Perhaps they should raise the driving age to 60. That should cut down on street racing. Also lower the BA necessary to create a presumption of DUI from .08% down to .01%. And make it illegal for 3 or more people to consume alcohol at a bar or event unless a member of Mother's Against Drunk Driving is in attendance at the event. And require all bars with lottery machines to have a Certified Financial Planner on duty at all times within 15 feet of the video poker machines. And require that all men's briefs be made of not less than 600 thread count cotton to avoid uncomfortable chafing. So long as all these great ideas start at the Eugene city hall and end at the Eugene city limits, I think they should go for it. I can come up with a lot more if they need any help.

A better suggestion may be to prohibit driving for all of those who are grossly overweight.

As a parent of three children who have ALL passed through the driving years, I can genuinely say I am ambivalent about this notion. It is a real pain to properly supervise teens between 16-18 once they have their drivers' license. Good parents figure out ways to keep their offspring on a short leash while offering teens the freedom they want. Make punishments appropriate to the offense and be willing to take the car keys away if offenses are repeated or often. Every one of my children lost their car keys at some point during their early tenures as drivers. Most of the infractions were minor, but required parenting to teach students the life lesson that comes from driving. My last teenager has a tracker in her car so that I know where the car is at all times. My daughter knows there is a tracker in her car and accepts it for what it is. I'm not a busybody with it, but I can make random checks to see if she is where she is supposed to be. She gets a call or text message or IM if she isn't and the rule is that she has 5 minutes to respond. If she's driving, she has to pull over and respond to my inquiry. If I don't like her explanation - and I don't oftentimes - I make her come home. It has worked, and I haven't once found myself saying - "Gee, I wish the driving age were 18,19,20,21, blah, blah, blah". When you take the keys away you are stuck transporting them so you're punished at the same time. This is why driving experts will tell you that you never remove the driving privileges for longer than 3 weeks. I've done this twice. It gets better after each time. Good parenting should prevent the state from having to do our work. I would not be in favor of raising the driving age even though I might be every once in awhile.

Greg, I really do understand the sarcasm, but just because something has been the same for a very long time does not mean it shouldn't be tweaked once in a while. For heaven's sake, if tons of data suggest a problem, then ignoring it would be kind of silly.

mrfearless,

You sound like a great parent, and if all kids driving cars had you to supervise them, there would likely be fewer crashes. Do you think your parenting strategy is the norm for most parents?

"Young driver" does not equal "bad driver." I've known some very good 16 year old drivers, and I've seen twentysomethings that shouldn't be on the road at all.

I'd rather see bad drivers, of any age, kept out of cars. Maybe we ought to raise the bar for EVERYONE to get a driver's license, regardless of age. And make it a lot easier to lose your license for repeated moving violations.

Also:

“The rate of crashes, fatal and nonfatal, per mile driven for 16-year-old drivers is almost 10 times the rate for drivers ages 30 to 59.”

How much of that is due to experience (15+ years behind the wheel) as opposed to age/maturity factors? I'd be more interested in the difference in the first-year-of-driving safety records of people who get their license at 16 vs. those who first learn to drive at 30.

"According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, “The rate of crashes, fatal and nonfatal, per mile driven for 16-year-old drivers is almost 10 times the rate for drivers ages 30 to 59.” "

But what is the rate compared to 17 or 18?

I suspect the rate for both compared to 30-59 is nearly as high.

Roy, Tweaking?

Aren't insurance companies already doing this in effect with their sky high rates for teen drivers. Most of the parents of teens I know can't afford to insure their kids so they aren't getting their license at 16 anymore.

Well Ricardo, the NHTSA data I saw on their website compares drivers involved in fatal crashes ages 16-20, to drivers 21-24. There were about a thousand fewer deaths in the older age group. Not that teens shouldn't drive, but we shouldn't be afraid to impose more restrictions and at least examine the problem. As a side note, I think the minimum age for going to war should be 50. How do like them apples?

Maybe there should be a lowering of the permit age to 14 so they have two years of training instead of one.

Kari, my kids are 29, 22 and 20. The only one to have an accident was the oldest and it occurred after she had been driving for two years. There were no injuries, but both vehicles were totaled. I am against the notion that age alone confers maturity and good decision making behind the wheel. Like others, it would be good to see the NHSTA statistics run by years of experience rather than age.

