Living Car Free - Raise minimum driving age to 18?

bike2math,
Yes the responsibility should be on the parents...but usually they are the ones that bought boopsie the car they are driving and are paying for the insurance. However it is obvious by the number of illegal underage DUI's that it isn't working. In fact in several cases around here some parents have been charged as accessories after the fact because they allowed parties at their homes, whether they allowed the alcohol consumption is another story.

Aaron:)

bike2math,
Yes the responsibility should be on the parents...but usually they are the ones that bought boopsie the car they are driving and are paying for the insurance. However it is obvious by the number of illegal underage DUI's that it isn't working. In fact in several cases around here some parents have been charged as accessories after the fact because they allowed parties at their homes, whether they allowed the alcohol consumption is another story.

Aaron:)

I don't think enough parents are being held accountable enough for this approach to be declared "not working" at this point, and certainly I don't think any drivers are being held accountable enough. I'm sick and tired of hearing "excuses" for "accidents" when the truth is what we have are choices which lead to manslaughter and property damage. It is not an accident when a texting driver or half blind senior runs over someone.

Insuring a driver who had an injury accident should become fiscally impossible for 99 percent of families, Insuring parents who had a child who caused harm, should also become a fiscal nightmare for said parents. This should be spelled out in Large font bold letters in the documents the insurance company sends a family when they first enroll a teenager in their policy. People don't listen until you start hitting their pocket books. Maybe if a student can't get federally subsidized loans for college or use vouchers for private schools we'll start to see some positive dialogue between teens and parents.

The problem is of course legislators have exactly the sort of families that are likely to give irresponsible teen drivers over powered cars and turn them lose on the world.

A coworker of my wife was put in the hospital in a coma for two months with a fractured pelvis and other very severe injuries (she will walk with a limp and have impaired speach for life). The teen who rammed her car off the road isn't facing any penalties as he fell asleep and so it was an "accident". It is exactly this sort of situation that just infuriates me.

Your last sentence is contradicting your first. If there really are too many people in the world and raising the minimum driving age would halve deaths, then we should lower that age to 12 (and institute a 3 drink minimum while we're at it).

Actually, I was referring specifically to road deaths, but yes, there are too many people in the world. This is actually the real cause of peak oil, global warming and all the other non-bicycling topics people whine about on this forum.


And it's funny how everybody who will take on the younger drivers doesn't raise a finger at the other end of the age spectrum. Guess ARRL has good rep.

That's largely because younger drivers are responsible for the majority of road deaths that occur. Just have a look at a few statistics to see that. FWIW, I'm also in favour of mandatorily retesting every other group of drivers every two years as well.

In Ontario there was some talk about not allowing high school drop outs to get their driver's license until they turned 18. If I recall, some of the Ontario Legislature thought it would be too harsh on the young people who had a financial reason for leaving school and who needed the license for work.

It would be much better if 18 was the age you legally could get a limited young driver's license, then at 21 get a non restricted license. We always hear on the news during the summer about young people who got into deadly car crashes - some were drunk driving, some speeding, and some driving far too many hours and in the early hours of the day.

As much as driving is a right of passage for many people, at the age of 16 too many are not mature enough and too inexperienced in general to regard the license as a responsibility to not just themselves but anyone in the car and anyone else on the road.

Best to start with a bicycle. If there were more bikes on the road, more family members riding bikes, and telling the politicians that the roads are for everyone then maybe less people will grow up thinking a car is the be all and end all.

Besides, nothing like not being cocooned in fibreglass to remind someone that acting foolishly and causing an accident is going to hurt big time!

I got my license when I was 14 growing up in North Dakota. We had to take driver's ed, do some behind the wheel time as well as get the permit to drive with the folks or responsible adult in the passenger seat. As well, we had to have parental permission, though most parents soon realized they wouldn't have to go out when it was -20F to run to the store if they could send the kids.

The average adult seems to feel entitled to drive a motor vehicle, almost as if it were a right to do so, and the process of obtaining a license is just a hassle that must be endured, when in reality driving a motor vehicle is one of the most dangerous activities, if not the most dangerous, that the average person undertakes on a regular basis. Obtaining a license to do so should be one of the most difficult undertakings, and that privilege something to be respected.

Indeed, that is why there are a great many people driving on revoked licensed, and not a few who are driving but have never bothered to get a license in the first place.

some of us can't live or work w/out a car though. Raising the driver's age would require also providing adequate transportation for the thousands of teens in the workforce who would suddenly not be able to get to work.

There are other ways of getting around besides cars, you know.

There are too many people in the world as it is.

OK, why don't you leave? Goodbye.

Think of how strange it would be for seven-year adults not having the capacity to transport themselves to work.

Unable to transport themselves by car. There are other ways. I shouldn't have to point this out on this particular forum.

