Teen Driver Restrictions: The End of Joyride »
Posted By ipodwheels 1 year, 4 months ago in StyleThis week we saw interest and attention given to Teen drivers as new bills and laws are passed to restrict some liberties afforded to teen drivers. From driving curfews to limiting who they ride with, teens are facing tough times ahead.
Read Full Story at autopartsplace.com »
Submitted By:
ipodwheels
I see,
more
when I have
my eyes
closed.
When I rest
my head
upon my car window
with the rain
tip tapping,
singing
to ...
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 51
-
100%
ipodwheels1 year, 4 months ago
Everything changes once you are on the front end of a car going sixty with a drunk teener on the wheels. Or the lady a few years back who almost died because a bunch of joyriding teenagers threw a turkey on her wind shield.
These restrictions are a sort of protection though. I find comfort knowing that they will help raise awareness on this issue and probably save lives in the future.
Reply-
100%
earthlingerer1 year, 4 months ago
Let's face the facts. We don't have teens working on the farms anymore, they're all run by big corporations now.
We should get like most countries in europe and not allow anyone to drive until they are old enough to drink - that is, eighteen years old.
A lot of people "hear" and "think" things, but that's all it is, and when you consider some minds, that's hardly enough to base a passing feeling, let alone an argument on.
Reply -
100%
mark-stevens1 year, 4 months ago
Washington State passed those laws over a year ago. Reports trust them or not, state that teen auto deaths dropped by 30% since the new laws were passed
Reply
-
-
SusanParrishComment removed: User banned.4 Replies
-
53%
ipodwheels1 year, 4 months ago
And to think that lately there were some concerns about octogenarians and sexagenarians driving our highways too. I just felt that it is a concern for many of us to give teen drivers attention too for they constitute a big portion of drivers out there. I think teens must be taught well by their parents that driving is a power. The car at high speeds is a deadly weapon that can kill not only people around it but the user as well.
Reply -
100%
miklkit1 year, 4 months ago
What is wrong with youngsters today? It has been shown that teenagers are clinically insane. They do need adult supervision. And what is wrong with todays driver education programs? I was an insane teenager. I rolled my first car on January 23, 1967. I walked away because I was wearing a seat belt. My daughters, nephews, nieces, and their friends refuse to wear seat belts. Suicidal maniacs..........
Reply-
29%
Jaydee401 year, 4 months ago
As for seat belts how much they help depends on what type of accident your in. When I was in my early 20's I wrote of two cars the same make and year, one wearing my belt, one without. I was in much better shape no wearing my seatbelt and was able to go to work the next day. The one I was wearing it in I was stiff and sore for weeks, it took me days to get moving again. I never wore my seat belt for years until we bought a car with air bags. We buy smashed cars from the US by the tractor trailer load sometimes as many as six loads a week, so I feel like I can make a smart choice. If the vehicle has air bags make sure your buckled up, it doesn't matter what seat your in, as those bags are dangerous. The cars today are made for all safety devises to work together and disaster can happen if you don't use them right.
Reply
-
-
91%
pawfoots1 year, 4 months ago
I am all for stricter policies towards teen drivers. My personal opinion is that most are not fully ready for the responsibility until in their 20's. While some are, I feel the majority aren't. Knowing how stressful teen life is, this may make things harder on them - but again, that stress (and how they deal with it) is what makes them dangerous behind the wheel in the first place.
Reply-
50%
JaneMay1 year, 4 months ago
True...I just have a hard time understanding how they can go off to war at 18, but they have so many restrictions at the same time. I know that's a whole other can of worms that I don't normally open, but don't really know where I stand with this. There should be some restrictions...I agree with that.
Reply-
67%
zaph221 year, 4 months ago
They can go off to war at 18, but they receive a lot of training first, no one would want to hand them a gun and put them in the theater to fight, so this in a way is kind of the same thing, making sure a teen gets the experience, the training they need before they are handed a dangerous weapon, and one that could end a life, even their own, if given to them without the proper training.
Reply -
0%
mark-stevens1 year, 4 months ago
My dear Jane, awareness brings changes, Barry Mcguire's Eve of Destruction
You're old enough to kill, but not for votin'
You don't believe in war, but what's that gun you're totin'
It wasn't too much longer that 18 year olds could vote. 25 years later 18 year olds lost the right to drink. These teen laws are for under 18.