Reduced teem drivers will NOT mean reduced pollution and greenhouse gases. It wold have the opposite effect in that a parent or other adult would be driving to and from double to drop off and pick up teens. the whole idea smacks of an overly restrictive state that is more interested in controlling than developing.

Rather than delay teen driving until later age it would be suggested that more effective driving training and licensing standards be implemented across the board. I would also advocate for much stronger DUII punishment and enforcement.

and while we are at it, LOWER the drinking age back to 18 for beer and wine. Why can our sons and daughters go off to war, vote and enter a binding contract at 18, but have to wait until 21 for a beer?

This is from a Washington Post article:

"While most European countries issue driver's licenses at age 18, the difficulty of passing the test, high insurance costs and wide use of trains and buses all mean that young people generally begin to drive much later than in the United States."

Increasing the driving age certainly isn't the answer to all of our road/driver safety issues, but it will undoubtedly make our roads safer which is of course key for creating a biking culture....a more sustainable culture. Getting kids out of cars and on bikes early is vital for cultivating lifetime bikers, not to mention the educational and social benefits.

As previously stated, the benefits far outweigh any drawbacks. Safer roads, healthier kids, increased use of alternative transportation, fewer carbon emissions etc. Based on limited research, increasing the driving age to 18 would enjoy broad public support. This would have huge long-term implications for progressive causes.

For those who didn't read the entire editorial, I started w/ the story of a eight year old boy who was killed instantly by a 16 year old boy excessively speeding. The skid marks were over 200 ft long.

10 times the 30-59 year old age bracket? I hope middle school teacher Joshua Welch doesn't teach math.

@mrfearless47: Great idea on the tracker. I'm gonna get one for grandpa, too. That'll solve all these problems we keep having with him wandering off in the car and the fact that his crash rate is much higher than an 18 year-old's.

Crash rates are for 100,000,000 Vehicle miles driven: (from the 1996(!?) report http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/98.010.PDF)

16 year olds: 6.8 17: 3.2 18: 3.2 19: 2.1 25-29: 1.2 30-34: 1.0 35-39: 0.9 40-44: 0.7 45-49: 0.7 50-54: 0.7 55-59: 0.8 60-64: 1.0 65-69: 1.8 70-74: 2.9 75-79: 5.2 85+: 7.9

BTW, the driver fatality (not crash rate) for 16 year old girls is about half that of 16 year old boys and about equal to 18 year old men.

Maybe we should allow girls to drive at a younger age than boys. The statistics show it would be safer.

My 16-yr-old drives himself to the football game and back = 2 trips (or one round trip). I drive him to the football game, drive home, drive back to pick him up, then back home again = 4 trips. How does him not driving save on oil, emissions, etc., again?

Mea culpa and sorry for the multiple posts. But the rates I posted are the fatality rates, not the crash involvement rates. Check the pdf for crash involvement rates.

Oh, yeah. Been waiting on this one. Now this is what I'm talkin' about...

On a flight back from the Netherlands to Oakland once, I sat behind two Dutch couples that were amused at the antics of some college aged Americans, in front of them. Basically, they had never had a drink before and were acting the fool, ordering all manner of drinks. I heard them discussing, in Dutch, how old they were, guessing 13-15. I turned and interjected that they were college age. The Europeans looked concerned, for a moment, after which I added, "...and they can drive".

They were horrified that they had plans to rent a car and wanted to know if the roads were safe. I just said that American society's balancing of personal responsibility/corporate desires/public safety was very different than in Europe, and that they should not assume that the ratio was optimized for harm reduction. They were particularly nonplussed by the term "defensive driving". "So you just assume that there is a maniac on the road that will simply run you over"? "Yes, Ma'am, that's what we teach our best drivers".

Long story short, we are way behind when it comes to making the roads safe. Every time I respond to something like this, or T.A's bike posts, I wonder if I'll be alive to read the response. Those in cars should dedicate one week to living as we do. A grisly death on the road is a palpable daily threat.