Unable to transport themselves by car. There are other ways. I shouldn't have to point this out on this particular forum.

People should not be forced into riding bicycles just because we're on a bicycle forum. And you left out my next sentence referencing the lack of infrastructure to make public transport viable for the vast majority of people who'd suddenly rely upon it.


If you wanted an overhaul of infrastructure to allow this, that would be a different matter; but as it stands, this would be next to impossible.

People should not be forced into riding bicycles just because we're on a bicycle forum. And you left out my next sentence referencing the lack of infrastructure to make public transport viable for the vast majority of people who'd suddenly rely upon it.

There won't be an overhaul of infrastructure until people demand it, and they won't demand it so long as it is so easy to get a driver's license and to buy a car.

I remember when I was teaching HS, I had some students who complained about their homework being too much to do their after school jobs too. Why did they need the jobs? Why, to pay for their cars. And why did they need cars? Why, to get to their jobs. The vicious circle has to be broken somewhere.

There won't be an overhaul of infrastructure until people demand it, and they won't demand it so long as it is so easy to get a driver's license and to buy a car.

I remember when I was teaching HS, I had some students who complained about their homework being too much to do their after school jobs too. Why did they need the jobs? Why, to pay for their cars. And why did they need cars? Why, to get to their jobs. The vicious circle has to be broken somewhere.


I think there's a little more to owning a car than "drive to work work to drive". Besides which, if we get people on bikes by forcing them out of cars people will see bikes as little more than second-hand vehicles or, worse, as a "punishment" because you weren't responsible enough to handle a car. How are we to get progress that way?

I think there's a little more to owning a car than "drive to work work to drive". Besides which, if we get people on bikes by forcing them out of cars people will see bikes as little more than second-hand vehicles or, worse, as a "punishment" because you weren't responsible enough to handle a car. How are we to get progress that way?

Exactly. We can't brute force people into using public trans or bicycles--nor should we try. I too would like to see more (many more) people on bicycles, and still more utilizing public transportation. But outright banning licenses for 16-24 year olds and then stating the infrastructure would be built after the demand for it is short-sighted. It's sort of like suggesting adding a $5 gas tax to every station in the country tomorrow and somehow believing this would lead to bicycles and buses for everyone. People don't react well to drastic changes, and they'd be far more likely to revolt (read: riots) than write letters asking for more bus routes. I'm not interested in punishing any demographic, simply because I'd be immune due to my lifestyle choices.

I think there's a little more to owning a car than "drive to work work to drive".

But not much.

I'm a bit tired of people making declarations about what other people's lifestyles should be, if they've never lived in anything other than urban/suburban conditions.

I know that where I grew up, we were far enough away from anywhere that a car would have been required for commuting. Fortunately I was able to work for my dad, and I moved to the city before I ever worked for anyone else, so I was lucky in that I didn't have to drive. But the kids I went to school with all had to drive to get to work, and for many of them driving was part of their work -- delivery, road construction, quarrying, farming, towing, etc. You know, country stuff that city slickers don't always get to see unless it annoys them on the road. ;)

It's funny that cyclists are talking about the dangers of teenage driving -- aren't most of the cage rage cases caused by middle-aged commuters?

To clear up confusion, here's the official government scoop on Ontario's graduated licensing. (http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/dandv/driver/gradu/index.html) You can start the process as young as sixteen, but you go through several stages of licensing that let you drive with some restrictions (e.g. number of people in the car, time of day, roads with speed limits over 80 km/h, etc.). The first level has the most restrictions, the second has fewer, and after that you have a full license.

You stay at each restricted level for 12 months, and that can be lowered to 8 months if you take driver's ed courses. If you start the process when you're sixteen you can be driving just shy of your eighteenth birthday, as long as you take driver's ed and don't have to retake any of the tests.

It's funny that cyclists are talking about the dangers of teenage driving -- aren't most of the cage rage cases caused by middle-aged commuters?

To clear up confusion, here's the official government scoop on Ontario's graduated licensing. (http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/dandv/driver/gradu/index.html) You can start the process as young as sixteen, but you go through several stages of licensing that let you drive with some restrictions (e.g. number of people in the car, time of day, roads with speed limits over 80 km/h, etc.). The first level has the most restrictions, the second has fewer, and after that you have a full license.

You stay at each restricted level for 12 months, and that can be lowered to 8 months if you take driver's ed courses. If you start the process when you're sixteen you can be driving just shy of your eighteenth birthday, as long as you take driver's ed and don't have to retake any of the tests.


The Ontario sysem sounds good; I'd change just one thing--get a ticket or moving violation, and the process begins all over again. Get caught driving drunk, no license of any kind until you're 21.

I'd also be OK with having slightly different systems for urban and rural areas.

I'd also be OK with having slightly different systems for urban and rural areas.

