NationStates Jolt Archive

I saw in an ad for Allstate insurance that young drivers get in accidents a lot because the decision-making part of their brain is not fully developed. If this is so, should we allow teens to continue to drive and cause accidents and deaths, which they will get blamed for, when it is not their fault? If so, what age? I thnk 20 or 21. Now this doesn't mean you can't have a permit or some other provisional thing.

I say make 18 the legal age for everything, or younger if you can pass a test of emotional maturity.

Tell me, how are teenagers supposed to work, or live on there own, or be independent at all if the driving age was raised to 20?

You're a senior in high school, right? Do you have a license and a car? Would you really give up driving until you were a junior in college?

You're a senior in high school, right? Do you have a license and a car? Would you really give up driving until you were a junior in college?
I didn't drive on my own until I was going into my third year of university (due to Ontario's graduated lisence system you have to wait a year after getting your G1 to take the test to get your G2, which is the one that lets you drive on your own, I put it off for a while until I was almost going to be out of time to get my full lisence (which takes another year of waiting)) and now I'm a graduate student and I still don't own a car and hardly ever drive.

Public transit and bicycles are good things.

They've got to learn at some point.

I didn't drive on my own until I was going into my third year of university (due to Ontario's graduated lisence system you have to wait a year after getting your G1 to take the test to get your G2, which is the one that lets you drive on your own, I put it off for a while until I was almost going to be out of time to get my full lisence (which takes another year of waiting)) and now I'm a graduate student and I still don't own a car and hardly ever drive.

Public transit and bicycles are good things.

I live in the country, as do many people in my state. Our public transit system is limited to the cities, and even then it's pretty bad. I'm also not interested in biking three miles everywhere.

So what about us?

The thought that almost everybody I know is now legally allowed to drive I find to be vaguely horrifying.

I saw in an ad for Allstate insurance that young drivers get in accidents a lot because the decision-making part of their brain is not fully developed. If this is so, should we allow teens to continue to drive and cause accidents and deaths, which they will get blamed for, when it is not their fault? If so, what age? I thnk 20 or 21. Now this doesn't mean you can't have a permit or some other provisional thing.
permits require a licenced individual to drive. I'm sure Junior Prom would be a big hit being driven there by daddy and mommy. :rolleyes:

I think more accidents occure when the driver is drunk... reguardless of age. so I would support a redesign in all automobiles. where in order to start the car, you need to blow into a breathalyser that would measure the amount of alcohol consumed.

Add to that a speed cap on all non service vehicles. cars that cannot go above 60 mph.

that would be a better solution than raising the driving age.

Let's keep raising the driving age each other to keep ahead of the high amount of accidents for people just learning to drive until no one is able to drive!

17 suits me fine. Most in the UK do not pass until they are 18 at any rate, and short of raising the age to mid-20's when one might expect all to be completely mature, 17/18 makes as much sense as anything else.

I live in the country, as do many people in my state. Our public transit system is limited to the cities, and even then it's pretty bad. I'm also not interested in biking three miles everywhere.

So what about us?
I'm not saying that everyone should go without driving (or that teens shouldn't be allowed to drive) just that "not driving != end of the world".

I waited until 17 to get my license, although I got my learner's permit at 15. I'm still inexperienced but I drive carefully and don't speed, and how else would I get to and from school? My brothers and I supposedly live a fraction of a mile too close to be allowed to ride the school bus, but walking would mean crossing a busy intersection that for much of last year didn't have a crosswalk and where I've seen plenty of people run the light. Plus, walking with a backpack that at times has weighed up to 40 pounds would hurt really badly, and my brother has to carry even more than that since he has a violin to bring back and forth. We don't have lockers at my school. Especially with the new schedule where we, waiting until 5:30 when our parents could pick us up would be horrible and would mean that we'd have to wait until then to do homework and so would pretty much have wasted most of the day.

So yes, I think teenagers should be allowed to drive...

I'm not saying that everyone should go without driving (or that teens shouldn't be allowed to drive) just that "not driving != end of the world".

I wasn't impyling that you did, but in my neck of the woods, not driving DOES mean the end of the world.

I wasn't impyling that you did, but in my neck of the woods, not driving DOES mean the end of the world.
Yeah, that's shitty.

I totally couldn't live in the country for that reason. As much as it would be sweet to lack the light pollution.

I waited until 17 to get my license, although I got my learner's permit at 15. I'm still inexperienced but I drive carefully and don't speed, and how else would I get to and from school? My brothers and I supposedly live a fraction of a mile too close to be allowed to ride the school bus, but walking would mean crossing a busy intersection that for much of last year didn't have a crosswalk and where I've seen plenty of people run the light. Plus, walking with a backpack that at times has weighed up to 40 pounds would hurt really badly, and my brother has to carry even more than that since he has a violin to bring back and forth. We don't have lockers at my school. Especially with the new schedule where we, waiting until 5:30 when our parents could pick us up would be horrible and would mean that we'd have to wait until then to do homework and so would pretty much have wasted most of the day.

So yes, I think teenagers should be allowed to drive...
Why didn't you take the city bus?

That's what I did in highschool, it took between an hour and an hour and a half to go a distance that takes 15 mins to drive, but I did it. Of course it sucked ass in the winter when the buses would run exceptionally late and I'd have to stand in the freezing cold and snow carrying four textbooks and a flute wearing chuch taylors on my feet but whatever, I dealt with it.

permits require a licenced individual to drive. I'm sure Junior Prom would be a big hit being driven there by daddy and mommy. :rolleyes:

I think more accidents occure when the driver is drunk... reguardless of age. so I would support a redesign in all automobiles. where in order to start the car, you need to blow into a breathalyser that would measure the amount of alcohol consumed.

Add to that a speed cap on all non service vehicles. cars that cannot go above 60 mph.that would be a better solution than raising the driving age.

Then what's the point in buying a decent car with any performace? Speeding isn't wrong if done at appropriate times and locations. As for the breathalyser; can't see it working in truth. Education from an early age, not simply telling people not to do a whole range of things when learning to drive, might prove useful.

I saw an ad on TV that said that what was said in the ad was true because if it wasnt true they couldnt put said ad on TV.
Allstate is just trying to make old people feel better about themselves so they'll buy their insurance.

You're a senior in high school, right? Do you have a license and a car? Would you really give up driving until you were a junior in college?
Yes, I am. I could've gotten my license a few days ago, but didn't because I'm fine without it. I never even got my permit.

Public transit and bicycles are good things.
Indeed

The thought that almost everybody I know is now legally allowed to drive I find to be vaguely horrifying.
Indeed

permits require a licenced individual to drive. I'm sure Junior Prom would be a big hit being driven there by daddy and mommy. :rolleyes:

I think more accidents occure when the driver is drunk... reguardless of age. so I would support a redesign in all automobiles. where in order to start the car, you need to blow into a breathalyser that would measure the amount of alcohol consumed.

Add to that a speed cap on all non service vehicles. cars that cannot go above 60 mph.

that would be a better solution than raising the driving age.
1. We don't have a Junior Prom.
2. I think everyone goes in a lime to the Prom.
3. I guess that would work until ACLU comes along...

Then what's the point in buying a decent car with any performace? Speeding isn't wrong if done at appropriate times and locations. As for the breathalyser; can't see it working in truth. Education from an early age, not simply telling people not to do a whole range of things when learning to drive, might prove useful.
Oh yeah, speed caps are retarded. Around here nobody ever drives the speed limit, if you do, you're going to cause an accident. Really, the speed limit should be raised on freeways, maybe with lower limits during poor weather conditions.

Then what's the point in buying a decent car with any performace? Speeding isn't wrong if done at appropriate times and locations. As for the breathalyser; can't see it working in truth. Education from an early age, not simply telling people not to do a whole range of things when learning to drive, might prove useful.
WASTE OF MONEY. You shouldn't use a car for zooming down a back street...

Oh yeah, speed caps are retarded. Around here nobody ever drives the speed limit, if you do, you're going to cause an accident. Really, the speed limit should be raised on freeways, maybe with lower limits during poor weather conditions.
No, we should replace them all with an extensive train network.

No, we should replace them all with an extensive train network.

Nah, keep both. If people want to drive their cars, they can, but otherwise they don't have to. No offense to anybody, but there's absolutely nothing good about the morning and evening commute...if I could take a train to and from work and save my car for leisure, it would be so much better.

