I've been in the insurance/collision business for over 10 years and I have been looking into doing private defense driving lately to earn some extra moolah. Here is what I think the problems are: 1) Complaceny - I think early on (15-16) when some kids are fresh out of driving school, they tend to be relatively cautious. In fact, I read an article a few months ago that had a poll with it that stated that somethink like 65% of new drivers (polled something like 5,000 kids) have a sense of fear the 1st time they drive by themselves. I think that with that fear, comes respect. I think that over time, mainly between the ages of 16-18/19, teenagers start to feel a sense of invulnerability and are not as cautious or respectful as they were when they were younger. 2) Alcohol - I may be off on this, but I believe that alcohol or access to alcohol becomes a larger factor in your late teens (i.e. more 18 year olds drink than 16 year olds). Put the two together and naturally, that might start to explain some of the numbers that that graph projects. My solutions are as follows: 1) Continuing education - I think every young driver should take a defensive driving course every year until they are 18, or maybe even 21. The problem I see with the way the courses are currently taught is that the primary emphasis seems to be placed on learning all the traffic laws and regulations. While I think thats important, more emphasis should be placed on consequences. Call it shock value. Everytime I hear about a youngster being careless with a car or racking up citations, my first reaction is the desire to take them to work with me one day so they can truley see, up close, some of the devestation that their actions could lead to. 2) Make the penalty for minors driving under the influence more severe - If you are under 21 and caught DUI, then the license should be suspended for a year (except driving to school and work). 3) Offer specific driving courses for larger vehicles (trucks/SUVs) - I see alot of accidents where they occcured because the kid didn't respect the size or power of the vehicle they were driving, specifically, rollovers. State Farm/Farmer's/Allstate put out a joint study about 2 years ago that stated something like 40% of all rollover accidents involved a driver under 21. 4) Limit how far a minor (under 18) can drive - Once they turn 18, obviously, college comes into play and this would not be an option. But while in high school, restrictions should be in place in the form of a stripulated radius around their home. I know some of these ideas are radical and would never be implemented, but I really think they would help. I like bamaslammer's idea too. The problem with that is, parents of high schoolers would probably oppose it (don't most parents look forward to the day their kid is 16 and they don't have to drive them around anymore??? )
GP, This is an interesting point you brought up. Like you said, they weren't your fault, but it might not be a coincidence. I think with age/experience, a driver learns more how to avoid accidents (i.e. as I got older, I starting looking both ways more before proceeding. If I proceed when I have a green light and I get hit, its not my fault, but sometimes, it can be avoided if you look both ways (which ALOT of people, especially young drivers, don't)). I think in the end, it takes time for people to realize the true definition of defensive driving.
On the per mile driven, 16 year-olds are the most dangerous of the teenagers. The thing is, they don't drive as many miles as older teenagers do for whatever reason. When they were putting in new license restrictions last year (or whenever it was), we talked about this on the Board, and I had some articles explaining it. The irony was that the new restrictions may make the accidents per mile driven stat go up for 16 year-olds since the restrictions could very likely mean 16 year-olds will drive even fewer miles. And you knew they were 16 because? Personally, I can't tell the 16 year-olds from the 17 year-olds, etc. by looking. My 20 year-old sister doesn't look any different than some of the kids in my son's grade at school (and those are 14 and 15 year-olds). Of course, she'd have to gain weight to weigh 105, but she also drives an Eclipse rather than an SUV.
I agree with this. I took driver's ed in a underpowered 4-cyl. Korean car. For my 16th birthday, I got a V8 Trans Am. The difference between driving those two machines was like night and day. Even now when I get a new car, it takes at least a little time to get accustomed to it (even if the cars are only marginally different). I don't know that teenagers have the experience to be able to properly adjust as quickly.
Of course, there is the fact that it's the inexperience of the drivers that is causing a lot of the problems, so putting off allowing people to drive may only be delaying the problem rather than solving it. I understand there's a maturity factor, as well, but there really is no substitute for experience, either. I personally think I was a better driver at age 16 because I was allowed to (legally) drive to and from school when I was 15. Restrictions of usage (which has been the way the Texas Legislature has gone) would be better, I think, that a wholesale raising of the age in which someone gets their license. Oh, and my older son will turn 15 in February. I have been pushing his mother to allow him to apply for a hardship license that would allow him to drive to and from school (and possibly to and from work) when he's 15. She's not going for it, though. Of course, she also won't let the kids watch cable TV, so she's pretty strict. I fear there's a cauldron of rebellion a-brewin' there in that house. But yeah, I am comfortable with my kids driving under the same rules I drove under. By law, they get a little stricter deal than I had, but not too much stricter.
