The following letter was in today's Chronicle. There has been a lot of talk recently about having a more graduated licensing system -- placing more limitations on those under 18, to help limit the 'impact' of younger drivers, and allow them to gain more experience. I've heard the following suggestions, among others: requiring anyone under 18 to have a learner's permit for a year, limiting driving hours (no driving late at night, possibly with extended hours on the weekend), limiting/prohibiting freeway driving, giving parents the authority to pull the license, etc. I'll be the first to admit that when I was 16-17, I would have opposed any such measure with a lot of venom. As I get older, and having worked in the emergency services field, I can see a lot of benefit to a graduated system of some kind. If age has an influence on your response, please let us know where you are coming from. However, I'm honestly not sold on any of the proposals as being perfect. (Other than I think it was a huge mistake to eliminate the driving test for those that have taken driver's ed.) What do you think? What restrictions would you like to see? Any ideas? (Note -- please consider this a non-race, non-religion, non-abortion, non-drugs/legalization of drugs, non-gun control / non-Democrat / Republican / Libertarian / Conservative / Liberal / Progressive / whatever topic. http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/editorial/842047 ------------------ Stay Cool... [This message has been edited by dc sports (edited March 07, 2001).]
I can see the logic behind this. I'm a far more aggressive driver today than I was 6 years ago, but I'm also a better driver. I know how to react better and what moves you can or can't make or whatever. All of that, at least for me, just comes with experience. I think a graduated system would be great. I'm not sure what kind of limits should be imposed, though. Maybe harsher penalties for speeding and such, but I'm not sure limiting late-night driving or freeway driving would really help -- people have to get experience doing these things too. The simplest thing would be to revoke anyone's driver license if they get a speeding ticket (over 10mph or something) or run a red light, etc. Would piss off some people, but teens would be much more careful when driving if they see their friends losing their license. ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
I think they should make those 16-18 live in a place like Happy, Texas where when they crash, they don't have things like trees around to hit. One could fall asleep, drive off the road and run out of gas before hitting something (except maybe a prairie dog). Seriously, though, I had a hardship license which allowed me to drive to and from school when I was 15. By the time I got my full license at age 16, I was already pretty comfortable with driving and had developed some skills. I don't think further restrictions beyond age 16 would've made that much difference. (And, by the way, I had a learner's permit for nearly a year before getting my full license. I didn't realize there was any other way to do it). Of course, I didn't have any accidents that were my fault. So, it's easy for me to say it wouldn't have made any difference because I have the benefit of hindsight. Some twentysomething lady ran into me when I was 16, but that was around 3:30 in the afternoon. The three people I remember from high school who were involved in fatal accidents during high school both had their accidents in the afternoon, as well. My neighbor was speeding down a city street at about 5pm, lost control and ran into a car going the other way. The driver of the other car was killed. The other accident was a one-car roll-over that happened when a girl I went to high school who, while driving home from school, realized she didn't have her seatbelt on. When she reached back to grab the seatbelt, she turned the steering wheel and drove straight off the road, killing herself and serious injuring her passenger. The other accident happened when the school let kids out early for the big religious ceremony we used to have to attend before graduation (I don't remember what it was called). These girls went out and got drunk in their time off between leaving school and having to be at the Civic Center that afternoon. The ended up driving into downtown too fast and rear-ending a group of cars stopped at the first stop-light in downtown, killing at least two of the girls who had been drinking (my memory is bad, so I don't recall if more than two were killed). None of the restrictions mentioned would've prevented those deaths, and in each case, a current law was already being broken (speeding, driving without a seatbelt, driving under the influence). Another thing that I thought about is if restricting driving to increase public safety, why do we limit that to those under 18? Just think of all the lives we could save by merely making driving between the hours of midnight and four a.m. on Fridays and Saturdays illegal. If safety is our main concern, why limit ourselves? I know plenty of 18-22 year-olds who drive like maniacs and can't drive for crap. We should keep them off the roads, too. (And old people. My grandmother was declared legally blind at one point, but they still never took her license away. My Dad had to take her car away from her because she kept running into other cars, curbs, poles, etc. I'm sure eventually, she would've had to take an eye test and she would've failed, but there are four years between renewals anyway. And my grandmother was actually allowed to renew by mail without an eye test at least once). Seriously, though, extending hours on the weekend for drivers is the exact wrong thing (assuming there was a limit at all), I would venture to guess that most serious accidents involving teenagers take place on weekend nights. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
Im just waiting for them to lay down some restrictions on older people who have problems driving. ------------------ Nice guys finish last ... and im surely not going to finish last!
