Living Car Free - Raise minimum driving age to 18?

What would be the consequences of raising the minimum driving age to 18? Would it be a good thing or a bad thing?

Need to improve other transportation accessibility first. If there's no transit this is a major hardship on families. If you have a great bus system, bike lanes everywhere, etc. then no trouble.

Heck yeah. Sixteen-year-old brains aren't developed enough to assess risks and consequences properly. Eighteen-year-old brains aren't quite, either, but you gotta start somewhere. There's a good reason insurance companies drop your rates when you turn 25, and charge an arm and a leg when you're 16, and it's not just experience. Australia doesn't license drivers until they're eighteen, and then it's a provisional license which doesn't allow them to drive some of the more dangerous vehicles. Australia isn't exactly a high-density country, either.

Need to improve other transportation accessibility first. If there's no transit this is a major hardship on families. If you have a great bus system, bike lanes everywhere, etc. then no trouble.

Too bad.

18 would be a start. 21 would be better.

Proper driver education would be even better than simply raising the driving age.
Driver's education in the US is a joke.

For example from here: http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/german_interest/110661


While American defense attorneys have successfully defended drivers who accidentally ran over a pedestrian, especially in case of a jay-walking pedestrian, German courts put the responsibility for the safety of the pedestrian squarely on the driver's shoulders. Partial blame, or contributory blame are almost unheard of and will not be taken into consideration. Hence, it is advisable to exercise the utmost caution when driving in residential areas. Driving schools in Germany actually teach their students that a driver is to remove her/his foot from the gas-pedal when a child or an elderly person is near a street.

I'd like to see the driving age raised to 18 and the voting age lowered to 16 or 15. I think driving permits should be allowed at 15 or 16 though.

35 or so sounds good to me.

Oh wait, that might mean the kids wouldn't move out. Nevermind.

Too bad.

18 would be a start. 21 would be better.

25 for a true "senior" license. The drinking age needs to go back to 18, however. Easy for a 50 year old to say, of course.

Bad. Too much backlash for taking away what other people had. Plus I figure parents are extremely ready for their kids to drive. I'd be sick and tired of it.

Too bad.

18 would be a start. 21 would be better.

In that case military service and voting needs to be 21 also. I just don't see the logic in "you can't drink or drive until you are 21, because you are not mature enough. Although you can vote and go kill or be killed by people in other countries."

I don't see the problem in the age, rather in the education. Remembering back to when I got my license, it was incredibly easy to achieve. More rigid and controlled education and testing, and possibly a longer/stricter probationary period would be good in my eyes.

16 wasn't that long ago to me and I remember most of the guys in my driver's ed class were motivated by testostorone and "crusing the 'ave to pick up chicks". The girls were more motivated by the increased independence and ability driving would offer. It seemed to be similar in pretty much everything back then. If I wanted to start a war I'd suggest girls be able to drive at 16 or 17 and guys wait until they're 21.

I also worked as a resident assistant at my undergrad university. I was privy to the details of many of my resident's lives, as far as legal and university judicial issues went. Whenever a student received a DUI anywhere in the county, our school received notification and the student faced university disciplinary proceedings as well as the legal proceedings. I would say the number of guys to girls getting DUIs was 3:1 easily. These were 18 and 19 year old freshmen.

I would advocate for the driving age to be raised to 21 universally and stricter education and punishment for driving infractions. However, that said, if a younger person (maybe to the age of 15) could prove responsibility, ability, maturity, and the need to drive they should be allowed to drive.

This was my case: when I was 16, my family (of very meager means) paid for my driver's education, licensing, a basic $500 get-around-town car, and insurance until I was able to cover it myself. I wasn't spoiled, but both of my parents were disabled and medically fragile. I was expected to do errands like frequent medical/prescription runs, grocery shopping, and really anything else that needed to be done. However, I like to think I had the maturity and understanding to pilot a 4000 pound hunk of metal down the road. Many of my peers did not.

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.

If it were raised the statistic of 5,000 killed each year would no doubt decrease.

http://www.car-accidents.com/teen-car-accidents.html



Teen Car Accidents. Teenage Car Crashes.
Car Crashes are the leading cause of death for teens in the United States and accidents while driving cause 36% of all deaths in this age group according to the Centers for Disease Control. Drive Safer!


Teenage Driver Facts:
Deaths. Each Year over 5,000 teens ages 16 to 20 Die due to Fatal injuries caused Car accidents. About 400,000 drivers age 16 to 20 will be seriously injured.

