Same old shtick: IIHS wants to delay licenses for teens
It seems every year or two the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety publishes a study showing why 16-year-olds shouldn't be trusted with a driver's license. Yet every year, only New Jersey withholds the privilege of four-wheeled freedom until the age of 17. In this year's report, the IIHS contrasts the rate of fatalities per 100,000 teenage drivers in New Jersey and Connecticut, the latter of which allows 16-year-old drivers. The teen death rate for accidents in Jersey was 4.4 per 100,000, while Connecticut had 20.7 deaths per 100,000 teenage drivers. Those numbers aren't a statistical anomaly, either. Earlier studies of New Jersey and Connecticut revealed similar fatality statistics, and the IIHS concludes that Connecticut could reduce teen fatalities by 66% if the legal driving age was changed to 17.
Even though data shows lower-aged drivers increase injury and death, most states still aren't interested in raising the age to 17. Florida, Massachusetts, Illinois, and Georgia all tried to increase the legal driving age to no avail, and other states aren't even trying.
We're torn on this issue because we remember how exciting it was to receive our driver's license at 16, and our parents were happy to end their chauffeur service. Let us know how old you were when you got your license, and give us your thoughts on what you think the minimum driving age should be in your state.
[Source: IIHS, Photo by djuggler | CC]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 7)
BowserUSC 2:35PM (9/09/2008)
Well, I got my license at 16 but I was required to take drivers ed to do it. If I didn't I would have had to wait till I was 17.
Reply
BowserUSC 2:36PM (9/09/2008)
Wow, a pedophile joke. How not funny.
Reply
CB 3:23PM (9/09/2008)
Why the blanket ban? I'm sure there are many 16-year-olds completely capable of being safe drivers. How about we give 16-year-olds a probationary license and any violation results in a 6-12 month suspension? I would think that could weed out some of the kids that need another year to mature.
Reply
james 2:50PM (9/09/2008)
I started driving when i was 14. I didnt get my license till i was 17. In that time i had 0 accidents, was never pulled over and obeyed the speed limit because I was scared to death of not being able to get my license till i was 18. I dont believe that its the age of the driver, i believe its the mentality of the driver. If they arent mature enough, arent smart enough or just arent cautious enough then they shouldnt be given a permit in the first place and should continue to take the bus.
Reply
Shipey 2:39PM (9/09/2008)
I got my license at 16, and in retrospect, I was too young. I drove like an idiot and promptly got into an accident.
I'm all for raising the age, but I know I wouldn't have been at 16.
Reply
Jerk Face 2:49PM (9/09/2008)
Good thing 16 year olds can't vote! They don't get a say. : )
And I'm with you - I was an irresponsible little jerk off doing power slides through gravel parking lots in my 1989 Corolla when I was 16. I had absolutely no business behind the wheel!
matt 2:51PM (9/09/2008)
I'm with you -- I got my license at 16 and had 3 wrecks were I was at fault before I had turned 18. I was a total idiot with cars when I was that young. Even though it was a rite of passage for me and a relief on my parents, in retrospect, it was a bad idea. I would support legislation to raise the age to 17. I do, however, think that 17 should be the highest it should go. By the time kids hit 17, they usually have at least part-time jobs and need some more independence.
Pat 3:13PM (9/09/2008)
The fault in logic is irresponsibility isn't limited to 16 year olds. Nor are all 16 year olds irresponsible. Yes, on average, young adults don't think about consequences when they do something stupid - but I wouldn't say all or even most. And nothing magical happened when I turned 17 that made me a better driver besides the fact that I had a year of driving under my belt.
IMO, I'm all for better driving education and stricter testing.
geo.stewart 3:14PM (9/09/2008)
Its NOT the age, its the inexperience...
You can make it 21 and you will end up with a lot of the same issues.
the ONLY argument for a higher age is that at 16, its the first major freedom that teens often have whereas if you wait until after they start college, that will be a non-issue.
If parents raise their kids right, the only issue is inexperience and you have that with EVERY new driver regardless of age. And that can be reduced by parents requiring EXTENSIVE practice with parents riding along.
dont let your laziness give the government more freakin power
2004m3driver 4:08PM (9/09/2008)
I think it has a lot to do with just being an immature little punk. Its the inexperience mixed with the raging hormones. I was one of does idiots that drove before I could even get a license, luckily I haven't been in or caused any accidents. Trying to be "cool" of course.
iScream 5:32PM (9/09/2008)
I'm with Geo, age really doesn't determine the best driver as much as experience. I believe most of us have become better and safer drivers by the mistakes we have made.
