Centerfield

When I told my 6 year old son that he can't get his license until he is 16, he insisted on proof. I ended up having to give him a copy of the statute.

LOL.

The wife tells me that when she lived in Ireland as a teenager, you could drink as soon as you could see over the bar, provided you could convince the bartender to serve you. (Since everyone pretty much knew everyone, your parent's thoughts on the subject were also known.) But you couldn't drive until you were 21.

I don't really understand your problem with this, Brian. It's not up to parents to decide when its appropriate for kids to drive; I don't want some nutjob deciding his 10 year old should be driving. This isn't an issue of how people raise their kids, this is a public safety issue. If it is true that younger drives are less safe (and I assume that's arguable), then it makes sense to restrict their access to driving. What's controversial about that? You talk about having some "reasonable minimum age" but, under your argument, why have any age limit on driving at all? There are probably some 10 year olds that could drive better than adults. I don't really see why it's any different.

As for not treating people differently, I don't understand your problem with that. That's the whole point of having age limits for anything; you can't make individual evaluations of every person so you make a blanket rule.

Having bicycled across Ireland I can attest to the fact most couldn't drive at any age.

Mark, that's why I said a "reasonable minimum" (like 16) makes sense. Then, once the minimum is satisfied, then kids who are still minors would be allowed to apply only with parental consent.

My point is that we don't need to raise the age for all only because some are not ready. So IMO, it makes sense to have, say, a 2 year period of parental discretion, not a mandatory age of practically adulthood for all.

True enough, Marc. The key, as always, is what constitutes "reasonable" restrictions. We could eliminate ALL traffic fatalities by prohibiting cars altogether. We could reduce fatalities a lot more than we do now by increasing the driving age to 25. That's how old you have to be to rent a car from most places; Avis and Hertz probably know exactly how much that saves them.

But who's to say that 25 year old drivers are safer because they are 25 or just because they then have 8 or 9 years of driving experience? Raising the driving age may just turn 27 into the new 25.

Also, what other societal costs are we imposing by raising the driving age. Are we keeping teens out of the job market? Forcing parents to play chauffeur in lieu of working or enjoying more leisure time? Are those societal costs higher or lower than the costs of allowing teens to drive at 15 or 16 or 17?

Yeah, I wondered about "27 could become the new 25" as well. I expect that both driving experience and relative maturity play some role.

And that points at an alternative that won't be considered, largely due to cost and logistics. If we really wanted to make the roads safer, there are all sorts of rules we could change. As it relates to new drivers, we could make the process for becoming licensed more stringent, require more road hours, require the taking of a weekend road safety class, etc., etc.

And if we wanted to, we could enforce the speed limit by mchanically governing autos. Why, if the speed limit is 55, 65, 75, depending on the region, do automakers sell cars nowadays that can easily travel 85, 90, 100 mph? I'd hate to see such restrictions put in place, but it's a legitimate question, isn't it?

What if people caught driving 95 MPH had their licenses revoked?

I think it would make more sense to give licenses for the operation of a cell phone in a motor vehicle, and then raise the minumum age on that to, oh, I don't know, 234, than to raise the minimum age to obtain a drivers license. I think this would do more to curb traffic related fatalities.

Having bicycled across Ireland I can attest to the fact most couldn't drive at any age.

Yet they produce some of the world's finest drinkers....

I wouldn't have a problem with it if they also put a cap on the other end. Just spend a day driving through Florida--you'll quickly see why we need restrictions on the high end. That being said, don't ever expect it to happen...the AARP would come unglued.

I still don't understand the argument about not treating a whole class the same way because of some. No one is talking abour raising the driving age to 25. They are just talking about waiting another six months or so to get their learner's permit. If you have evidence (I don't know if there is) that a significant number of accidents are age-related (young or old), then I see no problem with making a rule for everyone in that class even though it is only some that are problematic.

If you have evidence (I don't know if there is) that a significant number of accidents are age-related (young or old), then I see no problem with making a rule for everyone in that class even though it is only some that are problematic.

Yeah, see I definitely do. Don't you believe in "root cause" reasoning today? If the cause is not actually age per se, but rather a lack of training and/or insufficient skill, why not address those?

And what if a significant number of accidents could be eliminated by raising the age 2 more years, or 5 more years? Would you support raising the driving license age to 25 if we could reduce traffic fatalities by 10%? Be careful how you answer, because we could reduce traffic fatalities to ZERO by outlawing cars.

But can you lower the death rate below 100%?

I see this in a different manner. Such restrictions may not be a burden on a family in an urban area. Public transport can still allow someone to get from one place to another. This would be a bigger burden in less urban enviroments.

I fell this is more directed at suburban caused issues. A lot of it has to fall to the parents. Delaying to 17 1/2 is not likely to improve the issue at all. All it will do is make the learning curve that much later. I just don't see where this is going to help the issue.

But can you lower the death rate below 100%?

Sure. We're going to start by breraking off the "estate rate," instead. Remember, someone's not really dead if you can find a way to remember them. (Wrath of Khan/Seinfeld) So if you put your estate assets into a trust, then you're not really dead! The legal and tax system has "found a way to remember you."

So, the only people who will really die will be those who expired without putting their estate into a perpetual trust. That would lower the death rate to what, 98%

Nah, you still haven't beaten the heat-death of the universe....

Ha, silly you. Bill Gates lawyers will be required to monogram every neutrino of every one of his assets. Microsoft will be back with the next big bang. Resistance is futile.

Wow, where do i start? So my birthday is in May so most of my friends turn 16 before and they all have their permits. I am still anxiously waiting for mine. For as long as i can remember i've been needing rides everywhere. To have to wait another 1 1/2 years....wow i dont know what i would do. I would be a senior by then. Honestly, people who speed and drunk drive should get their license taken away....why punish all of the responsible drivers who wish to take driving seriously? What about a job? My parents wont be home when i need to go to work. I really hope i get grandfathered in. What if i have my permit and the law passes? I'm taking drivers ed before i get my permit...I NEED MY LICENSE!

We're with you, Carly. I got my license when I was 15, but they've changed the law here since then to 16.

On the other hand, keep in mind that life IS possible without a license. Back in the days when the driving age was lower, extra cars for the kids were much rarer. So fight against it, learn some political skills, but don't freak out too much if you lose...