Risks. The risk of being involved in a car accident the highest for drivers aged 16- to 19-year-olds than it is for any other age group. For each mile driven, teen drivers ages 16 to 19 are about four times more likely than other drivers to crash.

Stats. Teenagers are about 10 percent of the US Population but account for 12 percent all Fatal Car Crashes.

Costs. Drivers (both male and female) under age 24 account for 30% - $26 billion Dollars of the total costs of Car accidents in the US.

Male Versus Female. The car accident death rate for teen male drivers and passengers is more than one and a half times female teen driver (19.4 killed per 100,000 male drivers compared with 11.1 killed per 100,000 female drivers.

New Drivers. The risk of a Crash risk is much higher during the first year teenagers are able to drive.

In the UK it used to be, (don't know if it still is ) you could drive a moped at 16, and apply for a car licensee at 17. It helped to weed out the real dummies, because a moped isn't fast enough to get out of trouble if you really screw up. Problem solved.

OK, that sounds really cynical, I've had a bad day and dummies are screwing up my life at the moment, sorry and all that.

I think 16 is too young to be driving alone.

At 16 you should be allowed to drive only with an experienced driver (say, someone 25+ with at least 5 years of driving experience) next to you. At 18 you should be allowed to drive alone.

I think 16 is too young to be driving alone.

At 16 you should be allowed to drive only with an experienced driver (say, someone 25+ with at least 5 years of driving experience) next to you. At 18 you should be allowed to drive alone.

Here in Canada, I think it's 16 you get your G1 license, which allows you to drive with a passenger that has a full license. After 1/2-1 year, you can get your G2, which lets you drive alone. The G2 is strict in regards to NO alcohol in your system [can't be under legal limit, must be none] no texting, calling, ect.

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.

In that case military service and voting needs to be 21 also. I just don't see the logic in "you can't drink or drive until you are 21, because you are not mature enough. Although you can vote and go kill or be killed by people in other countries."

That would be fine.

But we should go back to only landowners being able to vote.

That would be fine.

But we should go back to only landowners being able to vote.

Land is meaningless today. Voting rights should belong solely to those in the upper 10th percentiles of education and/or income.

the driving age is not the issue. The problem is that Americans don't even begin to understand the concept of personal responsibly or that there are other people in the world besides themselves.

If it were raised the statistic of 5,000 killed each year would no doubt decrease.

http://www.car-accidents.com/teen-car-accidents.html


If you raise it to twenty, no teen drivers would be killed. If you raise it to 30, no teens or twenty-somethings would be killed.

I think the emphasis should be on education and proper supervision of teen drivers, not raising the age.

But we should go back to only landowners being able to vote.

Should my vote weigh more than yours because I own more land than you?
Not that I would mind a pocket full of votes.

20, I think driving (full license), military, voting, passage to adulthood should be at the age of twenty. It's a good round number, and it gives kids a chance to complete high school and maybe two years of college or trade school.

A daylight only, or some other logical, limited driving license could be issued at a younger age.

I went through our graduation-required driver's ed class in my sophomore year and wouldn't say it's only education that needs to improve. The class ends with inexperienced, yet defensive and safe, drivers. After that everyone devolved into txt'ing, eating in the cars, listening to the radio more than watching the road, partying with friends in the back seat instead of driving, etc. A lot of kids just think that using turn signals, not speeding, watching for pedestrians, and focusing on the road makes you a "party pooper" in a group. One girl that I can't stand in particular complained about a speeding ticket 28 mph over the speed limit in a residential street (technically 18mph over, but everyone knows to go 30 and not 40). In her words "How can the state make a teenager pay a $190 ticket just for having fun?":twitchy:

Anyways, Illinois has white slips, a driving stage that lets you drive with your parents that is given to you around 15.5 years old and you have to get 50 hours of driving with your parents. I think that has changed to 100 hours and is given closer to 15. I think that would be fitting until 18. Then kids will have both plenty of driving practice and more maturity than a 16-year-old.

Here in Canada, I think it's 16 you get your G1 license, which allows you to drive with a passenger that has a full license. After 1/2-1 year, you can get your G2, which lets you drive alone. The G2 is strict in regards to NO alcohol in your system [can't be under legal limit, must be none] no texting, calling, ect.

Sounds like Canada may be on to something. This is a case were tough love saves lives.:thumb:

that there are other people in the world besides themselves.