But why only target teens? When you talk about the teen-age driving age, you're talking about bringing in obvious biological factors. Teens are plenty smart, and have oodles of motor skills. They could be the best drivers. Unfortunately nature has decided that teens (particularly males) are the logical candidates to take risks for the society. Watch a Jane Goodall film. In primate society it is the job of teen-aged males to take stupid risks and die. It's a calculated trade-off for the troupe. It applies well enough to us. I was discussing a fire with a firefighter once, that had been in a 50 story building, and the ladders only went up 15 stories. They tied another two more ladders to the ends and sent two firefighters up. Being a personnel guy, I was curious how they picked the two "volunteers". The firefighter answered, "the way we always handle big risks like that. We pick the oldest and the youngest". That's a successful formula. Leverage teen-aged natural risk taking, and have adult wisdom there to hone it. It's time we exercised that wisdom with the law.

Elderly persons who no longer are safe behind the wheel but aren't tested often enough, gratuitous use of SR22's, truck drivers stoned out of their gourds on amphetamines that have their load of kitty litter inspected as a possible dirty bomb threat and cruise on... No doubt you can think of many more. A driver's license is not a right. It is earned. That has always taken a back seat to Detroit's selling one more car. Haven't looked to see if Terry Parker has pasted in his usual, "but you'll cut into my Hummer commissions" post yet. Leeches. You are blood sucking leeches.

As far as the teens go, we have to change the culture and I say a good place to start is when a teen comes up to you and says, "but I have to have a car". That has to be tied to demonstrated responsibility. Like a job, you know? That's also an environmental issue. You can improve fuels and fuel efficiency, but nothing helps like fewer cars. I took a straw poll this morning, among the office. About 40% of us don't own cars anymore, biking and Tri-Meting around town. My question was, "did you have your own car in high school", and looked at the answers by whether they had one today. There was no relationship among those that own a car, but none of those without one had owned one in high school. The take home lesson was that it's generally a good idea for a person to learn that they don't have to have a car to exist. Like most things in life, it's easier learned in youth, rather than later.

This is also another area where life makes no sense if you're a teen. We let you pilot thousands of pounds of steel around the town, then, we let you kill for hire, then, much later, we'll let you have a craft brew. At that magical moment, you're supposed to forget all the irresponsible things you've learned to do for 5 years, behind the wheel, and act responsible!

One final point/question I would ask about teen driving. We talk about school budgets all the time. How much are schools spending on parking/patrolling/enforcement, dealing with behaviors that only exist when cars are present, etc., in the course of the school day? Aren't we endorsing the hypocrisy pretty early on when we've got high school classes replanting traditional salmon spawning areas, but they drive single occupant cars to school?

16 year olds need to be able to get out of the house and do things without mommy driving them everywhere. Not everyone lives downtown. Some live in the country. Many 16 year olds would like to get out of the house and get a part time job and start growing up, be able to drive themselves to school, etc. It's important to their psychological development and maturity, as well. How are 16 year olds who live out of town supposed to start dating, etc, if they can't even get out of the house without mommy driving them. And when kids get older, much of the time Mom herself would like to start working again and can't drive her teenagers around all the time. You need to look at the big picture. No one said this stage of life was easy. But it is important. And also, "all" new drivers have higher rates of accidents, regardless if they get their license at 16 or later in life. Your silly article failed to comprehend basic logic, and was restricted solely to age. Perhaps you had no social life, friends, or job when you were in high school. That's why you don't understand. And like it or not, how well things go around this age often has a lasting impact on one's future for psychological reasons.

Some posters have made some false assumptions about my arguments

Just because many 15, 16, and 17 yr olds are not ready for the privilege of driving doesn't mean that there aren't dangerous older drivers. I am absolutely interested in taking measures to address any pool of risky drivers. The three groups I fear the most are the very young, the very old, and cell-phone users. Often the very young are driving while using their cell phones.

plasticgraduate: You may want to work on your reading comprehension skills before questioning my mathematical abilities.

"Reduced teem drivers will NOT mean reduced pollution and greenhouse gases."

The idea that significantly reducing the amount of eligible teen drivers would not reduce carbon emissions seems a bit silly.

I support lowering the drinking age to 18. It's quite absurd just like that marijuana laws. The idea that a immature 16 year old can drive a huge battering ram through the streets but adults can't eat a pot brownie is simply ridiculous.

