I seethe with violent ambivalence towards the Eagles...and less violently, James Bond and James Dean...but more violently towards mixed references which confuse and anger me (what does it mean!?).
Kids can legally join the workforce at ages 15-16 in many states and the traditional graduation age/age of suffrage/legal adulthood is 18 - in many cases these people are not the spoiled coddled progeny of wealthy parents indulging the frivolous, immature, and inconsiderate desires of irresponsible brats who want to drive like they are starring in an action movie or playing a video game - in many cases these 'kids' have to get to work and so they need transportation.
People who propose raising the typical ages that permits are issued (15-17) and then licenses (17-18) have their heads up their bourgeois asses. Anyone trying to insure an 18 year old driver already knows they are going to get raped by the insurance company on rates and dropped the second a claim is made. It is the job of the state to prevent insurance agencies from being able to cherry pick and exclude drivers from access to insurance merely on the basis of age - this after curfew = we don't pay claims bullshit needs to be nipped in the bud by the local government, regulating business practices in the public interest is their job. Some insurers might pull out of the area entirely rather than tolerate being compelled to cover teen drivers - that is their choice - but society requires that theses drivers be insured and that is that.
"...when theft and high crime becomes obscenely obvious to even the blindest beer sucking idiot, it is always the Republicans who are in office." -- Joe Bageant
Yes, Ms. Quindlen, let's raise the driving age to a point where our most novice drivers have even easier access to alcohol than the 15-16 year olds currently do. Oh, and those 15-16 year olds? I'm sure they'll never be tempted to date, hang out with or otherwise associate with older teens or adults to get rides. It's not as though having a car at one's disposal is any kind of status symbol even now. I'm sure there won't be any uptick whatsoever in the incidences of stautory rape.
Idiot.
6
 2
|
Re: A (Driver's) License To Kill: Too Fast To Live
Tue Jun 12, 2007 at 02:59:40 PM EST
|
Interesting concept, however I would continue to argue that the real key is personal responsibility. I, like many others at 16 did not commit any traffic infractions and remained accident free for the better part of a decade. The majority of new drivers do as well.
I'd rather the alcohol laws simply were revised to something more sensible, recognizing that responsible people will not be irresponsible with booze if treated like mature human beings. Those who can't handle the maturity and responsibility can be dealt with by the courts and law enforcement.
As I mentioned in the subQ, I feel like this is the epitomy of a "vanity" op-ed piece. It has zero chance of gaining any traction in effecting real law and doesn't really even consider making the effort to include any new information that might help achieve such change, especially given the relative stature of Quindlen.
She mailed it in this week.
make it rain you nappy headed ho's
It seems to me that if the concern is about all the teenagers who are dying in auto-accidents, then the problem is ultimately self-correcting. I have to assume that in the past teenagers were dying in horse racing/sailing/pick your poison accidents too.
At some point society needs to answer the issues arising from moral hazards which are created by transferring/reducing risk.
This brings me to the counter point of insurance companies (allegedly) refusing to payout when some unique snowflake gets in an accident. I call bullshit scaremongering.
Insurance companies charge parents a shitload to cover teen drivers in their household. I'm highly skeptical that 'some insurance companies won't payout' are representative of the industry policy at large.
Added to the fact that even under revised bankruptcy laws, you still can't lose your house. There is no likely way where some teenager involved in an accident puts the parents house at risk.
Memory is a strange bell, jubilee and knell.
The mere process of aging does not necessarily make people better drivers. People have to learn how to drive, and the skill of driving, much like the skills of speaking a language or of playing a musical instrument, are actually easier to acquire earlier in life, before the brain begins to ossify. People who start to drive at 15 or 16 may well become better drivers than those who don't start driving until 18 or later.
What is needed is for beginning drivers to better understand their responsibilities as drivers and to take more seriously the risks of driving and the moral responsibilities that every driver has. Better driver education and better parenting would serve those purposes. As for teenagers who are already in gangs, or dealing drugs, or otherwise have adopted a criminal lifestyle, they naturally will also become dangerous drivers. It's just one aspect of a larger social problem. Changing the age of eligibility for driver's licenses will not solve that kind of problem. We need much more fundamental social change.
As I looked at my car insurance policy today I noticed a mandatory government statement about DUI that REALLY surprised me. Apparently, at least in new york state you can be busted for driving with a BAC as low as 0.05, but below the legal limit of 0.08 in which case you are "Driving While Ability Impaired"
First violation Fine: $300-500
Jail Term: 15 Days
DL Suspended: 90 days, 1 year CDL disqualification
Violations within
5 years of any previous conviction:
Fine: $500-750
Jail: 30 Days
DL Suspended: 6 months
-Permanent CDL disbarment
Are they honestly TRYING to get people to lose confidence in the system so much that they refuse to take a chemical alcohol test? The penalties for that as a first offense are at most a $300 fine and mandatory 6 month suspension.