The limitations I heard suggested were something like 11p-6:30a Sunday-Thurs, and extending it to midnight on Friday-Saturday, recognizing teenagers might need the extra time if they wanted to go to a movie, dance, etc. If they were stopped during other hours the first goal would be to warn them, notify parents, something like that. If they were with their parents, that was OK. You can get a learner's permit at 15, but at age 16 you only have to get one as long as it takes to complete driver's ed -- then you can get a normal license. Now, they don't even require you to take the test -- just prove you've completed driver's ed. The proposal was to make anyone under age X have a learner's permit for a year -- with the thought of forcing them to spend more time driving with a more experienced driver. I think the real question is -- Are there any restrictions that we could put in place in order to limit the damage caused by inexperienced drivers to themselves and each other? In the three examples you gave -- it sounds like the drivers made stupid mistakes due to lack of experience behind the wheel. What would have prevented this? Mr. Paige I get the feeling that you and I both had pretty boring childhoods -- and may not be good examples of the typical careless teenage driver. FYI -- I think they are considering regulation / legislation on tighening standards with older drivers. Hints pop up every once in a while. But, that's another topic. ------------------ Stay Cool...
Noooooo......sooooo close........ ------------------ Charles Barkley on TBS on the "fat track" poll: "What? 47% said I'd gain more.....why those.....they better be glad this is a family show."
But again, it's those weekend nights where the most carnage happens. If safety is the issue, get the kids off the road on the weekends. If they're going to do something like this, it might as well make sense. The whole purpose is increasing safety, that comes at a price to the social lives on teenagers, I'm afraid. It doesn't increase safety to make an exception to allow teenagers to drive during the times when they are most apt to have these accidents. If we're going have restrictions (and I don't think we should), the restriction should deny all weekend driving altogether. That would certainly be the safe thing to do. Personally, putting in a such a restriction would've harmed me during the week, as I had a job. I had to work until 9:30pm or 10pm on weeknights. My job taught me responsibility, work ethic, that I never wanted to work in a restaurant again so I should probably go to college and do well, etc. Had there been a driving restriction at the time, I wouldn't have been able to get those experiences. As for the three examples I gave, I don't know what could've prevented that other than not allowing them to drive at all. None of the people in my examples were still 16, either. They all had at least one year of driving under their belts. If anything, they were more careless because they were used to driving. (And in the last example, keeping alcohol out of their hands would've been a good idea. But I don't know how you make something that is already illegal even more illegal). The thing, too, is that one of the major complaints about teenage driver's is their lack of experience. Keeping them from driving will not increase their experience. If there is going to be some sort of limitation, I think 1) give everybody hardship licenses at age 15 (which would give them a year of experience under a restrictive environment), 2) require a driver's test (If anything, it's a rite of passage. They shouldn't get rid of that even with driver's ed), 3) tell parents to require limits of their own (I had to be home at 11pm on weekends. I was never late. If I got a ticket of any kind, I would have had my car taken away from me for a year. If I wrecked the car, I had to pay for the damages, beyond what the insurance would pay. If I had the car taken away, I still had to fend for myself in regards to rides to school, work, etc. Plus, I was taught from birth to be respectful of cars and take car of them. It was my job in the family to keep the cars clean, etc. And when I got my first car, I took care of it. That translated into not driving like a jagoff, too, for the most part). Also, I tend to wonder if the original stat from the Chron is skewed. In a story about limits on drivers under the age of 18, why are 18, 19 and 20 year-olds included in the accident stat? Could it be that the 18, 19 and 20 year-olds are the largest part of the problem? I don't know, but whenever I see a stat presented like that, I become suspicious. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
Senior citizens vote. Teenagers do not. So I doubt that any serious regulation of geriatric drivers is in order. If we regulate the times that teens are allowed to drive, do we make allowances for those who have to work at those hours? Does limiting late-night driving do anything meaningful in the big cities, if mandatory curfews are already in place (and where most teens live)? ------------------ In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.