I don't buy the idea that Parents have to drive their teens everywhere if they can't drive themselves. They can walk, jog, bike, bus, train, carpool etc.

"I am against the notion that age alone confers maturity and good decision making behind the wheel."

Nobody said age alone confers maturity and good decision making, however it is a major factor.

The idea that significantly reducing the amount of eligible teen drivers would not reduce carbon emissions seems a bit silly.

You might want to work on your critical thinking skills Mr. Welch. If I have to make two round-trips to get my kid somewhere vs. him being able to make one round trip by driving himself, logic tells you that you are not reducing emissions. No matter how silly it might "seem" to you. I hope this isn't the logic you're teaching middle schoolers.

I don't buy the idea that Parents have to drive their teens everywhere if they can't drive themselves. They can walk, jog, bike, bus, train, carpool etc.

Who is making false assumptions now? We will soon live 18 miles from our high school's football field. Do you suggest my 16-year-old walk, jog or bike those 18 miles up Highway 26? And guess what? There is no bus or train. Oh, and while we parents can certainly carpool - and do! - the law doesn't allow kids to carpool. They can't drive with anyone under the age of 21 for the first year.

My kids both started working at the age of 16 (as did I). I'm a single working mom who doesn't always have the ability to drive my kids where they need to go. I guess I should just quit my job and/or move to the city so my kids can participate in life, huh?

The idea that significantly reducing the amount of eligible teen drivers would not reduce carbon emissions seems a bit silly.

YOU might want to work on your critical thinking skills there, Mr. Welch.

If I have to make two round trips to get my son someplace and back vs. his making one round trip to accomplish the same, logic tells you that you are not reducing emissions. No matter how "silly" it might "seem" to you. I hope that's not the logic you are teaching to middle schoolers.

I don't buy the idea that Parents have to drive their teens everywhere if they can't drive themselves. They can walk, jog, bike, bus, train, carpool etc.

Now who's making false assumptions?

We live 18 miles from our high school's football field. Are you seriously suggesting that my 16-yr-old walk, jog or bike that distance? (It doesn't even matter that, for us, that 18 miles would be up Hwy 26, in the dark.) Right. I'll bet there'll be a lot less traffic fatalities then.

And guess what? There is no bus or train. We don't live in the city.

And while we parents certainly can - and do! - carpool, our kids can't. It's against the law for them to drive with anyone under the age of 21 for the first year they have their license, if they're under 18.

Both my kids started working - and paying taxes!! - at 16 (as did I). They both started driving then too (as did I). I'm a single working mom who doesn't always have the time or opportunity to take my kids where they need to go. I guess I should just quit my job and/or move to the city so my kids can participate and have a normal life, huh?

Look, you guys can push the bike riding culture all you want where it's practical. Which by his comments, is what Mr. Welch seems to be doing. Good for you. But there are a lot of us who can't give up our vehicles, either due to health or logistics. (Like biking 18 miles up Hwy 26 - aka "Blood Alley" - in the dark.)

Oops! Sorry for the double post.

Like myself, most of the boys where I grew up (upstate NY) used bikes to get around until the day they got their license. Of course this same story can be told by many others. If the legal limit was 18, most would continue to use alternate transportation. And yes, some will have their parents chauffeur them around. Carpooling will certainly increase.

We can banter about details but here but the focus should be on the more important questions.

Will increasing the unrestricted driving age to eighteen make our roads safer, make our kids healthier, increase alternative transportation, cultivate lifetime bikers, reduce healthcare costs, insurance premiums, push our children to be creative, help the environment, move us towards a more sustainable society?

The answer is yes to every question.

Kari:

If a representative decided to try to legislate an age increase who would it meet a lot of opposition? If i were on the ballot would it pass? Based on my limited research I think it would? If so wouldn't this be a worthwhile cause for progressive/environmental/cycling groups to get behind?

I received a number of responses to my editorial from a wide range of people, almost all expressing full support of an age increase, call it driving reform. Parents, teachers, servicemen, bikers etc. Many of whom know children well.

Joshua, to answer your questions:

1. If it were on a ballot measure I would vote "NO".
2. If I could vote the person out of office who came up with the idea and ballot I would.