WASTE OF MONEY. You shouldn't use a car for zooming down a back street...


But it's great fun!

No, seriously, what have you been driving that you think driving a car with crappy performance is fine because everyone should be driving the speed limit?

And the speed limit is awful. It should be raised to at least 75.

Driving is a skill, that has to be learned and practiced. It doesn't have too much to do with one's age. People can get their liscense at 16 here, which I think is pretty reasonable.

I've been driving a bit longer than a year, and I'm pretty good at it. As long as you can focus and stay calm, it's very easy. And I don't speed, unless I'm keeping up with the rest of traffic which is usually speeding.

But it's great fun!

No, seriously, what have you been driving that you think driving a car with crappy performance is fine because everyone should be driving the speed limit?

And the speed limit is awful. It should be raised to at least 75.

You poor fuckers. :(

60 is a joke of a speed limit. The national limit in the UK is 70, but I'm damn sure whenever I drive on A roads and Motorways most people drive comfortably above 90.

WASTE OF MONEY. You shouldn't use a car for zooming down a back street...

Waste of money for you maybe. But then wait, the point of money is to spend it and who are you to decide what people can and cannot buy with their money?

Personally, I feel the current restrictions are more than enough where I live. In fact, they may be a little to restrictive. I'm 19, I drive an 18 speed tri-axle truck that is 40 feet long for a living. The worst I've done? Gotten the thing stuck in the mud. Now I know, some people my age or even younger or older may do a lot more damage not only to themselves but to others when put in control of vehicle. If all we go by is age as a restrive factor, we've effectively cut out a large portion of the population that may actually have to skill to operate vehicles. Instead of just age, why not take a look a closer look at skill? How about a test of the potential drivers attitude towards certain things, ween out the potentionally aggresive drivers. By raising the age limit all we do cut people out of making a living.

I saw an ad on TV that said that what was said in the ad was true because if it wasnt true they couldnt put said ad on TV.
Allstate is just trying to make old people feel better about themselves so they'll buy their insurance.


If you want to know my view on that, I'm totally against compulsory driving insurance. I think that everyone who goes on the road takes a conscious risk by doing so. People should only insure their own cars (and themselves, but in my world there would be universal healthcare), and be responsible for whatever shit they get in, even if it's not their fault.

Then what's the point in buying a decent car with any performace? Speeding isn't wrong if done at appropriate times and locations. As for the breathalyser; can't see it working in truth. Education from an early age, not simply telling people not to do a whole range of things when learning to drive, might prove useful.

yep.. the education of the dangers of Alcohol and driving drunk is really sinking in.

http://www.testsymptomsathome.com/ALS21_article.asp

http://www.alcoholalert.com/car-breathalyzer.html

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2006-04-24-breathalyzer-usat_x.htm


and other than service vehicles, why would you need to speed on the streets?

now cars made for racing in proper racing venues would be ok on raceways, but not on surface streets and interstates.

and other than service vehicles, why would you need to speed on the streets?

now cars made for racing in proper racing venues would be ok on raceways, but not on surface streets and interstates.

The speed limit on the interstate here is 70...

yep.. the education of the dangers of Alcohol and driving drunk is really sinking in.

http://www.testsymptomsathome.com/ALS21_article.asp

http://www.alcoholalert.com/car-breathalyzer.html

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2006-04-24-breathalyzer-usat_x.htm


and other than service vehicles, why would you need to speed on the streets?

now cars made for racing in proper racing venues would be ok on raceways, but not on surface streets and interstates.

I forgot to attack that point. lol triple post

But it's great fun!

No, seriously, what have you been driving that you think driving a car with crappy performance is fine because everyone should be driving the speed limit?

And the speed limit is awful. It should be raised to at least 75.
All I've seen in my years looking at the window of a car is nothing but trouble. Driving looks like anything but fun.

I live in the country, as do many people in my state. Our public transit system is limited to the cities, and even then it's pretty bad. I'm also not interested in biking three miles everywhere.

So what about us?

You wouldn't be fat:D

The speed limit on the interstate here is 70... my bad, then cap it at the nations hightest speed.

*watches as one state raises the Speed Limit to 120* :p

I forgot to attack that point. lol triple post
Yep... removing the TP's now. :p

and don't worry about the point. the tech isn't quite ready for mass installation, but some DD felons already use it.

Of course. I took Drivers Ed the Summer before my 10th Grade Year but however I didn't get my licence till I was 17. But I still learned plenty about the rules of the road between that time. Anyway when I didn't have my licence it was such a hassel. I would have to call for a ride to be picked up from a game (I used to be in the Band) from a club, from anywhere. Sometimes I didn't have a cell with me so I was stuck walking home. I missed out on a lot of great stuff, because I couldn't drive. But certianly I think we should ban Cellphone use while driving. When I got my licence I was actually able to go places and do stuff, rather than beg my parents for a ride. Haven't you felt the frustration of wanting to go to a movie but can't because no one is around to take you?

Haven't you felt the frustration of wanting to go to a movie but can't because no one is around to take you?
yeah.. I hear ya...

tho for me, it wasn't because I couldn't drive, I just couldn't get a date. :p

You poor fuckers. :(

60 is a joke of a speed limit. The national limit in the UK is 70, but I'm damn sure whenever I drive on A roads and Motorways most people drive comfortably above 90.

Is That MPH or KPH? Tad different.

One huge caveat regarding speed limit changes: a significant increase in the cap would require massive investment to upgrade and retrofit highways to safely handle traffic at those speeds. The average highway in the US isn't like the high-speed Autobahn; they're simply not engineered to tolerate those speeds and it would lead to a lot of accidents and safety risks if the speed limit were increased without commensurate reengineering.

Unfortunately, changes to the speed limit aren't a matter of simply replacing the signs. They'd require billions of dollars of investment to prevent a massive increase in accidents.

All I've seen in my years looking at the window of a car is nothing but trouble. Driving looks like anything but fun.

Fun? Depends. But an awesome freedom giving machine? Definitely.

I think teenagers should drive, mainly because we'll have to at some point and I'm sure it's a major hassle trying to learn to drive while in college.

That, and my school is a good 30 minutes from where I live (as is everything). The buses are insanely crowded and none of the buses in NC can go over 40mph (speed caps ftw! :rolleyes:) so it takes 45 min- 1 hr to get to school in the morning. Public transport is unheard of here.

as my driving instructor once told me...

"Driving should be boring, and tedious. the moment it becomes exciting, you're doing something wrong."

Fun? Depends. But an awesome freedom giving machine? Definitely.

Of course, it would be nice if that "freedom" meant only "freedom" like it used to before the public transport systems were dismantled...it fucking sucks having to drive everywhere, especially to work.

Of course we should be able to.
Here in NZ you can buy fireworks at 15. Legally have sex at 16. Buy alcohol at 18. Vote at 18.
Raising the legal age of driving to 20 would make it like the final 'ticket' to adulthood, if you get what I mean, and frankly it shouldn't be.

Of course, it would be nice if that "freedom" meant only "freedom" like it used to before the public transport systems were dismantled...it fucking sucks having to drive everywhere, especially to work.

Again, that's really dependent on where you live. A public transportation system in the country that you know, works, won't be possible until we invent teleporters.

as my driving instructor once told me...

"Driving should be boring, and tedious. the moment it becomes exciting, you're doing something wrong."

Given how some other people drive you could be doing everything correctly and still have an adventure on the road.

Again, that's really dependent on where you live. A public transportation system in the country that you know, works, won't be possible until we invent teleporters.

Nah, light rail could really take care of it. It's mostly the commute that's a complete waste of time and money. Get rid of that and you pretty much get rid of most of our transportation expenditures.

It would adversely effect university rates (an many cannot afford to move on campus and transit is a mess), which would hurt the economy badly in the future.

Is That MPH or KPH? Tad different.

Or H/100Km? :D

Haven't you felt the frustration of wanting to go to a movie but can't because no one is around to take you?
No, not really...

Is That MPH or KPH? Tad different.
lol I was going to ask that...

One huge caveat...
MUCH better spent on public transport

Fun? Depends. But an awesome freedom giving machine? Definitely.
I don't see how that makes one feel free...(Roller Coasters anyone? Gocarts in a vacant lot?)

Of course, it would be nice if that "freedom" meant only "freedom" like it used to before the public transport systems were dismantled...it fucking sucks having to drive everywhere, especially to work.
Yes. Public transport.

