Yeah, the answer to all problems is to increase laws and restrict freedoms using skewed statistics from special interest groups. Driver skill and experience reduce danger and deaths on the roads, not illogical laws and overbearing enforcement. Make it MUCH more difficult to get a driver license for these kids, give them comprehensive driving skill tests administered by professionals, not multiple question tests on the color of curbs and arbitrary speed limits. Give them knowledge and skill, and the freedom to use it to the best of their ability.
That will never happen though. There’s not enough opportunity for revenue and control that way.
Who said anything about restriciting freedom and skewed statistics from special interest groups? This research and many others studies prove that GDL-Graduated Driver Licensing requirments WORK to decrease the number and severity of accidents for young drivers. As a parent and a driver, I’m all for anything that can help teenagers gain better drving skills before they are let loose on our roads. How can you possibly knock that?
They prove that death rates drop, but why do they drop? In order to proper analyze the statistics, you would need to more accurately define the group the statistics are being applied to. Define “young”. If they are referring to the death rate of the age group that is subject to GDL requirements (16-18), then it is equally likely that the death rate has dropped in this group because the teens have chosen to wait until they are 18 to get their license instead of subjecting themselves to the restrictions. You see how statistics can be skewed? If this can be realisically accepted, then all this law is doing is essentially delaying the risk two years, not eliminating it. Age and maturity actually play a smaller role in deaths among young drivers than experience. There is no substitute for experience behind the wheel.
Let’s see. You don’t want to “increase laws and restrict freedoms” but you want to “make it MUCH more difficult to get a driver license”. Which is it? Maybe you suffered a head injury?
Maybe you believe unrestricted driving is a right for anyone? I consider a 2000 pound hunk of metal going down the highway a deadly weapon, both to the occupants and to others on the road and any restrictions that help an inexperienced driver gain the skills needed to safely operate a vehicle helps protect MY freedom! Or do you think it’s OK to give a 15 year old 10 hours of “drivers ed” and then give them a license?
Calm down Lauren, you’re getting a little too emotional. I don’t believe unrestricted driving is a right for everyone, and my first comment clearly stated that I believe it should be MORE difficult, not less for a teenager to get a drivers license. A GDL license may allow a young driver to gain experience in a safer environment, but it does nothing for skill. If you allow your driver to drape his arm over the steering wheel at the 12 o’clock position when he is driving, he is gaining the wrong kind of experience. You do realize there is more to driving than just pointing the car straight and stepping on the go pedal right? There’s a great deal of physics involved with driving, and understanding that would be a good first step for a developing driver.
Freedom comes with responsibility, and there is a great deal of responsibility involved in driving a motor vehicle. Prove you are responsible, and freedom should be yours.
My head is okay, I wear a Simpson Speedway RX, it’s a top notch helmet.
Um, wouldn’t it be relevant to know what the percentage of head injuries is for all age ranges. How do we know that teen accidents result in more or less head injuries than is average anyway? Shoddy reporting.
Flawed study! The problem with the study is because the researcher was using an assumption as a basis. There has never been a certified study establishing the true base line for a teen aged brain, therefore, was the brain damaged below “normal” by the accident:: or was the brain below normal by hormonal deterioration prior to the accident. Which puts the validity of this study back in the realm of “which came first the chicken or the egg” or “Why did the chicken cross the road”.
Yeah, the answer to all problems is to increase laws and restrict freedoms using skewed statistics from special interest groups. Driver skill and experience reduce danger and deaths on the roads, not illogical laws and overbearing enforcement. Make it MUCH more difficult to get a driver license for these kids, give them comprehensive driving skill tests administered by professionals, not multiple question tests on the color of curbs and arbitrary speed limits. Give them knowledge and skill, and the freedom to use it to the best of their ability.
That will never happen though. There’s not enough opportunity for revenue and control that way.
Who said anything about restriciting freedom and skewed statistics from special interest groups? This research and many others studies prove that GDL-Graduated Driver Licensing requirments WORK to decrease the number and severity of accidents for young drivers. As a parent and a driver, I’m all for anything that can help teenagers gain better drving skills before they are let loose on our roads. How can you possibly knock that?
They prove that death rates drop, but why do they drop? In order to proper analyze the statistics, you would need to more accurately define the group the statistics are being applied to. Define “young”. If they are referring to the death rate of the age group that is subject to GDL requirements (16-18), then it is equally likely that the death rate has dropped in this group because the teens have chosen to wait until they are 18 to get their license instead of subjecting themselves to the restrictions. You see how statistics can be skewed? If this can be realisically accepted, then all this law is doing is essentially delaying the risk two years, not eliminating it. Age and maturity actually play a smaller role in deaths among young drivers than experience. There is no substitute for experience behind the wheel.
Let’s see. You don’t want to “increase laws and restrict freedoms” but you want to “make it MUCH more difficult to get a driver license”. Which is it? Maybe you suffered a head injury?
Maybe you believe unrestricted driving is a right for anyone? I consider a 2000 pound hunk of metal going down the highway a deadly weapon, both to the occupants and to others on the road and any restrictions that help an inexperienced driver gain the skills needed to safely operate a vehicle helps protect MY freedom! Or do you think it’s OK to give a 15 year old 10 hours of “drivers ed” and then give them a license?
Agree 100% Lauren. My reply, although not very clear, was to “the Stig”.
Calm down Lauren, you’re getting a little too emotional. I don’t believe unrestricted driving is a right for everyone, and my first comment clearly stated that I believe it should be MORE difficult, not less for a teenager to get a drivers license. A GDL license may allow a young driver to gain experience in a safer environment, but it does nothing for skill. If you allow your driver to drape his arm over the steering wheel at the 12 o’clock position when he is driving, he is gaining the wrong kind of experience. You do realize there is more to driving than just pointing the car straight and stepping on the go pedal right? There’s a great deal of physics involved with driving, and understanding that would be a good first step for a developing driver.
Freedom comes with responsibility, and there is a great deal of responsibility involved in driving a motor vehicle. Prove you are responsible, and freedom should be yours.
My head is okay, I wear a Simpson Speedway RX, it’s a top notch helmet.
Gotta have a law requiring helmets and body armor for driver and all passengers in all vehicles. If we don’t help everyone who will?
Um, wouldn’t it be relevant to know what the percentage of head injuries is for all age ranges. How do we know that teen accidents result in more or less head injuries than is average anyway? Shoddy reporting.
Flawed study! The problem with the study is because the researcher was using an assumption as a basis. There has never been a certified study establishing the true base line for a teen aged brain, therefore, was the brain damaged below “normal” by the accident:: or was the brain below normal by hormonal deterioration prior to the accident. Which puts the validity of this study back in the realm of “which came first the chicken or the egg” or “Why did the chicken cross the road”.