You see, progressives want to meddle in people's lives just as much as conservatives. The only difference is where they chose to put their noses. Most of us want government out of our personal lives - ALL of it.

Joshua Welch: This is from a Washington Post article:... “ wide use of trains and buses” J: Looks like the Washington Post needs to do some fact checking: 78.3% of EU-15 motorized passenger-kilometers are by PRIVATE CAR.

See: LivablePortland.com/transit/eurotranistshareloss.htm

Joshua

The insurance companies would be powerful foes. They make a profit on every driver category, and such a proposal would reduce the number of paying drivers for them significantly. There are also those who think any new law (no matter how practical) will always infringe on their personal rights.

I guess the big question would be if any new changes in the law would clearly save lives. I'm afraid that arguing for change in the name "green" or "sustainability" would seem like a pretty big stretch to most.

A while back I saw a suggestion that all new drivers be required to have a high school diploma (or international equivalent). For most, that would mean age 17 or 18; others would have to be, or wait until, say, age 20 or 21.

Obviously, the intent is to encourage teens to stay in school as well as to keep dropouts--who may not know how to be self-disciplined or even how to read--off the road. With the necessary exceptions and adjustments, it could work.

Kurt:

What do you think of Somalia? I hear they have virtually no government? Should we just leave everything up to rational self-interest? I suppose this would probably bode well for the pirating industry.

I don't want to "meddle" in your life, I just want safe roadways, clean air and water.....you get the picture? If that happens to mean we have to make people wait till their 18 to drive, so be it.

You and other anti-government, anti-environment people ought to try to empathize.... to think about something called the greater good, and stop focusing so much on being able to do whatever is convenient or preferable to you and yours.

There are lots of well-reasoned posts in support of driving reform, however the arguments in opposition are extremely weak.

Oh for goodness sake. So now being against this ill-conceived, falsely-justified notion is akin to supporting pirates in Somalia? If we want to use that all-or-nothing logic, why don't you just outlaw motor vehicles all together? That'd be a lot safer and better for the environment, would it not?

Ah yes, let's not "banter about details" - at least let's not as long as they easily dispute your falacious claims, anyway.

The answer is yes to every question.

Oh, please. In your mind maybe. As Roy commented above, you might be able to make the case on safety, but the green angle is really pushing it. (As are most of your other assertions, IMO). You are of the variety to which Pat Ryan referred in his last post: "Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up."

How easy it seems to be to dismiss real people's real-life dilemmas with your smugly gratuitous non-answers. Heaven forbid you should stoop to bantering about details, but please, riddle me this:

What happens to the kids who don't live within access to public transportation, whose parents work ungodly hours, who cannot - due to health or logistics - bike, walk or jog? Do they just cease to work, to volunteer in their community, to participate in extra curricular activities, to do anything somewhere other than within 2 (or 5 or 10) miles of their homes? I know my own kids (and their friends) well, and I'm telling you it's a problem. Why do you refuse to address it?

THIS is why the law hasn't been changed, not because the greedy insurance companies or anti-government types are against it. (And, FYI, I hate car insurance -their ability to charge whatever they want for whatever reason makes it akin to legalized extortion, IMO.) My point is though, that I think its stupid and dishonest to be pitching this as a liberal or populist cause. It's not.

Where's YOUR empathy? When are you going to stop focusing so much on being able to do whatever is convenient or preferable to you and yours?

http://www.HowsMyTeenDriving.org has a solution to these issues. For a small fee you get a bumper sticker with an 800 number just like the ones we see on commercial vehicles. Call is immediately placed to parents to react right then.

From Mr. Welch: Crickets....

Yeah, I thought so. I can see why critical thinking skills - let alone honest debate - aren't being learned in our schools anymore with teachers like this.

Joshua, first I am neither anti-government or anti-environment. I find it specious that anytime a progressive wants to include yet more restrictions on the general population they wrap the skirt of "its good for the environment" around themselves.