Well those people should have their own government to address their needs. Our government should address our needs with no concern for the needs of other countries. That is what their government is for.

Should my vote weigh more than yours because I own more land than you?
Not that I would mind a pocket full of votes.
.

Yes. Landowners have more at stake than non landowners. The community that I used to live in was primarily rental properties, so it was easy to get a HUGE increase in the property tax passed. The campaign was even blatant about it, proclaiming let the landlords pay for our new road and park, vote yes on the property tax increase.

And if you look at a county by county red/blue map from the Presidential election of 2004 you can see it now. Liberal inner city dwellers wield entirely too much power over the bulk of the country.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm

This type of displaced, distant rule may well be the end of this country.

Our government should address our needs with no concern for the needs of other countries.

This is pretty much what our government does. Except it doesn't address "our" needs as much as it addresses the needs of a privileged few. And it addresses those needs by consuming the resources of other nations (namely those with oil fields and underpaid workers).

Yes. Landowners have more at stake than non landowners. The community that I used to live in was primarily rental properties, so it was easy to get a HUGE increase in the property tax passed. The campaign was even blatant about it, proclaiming let the landlords pay for our new road and park, vote yes on the property tax increase.

And if you look at a county by county red/blue map from the Presidential election of 2004 you can see it now. Liberal inner city dwellers wield entirely too much power over the bulk of the country.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm

This type of displaced, distant rule may well be the end of this country.

Don't be too gentle on the poor landlords. The last time I checked, less than 10% of the population owned more than 80% of the total wealth of this country, and over 95% of its productive capital. It seems to me that, sometime during the last 20 years, we've managed to phase the middle class out of existence, and transform ourselves into an English-speaking version of a Latin American country. Without a strong middle class, as FDR and others realized long ago, democracy isn't going to last very long. This kind of imbalance of wealth can only have two consequences: autocracy or revolution, neither one of which appeals to me all that much. Please consider that before you vote for McCain; he's not an idiotic Fascist like Bush, or a venal Fascist like Cheney, but he's still a Fascist. (For the sake of transparency, the modern GOP really should change its symbol from an elephant to a swastika...)

BTW, what happened to drivers' licenses?

but who would deliver my pizza?
I've seen pizza scooters doing the job, though not in the US. It might be better to do it that way because the pizza shops could feasibly own their scooter fleet, instead of having inadequately insured part timers using their own vehicles.

Don't be too gentle on the poor landlords. The last time I checked, less than 10% of the population owned more than 80% of the total wealth of this country, and over 95% of its productive capital. It seems to me that, sometime during the last 20 years, we've managed to phase the middle class out of existence, and transform ourselves into an English-speaking version of a Latin American country. Without a strong middle class, as FDR and others realized long ago, democracy isn't going to last very long. This kind of imbalance of wealth can only have two consequences: autocracy or revolution, neither one of which appeals to me all that much. Please consider that before you vote for McCain; he's not an idiotic Fascist like Bush, or a venal Fascist like Cheney, but he's still a Fascist. (For the sake of transparency, the modern GOP really should change its symbol from an elephant to a swastika...)

BTW, what happened to drivers' licenses?

It appears half of the country will have to drag the other half into the 21st century kicking and screaming; no worries, though. The future is coming, whether some like it or not. Hopefully a new administration can begin to steer us away from those invisible free market hands that only seem to carry money from the working classes to the ruling classes.

Either that, or we'll turn into Argentina, soon enough. That was a first-world country (like ours) whose economy tanked (like ours?) and turned into an urban war zone. And then this can turn into a survival forum, (like this one (http://ferfal.blogspot.com/)) rather than a biking forum.

And yes, I thought this topic was about driver's licenses. Maybe we should stop speculating on who should have the right to vote and who shouldn't unless we're in the political forum, eh?

I think it's a great idea. I didn't get my license until I was 21. I also lived in suburbia and managed to work and live without a car.

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.

And uh, the Canadian system sounds almost exactly the same as what we have here in the U.S. (at least in MA). 16, you get a permit. You can drive with someone 21+ with a license. 16 1/2 min you can get a license that lets you drive alone or with family members only. 17 min you can get a full license, which is still restricted to the hours of 5am-12:30am.

What would be the consequences of raising the minimum driving age to 18? Would it be a good thing or a bad thing?


I'm uncomfortable basing *anything* on an age... after all, we outlaw most forms of age discrimination for a reason. We not simple have a much more thorough certification system, one which includes a simple assessment of responsibility and maturity?

