I'm a little confused about The New York Times' position regarding states' rights. On one hand, it's down with California's desire to enact CO2 emissions regulations that trump national standards. On the other hand, when it comes to teen licensing, it asserts "What the country needs is a uniform set of rules, based on the soundest research. That is the best way to keep teenage drivers, and everyone who shares the roads with them, safer." The Old Gray Lady argues that "Congress flexed its muscle in the mid-1980s and pressed states to adopt a minimum drinking age of 21. More recently, it did so to pass tougher drunken driving laws. The country’s highways are safer for those efforts. Congress now needs to do the same for teenage driving." To that end, the paper supports Senator Chris Dodd's proposal to withhold federal highway funds from states that refuse to set the minimum driving age at 16 and adopt graduated licensing for 16- and 17-year-olds (including nighttime and passenger restrictions). While the Connecticut Senator is prepared to run roughshod over states' rights in this issue, representatives from more rural regions may make that effort politically problematic.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
here’s a simple solution that i wish was my idea (but isn’t). it goes for everyone, not just teen drivers:
if you cause an accident, it’s an automatic $25,000 fine NOT covered by insurance.
i’m usually all about the carrot instead of the stick, but a good driver discount on your insurance saves you $200 a year maybe, and avoiding tickets another $300 a year. let’s get out a HUGE stick (one that could derail college plans) and see if we can’t put an end to text messaging and ipods.
The Bush Administration has been a disaster for all of us who don’t own a Hedge Fund, Bank or Credit Card company (or mine, or offshore Oil), but a great thing for all the Fortune 500.
The neglect of the Bushies of car issues has been good. My only fear is that after 2008 we will be back to “speed kills” and massive grant money for “speed enforcment” meaning scameras and cop OT to write tickets on the safest roads, our interstates.
This is the same “logic” that gave us a 55 mph limit, a 21 year drinking age (making most young adults learn to drink in hiding-very not good) and the .08 BAL for DWI, which didn’t change the usual DWI reading one iota (.13-.18 “normally”)
More stupidity will come down the pike now.
As a “kid”, with working papers, I could not have driven to or from my job with today’s regs. I guess I’d either have to have driven illegally or just lament the fact we had no money.
What the country needs is a uniform set of rules, based on the soundest research.
Just like we needed a uniform speed of 55mph, since we know that the entire country is exactly the same from downtown Manhattan to rural Kansas.
Just as NYT isn’t going to argue that New York City should lower the driving age from 18 to 16, they support stricter requirements for CO2 controls in CA. They’re arguing for minimums, not maximums…therefore the States’ Rights issue is a non-starter for their position on CA/CO2 emissions.
We don’t need teen licensing laws, we already have them in the form of restricted licenses. When I got my license at age 16 in Florida, I had these restrictions:
– Driving is permitted during daylight hours only.
– Drivers must be accompanied by one passenger who holds a valid unrestricted license.
– All violations incurred by the driver go against the passenger who holds the unrestricted license (doing so would require the passenger to play a more active role in ensuring the driver operates the vehicle in a safe manner).
What more do you need to add to this?
Florida’s restrictions sound pretty sensible to me. I’d be interested to see data on teenage accidents in Florida versus states who don’t have those restrictions.
In rural New Mexico where I grew up, the legal driving age is fifteen and there are no restrictions for teen drivers. New Mexico has a horrible highway safety and drunk driving record, but how much of that has to do with teenage drivers I have no idea.
speedlaw: don’t want to upset your apple cart, but multiple studies have shown the 21-year drinking age saves lives. Covert underage drinking IS a serious problem, but the way to address it isn’t to lower the drinking age again. See this. I especially like William Haddon’s quote about “folk culture.”
Knowing what we know today, we never would have allowed teens to drive at so young an age — 14 for permits in some states and full licenses at 16. We know that inexperience AND immaturity both play a role in the high teen death toll, and having stricter graduated licenses like Florida’s would make sense in all 50 states.
Ontario’s driving laws are very similar to Florida’s. Come to think of it, I don’t remember off hand any major collisions involving 16 year old drivers with a G1. The most of the teen-induced collisions are those with G2 or full G licenses, which require no licensed passenger.
Of course, there’s a ton of collisions caused by soccer moms (and dads, I suppose) who can’t drive, talking on a cell phone or blackberry, going 80km/h in three inches of snow with bald tires.
I keep hearing about this 21 age drinking prohibition being a good thing and saving lives and what not. The first thing I said before I took my first *legal* shot on my 21st birthday was “Ok everyone, I’m 21, and now legally able to do everything I’ve done since I was 15.”
I can only forsee the same issue popping up with graduated liscenses. There would be too many loopholes in the form of hardship liscenses, which people would find a way into.
here’s a simple solution that i wish was my idea (but isn’t). it goes for everyone, not just teen drivers: if you cause an accident, it’s an automatic $25,000 fine NOT covered by insurance.
This is an excellent idea. I’m a fan of hit-and-run accidents and high-speed pursuits, and this would undoubtedly encourage more of both.
I think everyone east of the Hudson should do whatever they want and leave the rest of us alone.
Juniper: Not sure if you’re saying that because of perceived liberal bias of the Gray Lady…
However, notice this is not coming from the LA times, a paper where the editorial staff drives to work…
I have always been of the opinion that it should be harder to get a driver’s license. There are too many drivers that don’t possess even close to the skill required to navigate every day traffic, let alone when conditions aren’t ideal. I don’t think that graduated licensing is the way to go, however. I think more should be done in training for accident avoidence & control of the vehicle. Every driver should be required to demonstrate recovery skill. Every driver should have to demonstrate control of the vehicle on varying surfaces.
I was lucky enough that my job required a course in advanced driver training. We had to recover from an induced spin. We had to drive up onto a curb (2 wheels and 4 wheels) at 70mph. We had to slalom, do quick lane changes, emergency brakes. We experienced the benefits of ABS vs. non ABS, etc. I thought it was a class that every driver should be required to take. Instead, most get their license without having ever experienced the feel of the rear end sliding around, let alone what to do when it happens.
I agree in concept that licensing should be tougher — at the very least to weed out the incompetent and clueless. But it won’t help cull those who deliberately choose to drive recklessly or distractedly when the DMV examiner isn’t riding shotgun.
I attended Autoweek’s Teen Driver Safety Summit in late August in the Detroit suburbs. They provided an afternoon’s worth of skid control, hard braking, and shoulder recovery for the attendees.
It was interesting to be able to experience skids and learn how to correct them (although I pretty much knew what to do from when we had something called “snow” back in the old days).
What amazed me was how hard it was to get the cars to skid in the first place, and this was on pavement liberally sprayed with soapy water. This confirms why in almost 40 years of driving, I’ve never skidded on dry or even wet pavement except briefly in a straight line for making hard stops. And I can probably count on one hand the number of times I’ve had to swerve sharply into another lane or partway off the road.
I’d say it’s far more important to have the right ATTITUDE and learn to pay attention to your surroundings, drive at a prudent speed for conditions, anticipate what other drivers may or may not do, and act accordingly. If you drive in this manner, chances are you won’t have to make an emergency maneuver in the first place other than a little hard braking.
The problem is teens think they’re immortal and are too immature to realize otherwise. Taking an “advanced” driving course could have unintended consequences in light of this immaturity — “Hey guys, watch this!”
Currently, can New York prevent a 15 year old licensed driver from New Mexico from driving on its roads? Or is some kind of federal reciprocity mandate in place? If it is, it ought to go; right alongside Chris Dodd’s ability to harass people halfway across the country that would never even in their worst nightmare consider voting for the clown.