It is apparent from your posts that you have no teenage drivers in your household. You are, therefor, mindless to the nuances of your suggestion raising the driving age. If you did have teen aged drivers you would know:

1. Existing state regulations banning other non-family teens from the vehicle actually results in MORE trips by auto and leads to MORE fuel spent with the accompanying emissions and pollutants. Interestingly enough, a family with 4-5 teens can have them all in the vehicle at the same time being driven by a teen driver. No extra safety for the road there - just state interfering with the public.
2. Except for the Portland area, public transportation does not exist for teens to get to work, school activities, athletic events, movies, shopping, etc. That means double trips for someone dropping them off and picking them up.
3. Your idea limiting the driving age is about as enforceable as the "no cell phone" ban Salem placed on teens while driving a few years ago. In the rest of the state, teens drive to/from school, work and actually help out during harvest in the agricultural areas.

And Joshua I am thinking of the greater good. I'm not anti-government. I am anti the government sticking their long nose where it doesn't belong; be it the bedroom, the doctors office, end of life decisions or meddling with driving ages. Just because it seems a great idea from behind your rose colored glasses, doesn't make it so. You floated an idea. Several people opined as to why it wasn't so hot and you choose to lash out. So typical of a progressive who is incapable of critical thinking.

One main reason European countries can have a higher driving age is that their cities and countries are no as spread out as the western states of the US. We developed differently from Europe having a several hundred year lag in starting out. Of course if you want this assumed driving utopia I would welcome you to go to Holland, Italy and/or France. BTW, I lived in Italy for 3 years and that is certainly no safe haven from bad drivers, teen or adult

Bartender:

If I responded to every anonymous myopic idiot like yourself, I wouldn't get much accomplished. Since you mentioned schools I wondered, sounds like you haven't made it out of middle school yet.

Wow. Seriously? That's the best ya got Joshua? Nyah nyah nyah boo boo?

Great - and oh, so intelligent - comeback. You must make your students proud. When you have no logical rebuttal, resort to calling names. When you can't address the questions posed, do your best to change the subject. Funny how you had enough time to respond with ad hom attacks, but no time to even acknowledge that not all kids fit neatly into your little vision of heaven. My assertion as to why so many children lack critical thinking skills stands, if you are representative. Thankfully, in our school district, we've apparently been blessed with better.

Anyone who may be interested in increasing the legal driving age please e-mail me. [email protected] It looks like there may be an organized effort to get this done and having the contact info of supportive Oregonians will be helpful.

If this is the way you plan to run your campaign - by simply ignoring your opponents' legitimate questions and concerns - good luck with that. 

Perhaps you're counting on what you wrote in your op-ed, that "[o]ne of the primary opposition groups, fortunately, isn’t of legal voting age." Most of 'em have parents though, and you can count on a lot of opposition from those of us who live outside of the city anyway, and would have to pay the price for your selfish, and falsely justified cause.  

Talk about an urban/rural divide! I hope the Dems don't jump on this bandwagon and alienate their rural base. There is (liberal) life outside of Portland you know!

As I wrote Josh, count on a fight. You better sharpen up your debating skills.     

"Reduced teem drivers will NOT mean reduced pollution and greenhouse gases."

And their farts don't stink either. Care to answer Aaron's question about school spending on teen drivers? Anyone?

Posted by: Bartender | Oct 30, 2009 1:15:48 PM

Typepad's response time is really second rate. Colors the whole blog.

So, my 50 year old neighbor that doesn't drive to stay green has less need of a car than a teen? Incredible how so many posters can't distinguish between "could be used to" and "really have to". Maybe do everyone a real service and remember that attitude when it comes to things like requiring landlords to allow pets.

Raising the driving age to 18 will accomplish the following things:

1) Shift deaths from 16-17 year olds to 18-19 year olds (and possibly 20-21 year olds as well). 2) Require more parents to chauffer their 16-17 year olds around, possibly using MORE fuel in the process. 3) Keep teenagers dependent on adults even longer. 4) Create disdain for the law.

Still interested?

It would be far better to just make the road test tougher (i.e. an hour long like it is in the UK), and make it easier to lose a license for bad or reckless driving of any sort. Also, lengthen the probation period for new drivers, and require at least 6 months between permit and license. Do all this regardless of age, and a driving age of 16 would be fine and dandy. (But 15 is a bit too young I think.)

In addition, we need to bring back driver's ed in high school, for free, this time with an updated curriculum. Such a course should really hammer the idea that you are driving a ton of metal that can kill you or someone else.