The only problem I have there is that it would be hard to draw the lines. Maybe a rural kid's only job opportunities are in a nearby city, but he lives far enough away that he has to drive to get there. Or a kid in a small town (not rural) might have to get a job that involves driving because there's less choice around.

I'm not really convinced that we need to focus more than we already do on teenaged drivers (at least not here). As I understand it the graduated system has made a big difference as far as young reckless drivers are concerned, because they're watched more closely and regulated more strictly until they get their full licenses. It would be good if more places adopted similar systems.

I'd like to see more severe penalties for dangerous driving across the board, and fewer assumptions that grownups are going to act like grownups behind the wheel.

But not much.

As much as bike to work work to bike, perhaps, sai?

The only problem I have there is that it would be hard to draw the lines. Maybe a rural kid's only job opportunities are in a nearby city, but he lives far enough away that he has to drive to get there. Or a kid in a small town (not rural) might have to get a job that involves driving because there's less choice around.

Oh, I'd agree that the details would have to be worked out, and whatever scheme you came up with there would be some individual cases that would get pinched.

OK, why don't you leave? Goodbye.

No, you go first. Idiot.

18 hours a day on this board and that's the most original think you can come up with.

No, you go first. Idiot.

Because I am not the one who has the problem with it. Look in the mirror.

It's absolutely pointless raising the minimum age to obtain a driver's license until the requirements of obtaining, and ease of losing that license, truly reflects the weight of responsibility of operating the most lethal machine in common usage.

The average adult seems to feel entitled to drive a motor vehicle, almost as if it were a right to do so, and the process of obtaining a license is just a hassle that must be endured, when in reality driving a motor vehicle is one of the most dangerous activities, if not the most dangerous, that the average person undertakes on a regular basis. Obtaining a license to do so should be one of the most difficult undertakings, and that privilege something to be respected. Well said. It's not about the age. It's about the whole attitude we have as a society towards car driving, the ease with which the lisence can be obtained and the absolute lack of responsibility for your actions when you're behind a steering wheel.

I'll admit - i only read the first couple posts, then commented, so if I'm repeating someone, then sorry.

Raising the driving age is a legitimate suggestion that I think leads us to other solutions. I don't believe raising it is actually a good idea, but it begins a good conversation.

I'm very in favor of tiered licenses. Across the board - not only for young people. No taking your driver's test in a Corolla then buying a Hummer. Have classes of vehicles based on center of gravity, power-to-weight ratio and size. Then you get licensed for each/all of them. If a 5'1" woman truly can't maneuver that 26 passenger Urban Assault Vehicle - she doesn't drive it. Period. If someone doesn't take a proper course in handling a Corvette's power and dynamics, they don't get to drive one. Maybe you limit 16-18 year olds to slower, easier to handle cars, cars that will serve as appliances to get from A to B instead of rockets ready to fly off the side of the road.

I know a person or two will claim that we are taking away some liberties - but operating a 3,500 lb vehicle at 60+ mph around others is deadly and should be viewed as a safety issue. The privilege of driving is not taken away, only some unsafe driver/vehicle combinations.

It's an idea I've always liked, but I realize how anything gov't run tends to suck - and it would probably not work for that reason. Just an idea.

I think everything should start at 18: driving, voting, military service, drinking alcohol. 18 is old enough to take on adult responsibilities. And driving is definitely an adult responsibility.

I also think we should be stricter about who gets to keep driving, if drive they must. If you drive drunk, hit a pedestrian because you were texting, or otherwise prove yourself to be an irresponsible moron behind the wheel, you should lose your driving privileges for life, with no possibility of ever having them returned, even if you move to another state.

+1 I really like this idea, it has always bothered me the way we (in the US) split up responsibilities by age. At 16 we can drive, at 18 we can vote an join the military, but we can not enjoy an alcoholic beverage until we are 21? Where is the logic in any of this? Set them all to 18 and call it done.

I Definitely agree with the assertion that if you prove that you do not have the responsibility to drive without killing somebody or putting others at greater risk, then you lose the privilege (it really is a privilege, not a right) to drive for the rest of your life and you learn to live without driving.

+1 I really like this idea, it has always bothered me the way we (in the US) split up responsibilities by age. At 16 we can drive, at 18 we can vote an join the military, but we can not enjoy an alcoholic beverage until we are 21? Where is the logic in any of this? Set them all to 18 and call it done.

They did this with drinking and voting but when there were too many drunk driving problems the feds told the states they had to raise the drinking age- instead of the driving age, or loose federal money. DC was the last holdout in this area, all the kids from the suburbs would come into DC to drink. It would have been better to raise the driving age to 21 than the drinking age. If you're going to set them all to 1 age set them to 21. The military likes to get kids as soldiers when they're still in the non-thinking stage so they can be trained to accept what older people would question.