However, I believe the best way for a teen to respect their car and drive safely is by letting them pay for everything, including the car themselves. Any damage or gas should come out of their own pockets. This way, they can appreciate their cars and not perform any dangerous acts.
dea911 5:40PM (9/09/2008)
I got my license on my 16th b-day. Within my first two years on the road I got pulled over 7 times and got 5 tickets and a suspension on my license.
Now I'm 21 (still accident free, knock on wood) and looking back I don't think I was a mature driver until I was about 18.
My first 2 years I was an inconsiderate POS behind the wheel. It's a miracle I never hurt anyone.
I think the age should be raised to 18 AND have better drivers ed. Like emergency manuvers etc.
Smeagle 2:48AM (9/10/2008)
I agree that inexperience is much more of a factor than age itself. I have always wondered though, how much these statistics are skewed by the fact that a lot of younger drivers cant afford a decent, safe vehicle and hence are more likely to crash and more likely to be injured or killed in said crash.
tekdemon 5:30PM (9/10/2008)
It actually isn't just experience...even experienced teen drivers with a ton of hours under the belt are much more likely to do stupid sh*t (especially when their dumbass friends are in the car with them).
I did plenty of stupid crap back then, from a speeding ticket to getting into a 4 car pileup (at least I was the youngest person in the pileup, everyone else was still a crappy driver even though they were older)...I probably didn't have good control over my impulses until I was 21.
And it's not like I was a bad teenager or anything, in other aspects of life I was pretty responsible-good school, good grades, not too much partying, volunteered at a hospital, etc. But teens are crappy drivers because they have a hard time control their impulses, so when the drunken passenger chick in the car next to you leans out the window and challenges you to a stoplight race while your friends in the car are also egging you on you're much more likely to go for it than when you're older (and you probably don't have retarded teen friends anymore). And your teenage brain may or may not realize in time that the driver of the other car is also intoxicated, something that only comes to mind as they're about to swerve into your car at 60mph because they're too drunk to bother looking before doing a lane change. It's really only later that you realize how lucky you were in your younger years, lucky that you swerved just in the nick of time, lucky that when you fell asleep at the wheel driving while sleep deprived you only tapped a bumper, lucky that you had a new enough car that a 4 car pileup didn't crush you into oblivion, lucky that you didn't hit anybody when you skidded out in a freak snowstorm, etc.
Younger drivers could probably used a seriously graduated licensing scheme that limits the power output of the cars they can drive (since you're somewhat less tempted to go stoplight racing if your car is slow as molasses), limits the number of passengers in the car (since having more teens in the car leads to even more accidents), and probably better driver education than we currently have since it's pretty much a joke.
Vaughan Ling 2:39PM (9/09/2008)
I got my license at 16, and it was really exciting, but I think it's a little crazy to be driving that early. for example, my friend got into two accidents within a week of having his license at 16. Now what it should be is 16 as the drinking age to compensate for driving at 18.
Reply
Gary Buske 2:40PM (9/09/2008)
8 o'clock on my 16th birthday.
Reply
John 2:40PM (9/09/2008)
I'm OK with giving a restricted license at 16 that limits hours of operation. But to completely deny a license entirely based on age is not right.
Reply
Mark 4:20PM (9/09/2008)
We can begin tossing licenses to 12 year olds, by that logic.
Goat Law 3:49PM (9/09/2008)
Excuse me. What on earth do you call limiting driving to 16 and older? That is based entirely on age.
John 4:27PM (9/09/2008)
Well I thought my answer was fairly simple but apparently some need a detailed explanation and require spoon feeding.
The majority of states issue a license at 16 years old. The 16 year old age has long been accepted as the age of responsibility for driving an automobile. There is some evidence that a graduated license at 16 would reduce some of the auto deaths occurring. Most people with common sense would agree that reducing the age even younger than 16 would further increase deaths and is probably a stupid idea so let's maintain the 16 year old requirement plus add some restrictions until more driving experience can occur.
:roll eyes: