When I turned 16 years and a month in 1987, near as I can remember, I was eligible to get a driver’s license with no restrictions. Over the past two decades, a variety of limitations have been imposed on teen drivers. While I can’t say that these modifications are a bad thing — limiting the ability to haul around other teens with no supervision, for example — I think they are one of those things that are relatively easy politically. Teens don’t vote, driving is inherently dangerous, and parents are always concerned about the well-being of their children. So, there is a political element involved. If these decisions about driving were being made on a purely rational basis, one would expect to see more restrictions proposed for drivers who are, say, over 80 where age would possibly put you more at risk for slower reaction times.
But, teens are a more tempting political target since they can’t fight back (and their parents are probably likely to appreciate the legislation), so they get the love. Under a bill that will be introduced in the Senate, teen drivers would be banned from using cellular telephones and other communication devices and would have to wait six months to a year longer to get a license.
Under the legislation, teens who took driver’s education classes would have to wait until they are 16 years and 6 months before obtaining their licenses. Teens who do not take classes would have to wait until they are 17 to obtain licenses.
The bill would also require teens to drive with placards in their cars for 180 days indicating they are newly licensed and would prohibit them from carrying any passengers except siblings during that time, unless they were accompanied by a licensed driver at least 25 years old.
The bill also mandates 50 hours of supervised driving before a teen can obtain a driver’s license. But the chairman of the study committee, Sen. Tom Wyss, R-Fort Wayne, acknowledged that the bill doesn’t direct drivers to keep a log or prove to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles that they have completed the requirement.
Just another sneaky thing to keep in mind is to look at whether people who would profit from providing driver’s education classes are pushing this legislation.
Again, not saying that any of these measures are bad per se, just that we should skeptically approach any legislation that targets politically weak groups and wonder whether the legislation would be pursued if that group had political clout.
Update The Chronicle Tribune in Grant County suggests that the proposed legislation will place an additional burden on parents since the restrictions and training requirements are increasing as the access to driver’s education classes is dwindling.
These might be good ideas. But we believe unless there is ample access to driver training courses in Indiana, we will move backward in regard to highway safety, and the dangers to our children and others will increase.
In trying to cut back on teen fatalities, the General Assembly might do better to ensure driver education funding is available for our schools in ways that will make it reasonably available to all students.
I don’t care of the “star of david” style placards in the cars.
However, I think moving the age to 18 would be fine, while allowing for driving before that time with parents only. I don’t understand why we trust 16 and 17 year olds to a 2,000lb weapon on wheels yet feel they can’t handle guns or voting.
To the point about age, I think a reaction test should be done every 4 years. Very simple, just two buttons on the floor. Press the right button (gas) and in a random amount of time, a red light comes on. If you can’t move to the other button in an acceptable amount of time, you don’t drive. Take age out of it, this is just about making sure you’re not going to go out and kill people because you can’t press the brakes in time.
I wish bills like this were required to be accompanied by statistics to back up the necessity, because I just don’t see the problem with teen drivers. Maybe I’m not aware of it because I don’t have a teen.
ADULT drivers, however… I wish there were a required refresher course on traffic rules every few years or so for adults. Especially regarding who has the right of way at intersections. There seem to be lots of adult drivers unaware that they do not have the right of way.
In 1987 you could smoke in the car, with all the windows rolled up, an infant sprawled across the passenger seat, and a 0.9 blood alcohol level. Attitudes change, dude.
Actually, my favorite bit is the cell-phone ban. In six years the General Assembly can’t manage to restrict the use of handsets, but now it can ban them outright if you’re under 20?
[Beyond that, all they’ve done, basically, is to return the age limits to age limit to what it was in the early 70s–I got a Learner’s permit at 15-1/2, but couldn’t use it until I was 16, and couldn’t get a license until 16-1/2, with Driver’s Ed.]
Finally, somebody ought to speak up, marginally, for the 80-year-old driver (which group defeated politically, several years back, a proposed two-year re-exam law). If you’ve never had the experience of trying to get the keys away from a parent or grandparent you’re in for an important discovery about just how strongly people correlate driving and independence. The distinction between the types of accidents the two groups cause is telling enough: old people miss stop signs; young people blow through them at 60 per; old people drive when their drug prescriptions say not to, but rarely while dead drunk. The elderly driver is going, during daylight hours, to the doctor, the pharmacy, or the grocery; the 16-17-year-old is driving to school (where transportation is already provided, or readily obtainable), to work (working hours restricted by law in most cases), or for some fossil-fuel-powered entertainment. Granted that legislatively we do things by half-measure, and frequently at the behest of the highest bidder, but restricting driving among the group most likely to cause accidents and least likely to have a real reason to be on the roads in the first place is hardly the worst example.