I know that I've heard talk about putting limits on older drivers for some time, yet it never comes to pass because senior citizens not only vote, they vote consistently. As for limitations for teens, I'm sure there would be built-in circumvention to allow for kids who work and what-not. Of course, the door is then opened for flaunting the restrictions altogether. If I get a special dispensation that says I can drive until 10:30pm on weeknight because I have a job, what's to stop me from driving at times that I am not working. When I was in high school, I worked two weeknights. How do yo structure a license with restrictions that only allow me to drive when I am actually going to and from work? And what if I have a job when I get the license and then quit? How is the state going to know that I don't have a job anymore? What if I get a license that lets me drive until 10pm, and then I change jobs to one that makes me work until 11pm? Do I have to go back to the state and get a new license? Who's going to pay for the extra cops required to pull over everyone who looks like he might be a teenager driving during a restricted time? It's not much of a restriction if there is no enforcement. For every extra cop I have to devote to keeping teen drivers off the road (and those stops will take longer since you have to call the parents to come pick up the kid. If it's illegal for him to drive, you can't give him a ticket and let him drive home. You have to detain the kid), how many extra rapes or murders or even drug traffickers will slip by? Or will other programs like DARE or even firefighting or probation officers, etc. have to be cut to find the extra funding for these extra law enforcement officers? Will my taxes go up to pay for it? How many lives would we really be talking about saving? Can they give me a number? What is the break down of fatal accidents where the 15, 16 ot 17 year-old is at fault and what time of day do those accidents happen? How many of these accidents are also alcohol-related? Would better enforcement of the alcohol restrictions save more lives than simply keeping the kids off the road? There are a lot of questions I'd like to hear the answer to. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
Just for clarity, do you mean hardship license, or learner's permit? A learner's permit allows someone 15+ to practice driving with a more experienced driver in the front seat. A hardship license turns them loose by themselves before the age of 16 (with some restrictions). -- How would it help to give every 15 year old a hardship license? Enforcement is a good question, but probably a separate issue. My guess is it would be more passive enforcement like insurance or an inspection sticker -- they probably wouldn't get a ticket unless they were pulled over for something else, and got caught. Most of the enforcement, like a learner's permit, would be up to the parents. Since most teenagers can't afford to buy and insure their own car, it's up to the parents (or other car owner) -- who don't want to pay the ticket or higher insurance premiums -- to monitor the use of their car. ------------------ Stay Cool... [This message has been edited by dc sports (edited March 07, 2001).]
