’s ed programs.
<
p>
Also, by waiting till age 17 and a half this state will be allowing kids to have a license for 6 months prior to going to college; I seem to remember heavy restrictions on freshman having cars at the college I attended.
<
p>
So, drive 6 months, go off to school with no driving( vast majority) and in the meantime what besides courses labeled 101 do you learn at college? How to drink. Come home(haven’t driven a car in a while remember?, and go out with your friends) Oh yea that’s going to solve the problem of young drivers. Not in my book.
<
p>
What we have now works well. They can’t drive with their friends for 6 months after getting their license.
<
p>
We have so many other problems to deal with;this is ridiculous
Regarding experience, you’re right on. It’s not at all obvious that an inexperienced 17 1/2 year old will be any safer than an inexperienced 16 1/2.
<
p>
I didn’t learn to drive in MA, so I’m not aware of youth driving laws here, but there is a large net of laws that can make the transition from non-driver to safe-driver a smootherand safer transition for all.
<
p>
Want safer youth drivers? Consider: * Longer learner’s permit period, requiring an adult in the car, helping to keep the youth’s speed in check, etc. * No night driving. * No highway driving. * Zero tolerance for intoxication.
<
p>
Were it up to me: * Permit Class 1 available June 1 of the year you turn 16, contingent on Drivers Ed classes and consent of a judge. * Permit Class 1 prohibits night driving, highway driving, requires fully licensed operator 21+ of age in passenger’s seat. * Permit Class 2 available when you turn 17, contingent on passing Drivers Ed classes, and requires fully licensed operator 21+ of age in passenger’s seat. Class 2 allows highway, night driving. * No full license until 17 1/2, contingent on passing thorough written and driving exam. * Zero tolerance for DUI for all under-21 drivers. Single violation results in complete suspension of all driving privliedges until driver turns 21 or two years, whichever is longer. No exceptions for driving to work, etc.
<
p>
As far as limiting other youths in the car, either the kid is driving on a learners, in which case there is an adult in the car — of he’s a licensed driver, in which case he’s trusted to manage an automobile.
And the reasons are:
<
p>
1. The problem is not age. It’s inexperience. Anyone who thinks that a one year difference in age will demonstrably change the death and accident rates simply doesn’t know any teenagers..
<
p>
2. Moving the age up one year and increasing the difficulty of driver’s ed creates a reverse incentive – why bother go through all the hoops and bs created by the new law if you can just wait until age 18 and get your license without any driver’s ed at all …. so is an 18 year old driver without ANY driver’s ed safer than a 16 1/2 old driver with driver’s ed? Of course not.
<
p>
3. Work outside the home – many teenagers work outside the home after turning 16 (the minimum age of employment for most businesses) – and most people live outside the urban core which has public transportation – so how do these kids get to their place of employment? And with a state unemployment rate barely 5%, who replaces the thousands of workers who now have to sit at home?
<
p>
4. Working parents – whether a single-parent home where the parent works, or a two parent home where both parents work (aka the economic reality of the modern world), parents don’t have as much time to drive their kids around place to place … so what do you tell the single mom who has two teenage kids who have to be in two places at once? Which one doesn’t get to go to their meet/match/game/performance?
<
p>
5. Crime… if you take people who used to be mobile and sit them down at their homes without a way to get around, kids will do something … how much are you willing to be that the something won’t be good?
<
p>
6. Extracurricular involvement … many activies require a trip in a car … this is once again simply the reality of suburban life. For most people, the car is the ONLY option of travel. Public transport simply doesn’t exist outside of Boston and the communities directly connected to it. Try going from framingham to concord without a car. Let me know when you give up.
<
p>
…
<
p>
Some reasonable solutions that might actually reduce the death and accident rates among teenagers …
<
p>
1. Ban cellphone use, except for in case of emergencies, inside the car for all under-18 drivers. Handsfree doesn’t do anything to reduce the distraction from the conversation itself…
<
p>
2. Move age of permit back to 15 1/2 … and require a whole year of having your permit (leaving earliest age of license to still be 16 1/2), plus 50 supervised driving hours from the parent/guardian, before getting your license to give kids more experience driving.
<
p>
3. Revamp the driving test for all drivers to include more than 5 minutes with a state trooper and a trip around the block. The test should measure real road skills and simply can’t be measured in 300 seconds of test time.
<
p>
4. Make driver’s ed a real educational experience, maybe by making it part of school at those schools that don’t offer it, and by mandating a minimum curriculum.
<
p>
5. Have a tougher permit test that asks questions more complicated than “when you see a stop sign what do you do”.
<
p>
But of course that might actually work, and we wouldn’t any of that kind of legislation…
<
p>
Because it will save thousands of dollars!