Reply
-
-
-
61%
zaph221 year, 4 months ago
A longer, and somewhat more restrictive, period of supervised driving by teens seems to be a very good idea. This way they will get more experience in more situations before they are left on their own. And they will be getting more advice from and experienced driver, and all these things combined should help reduce teen accidents caused by bad decisions due to inexperience, and that should save lives, and reduce many injuries. In addition I would think it should result somewhat in lower auto insurance, and maybe even medical insurance, costs since if there are less accidents there will be less injuries, so less medical costs, and with less accidents the actuarial tables should see a bit of change that could lower auto insurance costs. The only people that might see this in a negative light is the teen that wants more freedom sooner...
Reply-
100%
zaph221 year, 4 months ago
but like I was always told when learning to drive... driving is a priviledge, and to get that perk they should work for it, and not complain to much. It seems to be a win-win for most of us, and it will make the roads safer. I just hope that the teens will realize no one is against them, but instead society is trying to help them, to let them get the experience they need to drive more safely. I'm sure many, if not all, teens won't like it, but in time they'll come to see it was a very good thing for them to take the time and get the experience before they were handed what can be a deadly weapon if used incorrectly, especially by someone lacking the proper experience.
Reply-
80%
Jaydee401 year, 4 months ago
My daughter is not yet 18, her graduating class 150 (roughly) has the distinction of missing 3 of their class mates because of automobile accidents. I am now teaching her to drive having done so last year with her Irish Twin of a brother. Our province has just brought in the graduate license program, among the restrictions are no driving after midnight to six, only one non family person in the car under the age 21, if a passenger is caught without wearing their seatbelt and are over sixteen both the passenger and the driver will be fined.
They also have a magnetic decal, L for learners, G for graduated licenses holders that are to be placed on the car when they are driving. Now this one I have a problem with as it makes them easy targets for insurance fraud, you know where people will make the accident happen with you at fault.
Reply
-
-
-
100%
pagey1 year, 4 months ago
I don't know what the laws are in the U.S. but in Ontario,Canada, they seem to be more strict. Here are some restrictions.
During the first 5 months of the provisional period, drivers under the age of eighteen , may not carry passengers who are minors (under eighteen), unless they are accompanied by a qualified supervising driver or the passengers are direct family members. You may not carry passengers who are your friends, or anyone else who is not related to you, and does not live in your house.
Provisional and learner's permit drivers under the age of eighteen may not use any wireless communication devices, including a cell phone, while driving, except when making an emergency 911 call.
Drivers must hold the provisional license for eighteen consecutive months with no moving violations, including a Probation Before Judgment (PBJ) ruling, to be eligible for a full license. Provisional drivers, who have previously received a Probation Before Judgment are ineligible for a PBJ ruling.
Reply -
0%
ipodwheels1 year, 4 months ago
The US is just catching up with what is already being implemented in other countries. It was just Monday last week that a bill was made law in Arizona that brings in more restriction to teenage drivers. In California, cellphones were banned. In Florida classes are being held to raise awareness. The implementation of the Graduated license program is being given emphasis for parents and the authorities lately.
Having a vehicle is a power that these kids are afforded. It is not unlike giving them a revolver. They have to take driving seriously so as not to bring injury to themselves or to others. I have heard somewhere that cars wont do anything its occupant won't do. With that in mind, I feel that each teen must be taught the seriousness of being able to drive.
Kids today are just so full of angst and anger. This should make us, the supervising adults, a little more careful when it comes to deciding on giving them their cars.
Reply-
100%
whatever20001 year, 4 months ago
It's way worse than handing them a revolver! You can only kill six people with a revolver before you have to reload. Look at the numbers of deaths at the hands of teens with a revolver versus at the hands of the wheel.
Reply
-
-
100%
2sidestoeverything1 year, 4 months ago
Good article and good first steps for some of these states. Here in NC we have passed some of those laws. Teens are not allowed to use cell phones driving unless they are hands free. They are also not allowed to be on the roads after midnight until 6 am. as well as not able to get a license until 18 if they quit school. I personally think that no one should use a cell while driving unless it is hands free.
Reply -
0%
Hobe1 year, 4 months ago
'Teen Driver Restrictions: The End of Joyride'
Don't Really Agree, but, It Will Save Lives, and, That's a Good Thing..
We all want our Teens to be around for a long time???