If the problem is a lack of experience, giving a kid a hardship license that allows him to drive by himself with restrictions would give kids that experience before turning them loose with no restrictions. It would just be giving them a restricted license for a year when they are 15 rather than doing so at 16 and 17. And how do you give sub-18 year-olds a special inspection sticker if they share the car? Insurance is also already extremely high. If there was an additional charge to insure a younger driver, it would probably mean that some kids just wouldn't get licenses at all. And if enforcement only happens when the kids do something else illegal, how would that increase safety? I would venture to guess that in nearly every fatal accident, at least one person was already doing something else illegal (speeding, DUI, reckless driving, something). If all it took was enforcing existing traffic laws, there would be no problem. The only thing we've done is massively increased the amount of time that the police officer has to spend with the teen. He has to take the kid into custody. He has to have the car towed. He has to keep the teen detained until the parents show up. (Again, the officer can't let the driver simply drive home if it is illegal for the teen to drive. Otherwise, they are not enforcing the law at all). During all that time that the officer is dealing with taking a teen off the street and getting his car towed, etc., the officer is off the streets and not fighting crime. So, how many extra rapes, murders, assaults, traffic accidents, etc. will happen while those police officers are off the street babysitting kids who normally would simply have been given a ticket a sent on their way? If the kids already doing something illegal, deal with that. Chahcnes are, though, that the kids isn't going to be doing anything illegal (that would get him pulled over) up until the time when he has the fatal accident. Given all the necessary loopholes and given that we're talking about not restricting driving during the times that are most dangerous for teens (and given that no one can say whether such laws would make any difference at all, or whether there is even really a problem. If the stats supported the idea that 16 and 17 year-olds were the problem, the stat would've been presented that way instead of including 18, 19 and 20 year-olds), I don't see the point. We have a law that we're not going to enforce without taking away from other things that are potentially more important. We've got a potential system that allows for huge loopholes that make the laws potentially worthless. We've got a potential system that doesn't restrict driving during the times that are the most dangerous. All this proposal is is another way to harrass teenagers. (And as much as I like harrassing teenagers at my age, I don't think we need new laws to do that). ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
Interesting topic . . . here in Ontario we've had the graduated licensing system for about 5 years, and so far, its considered a success in terms of number of accidents. There are three levels in the system; the G1, G2 and G Licence. The G1 can be attained on the driver's 16th birthday, through a written test, Restrictions for a G1 include no driving between 12:00 a.m and 5:00 a.m (estimation), someone with at least 4 years of driving experience must be in the car at all times, and no driving on highways/freeways. After a min. of 8 months (with drivers ed) or one year (without drivers ed) with the G1 and some driving experience under the belt, the young driver can book an on-road test. If they pass, they attain a G2. With a G2, the only restrictions are that absolutely no alcohol can be in the body (as opposed to a fixed level) and that there cannot be more passengers in the car than there are seatbelts. The young driver than has 5 years before their license expires to go for another, longer test for a full G license. That test involves highway driving. As someone who got his G2 about a year ago, I can say that this system has been effective and increased the experience - and awareness - of the young drivers on the road. There is also a law in place that stipulates that the elderly must re-take a driving test at a certain age (70?). They also must have regular eye-tests. Azim da Dream ------------------ There's a very fine line between genius and madness. http://www.clutchtown.com
That Ontario system doesn't sound too much different than what we have in Texas. The main difference being that one can get a learner's permit (which would be close to the equiv of a G1) at age 15, and there is no requirement that one has to have that level of license for a certain length of time before moving on to a regular license. As for the other things, I think that Texas passed a zero tolerence law for alcohol in minors (or they were talking about it), and there is an article today about a bill introduced that would require anyone under 18 to wear a seatbeat no matter where they sit in the car (the current law is 14, and front seat passengers regardless of age). We don't test for highway driving, either. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