Of course we should be able to.
Here in NZ you can buy fireworks at 15...
At least you can buy fireworks...

Nah, light rail could really take care of it. It's mostly the commute that's a complete waste of time and money. Get rid of that and you pretty much get rid of most of our transportation expenditures.
Yes.

It would adversely effect university rates (an many cannot afford to move on campus and transit is a mess), which would hurt the economy badly in the future.
How? It would make it better with less cars and accidents.

Is That MPH or KPH? Tad different.Km/h. Easy way to remember: if the person isn't a USian, they probably mean metric.

I don't see how that makes one feel free...(Roller Coasters anyone? Gocarts in a vacant lot?)

Freedom to go where you want, when you want?

I saw in an ad for Allstate insurance that young drivers get in accidents a lot because the decision-making part of their brain is not fully developed. If this is so, should we allow teens to continue to drive and cause accidents and deaths, which they will get blamed for, when it is not their fault? If so, what age? I thnk 20 or 21. Now this doesn't mean you can't have a permit or some other provisional thing.

Eighteen is the age at which we are considered legally to be an adult in the United States. At eighteen, contracts which we enter into without coercion are binding. We can work without needing to get a waiver (working papers). We can choose to join the military, or to support ourselves.

I believe that most teens should be able to drive safely by age eighteen, and that some covered under the learner's permits (16, 17) are also probably mature enough.

I have seen people from 20-90 make stupid boneheaded and dangerous moves on the road too. Does that mean there should be a ban on these people driving as well?

and other than service vehicles, why would you need to speed on the streets?
Because 100 km/h isn't very fast at all and that's the fastest the speed limits around here are. You can reasonably and safely drive at 120 km/h at least in good weather.

They have to learn sometime. While they're still living with their parents I think is the best time.

Nah, light rail could really take care of it. It's mostly the commute that's a complete waste of time and money. Get rid of that and you pretty much get rid of most of our transportation expenditures.

Of course, you'd still have to be able to get to the train station to use that light rail. If you don't live in town, you're SOL if you can't drive.

In Australia they have different permits to drive different speeds(or so I am told). Perhaps, with younger drivers, give them similar permits. As you increase in age and experience, the closer to normal speed you can drive.

I can't get anywhere upstate without a car, so I'm taking my drivers test on the 17th... I've been practicing a ton. On the other hand, if their were accessible and useful public transportation like their was where I used to live, I would never drive. But I really need to be able to drive to get a job up here, and I needz me some money.

In Australia they have different permits to drive different speeds(or so I am told). Perhaps, with younger drivers, give them similar permits. As you increase in age and experience, the closer to normal speed you can drive.

But dangerous situations arrive when everyone is going approximatly the same speed with one idiot going faster or slower. If you are obligated to go slower then the rest of the traffic then you are putting yourself and others in danger. You have to be permitted to make the judgement of what to do in order to keep yourself, and those around you safe.

Of course, you'd still have to be able to get to the train station to use that light rail. If you don't live in town, you're SOL if you can't drive.

Unless there are buses, of course. Even so, driving 1 or 2 miles to the train station is a world better than 20-30 miles back and forth every day. That's an hour of my life I could definitely spend more effectively than wasting it in my car for no benefit. Not to mention it saves a lot of money... I'd rather spend $30 on gas for my commute per year than $1,200, that's for sure.

Unless there are buses, of course. Even so, driving 1 or 2 miles to the train station is a world better than 20-30 miles back and forth every day. That's an hour of my life I could definitely spend more effectively than wasting it in my car for no benefit. Not to mention it saves a lot of money... I'd rather spend $30 on gas for my commute per year than $1,200, that's for sure.

I don't think you're understanding what I mean by not living in town. I mean living in the country, as in the nearest neighbor is 3 miles away. Unless you mean having buses come like taxis (which is how my hometown's bus system ran).

However, I do agree that it would be better that way. When I lived in France I absolutely loved the train system, but the region I live in now is extremely agricultural and it'd be nigh impossible for people to go without cars here. In places, it's possible and desirable, but in other places it's not.

Maybe they should include more training for younger drivers.

So if you really need to drive you will go to the classes, take extra lessons whatever. And if you are involved in an accident then you lose your licence for a year.

If a driving licence is something valuable you will be more careful.

Here in the UK the normal age to learn is 17 but if you have certain disabilities you can start driving at 16. I have never heard of a 16 year old drink driving or causing accidents. I'm not saying it doesn't happen or maybe the numbers are too low to report.

Or just maybe it means so much 16 year olds who are allowed to drive in the UK are careful because their licence is too valuable to lose.

I saw in an ad for Allstate insurance that young drivers get in accidents a lot because the decision-making part of their brain is not fully developed. If this is so, should we allow teens to continue to drive and cause accidents and deaths, which they will get blamed for, when it is not their fault? If so, what age? I thnk 20 or 21. Now this doesn't mean you can't have a permit or some other provisional thing.

I would agree to raising the driving age, but only if the law is also changed so that drivers 65 and older have to get their license renewed (with exams) every year...which will happen about two weeks before the end of the universe.

If an old, half-blind person with the reaction time of a drunken sloth is allowed to drive for years on end without testing of any kind, there is no reason why a person who CAN see and CAN react should be required to wait two years longer or more to get the same privilege.

The youngest range of drivers will have more accidents, due to a lack of experience, no matter WHAT the age limit is set to. You might as well get to work on it early and develop proper driving habits.

I've never really thought about the driving age.. But I do believe you should have to be at least 30 to go to war. I've thought this for a while. And then I read about some ancient peeps ..(Alexander the Great) who required their warriors to be 30 .. so that just backed my thinking. lol

Because 100 km/h isn't very fast at all and that's the fastest the speed limits around here are. You can reasonably and safely drive at 120 km/h at least in good weather.

except I'm talking MPH. 60 MPH (Approx 97 Km/h) is about the speed limit on most interstates.

but again, why would anyone need to travel 161 Km/h (that's 100 MPH) on surface streets?

I didn't drive on my own until I was going into my third year of university (due to Ontario's graduated lisence system you have to wait a year after getting your G1 to take the test to get your G2, which is the one that lets you drive on your own, I put it off for a while until I was almost going to be out of time to get my full lisence (which takes another year of waiting)) and now I'm a graduate student and I still don't own a car and hardly ever drive.

Public transit and bicycles are good things.

That's all well and good when you live in an urban area, but out here in the mountains, you need to be able to drive a vehicle. Are there accidents? Yes. Would I prefer it if teens could wait till they've matured more before driving? Yes. Is that really an option in many places? No.

Km/h. Easy way to remember: if the person isn't a USian, they probably mean metric.

No, Chris is British, we use MPH exclusively here. 70mph is the national speed limit, but on most motorways people drive at 70-90mph. Only above that do the police ever get involved for speeding offences.

Concerning the OP, I feel the current age of 17 is quite acceptable. Although, despite the freedom it allows, I find people rely on their cars too much when they could still use the public services. I would, however, support mandatory driving tests for everyone every 10 years, and more regularly (perhaps 5 or 3 years) for people over 65.

permits require a licenced individual to drive. I'm sure Junior Prom would be a big hit being driven there by daddy and mommy. :rolleyes:

I think more accidents occure when the driver is drunk... reguardless of age. so I would support a redesign in all automobiles. where in order to start the car, you need to blow into a breathalyser that would measure the amount of alcohol consumed.
I'd voluntarily get such a device if it existed(and if I had a car to put it in, and knew how to drive, etc) because I'm sure it'd do wonders for my insurance premium.

Add to that a speed cap on all non service vehicles. cars that cannot go above 60 mph.

that would be a better solution than raising the driving age.

GPS + speed cap(with some leeway for when one is overtaking) + some manner of emergency override(which automatically informs the police when it's used) = Win
Can't go more than a little bit over the speed limit for whatever road you're on, unless there's some manner of emergency, which you'll have to explain to the police later anyway, so abusing it wouldn't be smart.

This would also do great things for one's insurance premium.

I saw in an ad for Allstate insurance that young drivers get in accidents a lot because the decision-making part of their brain is not fully developed. If this is so, should we allow teens to continue to drive and cause accidents and deaths, which they will get blamed for, when it is not their fault? If so, what age? I thnk 20 or 21. Now this doesn't mean you can't have a permit or some other provisional thing.

