board77

This is a discussion carried over from the Manwe thread in the Turf.

It was brought up that the States seems to be rather lax with their laws when it comes to letting people acquire driver's licences at a young age.

In Canada (Ontario at least) the age to acquire a learner's permit which one needs to have for an entire year before acquiring a more liberal licence has just been raised from a minimum of 16 to 18 years of age.


What reforms should be made in the U.S. and other countries with liberal driving laws to fix the situation.

Here are some very basic stats that I came up with earlier today:

U.S. Death by automobile accident per capita
1 - 6704

Canada Death by automobile accident per capita
1 - 9138


So first of all, I'm curious to know what would your personal preference be if you were writting the law right now?

im pretty sure they raised the age of being able to get a liscense to 18 here just recently also, but you can still get the "learners permit" at 16, at least in Cali from what Ive heard.
Borry

I would prefer vastly improving public transit before making more restrictions on who can or can't drive.

In my opinion they should improve public transportation no matter what the situation is but lack of said PT is no reason to start handing out licences to kids because they can't get their parents to take them places or other reasons...

IMO its a matter of public safety and not as much of convenience for the young folk (to which I still belong). Sadly parents these days cannot be trusted enough to turn over to us brilliant drivers. Many don't pay attention to what their kids do or how they handle situations behind the wheel...

A copy of my post on the hippo thread:

LM wrote:

Elfshadow wrote:

I do understand people's concern about teenagers "not knowing how to drive", because a lot of them really don't. But I think there are other ways to make better drivers, I think.

My concern isn’t that they don’t know how to drive – I’ve seen 12 year olds drive reasonably well. There’s just other responsibilities associated with driving – dealing with other motorists, dealing with police or other drivers at accident scenes, dealing with road rage, buying petrol, dealing with the legal requirements for maintaining a car, ect, that make it a good idea to have a legal driving age of 17 or 18.

I forgot to mention that although Canada's Learner's Permit age was 16 (now 18) that one could get the G1 licence a few months (not sure if its 3 months or 6 months) before the minimum age.

Also there is this set of rules which is not unwarrented IMO. And just to remind people, in Canada's graduated licencing program "G1" is the first (learner's) licence, "G2" is the second and "G" is the full licence.

Quote:

To further protect youth on our roads, effective September 1, 2005:

* The number of young passengers that teen G2 drivers can carry will be limited from midnight to 5 a.m.
* Initially, G2 drivers 19 or under can carry only one passenger aged 19 or under.
* After the first six months, and until the G2 driver earns a full G licence or turns 20, they can carry only three passengers aged 19 or under.

These restrictions will not apply if the G2 driver is accompanied by a full "G" licensed driver (with at least four years driving experience) in the front seat, or if the passengers are immediate family members.

Copy-pasting what I said in the Manweista thread.

Quote:

As someone who IS 16, I'm definitely glad that I have a license. I also got my license later than most people I know did, because my parents couldn't afford to send me to driver's ed, and it's no longer free through the school system. It's about $300 or $400 now. I don't have my own car, but my parents and I could both tell you how much easier things are now that I can drive. My mom can send me on errands, I can pick up my younger brother from his sports' practices, and I can drive myself to work too. I do understand people's concern about teenagers "not knowing how to drive", because a lot of them really don't. But I think there are other ways to make better drivers, I think.

One thing that really bothers me is how absurdly easy the driver's test is in the US. I could probably have been asleep at the wheel and still passed. One person I know actually ran a stop sign during his test, and passed with points to spare. If it was harder to pass the driver's test, then the safe drivers (including young ones) wouldn't be denied a license because of their age, but there would be fewer bad drivers on the streets. Also, a government-funded mandatory driver's ed class would help a lot, but I can't see that happening anytime soon.






The problem is that most kids in the US live in the suburbs, where there usually aren't great bus systems. There are two bus lines that go through my city, and neither of them makes a stop at my school. If the driver's license law was changed, maybe a bus stop would be put in there, but I doubt the buses would go so far as to add another line simply because kids can't drive. Everything is so far apart where I live, you pretty much have to have a car to get just about anywhere. The residential areas are very seperate from the commercial areas here, so there wouldn't be a lot of ways for a 16-year-old to get to work unless they drove themselves or their parents did.


Like I said before, there are a lot of teenagers who are very irresponsible with driving. But there are also a lot who aren't. I think that the kids who are responsible drivers should be given a chance to show that they're capable of driving as safely as an adult can, by making the driving tests a lot harder and also by making the driving laws for younger people more strict.

I think they ought to outfit ALL cars with gizmos that test blood alcohol level and the car won't start without a passing score. That would solve a lot of problems!

My kids are homeschooled at driving, and very good at it, thank you! Get the drunks off the roads and we'd all be a lot safer, I think.

I don't buy the idea that improving the public transportation system will eventually have people dump their cars for the bus or subway. People don't like to be controlled, having a car means freedom. Plus the fact, I know a few people who wouldn't ride the subway because they don't want to seat beside a smelly person or someone who is coughing. I remember a time when a colleague was always sick (allergies, colds, flu) and the partner told her to buy a car instead of riding the subway. My boss said you caught that flu from riding public transpo. (Yeah right!!!) Having a car is a status symbol for some people, public transpo is for poor people only. Public transpo is just a band aid not a solution.

Funny thing is, people are up in arms when the subway increases their fares, start saying I'm going buy a car cause the Toronto Transit increased their rates and yet they will actually line up to buy $1.50 worth of gas or pay $50 in parking fees with no complaints at all. I don't get it!

I think you can be an impaired driver at any age. Raising the age of who or who can't drive won't solve anything. That's not going to solve anything, if they want to drive like a maniac, they'll do it. Plus the fact, in a multi-cultural country such as the US and Canada, there are some people who immigrated from countries that there are no traffic rules in place. Yes, they pass the driving test but they are back to their old ways once they get their license. In fact, I have a colleague who drives like he does back home and just laughs at me when I lecture him about it. He goes "Well, just as long as you can safely manuever your way into traffic, you won't get into an accident. I have never been in an accident the way I drive." Sure, how many time I rode with him and he brakes a lot cause he tries to beat the red light or go into traffic without even letting the approaching car pass first before going in. He said "If he hits us, he is the one at fault because he saw us and should have applied the brakes." I go, "Yeah, that maybe true but what if we are both dead by then, no amount of money or compensation can bring us back." Eversince, I never ride with him again and he got upset with me because I kept turning him down. I'd rather bring my car to a downtown meeting and pay a huge parking fee than ride with him. In fact, he got two speeding tickets that he won in court and have been bragging about it eversince.

We should consider older drivers as well, if you want to bump up the age of who can drive, you should have an age limit as well. I know it's discrimination but there are some older folks out there that shouldn't be driving anymore. I love my grandpa but he is very stubborn, my relatives keep telling him they'll pay for a driver just to get him off the road but no, he wants to drive. In fact, he is driving an SUV and drives like a teenager and he insists in driving me and my wife around town. He has athritis and I know for a fact, that sometimes your hands or feet goes numb (I am afflicted with the ailment as well, I'm young , runs in the family) when the weather or temprature changes. I'm afraid his reflexes is not what it used to be.

I think stricter penalties should be placed for impaired driving, not just attending a lecture, fines, how about suspending their license for ten years, can't buy a car, those who allow impaired drivers whose license were suspended to drive their car should also be fined or have their licenses revoked as well, imprisonment, if possible. I know the latter is difficult to impose since our jails will be too crowded.

MariaHobbit wrote:

I think they ought to outfit ALL cars with gizmos that test blood alcohol level and the car won't start without a passing score. That would solve a lot of problems!

No it wouldn't. I can hack the computer system. I can plug in a clean blood sample. All kinds of ways to get around that.

