Raise the legal driving age for teens?
In an op-ed in the Eugene Register-Guard, middle-school teacher Joshua Welch argues that we should raise the age at which teens are allowed to drive:
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, “The rate of crashes, fatal and nonfatal, per mile driven for 16-year-old drivers is almost 10 times the rate for drivers ages 30 to 59.” Traffic accidents are the leading killer of American teens — approximately one dead youngster every three days.The benefits of an increase in the driving age far outweigh the drawbacks. Fewer teen drivers means safer roadways, reduced pollution and greenhouse gases, lower insurance premiums, less traffic, greater use of alternative transportation, increased cardiovascular activity, better health and reduced parental stress. ...
We have decided that one must be 18 to go to war and to vote, age 21 before drinking a beer, but we stupidly permit children as young as 15 to drive what equate to enormous metal battering rams. Expecting children as young as 15 to drive responsibly is a little like expecting them to be abstinent. You can ask Sarah Palin how that strategy worked out.
I'm generally of the view that we ought to give young people responsibility sooner, not later, in life. But I'm not sure about this one. What do you think?
|
October 30, 2009 |
Kari Chisholm | Comments (56 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Billy Busdriver | Nov 3, 2009 12:10:48 PM
having to drive around those darn kids to school
Take. The. Fucking. Bus.
Your middle class horror of "the other" does not necessitate changing society.
Posted by: Kara | Nov 3, 2009 11:47:57 PM
To user "poor parents": my response on that particular part was in rebuttal to the assertion by the original author that raising the age would "reduce parental stress". It was supposed to be read and understood in that context. I argued that it would make parental stress worse for a lot of parents who have such responsibilities. I also argued that introducing our kids to things while we still have some control over them and can teach them things and get them to listen is a good thing. Parents themselves can restrict how and when their kids will drive when they're 16. The keys can be pulled if necessary if they're leaving late to school, suspected of speeding, etc. Parents can tell 16 year olds they don't want them driving at certain times yet, or with certain people until they have more experience. We don't get to do that later on. There are benefits to introducing things slowly.
Posted by: Peter Graven | Nov 5, 2009 5:18:47 AM
This discussion may be old now but for academic types a great article was just released in the Journal of Health Economics about this very subject.
The conclusion, quoting from the abstract:
"We find that the GDL [Graduated Driver Licensing] policies reduce the number of 15-17 year-old accidents by limiting the amount of teenage driving rather than by improving teenage driving. This prevalence reduction primarily occurs at night and stricter GDL policies, especially those with night-time driving restrictions, are the most effective. Finally, we find that teen driving quality does not improve ex-post GDL exposure."
Posted by: Peter Graven | Nov 5, 2009 5:30:45 AM
For some research on the subject there is a great article that was just published in the Journal of Health Economics titled "Behavioral Impact of Graduated Driver Licensing on Teenage Driving Risk and Exposure"
The conclusion from the abstract (sorry, the paper needs to be purchased or borrowed from an academic friend):
"We find that the GDL [Graduated Driver Licensing] policies reduce the number of 15-17 year-old accidents by limiting the amount of teenage driving rather than by improving teenage driving. This prevalence reduction primarily occurs at night and stricter GDL policies, especially those with night-time driving restrictions, are the most effective. Finally, we find that teen driving quality does not improve ex-post GDL exposure."
Posted by: Manda | Nov 5, 2009 12:37:26 PM
Some information I thought some people would like to know since so many arguments are going around about how "16 year-olds just don't have as much experience as older people! Think about the 30 year-olds. They've been driving for much longer, so of course they have more experience! Anyone who starts something new isn't going to perfect at it."
The point that we should be concerned about is "maturity", not experience. Of course someone who has been driving for longer will have much more experience than someone who has just started driving; everyone knows that. It's the maturity of the brain that controls the whole thing.
Think this over:
A duckling sees a piece of bread on the ground and runs to go snatch it and gobble it down without thinking. That's what teens do when they get the opportunity to drive.
Now consider this:
An adult duck sees a piece of bread on the ground and runs up to it, but just before grabbing it, it sniffs the bread and studies it, finding that it is poisoned.
Conclusion:
The duckling is younger and doesn't realize the danger at hand, when the adult duck does realize, and avoids being killed. I'm not saying every teenager is irresponsible, for I'm a teenager too, and I'm not irresponsible (though we all can be at times). And I wouldn't mind to start driving at age 18 anyway, since I would have a much larger chance of not getting into an accident. I'm saying that people who are older have a more mature mind and seem to control these kind of things a lot more wisely than teens.
Heres something helpful I found from USA Today:
In 2003, there were 937 drivers age 16 who were involved in fatal crashes. In those wrecks, 411 of the 16-year-old drivers died and 352 of their passengers were killed. Sixteen-year-old drivers are involved in fatal crashes at a rate nearly five times the rate of drivers 20 or older.
Most fatal crashes with 16-year-old drivers (77%) involved driver errors, especially the kind most common among novices. Examples: speeding, overcorrecting after veering off the road, and losing control when facing a roadway obstacle that a more mature driver would be more likely to handle safely. That's the highest percentage of error for any age group.
For years, researchers suspected that inexperience — the bane of any new driver — was mostly to blame for deadly crashes involving teens. When trouble arose, the theory went, the young driver simply made the wrong move. But in recent years, safety researchers have noticed a pattern emerge — one that seems to stem more from immaturity than from inexperience.
The NIH brain research suggests that the problem is human biology. A crucial part of the teen's brain — the area that peers ahead and considers consequences — remains undeveloped. That means careless attitudes and rash emotions often drive teen decisions, says Jay Giedd, chief of brain imaging in the child psychiatric unit at the National Institute of Mental Health, who's leading the study.
Hope this helps ~ ~!
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Pat Ryan | Nov 2, 2009 8:19:12 AM
I never realized how bad you recent college grads had it.
Since we know that new drivers of any age are statistically more likely to have accidents, we should (at minimum) raise the driving age to 58. Since I'm 59, it won't affect me, and millions of potentially uinsafe drivers will be removed from the road, and my insurance premiums will plummet.
Oh, and BTW: I learned to drive the tractor at 10 and was driving other farm equipment and farm trucks at 12, but I now see the wisdom of getting mine and then pulling the ramp up behind me as soon as my wants are addressed.