Yes they should be allowed to drive. If people would actually teach their kids to drive properly and if they kids stop driving at dangerous speeds, accident rates would go down.

Hell no one under forty should be allowed to drive, drink, smoke, have sex or watch good films.

except I'm talking MPH. 60 MPH (Approx 97 Km/h) is about the speed limit on most interstates.

but again, why would anyone need to travel 161 Km/h (that's 100 MPH) on surface streets?
160 km/h is probably a bit much. 120 km/h should probably be the speed limit on 400-series highways around here. The limits through the city are usually reasonable, it's just the highway limits that are too low.

Concerning the OP, I feel the current age of 17 is quite acceptable. Although, despite the freedom it allows, I find people rely on their cars too much when they could still use the public services. I would, however, support mandatory driving tests for everyone every 10 years, and more regularly (perhaps 5 or 3 years) for people over 65.
Ha, when I was at 6th form all the people with cars would drive the 50 metres it took to get from school to the park at lunch.

Although, despite the freedom it allows, I find people rely on their cars too much when they could still use the public services.
Oh yeah, whenever I go visit my parents and my mom asks me to go to the store, she always suggests that I use the car even though it's less than a 10 minute walk to the store... I'm used to walking/busing everywhere so I usually walk.

except I'm talking MPH. 60 MPH (Approx 97 Km/h) is about the speed limit on most interstates.

but again, why would anyone need to travel 161 Km/h (that's 100 MPH) on surface streets?
You get where you are going faster?


That isn't suggested around here with our huge fucking cars with high centers of gravity.

Tell me, how are teenagers supposed to work, or live on there own, or be independent at all if the driving age was raised to 20?

You're a senior in high school, right? Do you have a license and a car? Would you really give up driving until you were a junior in college?

Ummm I'm 39 I have never owned my own car nor even driven one. I get on fine using public transport, I hope that answers you question.

I live in the country, as do many people in my state. Our public transit system is limited to the cities, and even then it's pretty bad. I'm also not interested in biking three miles everywhere.

So what about us?

Three pathetic miles? That's just lazy.

except I'm talking MPH. 60 MPH (Approx 97 Km/h) is about the speed limit on most interstates.

but again, why would anyone need to travel 161 Km/h (that's 100 MPH) on surface streets?

Actually, it is 65 on most interstates.

You poor fuckers. :(

60 is a joke of a speed limit. The national limit in the UK is 70, but I'm damn sure whenever I drive on A roads and Motorways most people drive comfortably above 90.

i'm not so sure... round here the outside lane is between 80 and 90, but the middle lane is probably 70 to 80, and the inside lane is usually about 60 to 70. that's how it works generally on the M3 and M27 anyway. and generally speaking the M4 as well (i used to live in Cardiff)

when i was up north recently (mostly the M1 and associated roads), everybody seemed to drive way faster than up there. the middle lane was doing 90 and i was having to go 100 to overtake.

i don't like going over 90 at all because if you get caught the cops will take your licence away. best to stay just under.

mph btw.


and as for the OP, it depends. i'm probably a worse driver now at 22 than i was at 18. but in (some states in) the US, can't one get a provisional licence at 14 or something... or is that just urban legend? cos that does seem waaaaaay too young.

I saw in an ad for Allstate insurance that young drivers get in accidents a lot because the decision-making part of their brain is not fully developed. If this is so, should we allow teens to continue to drive and cause accidents and deaths, which they will get blamed for, when it is not their fault? If so, what age? I thnk 20 or 21. Now this doesn't mean you can't have a permit or some other provisional thing.

If the US were to outlaw teenage driving, teenage pregnancy would be come so rare that the pro-life pro-choice fanatics would have nothing to argue about, thereby confusing both conservatives and liberals, destroying the political landscape and leading the country to a path of ruin…

If the US were to outlaw teenage driving, teenage pregnancy would be come so rare that the pro-life pro-choice fanatics would have nothing to argue about, thereby confusing both conservatives and liberals, destroying the political landscape and leading the country to a path of ruin…

You have my vote.

If it were down to me I'd restrict licenses to 21+ as well as a more stringent test and renewal scheme for qualified drivers.

Ideally I'd like to see a retest every 5 years during ones driving career. Firstly to keep the eye in and secondly to keep abreast of new legislation or changes to the Highway Code.

I do not want to see insurance companies installing tracking devices nor more speeding restrictions and other totally bullshit laws for car drivers. Dammit!

this is one of the things that piss me off.

you can buy cigs at 18, vote at 18, drive, but cant drink at 18.

i can understand one point of view, just started driving, dont want alcohol to be something new to the person too, because there would probably be a high rate of 18 y/o who want to combine two.

however there are still the responsible 18 y/o's who have to suffer for the popular theory of ignorant (or irresponsible) young adults.

and yes, they should be allowed to freaking drive!

And what if someone has a job that requires them to travel at 18? Now you just cost them a job. It would be economicly unfeasible to do what you are suggesting.

Well you see we have something called public transport...


And what if there has been little change?

Great!

I agree.

How could you not ;)

If it were down to me I'd restrict licenses to 21+ as well as a more stringent test and renewal scheme for qualified drivers.

And what if someone has a job that requires them to travel at 18? Now you just cost them a job. It would be economicly unfeasible to do what you are suggesting.

Ideally I'd like to see a retest every 5 years during ones driving career. Firstly to keep the eye in and secondly to keep abreast of new legislation or changes to the Highway Code.

And what if there has been little change?

I do not want to see insurance companies installing tracking devices nor more speeding restrictions and other totally bullshit laws for car drivers. Dammit!

I agree.

I'm in Arkansas, where the written portion of the driving test (taken at 14) is so easy a blind half-brained monkey could pass it and I know many people who have failed even that. I do think the test should be more stringent by far, and I do agree with periodic re-tests, but some teens just have no other way to get around.

I think it doesn't make so much difference when a teen is able to get their license and matters more how much experience they have had before they get it. For example, where I live one gets the learner's permit at 15 years 6 months, and the full fledged driver's license is available at 16 years 3 months. This, in my opinion, is not nearly enough time to learn how to drive under the guidance of an adult; the learner's permit stage should be lengthened all the way to 18 years of age. And if it makes any difference, I am 19 myself and would have supported this change even if it delayed me receiving my license.

Do YOU want to have to drive them to the fucking mall again?

I saw in an ad for Allstate insurance that young drivers get in accidents a lot because the decision-making part of their brain is not fully developed.

Yes it really is. But it is not only about the decision-making part of their brains.

Humans can run at 35 km per hour maximum. Our brain is designed to processes images at that maximum speed.

Our brains are rather flexible and can handle higher speeds, but then images will be skipped and details will disappear.

People below 24-25 years, their brains are not fully developed to handle those unnatural high speeds.

That combined with the poor decision making and their brutal youth ('look what I dare!' or 'your car isn't faster than mine') is delivering an explosive cocktail.

Now, it doesn't matter what we think about it. The insurance companies will decide.

It could happen that in the hunt for extra profits they decide to raise their fees for young drivers.

In my opinion they should restrict the speed level of cars driven by younger people (I’m thinking about 70 km per hour max). Those cars should have a clear (and cool doh) symbol on its 4 sides to notify adult drivers.

I like the idea of a graduated license, it seems to be working here.....

http://www.dps.state.ok.us/dls/gdl.htm

And ok you’ll start all shouting that my proposal is ridiculous.

But 16-year-old drivers kill two Americans every other day…

They are almost as efficient as those terrorist parties in Iraq…

Actually, it is 65 on most interstates.

Odd, I've only ever driven in one state where it's 65. Everywhere else I've driven it's 70 or 75.

Odd, I've only ever driven in one state where it's 65. Everywhere else I've driven it's 70 or 75.

Depends on where you are at. Out in the plains, alot of them are 70 to 75. Here on the east coast, alot of the speed limits are 65.

Depends on where you are at. Out in the plains, alot of them are 70 to 75. Here on the east coast, alot of the speed limits are 65.

yep. it varies from state to state.

Hawaii's interstate (wrap your brains around that one) is 65.

tho I know some places do go as high as 70.

Public transit and bicycles are good things.
I agree with my fellow Ontarian. In fact, most of my colleagues (Also grad students) do not drive, or do not drive often. I live quite comfortably with almost no car-time at all.