And Steph, if we take every idiot off the road you’ll have to custom-order your license plates.
Several quick thoughts:
First, it’s not that teens don’t vote, it’s that they can’t vote. They might not vote even if they could, but the people affected by this legislation have no say at all. (And I’m not arguing that they should – just being nitpicky, heh.)
Second, without a control group of US kids who didn’t start driving until 18 to show otherwise, I can’t imagine why raising the driving age to 18 would change anything. Regardless of their newfound abilities to vote, smoke, play the lottery, and buy Playboy, most 18-year-olds aren’t that much more mature than most 16-year-olds, and I would have to guess that the problem is less one of maturity and more one of lack of experience. That is: I can’t imagine that a bunch of 18-year-olds (you know, seniors in high school, freshmen in college) who’ve never driven before would be any safe on the road than a bunch of 16-year-olds who’ve never driven before. They have to learn somewhere.
Finally, if this country wanted to do something to really make the roads safer, they’d start giving out more than a slap on the wrist for DUIs, regardless of if injury results from the act. DUIs are among the easiest crimes to prevent, as their prevention lies utterly in the hand of the person committing the offense – and if a person isn’t responsible enough to find a driver, take a cab, or stay home, well, then I can’t really imagine they’re responsible enough to be on the road, anyway.
Nick, you’ve hit a good point, and it goes beyond DUI’s. We don’t put strong penalties when we break traffic laws. It is very much a “no harm, no foul” setup. If I blow a light or speed, I can just pay a fine and be on my way.
Then, the day I kill someone because of my driving that I have been able to legally bribe my way out of, it is called an “accident”. We hear all about how bad the driver feels, and usually don’t even give jail time.
The fact is, our traffic laws are setup to put the freedom of driving as a higher priority than safety.
The problem is, speed doesn’t kill. It’s just an easy statistic to measure, that’s it. Difficult to measure whether a person dozed off, or was texting/doing their makeup/reading/chatting gaily to a passenger/eating/singing along with the radio, etc.
And where would the insurance industry and the police be without statistics?
I do agree with Nick B. DUIs are certainly not handled as they should be.
Good point, varangianguard. I have less issues, personally, with someone doing 80 mph on I-65 than I do with someone that doesn’t stop at stop signs or has their head up their butt while driving along in a 35 mph zone.
Growing up in a rural area, it was certainly useful to my parents when I could drive at 16. I did lots of extracurricular stuff after school, and it saved mom lots of trips to and from town which was a 15 minute trip each way. I also could drive myself to Louisville for youth orchestra rehearsals on the weekends which freed up an entire afternoon for the parents. I never had an accident of speeding ticket while I was under 18. I say let them drive and vote at 16. That should solve the problem :-)
Oh the joy of teen driving, parents please just try to remember when you were there.
Remember how we knew we were in total control and couldn’t fathom why our parents were so aprehensive. I own a driving school in Ca. and every year a rumor surfaces about raising the age limit for new drivers, it never happens mainly because parents rely on this new driver in the family helping out and lets face it a car creates huge leverage for control.I agree with Doug you can legislate all you want but education and inforcement is key. Here in California there is a restriction on driving with anyone younger than 25 when the driver has a learners permit. A restriction also applies to driving with anyone younger than 21 for new licensed drivers. In my conversations with teens who are training (permit holders)I am told that no one obeys this ristriction,how do you inforce it? The police have better things to do than to do. I applaud the cell phone ban for all ages .
The Schools will not begin a drivers training class because they have “better” uses for that money , you see all the money now goes into a general fund where it is used for more pressing projects. They will still teach drivers ed class along with a health class because that is how they get their funding from the Gov. So dear friends it is up to the driving schools for 3 lesson of 2 hours each and most importantly the Parents who are required to spend 50 hours with the student 10 of those hours for night driving. Kalil Gibran said the parents are the bow and string the child is the arrow. It is up to us as Parents to make sure our children learn to drive and recieve their license at the proper time in concert with the driving schools.