A car is a potentially deadly weapon - licensing should be treated as such.

Here in Canada, I think it's 16 you get your G1 license, which allows you to drive with a passenger that has a full license. After 1/2-1 year, you can get your G2, which lets you drive alone. The G2 is strict in regards to NO alcohol in your system [can't be under legal limit, must be none] no texting, calling, ect.

That is NOT the case in all of Canada, please don't confuse people. In Canada driver's licensing is a provincial responsibility, and as such each province has its own system and laws (but I think all of them place the minimum age for driving at 16). The system you describe above is the Ontario system.

I've posted before that the drinking age should be lowered and the driving age raised, 16 to drink, 21 to drive. The drinking can't be enforced anyway and the kids learn to control their drinking well before they learn to drive. Plus they learn to live car free- a good skill to have as we car -free know. The fairness in military service issue makes me think that if the person successfully submits to the discipline of a military life the person can be allowed to drive.

I'm uncomfortable basing *anything* on an age... after all, we outlaw most forms of age discrimination for a reason. We not simple have a much more thorough certification system, one which includes a simple assessment of responsibility and maturity?

A car is a potentially deadly weapon - licensing should be treated as such.

Age is a proxy for responsibility and maturity, maybe a poor one. What is a simple assessment of responsibility and maturity that is as accurate or more so than age? Maybe hormonal variation over the course of a month? Some teenagers can seem very responsible and mature one minute and a few minutes later do something so stupid you wouldn't expect it of a 10 year old.

Age is a proxy for responsibility and maturity, maybe a poor one. What is a simple assessment of responsibility and maturity that is as accurate or more so than age? Maybe hormonal variation over the course of a month? Some teenagers can seem very responsible and mature one minute and a few minutes later do something so stupid you wouldn't expect it of a 10 year old.

There are many standard psych tests which can access such things - sometimes very well, and indirectly. A friend with his masters in psych and experience designing research questions has given me many examples of this. Those "what would you do in this situation" questions are not just about job ethics. I'm not saying this would be perfect, but could be better than a simple age "test", and less arbitrary.

Mind you, I'm probably the worse person to ask about this - I fee that most drivers out there have neither the responsibility or maturity to drive.

I've posted before that the drinking age should be lowered and the driving age raised, 16 to drink, 21 to drive. The drinking can't be enforced anyway and the kids learn to control their drinking well before they learn to drive. Plus they learn to live car free- a good skill to have as we car -free know. The fairness in military service issue makes me think that if the person successfully submits to the discipline of a military life the person can be allowed to drive.

:thumb:

My sentiments exactly. Until we quit "improving" vehicles and start improving the person behind the wheel we are going to continue to have the issues we do. I was chasing stats for NC the other day and they are scary. Twenty-four percent of drivers on the road are driving with no license! Seventy-five percent of people with revoked licenses continue to drive...and nearly half of the cars on the road are being driven with no license/insurance or under insured. No wonder no one feels safe driving or riding on the roads around here.:(

Aaron:)

sometime during the last 20 years, we've managed to phase the middle class out of existence
The middle class is doing great. The problem is that most people who think that they are middle class... aren't.
Middle class means you have servants and don't work for a living. That class is doing well. Upper class takes that to a whole new level. All the people who do 9 to 5 jobs? Are working class by definition, not middle class.

I recall seeing this issue in the news, a couple years back. It was argued that raising the driving age, would put a burden on parents who would have to start driving their kids to work, school, the mall, etc. It was basically stated that today's parents are to busy to do this.

If that's the case, maybe the driving age should be lowered to 12.

I recall seeing this issue in the news, a couple years back. It was argued that raising the driving age, would put a burden on parents who would have to start driving their kids to work, school, the mall, etc. It was basically stated that today's parents are to busy to do this.


Well basically, stiff *****. The minimum driving age should be increased to 25 purely on the grounds that doing so would immediately halve the number of annual road deaths. As far as the parents having to drive kids around is concerned, is that not simply part of being a parent? If people aren't prepared to take on the responsibility of parenthood, they should have kids. Simple as that. There are too many people in the world as it is.

Well basically, stiff *****. The minimum driving age should be increased to 25 purely on the grounds that doing so would immediately halve the number of annual road deaths. As far as the parents having to drive kids around is concerned, is that not simply part of being a parent? If people aren't prepared to take on the responsibility of parenthood, they should have kids. Simple as that. There are too many people in the world as it is.