I am all for letting teenagers (And even adults) drive bicycles, but I think personal motor vehicles should be banned. Public transit and taxis ought to be enough, particularly if everyone is using them (Increased demand leading to increased supply and all that jazz).

I agree with my fellow Ontarian. In fact, most of my colleagues (Also grad students) do not drive, or do not drive often. I live quite comfortably with almost no car-time at all.

I am all for letting teenagers (And even adults) drive bicycles, but I think personal motor vehicles should be banned. Public transit and taxis ought to be enough, particularly if everyone is using them (Increased demand leading to increased supply and all that jazz).

And what about people who do not have public transportation near them and it is to far for them to bike? What then?

And what about people who do not have public transportation near them and it is to far for them to bike? What then?
They can move house to a more convenient spot.

Or they can take advantage of the increased level of service which would be provided due to the increased demand, as mentioned above.

Realistically, my scheme would only work within urban and suburban areas. I would be fine with just banning personal vehicles within city limits.

I agree with my fellow Ontarian. In fact, most of my colleagues (Also grad students) do not drive, or do not drive often. I live quite comfortably with almost no car-time at all.

I am all for letting teenagers (And even adults) drive bicycles, but I think personal motor vehicles should be banned. Public transit and taxis ought to be enough, particularly if everyone is using them (Increased demand leading to increased supply and all that jazz).

You live quite comfortable with no car time at all. Not everyone can. For example, what is a teenage kid who grows up in the house linked below supposed to do?

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=46.530491,-86.182584&spn=0.001631,0.005021&t=k&z=18&om=1

Teenagers also like to sneak out of windows, so should we take those away? :)



If the 'decision making' part of their brain is not developed, then how will it help to take away everything they have to make decisions about?

I think that people should use bycicles when moving in town. Cars are expensive and dangerous, and cause pollution. Most of collisions caused by cars happen in town. If citizens had to move by bike in town, a lot of money would be saved, so that people would be richer; moreover, average speed movement would increase (in many towns, it is below 3 km/hour ^^") because of bicycle's major agility. In roads out of towns (autobahn, for example) it's far more difficult to suffer from a crash. So, in my opinion, if people in town used bicycles, there would be no problem in making teens drive - I am myself an horrible driver, but I have no problems in driving out of towns.

Do YOU want to have to drive them to the fucking mall again?

Aye...nowt like a bus... ;)

Absolutely. Everybody has an absolute inalienable human right to drive a car which they own on a road which they either own or which is run by a government, regardless of how old they are or any other criteria. If road socialism were repealed and all roads were privately owned, the property owner of the road would have the sole decision making power to determine who is permitted to drive on his/her road. However, under road socialism, everybody has a right to use the road, whether or not they have "insurance," a "driver's license," or any other criteria. It is a crime against humanity to refuse anybody the right to drive on a socialist road. On a privatized road, however, the property owner makes the decision.

Besides that, I don't believe any of that psuedoscience that says that brains aren't fully developed until 25. Maybe for those who are educated in government schools (including colleges), that is the case, but the fact that numerous people under 25 have their brains fully developed and are intelligent people (mainly the ones who were homeschooled or who took steps to properly educate themselves to counter the government school propaganda they were indoctrinated in) disproves this propaganda.

There is absolutely no such thing as a "teenager." It is a false stereotype which is internalized as a result of cultural influences and the government school system. People can be mature adults at the age of 13 or so, provided that they are properly educated (ie. either homeschooling or self-education). History is full of numerous such examples (such as Thomas Edison, Ben Franklin, and Admiral Farragut in American History). The reason why "teenagers" act as they do is because they are unhappy with the way our society is set up to treat them as children. Because the government has placed its official designation of adulthood years after it should be (and full adulthood is actually at 25), adults under the age of adulthood will act out to express their disgust with the state of our society.

Everybody has an absolute inalienable human right to drive a car which they own on a road which they either own or which is run by a government, regardless of how old they are or any other criteria.

Nobody has a right to drive a car and it's certainly not an inalienable right, considering that would make it a crime to punish speeders, drunk drivers, hit-and-run criminals, perpetrators of insurance fraud and so on for every automobile-related crime in existence. It is a privilege that can be taken away if they fail to abide by the laws that every owner of a car must follow. It's the same no matter who builds the road or who owns it...they always have the right to deny you use of the road, and if they have the power to enforce laws, to seize your vehicle to make sure you don't violate it again.

absolutely not. I got my license at 16. Its too young.

Well, my first crash happened when I was 20, 3 years after I started driving. If anything, I was a better driver before I developed real confidence on the road.

Ha, when I was at 6th form all the people with cars would drive the 50 metres it took to get from school to the park at lunch.

Yup, same at my old school.

Oh yeah, whenever I go visit my parents and my mom asks me to go to the store, she always suggests that I use the car even though it's less than a 10 minute walk to the store... I'm used to walking/busing everywhere so I usually walk.

This is true, people are so lazy. What I like about where I go to uni is that the car is really not used much, the town centre especially is not designed for cars and there's no where to park. Buses and bicycles are the primary form of travel, and I'm quite happy to walk the 30 mins into town if I feel like it (though I bike most often, or bus if it's raining :p).

If the US were to outlaw teenage driving, teenage pregnancy would be come so rare that the pro-life pro-choice fanatics would have nothing to argue about, thereby confusing both conservatives and liberals, destroying the political landscape and leading the country to a path of ruin…

:p

Do YOU want to have to drive them to the fucking mall again?

I certainly felt, once I was old enough, that now I had the opportunity to drive, I should based purely on relieving the load on the taxi service that was my parents.

Younger people have better alertness, eyesight, and reflexes in general.

The real problem is senior citizens. Lots of them are nearly as bad, if not equally as bad, as drunk drivers.

I saw in an ad for Allstate insurance that young drivers get in accidents a lot because the decision-making part of their brain is not fully developed. If this is so, should we allow teens to continue to drive and cause accidents and deaths, which they will get blamed for, when it is not their fault? If so, what age? I thnk 20 or 21. Now this doesn't mean you can't have a permit or some other provisional thing.

Hrmmm...

If you cause an accident, it is your fault. Really, people will make bad decisions no matter how old they are. All this nonsense about some 'decision making' part of the brain not being fully developed is just that. Nonsense.

I say to forget about it since cars will be driving themselves pretty soon anyway.

I am all for letting teenagers (And even adults) drive bicycles, but I think personal motor vehicles should be banned. Public transit and taxis ought to be enough, particularly if everyone is using them (Increased demand leading to increased supply and all that jazz).
I don't think that car ownership should be prohibited. I mean, if I had a car I'd probably drive it like once a week or so when I do my grocery shopping or if I wanted to travel to another city (the intercity bus/train system is woefully inadequate and costs too much).

160 km/h is probably a bit much. 120 km/h should probably be the speed limit on 400-series highways around here. The limits through the city are usually reasonable, it's just the highway limits that are too low.

Assuming you mean the 400-series highways in southern Ontario, most people go 120km/h on the highway anyways and the police don't seem to care.

Regarding bicycles, the government certainly needs to make cycling more feasible by supplying bicycle lanes and shops should have bike racks for locking them up. The problem with cycling somewhere is that the drivers don't always leave a lot of space when passing you. Cycling on the sidewalk is unnerving because many pedestrians seem to be completely unaware of you no matter how many times you ring your little bell.

Assuming you mean the 400-series highways in southern Ontario, most people go 120km/h on the highway anyways and the police don't seem to care.
I know, but if they really wanted to then they could fuck a lot of people over by cracking down on such speeding.

Regarding bicycles, the government certainly needs to make cycling more feasible by supplying bicycle lanes and shops should have bike racks for locking them up. The problem with cycling somewhere is that the drivers don't always leave a lot of space when passing you. Cycling on the sidewalk is unnerving because many pedestrians seem to be completely unaware of you no matter how many times you ring your little bell.
Cycling would also be easier if more cities had those bike racks on the front of buses. It's an absolute pain in the ass to take a bike on the bus (which is something that one might do if one is going a distance too far to bike, going over/around a large obstacle [i.e. steep hill] taking the bike to a repair shop, travelling with a bike-less friend in one direction only et c). Also, if more drivers treated cyclists like they belonged on the roads instead of trying to run them down...

I know, but if they really wanted to then they could fuck a lot of people over by cracking down on such speeding.