<
p>
None of you seem to be aware that auto insurance rates have vastly different rates for tose who do and do not have driver’s ed. If you do not have your diploma from a driving school, you pay about 1/3 more in premiums for three years.
<
p>
As far as inexperience goes, insurance is age-neutral now. If you get your auto licence as 45, you pay the sme as a 17 year old – and also pay more if you didn’t attend driving school!
<
p>
The rate categories are Experience 0-3 years, 3-6 years, plus 6 years, and over 65 (the only age-based category).
<
p>
And I have to say, here on Cape Cod – the land of no public transportation – the tests are a LOT more stringent than the ones you describe. Which you explain the bump in accident rates when y’all come to visit. Can you PLEASE brush up on how a four-way stop works, for instance?
Peter,
<
p>
What about College?
<
p>
You know, that thing most teenagers go to right after high school … where they don’t take their car … and don’t need insurance….
<
p>
Think about it … most kids turn 18 during their senior year, the majority between feb and may of that year … so they have 3-6 months to go to college….they won’t bother working (cause they can’t get a ride to work) before that to save up money for a car/insurance/gas.
<
p>
Also realize the proposed driver’s ed requirement for time behind the wheel is 15 hours … if that includes the corresponding 15 hrs of watching others drive that means 30 hours of “car time” at driving school. Most driver’s ed schools bill that time as 70-100, per hour … so do the math … 2100-3000 for driver’s ed behind the wheel alone, add to it another 600-800 for classroom sessions and then tell me where kids who can’t drive to work will find 3 or 4 thousand dollars for driver’s ed?
<
p>
AND WHY? If their insurance is 100 dollars more per month, it’s worth it so that they don’t have to lay out three to four thousand more all at once…. how many teenagers do you know with thousands of dollars to burn?
Think about it … most kids turn 18 during their senior year, the majority between feb and may of that year
<
p>
Now, unless you’ve got some incredible data, this [b]can’t[/b] be right. Given that birthrates in tUSA are practically uniform across time of year, it’s not possible that 50.1% or more of graduataing seniors are born in a span that covers 33% of the year.
First of all, outside of Boston and Worester, colleges don’t have public transportation. Come visit UMass Dartmouth or Amherst sometime. Let alone Cape Cod Community College, which is all that is available to kids around here.
<
p>
Forget the thousands of kids who just work for a living – why mess up a middle class scenario?
<
p>
Secondly – if you get your license, the clock starts ticking on your experience meter. Even is you go to college in Cambridge, and ride the T every day, if you HAVE a license, you have a lower insurance rate by the time you graduate.
Peter,
<
p>
Your two most recent points are wonderful.
<
p>
However, they run counter to your original point.
<
p>
If the incentive for driver’s ed is additional cost, there is no reason to lay out 3-4k for driver’s ed, all at one time, when that money could be spent over months and years … something much easier to afford for someone on a paycheck from a job…
<
p>
You’re right about the ticking clock on the experience meter … that’s EXACTLY the point made before.
<
p>
Why bother with driver’s ed … when you can get your license at 18, not need a car or insurance (since you ride the T in Cambridge), and four years later, after graduating from college, your rate is the same as it would have been if you had the driver’s ed. discount …
<
p>
The question still unanswered is: what is the incentive for taking driver’s ed to get your license at 17 1/2 instead of 18, without driver’s ed and the cost with it?
The question still unanswered is: what is the incentive for taking driver’s ed to get your license at 17 1/2 instead of 18, without driver’s ed and the cost with it?
<
p>
Getting your license sooner, and learning to be a better driver are two potential reasons. The former appeals to the child, the latter to the parent.
Sooner means something when it’s a year and a half … but when it’s six months?
<
p>
With the costs from earlier, it’s 500/month to get it sooner…
<
p>
Your argument is nice from an upper middle class perspective where 3 or 4 thousand dollars is something that can be spent to speed up the process six months. It’s just not that simple for the other 95%.
<
p>
In so far as learning to be a better driver? That appeals to everyone, but cost is a factor. A serious factor.
<
p>
And the thing that makes for real improvement in driving skills is hours and hours of behind the wheel experience – the kind kids get when they get their license at 16 1/2. Then by age 17 1/2 they have a whole year of experience driving…
<
p>
I think Peter’s comment about the driving tests being different on the Cape helps drive home the point made earlier about needing a standardized driving test. For all I know, there are many troopers giving hard tests in the Boston area, and I just got a bad one, but there should be some kind of clear standard. And I like the idea earlier about changing the permit test to go beyond its current absurdly easy form.
<
p>
I have to say, when I wrote this post, I was not thinking about the insurance ramifications of driver’s ed at all, so I’m glad those were brought up.