So, my 50 year old neighbor that doesn't drive to stay green has less need of a car than a teen?

Yes, if the 50-year-old has access to public transportation and/or is healthy enough and close enough to where he or she needs to go to be able to walk or bike and the teenager doesn't.

As someone who grew up living 16 miles out of town on a farm across from the Amish without siblings to help me, I can tell you that getting my license on my 16th birthday was the most important and happy day of my life. Finally, for the first time in my life I could drive myself to school at 7:20 instead of having to get on the bus at 5:50 AM(!) in the morning, for a one hour and forty-five minute bus ride, and then having to do a SECOND bus ride AFTER school on most days. I constantly fell asleep in class, was sickly, etc. Year fifteen was the worst year of my whole life. And who the hell wants to drive 16 miles out of town to be friends with me? I can answer that: no one. I had no friends until near the end of my sophomore year in high school, and had that gone on longer, I probably would have NEVER socially adjusted AT ALL. Had this continued I likely would have dropped out of school and never had a girlfriend, gone to the prom, ran cross country, or had any money to myself because I couldn't have worked over the summer. After getting my license I was finally able to get around for the first time and actually make real friends and get a job, get a girlfriend, and start getting a clue as to what life's all about. I really don't like narrow-minded individuals. And what's more, people who start driving later in life have a lot of problems, just like people who start using a computer late in life. It's better to start young. Teaching responsibility is the key. You can't improve safety by hiding from the world. You might protect a few irresponsible kids who hot-rod from getting killed, but you'll do spiritual harm to millions of kids that grew up in my type of situation. And, btw, why not ban sports while you're at it? That would avoid a lot of injuries. It would also make them unfit and miserable, just like not being able to get out of the house.

Oh, and another thing. Apparently commenter Joshua above is the original author of this proposal and recommends "bikes" for 16 year olds. Where did you grow up? New York City? You know what, a hundred million people live out in the middle of no where, not in a city or town, but on a corn field somewhere. And you think it's "safe" for teens and drivers for people to bike on rural roads with hills and cars zipping by you at 60 mph? Think again, Mr. Smartypants. I guess I was supposed to bike 16 miles into town that way, too. I don't think so.

No teens driving will lead to "reduced parental stress"? What planet did you grow up on? I couldn't wait for my son to get his own damn license and start driving himself to school and his sports. It's such a joy waiting for someone to get done with track and football practice after school five days per week after working, and then going home and having to make dinner and having your irritable husband treat you bad. That's what I call reduced parental stress. You think parents WANT their teenagers HOME all the time? Are you nuts? Reduced stress? And your logic is backwards, too. You know what really causes problems is when kids aren't taught anything growing up. Then they turn 18, think they're hot sht, and do whatever the hll they want because it's some rite of passage thing and they can't handle it. You know what happens to repressed kids when they suddenly turn 18 and go off to college? The idea is to slowly introduce them to things while we still have control. For three years of my life I lived in Spain where high school-aged teens are allowed to drink socially in their discotecas. Guess what? They grow up with alcohol, they don't go to college and binge drink and do all of that crap. The ones that do are frowned upon just as we frown upon mature adults who do this. It's not "cool" to most of them. Your perspective is really misguided, my friend. And I noticed a little something in the stats you posted. You compare new drivers to people who've been driving for 14+ years rather than comparing new 16 year old drivers to new drivers who are older when they get their license, and then intentionally try and push a false statistical comparison. What's your real motive, anyway? Just selfishness? Did some high school kid beat you up or something and now you hate them? Is that it?

I don't understand the complaints about 15 year old having permits, either. Unless something's changed, then a permit requires them to have a parent with them while driving. That's what you want. That's where they learn. We want MORE of that. That cuts down on the "lack of experience" type accidents. The "lack of responsibility" type accidents are a different story. I don't know what to do about texting and cellphones. 18 year olds do that just as much as 16 year olds. So changing the driving age to 16 from 18 shouldn't be expected to make any bit of difference. For that matter, maybe someone can talk my 47 year old husband out of texting while driving, because I haven't been able to.