Cycling would also be easier if more cities had those bike racks on the front of buses. It's an absolute pain in the ass to take a bike on the bus (which is something that one might do if one is going a distance too far to bike, going over/around a large obstacle [i.e. steep hill] taking the bike to a repair shop, travelling with a bike-less friend in one direction only et c). Also, if more drivers treated cyclists like they belonged on the roads instead of trying to run them down...

In essence, therefore, you would have us wholly remodel the infrastructure and roads of large conurbations solely for those of you who think it cool to be green like Dave snooty?

I didn't drive on my own until I was going into my third year of university (due to Ontario's graduated lisence system you have to wait a year after getting your G1 to take the test to get your G2, which is the one that lets you drive on your own, I put it off for a while until I was almost going to be out of time to get my full lisence (which takes another year of waiting)) and now I'm a graduate student and I still don't own a car and hardly ever drive.

Public transit and bicycles are good things.

Not for some of us ... at least not nearly good enough. Or available

I would have effectively pushed my first employment date back 4 years if I was not able to drive.

Not for some of us ... at least not nearly good enough. Or available

I would have effectively pushed my first employment date back 4 years if I was not able to drive.

They seem to be making the assumption that everyone lives in the city.

I like the idea of a graduated license, it seems to be working here.....

http://www.dps.state.ok.us/dls/gdl.htm

I believe we have a graduated license (I missed it by a year or two) ... has not seemed to make a difference whatsoever

Like anyone follows graduated licensing. Chances are, you wont get caught with other people in the car, and if you do, they'll let you off with a warning.

I will personally enjoy shuttling my good friends around for cash illegally.

Do we really need a study to illustrate how all sorts of brain parts are affected by...say, old age, for example?

Public Transportation is a joke in the United States, everyday around here I see yet another bus stop has been eleminated. I waited for nearly an hour for the bus to pick me up today.

Public Transportation is a joke in the United States, everyday around here I see yet another bus stop has been eleminated. I waited for nearly an hour for the bus to pick me up today.
maybe it's where you are. I missed one bus, waited 10 minutes and caught the next one.

They seem to be making the assumption that everyone lives in the city.

True that is number one and the first on my list with problems

Just walking to a tared road is like 3/4 of a mile from my parents

You also have the issues of needing to do work ... tell ya what dad did not have enough time in the day on the farm if you could not haul a load of grain into town for him there would be even less time.

Or pick up equipment

Then you have my two younger brothers... some days I do not know how we got it all done.

Public Transportation is a joke in the United States, everyday around here I see yet another bus stop has been eleminated. I waited for nearly an hour for the bus to pick me up today.

And yet, my town just bought a new fleet of buses (our first fleet of buses) and built around 20 bus stops. Public transportation where you live (and in most other places) is a joke, but not everywhere in the US. Public transit is covered by local and occasionally state governments, not Uncle Sam.

edit: @UpwardThrust

I feel your pain. I grew up on a dairy farm and we had a hell of a time getting things done.

Nobody has a right to drive a car and it's certainly not an inalienable right, considering that would make it a crime to punish speeders, drunk drivers, hit-and-run criminals, perpetrators of insurance fraud and so on for every automobile-related crime in existence. It is a privilege that can be taken away if they fail to abide by the laws that every owner of a car must follow. It's the same no matter who builds the road or who owns it...they always have the right to deny you use of the road, and if they have the power to enforce laws, to seize your vehicle to make sure you don't violate it again.

I didn't say that anybody has an inalienable right to drive a car. That's distorting what I said. I said that under a condition of road socialism, in which the roads are not privately owned, people have an inalienable right to drive a car which they own. Under a system of property rights (which would exist were it not for the governments), the property owner can prohibit anybody whom he wishes from driving on his roads. However, nobody has the right to commit an act of aggression (a crime) against other people under any circumstances. "Speeding" and "Drunk Driving" are not crimes in-and-of-themselves, under the current status quo of road socialism and therefore should not be criminalized (to charge somebody with these "crimes" or with other victimless "crimes" is a crime in-and-of-itself), even though it is true that both of them have a high likelihood of leading to real crimes. People who hit-and-run or who engage in insurance fraud are actual criminals and should be charged for their crimes (as should a "drunk driver" or "speeder" who wrecks somebody). Under the natural system of privately owned roads which should exist, it would be a criminal act to drive without permission from the road owner, however there is no road owner (unless you claim that the government owns the roads, but criminal gangs that steal their property, such as governments, have no right to own that stolen property and therefore such a claim is illegitimate).

Under the status quo, it is a criminal act of aggression to deny anybody who owns a car the right to drive that car because the status quo is a system of road socialism.

I saw in an ad for Allstate insurance that young drivers get in accidents a lot because the decision-making part of their brain is not fully developed. If this is so, should we allow teens to continue to drive and cause accidents and deaths, which they will get blamed for, when it is not their fault? If so, what age? I thnk 20 or 21. Now this doesn't mean you can't have a permit or some other provisional thing.

A most resounding yes. Increased risks of traffic accidents happen to any newer driver - not necessarily younger people. Increasing the age to say, 21, would just make the 21-25 group have the most number of crashes. Would it be fewer than before? Of course - considering there's fewer cars on the road and fewer potential wrecks waiting to happen, if you want to look at it that way.

Then look at the lack of alternatives. Increasingly people are living in suburban sprawl, subdivisions a 30 minute drive from the nearest metro area. The only practical method of transportation is driving, because it's not profitable to run bus lines to every last subdivision spread out over ten thousand square miles, and it would take far too long, anyway.

Consider my situation, for example. I live in Northern Kentucky, and attend a college here. When I drive, it's 15 minutes. However, if I were to take the bus - I live in suburbs, but not that far out - I'd have to take a line into Cincinnati, wait for a bus to take me back out to the college. Total time, the better part of two hours. That means four wasted hours a day, bud. When you're pressed for time it's not good to be spending four hours a day on a bus.

Lastly, you're talking about destroying what has become a "high school culture" (if that even makes sense.) It's a special time when a junior or senior gets to finally be able to drive - it's a load off dad or mom's taxi service, it gives the kid greater freedom of movement, and so on. Being able to drive - and new driver's experiences - are all stories that are embellished and rehashed over and over again in the cafeteria of a school building. Not to mention, saying that people couldn't drive until they were 21 would mean they are legally adults but are limited again in something they can't do. Riight...

Don't know about you, but I would be suffering pretty badly if I couldn't drive at all during high school or college. See, I graduated a year early, combined with the graduation date, which means I'll graduate when I'm 20, almost 21. I'll never (legally) have a beer in college, and under your proposal, I wouldn't be able to drive either?

I know it's easy to sit back as an older person and be like "Let's restrict this to a certain age group" when you are already above the said criteria. One more thing - consider the political feasibility of this. The politician who proposes this idea will probably face a tremendous backlash from younger voters, and more likely than not booted from office.

Edit: I missed the graduated licensing program by a month. And I'm damn glad and relieved I did.

i think age aparthied should be ended for everything, but cars should not be mass produced nor roads paved.

but then i also think common sense and logic should be prerequisites to running for political office.

=^^=
.../\...

Oh well, soon this is not an issue anymore: we are out of oil.

Anyway, it’s not about the undeveloped decision part in their brains only…

And also, we could give real guns or alcohol to 4 year-old people as well…

In my opinion we should allow to give young people the opportunity to drive. That way their brain can get used to the traffic. Only restrict the speed in such a way that their brain can handle the vehicle. As an addition, and cause this restriction, highways should be a forbidden zone for teenagers.

70 km per hour isn’t fast but fast enough to reach their destinations. I don’t think that lots of 16 or 18 year-old people will drive hundreds of kilometres to get somewhere.

Again, 16-year old people kill 2 Americans every other day on American highways…

Personally I think raising the driving age to 21 would solve a lot of problems.

- Congestion would be reduced somewhat.
- Public transport boosted.
- Obesity in young people reduced.
- Safer roads.
- Less chavved-up hatchbacks on the roads.
- Young people wouldn't be ripped off by insurance companies charging ridicules prices.
- Young people would have more money to spend on the important things in life. Like drinking.

Formula for deciding if and how you can drive:

Take you age and square it. Now multiply it by 1.5, and take the square root of that number. That is the fastest you can drive (in miles per hour).
If you couldn't figure out your answer, just put down "zero".

Formula for deciding if and how you can drive:

Take you age and square it. Now multiply it by 1.5, and take the square root of that number. That is the fastest you can drive (in miles per hour).
If you couldn't figure out your answer, just put down "zero".