Excellent point. Give kids a chance to drive with restrictions for a year (or two) in order to gain experience before turning them loose with no restrictions. I think that is exactly what they are suggesting. Personally, I think 15 is two young to start driving alone for the average person. Allowing drivers to start at 16-17 with some restrictions would have the same effect -- but give the young person an extra year of maturity. Like I said before, I don't think you were an average teenager. I don't think I mentioned a special inspection sticker. Insurance is higher for an underage driver -- much higher for under 18. Just ask my parents -- my father made sure I knew about it. My point is they do this now with inspection stickers, insurance, and registration. If you never get pulled over, and never get in an accident, you would probably never get a ticket for any of these offenses. Most people follow these laws anyway -- for fear of getting a ticket if something else does happen. I think most car owners (usually parents) would try to make sure their children followed the laws, because they would not want to pay a ticket/higer insurance for their teen, if their teen was stopped. You don't know this will happen -- they haven't finished the proposal(s). They could just contact the parents. They could mail a notification to the owner of the car. They don't have to impound the car or wait with the teens, since there is not an immediate threat to safety. Now, if you get a ticket for no insurance, or a busted headlight, they give you a ticket, and let you go with the understanding you will fix the problem as soon as possible. They don't impound the car or wait for you to fix the problem. If you repeat the problem -- then you get into serious trouble. I think it's safe to say that most teens get pulled over sooner or later for something. I was a very careful driver, and I got pulled over twice before I was 18. (Once with 3 friends, handheld radios, and 50 rolls of toilet paper at 2:00am.) Police are good at noticing when something is amis. I think the idea is to put in place measures that won't overly limit their freedom, but will help cut down on accidents, and give teens more of a chance to grow into that responsibility. No, it won't cut out all high risk opportunities, but it will cut out some, and might help give teens more of an appreciation of their license. The stat in this short editorial included 18-20 year olds, but probably to make the stat more dramatic. I think it's safe to say that 15-17 year olds carry a large part of that burden. Since there is a change in isurance rates at 18, and just based on personal experience, I do think 15-17 year olds are more at risk. Again the idea is to let them grow into the responsibility, so hopefully, they will be less at risk later in life. Why not? My only other thought is that it would give officers another tool to combat teen drinking and other potential problems. Currently, if there is only marginal evidence of drinking, vandalism (wrapping houses?), etc, officers are very reluctant to go through the procedures to document these cases, and prosecuters have a hard time convicting. They frequently make a sober driver drive, and send them home. Yes, this is another problem alltogether, but is reality. In the case where I was pulled over above, for example, I wasn't doing anything illegal -- but the officer knew that we intended to. A $50 ticket for violating a license restriction would have sent the message pretty clearly. This is fun. You and I don't usually disagree on issues (though I'll admit, I'm playing devil's advocate just to debate with you as much as anything. ) Thanks for the input Azim -- I didn't realize Canada already uses this system. ------------------ Stay Cool...
I would be interested in the corelation between the high percentage of young drivers that cause accidents, and what percentage of intoxicated drivers are from the same demographic. If the stat is just inflated by all the teens that go get drunk and then get into an accident, then I think they should just inforce DUI laws better, instead of punishing people based soley upon their age. ------------------ "We messed with the Bull, and we got the horns." -- Larry Brown "quote" from AirBullard.com
A new article: Bill puts brakes on new teen drivers Nighttime limits aimed at curbing fatal crashes By POLLY ROSS HUGHES Copyright 2001 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau AUSTIN -- Teens might persuade parents to give them the keys to the car, but the Texas Senate isn't willing to give new drivers full privileges upon their 16th birthday. Wednesday lawmakers passed Senate Bill 577 by Sen. Teel Bivins, R-Amarillo, to keep newly licensed and unsupervised teen drivers off the roads in the wee hours. "Forty-three other states have now enacted legislation that would change the way we grant drivers licenses to our young drivers in an effort to save lives," Bivins said. More than 320 Texas teen-agers died in car accidents in 1998, he said, and 40 percent of the fatal crashes occurred between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. The bill, as amended, requires new drivers under age 18 to be off the streets between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. weekdays unless they are accompanied by a licensed driver age 21 or older. An amendment by Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, extended the curfew to midnight on weekends. "That