I never realized how bad you soccer mommies and daddies had it, having to drive around those darn kids to school,(of course school buses don't exist and they sure as hell can't walk, bus, or bike) their practices, their games, and of course the mall. How else could they possibly enjoy life and get around without mommy and daddy driving them. How difficult and stressful for you. Which brings me to the conclusion......we MUST reduce the driving age to 13. These kids need responsibility sometime, and just think of all the trips mommy and daddy won't have to make. All that much more time to blog and drink lattes. Oh yeah, we'll give them the permit at 12 to practice driving with mommy and daddy to prepare.

having to drive around those darn kids to school

Take. The. Fucking. Bus.

Your middle class horror of "the other" does not necessitate changing society.

To user "poor parents": my response on that particular part was in rebuttal to the assertion by the original author that raising the age would "reduce parental stress". It was supposed to be read and understood in that context. I argued that it would make parental stress worse for a lot of parents who have such responsibilities. I also argued that introducing our kids to things while we still have some control over them and can teach them things and get them to listen is a good thing. Parents themselves can restrict how and when their kids will drive when they're 16. The keys can be pulled if necessary if they're leaving late to school, suspected of speeding, etc. Parents can tell 16 year olds they don't want them driving at certain times yet, or with certain people until they have more experience. We don't get to do that later on. There are benefits to introducing things slowly.

This discussion may be old now but for academic types a great article was just released in the Journal of Health Economics about this very subject.

The conclusion, quoting from the abstract:

"We find that the GDL [Graduated Driver Licensing] policies reduce the number of 15-17 year-old accidents by limiting the amount of teenage driving rather than by improving teenage driving. This prevalence reduction primarily occurs at night and stricter GDL policies, especially those with night-time driving restrictions, are the most effective. Finally, we find that teen driving quality does not improve ex-post GDL exposure."

For some research on the subject there is a great article that was just published in the Journal of Health Economics titled "Behavioral Impact of Graduated Driver Licensing on Teenage Driving Risk and Exposure"

The conclusion from the abstract (sorry, the paper needs to be purchased or borrowed from an academic friend):

"We find that the GDL [Graduated Driver Licensing] policies reduce the number of 15-17 year-old accidents by limiting the amount of teenage driving rather than by improving teenage driving. This prevalence reduction primarily occurs at night and stricter GDL policies, especially those with night-time driving restrictions, are the most effective. Finally, we find that teen driving quality does not improve ex-post GDL exposure."

Some information I thought some people would like to know since so many arguments are going around about how "16 year-olds just don't have as much experience as older people! Think about the 30 year-olds. They've been driving for much longer, so of course they have more experience! Anyone who starts something new isn't going to perfect at it."

The point that we should be concerned about is "maturity", not experience. Of course someone who has been driving for longer will have much more experience than someone who has just started driving; everyone knows that. It's the maturity of the brain that controls the whole thing.

Think this over:

A duckling sees a piece of bread on the ground and runs to go snatch it and gobble it down without thinking. That's what teens do when they get the opportunity to drive.

Now consider this:

An adult duck sees a piece of bread on the ground and runs up to it, but just before grabbing it, it sniffs the bread and studies it, finding that it is poisoned.

Conclusion:

The duckling is younger and doesn't realize the danger at hand, when the adult duck does realize, and avoids being killed. I'm not saying every teenager is irresponsible, for I'm a teenager too, and I'm not irresponsible (though we all can be at times). And I wouldn't mind to start driving at age 18 anyway, since I would have a much larger chance of not getting into an accident. I'm saying that people who are older have a more mature mind and seem to control these kind of things a lot more wisely than teens.

Heres something helpful I found from USA Today:

In 2003, there were 937 drivers age 16 who were involved in fatal crashes. In those wrecks, 411 of the 16-year-old drivers died and 352 of their passengers were killed. Sixteen-year-old drivers are involved in fatal crashes at a rate nearly five times the rate of drivers 20 or older.

The NIH brain research suggests that the problem is human biology. A crucial part of the teen's brain — the area that peers ahead and considers consequences — remains undeveloped. That means careless attitudes and rash emotions often drive teen decisions, says Jay Giedd, chief of brain imaging in the child psychiatric unit at the National Institute of Mental Health, who's leading the study.

Hope this helps ~ ~!