So basically you can't drive at the speed limit on the interstate until you're in your fifties or so (depending on the particular interstate I guess...)... how's that supposed to work?

I got under 21 (17^2= 289, 289*1.5=433.5, 433.5^(1/2)= 20.82) for mine. That's lower than the speed limit on the street off my driveway...

Obesity in young people reduced.

Yeah, I'm definitely not obese. I'm underweight. You want me to walk to school with a backpack that can weigh over a third of my weight at times, along with the occasional textbook? And across a dangerous intersection... and my brothers have to carry even more than that. What would kids who have to bring instruments every day do? We live too close for them to allow us to ride the bus... but walking across the intersection of two roads that each have at least four lanes (I think one has six) with speed limits of 45 mph and 50 mph doesn't sound safe to me... and it would turn what should be a 5-10 minute trip into a much longer one... I don't think I could ever wake my brothers up early enough to walk to school and expect to get there on time... And I wouldn't want to be a burden on my parents and friends. Now I can drive myself and my brothers safely to school and doctors appointments, and on errands and the like. Driving lets me get home at 3:00 instead of 5:30 or so, so that I have more time to finish homework.

Young people would have more money to spend on the important things in life. Like drinking.

How are they supposed to get the money in the first place without being able to get a job? I imagine it would be a lot harder to have a job without a reliable form of transportation, and there isn't really any public transportation around here...

And drinking is illegal until 21 here...

Less chavved-up hatchbacks on the roads.

I have no idea what that means...

http://www.quadconversions.com/images/nova_pics/nova.jpg
Only much, much worse.

Personally I think raising the driving age to 21 would solve a lot of problems.

- Congestion would be reduced somewhat.
- Public transport boosted.
- Obesity in young people reduced.
- Safer roads.
- Less chavved-up hatchbacks on the roads.
- Young people wouldn't be ripped off by insurance companies charging ridicules prices.
- Young people would have more money to spend on the important things in life. Like drinking.

That is true... however, that could be achieved by adding a chav test to the driving test:D

I saw in an ad for Allstate insurance that young drivers get in accidents a lot because the decision-making part of their brain is not fully developed. If this is so, should we allow teens to continue to drive and cause accidents and deaths, which they will get blamed for, when it is not their fault? If so, what age? I thnk 20 or 21. Now this doesn't mean you can't have a permit or some other provisional thing.

Just this weekend there was an accident in Moncton, NB, where four 16 yr old guys were killed passing a car with 3 girls-- all on their way to a party-- because the driver tried to pass in a solid-line no passing stretch of road, hitting an oncoming truck and injuring the two people in it in the process. Now my understanding of the graduated lisencing system here is that he shouldn't even have had passengers, and there's speculation that he was racing the other car. Yet while everyone else is going on and on about mourning them, I'm of the mind that the driver's parents should be prosecuted for letting a reckless driver have the car and take passengers, and injuring the people in the other vehicle.

Anyway, I don't think 16 is old enough to just arbitrarily say "okay, you're now mature and reasonable enough and have the judgement to drive." Just like 18 doesn't necessarily qualify someone to participate in political elections or 19 doesn't make someone adult enough to drink. There should be some kind of state-administered Maturity Testing where you have to demonstrate ethics and judgement, and maybe have X number of already 'graduated' adults vouch for you, before you're given the legal priviledges of an adult (ie. drinking, voting, driving, getting it on, etc). And anyone could apply to take the testing, at any age, so that younger people grown-up enough to make good decisions aren't held back and older people who're still too immature to conduct themselves as adults are limited in their opportunities to inflict harm to society.

I saw in an ad for Allstate insurance that young drivers get in accidents a lot because the decision-making part of their brain is not fully developed.

That is probably, the dumbest thing I have ever read on these forums. Excluding any RPing threads. That accomplishment is held to a person whom claimed they found a planet, made entirely of diamonds the size of Jupiter, a mere 10,000 miles outside the Earth's atmosphere.

I think everyone who thinks the driving age should be 21 is either fucked in the head ( no offense ) or needs a realism check.

I have a brand new civic SI, and do I drive like a idiot? Somtimes.

And to the person who said they should limit cars to 60?

I just took out a 5 year loan, and pretty much spent 21,000 dollars on a high performance vehical, and you want me to limit it? no way.

And what about people who dont live in the city? Where publican transport doesnt EXIST!?

Of course us teens make mistakes when we're driving... because we're inexperienced. A 50-year-old learning to drive wouldn't be much better. That's no excuse for reckless or careless driving, but if we miss a gear every now and then when we're learning how to operate a manual transmission car, is it the end of the world?

Sixteen is a good age to start driving.

Also, many people who want there to be more restrictions on teens driving didn't seem to have any problems with the laws when they were around the minimum driving age.

Km/h. Easy way to remember: if the person isn't a USian, they probably mean metric.

No the UK still uses miles and yes the speed limit is 70MPH on motorways and duel carriageways and 60 on the country roads

For the record 70 km/h = 43.49 miles/h

I'll be nice and I'll restrict it to 45 miles.

You still can drive with your car, only at 45 miles.

It's for your own safety and mine!




I think everyone who thinks the driving age should be 21 is either fucked in the head ( no offense ) or needs a realism check.

I have a brand new civic SI, and do I drive like a idiot? Somtimes.

And to the person who said they should limit cars to 60?

I just took out a 5 year loan, and pretty much spent 21,000 dollars on a high performance vehical, and you want me to limit it? no way.

And what about people who dont live in the city? Where publican transport doesnt EXIST!?

I have a brand new civic SI, and do I drive like a idiot? Somtimes.

Is it lowered, with blacked-out windows and a huge exhaust?

I just took out a 5 year loan, and pretty much spent 21,000 dollars on a high performance vehical

LOL!!

Is it lowered, with blacked-out windows and a huge exhaust?



LOL!!


Actually its bone dead stock, and its staying that way,


and I know it isnt high performance, Im just being a jackass.

I dont think we need a speed limit on any vehical, its just stupid.

And honestly, the nearest bus stop is about 30 miles from my driveway, how do you suppose I get there without a car?

maybe it's where you are. I missed one bus, waited 10 minutes and caught the next one.

yeah, but your bus system is also pretty much the nicest in the country

Well, my first crash happened when I was 20, 3 years after I started driving. If anything, I was a better driver before I developed real confidence on the road.

i had a pretty bad crash (was cut out, neck braced, hospitalised, etc) when i was 11. it made me, years later when i started driving, very timid and cautious.

then, shortly before passing my test, i was with a friend (who was driving) when we went 60 into a brick wall. nobody hurt, but it made me scared of cars again for a while.

these days i've built up my confidence, and am probably a much worse driver for it.



maybe everyone should have a mandatory crash once a year just to remind them cars are actually fucking dangerous? ;)

http://www.quadconversions.com/images/nova_pics/nova.jpg
Only much, much worse.

:p
http://www.yourcarisshit.com/

i hate chavs and their shitty, shitty cars.

i do, however, love to easily beat them off the lights in my nice new car when they rev up and try to race me (i never start it, i just like to embarrass them;)). its for this reason i'd like a 4 litre Jaguar or a Lotus Elise or something, just to humiliate them and their shitty cars further :D

one of the funniest things i've seen on the road was some prick in a ford mondeo try to race a bloke in an Elise.... the poor ford driver's ego was totally shattered, i think :p

Formula for deciding if and how you can drive:

Take you age and square it. Now multiply it by 1.5, and take the square root of that number. That is the fastest you can drive (in miles per hour).
If you couldn't figure out your answer, just put down "zero".

why would one want 80 year olds driving at ~98 mph?

why would one want 80 year olds driving at ~98 mph?

Better 90 than 45 in a 65. Slow drivers are more dangerous than faster ones.

i think that the speed limit in residential areas should be increased to 40. Driving 30 seems INCREDIBY slow, it would literally take 2 seconds to stop fully.

Also i think the speed limit on the highway should be increased to 75-80.

ok let me think i f i didn't have a car.

I would'nt be able to get to school on time because i have drumline at 6:30 in the morning and busses dont come at 6:30; I get off drumline after school at around 6:00PM in which bussed dont come. And my parents would never give me a ride, they are at work.

And what about people who dont live in the city? Where publican transport doesnt EXIST!?

The prevailing, although unspoken, opinion seems to be "fuck 'em".