is the time when the vast majority of teen crashes and teen-age deaths occur," Bivins said. Whitmire pushed through another amendment excepting teens driving to or from school or school-related events. "Is it realistic with today's lifestyles to expect young people to be complete with their activities by 11 o'clock. It seems like an arbitrary time," he said. "I'm concerned as a parent and a senator that we're not about to pass something that's unworkable, unenforceable and unrealistic." Whitmire also questioned Bivins for arguing for the change based on what other states have done. He said, under that reasoning, Bivins should favor a hate crimes bill supported by Whitmire and opposed by Bivins, since 42 other states have passed them. Sen. Mario Gallegos, D-Houston, revived an argument he used earlier in the week that Houston police could seize on new traffic safety laws to unfairly stop Hispanic drivers who look young for their age. He said unlike Amarillo, in Houston "a lot of folks are working, and they go to work at 11 o'clock at night." ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
Had this law been in effect when I was a teenager, it wouldn't have affected me at all. I was never out later than 11pm on weekdays (even with work) and never out as late as Midnight on weekends. Several things struck me about this article. Notice that the number of traffic deaths drops dramatically when the 20 year olds are left out. We got from 825 with 20 year-olds to 320 without the 20 year-olds (assuming that teens include 19 year-olds). If we take out the 18 and 19 year olds, I wonder how few deaths we'd have. The story makes a point to note that 40% of these deaths occurred between 9pm and 6am. Now, not only is this another stat with the ability to be skewed because of the inclusion of the 9pm to 11pm/12am hours, but it is also quite silly. 40% of the traffic deaths happen in those hours, and those hours also constitute nearly 40% of the total day (37.5% to be exact). Seems to me that we'd expect to see about 40% of the deaths occur in that time period. Seems to me that if we're really interested in preventing teen deaths, we should prevent teen driving from 6am to 9pm when 60% of the deaths occur, rather than at night when only 40% of the deaths occur. And what amount of those deaths are in the period that isn't covered by the law or by drivers who wouldn't be covered by the law? And, I am a little disappointed to see that my former State Senator, a man that I supported for years and who is a friend of the family, is the person behind this bill. I thought he was smarter than that. Finally, I do sort-of agree with Sen. Gallegos and his fear that the police will use the law to harrass people they feel like pulling over and using the law as a defense when they pull over minority drivers in places the police feel minorities don't belong. ("No, I wasn't pulling over that fella because he was black and driving in University Park. I was pulling him over because he looked young. I was merely trying to enforce the "curfew" laws.") No reason to give the police another weapon with which to abuse their power. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
Personally I'm 17 turning 18 on the 25th of this month and see some of the problems being discussed. However, a lot of teens are careful drivers and really aren't part of the problem. From what I've seen it isn't the 16 year olds or 17 year olds as much as it is the 18-22 year olds etc. Seems like from my expereince the 16 and 17 year olds are more careful. The problems really start to come with people who are 18 and 19 etc that are pretty comfortable behind the wheel after a few years so they start to take more chances. But there are a lot of bad drivers I agree. Heck my school parking lot is one dangerous place with a 3,000 kids trying to leave at the same exact time. The limiting hours thing might work but it depends. During football season etc a lot of the people involved in the game in some way cant' get home before midnight. and what are you going to do.. pull over every teen on the street. I consider myself a pretty good driver. I did have someone back into me in a parking lot but that was found to be his fault and had nothing to do with anything i did. I think a lot of it is the parents responsibility. I still am not allowed to drive around downtown and places where i'm not familiar with the area and my parents think that the traffic etc is too bad for me to be in that area. Parents need to slowly limit what kidn of weather the kids travel in etc for at least a while. anyways i think something needs to be done, but most of the people i see driving wreckless are older people. lol most the teens are too scared of their insurance going up from getting a ticket. there are some wreckless oens though ------------------ Shane "Save Our Rockets" "Life without basketball in Houston........without an arena that is what it will be"
I personally don't drink or run around at all hours of the night so i don't think all teenagers should be punished because of the ones that do. seems to be like bad driving is a problem with all ages, but people figure they can just pin it on the teens.. ------------------ Shane "Save Our Rockets" "Life without basketball in Houston........without an arena that is what it will be"