Edit: In addition, it seems it would need to prick me everytime I wanted to start the car. Some people start their car up dozens of times per day. That's a lot of blood loss. Driving without enough blood is just as bad as driving drunk.

I heard of a guy locally who got sentanced to having a breathalizer thingy installed in his car and he literally can't get the car to start unless he passes the breathalizer.

It just sounded like a good idea.

MariaHobbit wrote:

I heard of a guy locally who got sentanced to having a breathalizer thingy installed in his car and he literally can't get the car to start unless he passes the breathalizer.

It just sounded like a good idea.

Heard about that too from somewhere...i thought it was an awesome idea myself.
Borry

I think it's a great idea too. No, it's not perfect, but I think it'd be a hell of a lot better than the system we have now, which seems to involve people getting caught for DUI only if they by chance happen to pass an officer who notices a problem with their driving. Usually by the time they're caught, it's too late, because they get arrested at the scene of an accident.


With a breathalizer, it is possible for a drunk person to get a sober person to just breath into the system for them. But one would hope that the sober person, being sober, would recognize that the drunk person asking them to take the test is not capable of driving safely. Like I said, it's not perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.

MariaHobbit wrote:

I heard of a guy locally who got sentanced to having a breathalizer thingy installed in his car and he literally can't get the car to start unless he passes the breathalizer.

They've been doing that for years haven't they? Its not exactly new.

I agree that people of any age can be reckless drivers but when we're talking about young people I still believe its best to have a graduated licencing system that starts at an age where the vast majority are at least to some degree responsable. They should also be of an age where they can be sued. 18 is a reasonable age. At sixteen sure there are a lot of responsable kids but the majority are not. 18 is just a safer bet and I'm all for any law that makes the roads safer. And yes that includes old people.

I'm not sure where else there is a similar law but in Canada once you reach a certain age (80, I believe) you have to go for a drivers test every year.

Lurker wrote:

having a car means freedom.

<tangent>Well; that's the myth at least. But given what it costs individuals and societies to buy, fuel, and maintain automobiles, I suspect the opposite is closer to the truth.</tangent>

I'm avoiding buying an auto for as long as possible. When I move back to the north I will need a truck for summer but my main transportation in winter (for town at least) will be a snowmobile. And even in summer all the tree cutting and outdoors work on my property will be done with a 4x4.

Responsibity doesn't come with age. The easiest solution to prevent road mishaps is just by following traffic rules and regulations.

Breathalizer thing is easy to get around too. Breath mints. If someone is determined to drive while under the influence, they'll find a way to do so.

<off topic> did you know if you spray fake bills with aerosol they'll come up legit when they use that brown\black pen thing? The best way to tell a real from a fake (US currency anyway) is to feel around the name of the portrait - all bills ever, not just the new ones, have texture there (little ridges that go along with the detail on the clothes etc). I never knew that.

Lurker wrote:

Responsibity doesn't come with age. The easiest solution to prevent road mishaps is just by following traffic rules and regulations.

No, road responsability comes with experience and that comes with age. That's why I believe young drivers should be eased into the world of driving. I'm a young person, I know what my peers are like, even the "responsable" ones.

Thewhitetree wrote:

Lurker wrote:

Responsibity doesn't come with age. The easiest solution to prevent road mishaps is just by following traffic rules and regulations.

No, road responsability comes with experience and that comes with age. That's why I believe young drivers should be eased into the world of driving. I'm a young person, I know what my peers are like, even the "responsable" ones.

For some people. People are going to have some of the same problems when they first start driving no matter how old they are. And while responsibily comes with age for some people, there are plenty of young people who will be just fine driving, even at a young age. That's why I think all drivers should have stricter regulations in general, especially whey they first get their license. The driving tests in the US are a joke, a blind monkey could pass it (after all, I did ). The tests need to be made harder and there need to be stricter requirements to get a license in the first place. Kids should also be able to get their permit earlier (a very restricted permit) so they can start learning how to drive at a younger age. Because the longer you've been driving, the better a driver you'll be, no matter how old you are.