You still can drive with your car, only at 45 miles.

Do you have any idea how much that would suck? It takes me at least an hour to get anywhere at 70 mph. To get to Detroit, which I have to for work sometimes, it already takes me almost 3 hours, depending on traffic, and that's going 80-85 the entire way.

Why didn't you take the city bus?

That's what I did in highschool, it took between an hour and an hour and a half to go a distance that takes 15 mins to drive, but I did it. Of course it sucked ass in the winter when the buses would run exceptionally late and I'd have to stand in the freezing cold and snow carrying four textbooks and a flute wearing chuch taylors on my feet but whatever, I dealt with it.

Sorry, I didn't see this post earlier. The city buses don't come out here. I'm in the suburbs. And it's much more efficient time-wise to drive. Since I have to get my brothers to school, it would pretty much be impossible to get them up early enough to walk to school on time. I have enough trouble getting them up in time for me to drive them to school on time. And I'm a careful driver anyway.

Sorry, I didn't see this post earlier. The city buses don't come out here. I'm in the suburbs. And it's much more efficient time-wise to drive. Since I have to get my brothers to school, it would pretty much be impossible to get them up early enough to walk to school on time. I have enough trouble getting them up in time for me to drive them to school on time. And I'm a careful driver anyway.

Thats what I dont get, all these people who say cars are bad dont seem to understand that over half of the population in the United States doesnt HAVE any public transit.

So, when I want to go see my GF, to go classes, see any of my freinds, or go anywhere really.

WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO WITHOUT A CAR!?


And I guess im really evil for driving a car with more than 50 horsepower.

I've lived most of my life in the southern portions of the US. Even in the larger cities public transport is so bad as to be nearly useless. Currently I'm living in a town of approx 20,000 people. No public transport at all. One taxi service, which I've actually waited an hour and a half to show up. If you're disabled and need to go to a Dr's appt there is a free service, but you must call 72 hours in advance.

Life here may not be impossible without a car, but I consider mine a necessity.

Slow drivers are more dangerous than faster ones.

no, they aren't.

no, they aren't.

Wrong, they are far more deadly then most fast drivers, ever see a idiot merging onto the highway at 45 miles an hour with a huge chain of cars behind him/her?

20 car pileup waiting to happen.

I saw in an ad for Allstate insurance that young drivers get in accidents a lot because the decision-making part of their brain is not fully developed. If this is so, should we allow teens to continue to drive and cause accidents and deaths, which they will get blamed for, when it is not their fault? If so, what age? I thnk 20 or 21. Now this doesn't mean you can't have a permit or some other provisional thing.

Here you're only allowed to drive when you're 18. It seems pretty good.

Wrong, they are far more deadly then most fast drivers, ever see a idiot merging onto the highway at 45 miles an hour with a huge chain of cars behind him/her?

20 car pileup waiting to happen.

i don't know, this seems like the sort of thing about which there might be data and empirical evidence. maybe even in peer-reviewed journals. perhaps we should look into it...

i don't know, this seems like the sort of thing about which there might be data and empirical evidence. maybe even in peer-reviewed journals. perhaps we should look into it...

Im just going from a practical standpoint, if your merging onto the highway at 45 with a big chain of cars behind you, how safe is that?

Or your driving 100 miles an hour down the highway, where are you going to pay more attention?

Imo, speed limits should be taken off interstates and turnpikes, theres no sense in having them on big open roads.

Or your driving 100 miles an hour down the highway, where are you going to pay more attention?

Imo, speed limits should be taken off interstates and turnpikes, theres no sense in having them on big open roads.

While many people can drive safely at 100mph, not that many can drive at 150 or 200. Removing speed limits altogether would make motorway driving pretty scary.
I know plenty of people who can barely drive safely at 80. I don't want those people screaming past me at 180. One little slip at that speed and you're dead, and so is the person you hit.

Im just going from a practical standpoint, if your merging onto the highway at 45 with a big chain of cars behind you, how safe is that?

Or your driving 100 miles an hour down the highway, where are you going to pay more attention?

Imo, speed limits should be taken off interstates and turnpikes, theres no sense in having them on big open roads.
i disagree. speed limits keep people generally within the same speed bands. here the limit is 70 (mph, on motorways) so most people drive between 60 and 90. remove the speed limit and that may change to the lowest speed being lower (which could happen with no 'guide' speed) at, say, 50mph; and the upper speed anywhere above 120mph.

now, if you're behind a car that's merging at 45mph and the cars on the motorway are going 70 or 80, if they have to slow to let the car (and its trailing cars) merge, its only a 25mph slowdown. without a speed limit that slowdown could easily be more like 75mph.... which is just dangerous as hell and would require the fast car to pay insane amounts of attention to be safe.


keeping everyone within a +-10mph band makes a lot of sense to me for safety's sake. the question should be where that band is set.
predictability is one of the most important things when driving, and without any speed guide/limit, predicting the conditions of the motorway or the behaviour of other drivers becomes increasingly difficult.

Im just going from a practical standpoint, if your merging onto the highway at 45 with a big chain of cars behind you, how safe is that?

not very. but that alone tells us nothing of either the comparative safety of that vs other scenarios or of slow vs fast in general. what you'd want is some statistics about rates of speed involved in accidents and relative amounts of damage and injury.

Im just going from a practical standpoint, if your merging onto the highway at 45 with a big chain of cars behind you, how safe is that?

Or your driving 100 miles an hour down the highway, where are you going to pay more attention?

Imo, speed limits should be taken off interstates and turnpikes, theres no sense in having them on big open roads.


Yes, you are right, that would not be safe.

Two solutions:

• Ban teenagers from the highways. I don't know the situation in US, but in Europe you can reach any destination without using a highway
• If the solution above is not workable, use a separated lane on the highway.

Look I don’t think that in general teenagers have a need for driving long distances. It is just for driving to their friends, school, work, drive-in or whatever.

And sure, it’s not fun for them, but being death isn’t fun as well.

not very. but that alone tells us nothing of either the comparative safety of that vs other scenarios or of slow vs fast in general. what you'd want is some statistics about rates of speed involved in accidents and relative amounts of damage and injury.

Use your common sense please.

If you drive fast, you have less reaction time to avoid accidents and your brake distance will be longer...

And that's the whole point. Teenagers will miscalculate the brake distance and the time to avoid something.

Their brains are not ready, yet.

To get used and their brain trained to higher speeds, they can start driving. Only at a lower speed.

Here is the law in Washington State:

You get your learner's permit at 15 if you are in driver's ed, or 15 and six months if you are not. This allows you to drive if the person in the passenger's seat is over 25 (I think) and has a license.

At 16, you get an intermediate license. This allows you to drive alone, but you cannot have anyone in your car who is under 20 and not an immediate relative. Also, you cannot drive between 1 and 5 am, except for agricultural purposes (ie driving a thresher). 6 months after you get your license, you can drive up to 3 people who are under 20 and not your immediate relatives.

At 18, the above restrictions are gone.

The laws have worked very well - teenage deaths from car accidents are significantly lower than in other states (if you need, I could try and find some documentation). And when teens become adults, and tend to drive places themselves rather than drive with someone else, they have had a lot of experience, which further lowers the accident rate.

Use your common sense please.

If you drive fast, you have less reaction time to avoid accidents and your brake distance will be longer...

And that's the whole point. Teenagers will miscalculate the brake distance and the time to avoid something.

Their brains are not ready, yet.

To get used and their brain trained to higher speeds, they can start driving. Only at a lower speed.

Being merely 18, I'd disagree, its also why i think all drivers should be trained on a race track as part of drivers training, if you know what your doing on a backroad or driving 100+ on the highway, you wont have a problem.

Being merely 18, I'd disagree, its also why i think all drivers should be trained on a race track as part of drivers training, if you know what your doing on a backroad or driving 100+ on the highway, you wont have a problem.


Look, if I was 18 again, I would say the same thing.

I'm now 36 and I'm a much better driver as I were on my 18 due my experience.

Driving teachers told me once that it takes 5 year (and only if you drive regularly) to become a decent chauffeur.

Now, the not full developed brain, the lacking decision part, the weaker ability to cognitive process images that reach your eyes at high speed...

For such thing I don't rely on opinions, but on empirical evidence.

Those findings are rather old. I believe they already discovered these things in the 60ties or 70ties.

Google on Cognitive Psychology+Driving