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). 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.

Well basically, stiff *****. If people aren't prepared to take on the responsibility of parenthood, they should have kids. Simple as that.

Did you read what you typed, before you posted it?


Basically I'm for raising the driving age (note my sarcasm at the end of my post). But to answer the original posters question, I remembered seeing this in the news, a couple of years ago and posted it to answer his question.

You need to lighten up.

There are many standard psych tests which can access such things - sometimes very well, and indirectly. A friend with his masters in psych and experience designing research questions has given me many examples of this. Those "what would you do in this situation" questions are not just about job ethics. I'm not saying this would be perfect, but could be better than a simple age "test", and less arbitrary.

Mind you, I'm probably the worse person to ask about this - I fee that most drivers out there have neither the responsibility or maturity to drive.

The weird thing is that teenagers can answer those questions, then go do the irresponsible thing within an hour. I know a teenager like that who seems like a good responsible kid. Yet she stole a car, drove it to another town and got in an accident. Has no license. I asked her why she did something so stupid. "I felt my life is boring and I needed some excitement." As a bicyclist out there sharing the road this kind of thing scares me. This isn't some inner city "at risk" youth, this is an over privileged kid.

I agree with your last sentence except the "most". But there are enough to make driving crazy.

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). 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.
No. My dad got really bad. The state wouldn't take his license away so we got his doctor on our side and threatened to have him declared incompetent if he didn't voluntarily give up driving. Mom in a show of solidarity with the cause voluntarily gave up her license too. My family did more than raise a finger we got two aging drivers off the road before they killed someone. Dad still gives us a hard time about it. In hind sight we should have done it a few years earlier than we did. Dad kept passing the state assesments but scared us to the point where no one would be in the car with him behind the wheel.

Well basically, stiff *****. The minimum driving age should be increased to 25 purely on the grounds that doing so would immediately halve the number of annual road deaths. As far as the parents having to drive kids around is concerned, is that not simply part of being a parent? If people aren't prepared to take on the responsibility of parenthood, they should have kids. Simple as that. There are too many people in the world as it is. [/color]

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

Finally, older drivers can easily exceed the danger of younger drivers. I'd much rather have a responsible 17-year old sharing the road with me than a 77-year old with dementia on my tail, and I think most drivers would as well. Yet we persist in the fantasy that all young drivers are accidents waiting to happen, and people become infinitely better drivers as they age, until death.

In ME, they raised the legal min age to 16. They also have tightened up licensing requirements.

When I went through Driver's Ed, the classwork was a joke, and after 10 hrs of actual driving, they handed you a permit, which you could mail in the next day if you wanted. And you could be driving on a permit at age 15.

Now, driver's ed is longer, they get very much more in depth with what they're teaching compared to what I was exposed to (24 yrs ago...), and there's more driving during the course. The final exam, is much harder than it used to be. After the course, you have to complete 35 logged hrs of supervised driving on the road and wait six months before even applying to get your license. Also, the first six months of driving are with a restricted license--no driving after dark, no one in the car with the new driver under the age of 25 unless accompanied by a licensed driver over the age of 25 sitting in the front passenger seat, automatic suspension for most traffic violations.

My son is 17, but will be 18 before he gets his license.

At least in our state, things have become tougher as far as getting your license. Not a mandated minimum of 18, but perhaps a decent compromise. ME is a very rural state, where most consider a car a necessity to get to jobs, food, and the various amenities civilization offers. That even a tightening of licensing for teens happened is a political miracle.

I agree with your last sentence except the "most". But there are enough to make driving crazy.

Keep in mind my bias - if someone is driving at all in the urban core of a city, I consider them irresponsible. ;)
Never mind that I see less than half of drivers stop *at* the stop line, or signal lane changes, etc.

My proposal is to keep the age requirements as they are, but start holding drivers (and parents if the children are sub 18) accountable for any mayhem they cause. The vast majority of young drivers will behave responsible enough to learn some important lessons and become responsible adult drivers. All we need to do is make very public examples of a few of their classmates, and parents of classmates, and the situation will begin to change. Basically I want to see an end to the, "It was just a mistake and he's to young to ruin his life by sending him to jail, and he really is quite torn up over killing that cyclist" statement coming from a prosecuter.

Also some mutual assured destruction (like a rusty spike on every steering wheel) would have a positive effect overall.