Go for It...
Reply -
80%
Bkumm1 year, 4 months ago
Nebraska just recently passed a law stating that a full drivers license would not be issued until the age of 18. I think that is a very good idea. I know what I was like behind the wheel at 16 and that was before cell phones were common.
Reply -
0%
Mowens19841 year, 4 months ago
"They claimed that it was a violation of their rights."
We have a given right to be talking on a phone while driving? I've yet to see that bill.
It may not seem fair, but honestly, if you really need to be on the phone for an extended period of time, it's a bad idea to be driving.
My fiance nearly died two weeks ago by someone who ran her car off the road and into a cliffside while talking on a cell phone and merging into her lane without looking. Not to mention the car didn't even stop... I doubt they even saw it happen, they were probably too busy discussing American Idol results with her friends.
The only time I use my cell is when someone calls, I tell them I'll call them back, or keep my calls down to 10-15 seconds at the most.
Reply-
50%
zaph221 year, 4 months ago
And how can their rights be violated on this issue when driving is not a right no matter what your age, it's a privilege that everyone that wants access too must follow certain rules, so again, how can someone's rights be violated over something that isn't a right, and for someone to claim such a thing just proves their immaturity and makes one question even more if that person protesting their rights have been violated should be awarded the privilege to drive on our roads since they obvioulsy have trouble with understanding certain concepts. And it also seems to me a teen that got angry and clamed their rights, which aren't rights, have been violated might just had a someone bad attitute, be a bit to angry to be given access to a machine like a car that could be so dangerous if not used properly. I think we have enough angry people on the roads, even when they're not teems, why add more angry, immature, drivers out there
Reply
-
-
0%
amazed1 year, 4 months ago
In CT, while learning to drive, the person holding a permit must have a licensed driver who is over 21 and has had his license for at least four years in the other front seat. You can fill the rest of the car to the rafters. Once the kid gets the license, for the first three months, they may have only ONE person in the car -- who is over 21 and has had their license for more than 4 years. There may be NO other passengers. So, once the kid gets the license, no more driving when both parents are in the car. That makes a bunch of sense to me. For the next 3 months, they may have one passenger of ANY age, as long as it is a member of their immediate family.
So, instead of having one teanage driver on the road when going to school functions, we now have four.
Yeah, it's working well.
Reply -
67%
ades1 year, 4 months ago
21 comments and no objections. unreal.
I went for a walk along the beach in Michigan and was fined for being there "after hours." I also got fined for hiking on "restricted state land"... it was news to me. My friend got a felony charge for having a utility knife in a tool box in his truck (he's a contractor). Apparently it's a concealed weapon. I found out yesterday that I'm not "allowed" to vacation to Cuba with my Canadian friend. Thanks mom. f.u. I'm free and I'll go wherever I want thank you very much. At 18 I can certainly die for my country, but oh.. I'm not responcible enough to drink for another three years.
Does no one else get tired of the government's ever increasing restrictions on our lives? The world's dangerous. Get over it. We don't need a law of every f-ing bump in the road.
Reply-
0%
el-jefe1 year, 4 months ago
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
On one hand, back in the Old Days, you couldn't vote until you were 21.
On the other hand, you could do pretty much anything else when you turned 13 (except get married, that had to wait until 14 for girls and 16 for boys, and be a party to a legal contract...18 for that). 'Course, that was back when it wasn't unusual for a 13-year old to hitch up the wagon and drive to town, dropping off the family's produce at the market to be sold. And handling a horse and wagon is every bit as challenging as driving a car.
I drove heavy machinery on the road at 14 (legal with a slow moving vehicle sign).
I don't mind a new driver serving a probation...but only if it's for 6 months or so. I'd also like to see some statistics:
Teen driver fatalities per year for the last 10 years (breaking out states with teen driving restrictions seperately), and the percentage of teen drivers who get into accidents in the first 6 months.
Reply -
100%
amazed1 year, 4 months ago
read my post again -- these laws are ridiculous and worse -- just another way for insurance companies to weasel out of paying if there IS a problem.
So, my kid just gets her license. I explain, exhort and whatever to be sure that she understands that she is NOT to give anybody a ride for 6 months.
Then, one day, the kid who lives next door doesn't have a ride, so my kid says, "sucks to be you, you gotta walk", right? Yeah, sure.
Someone crashes them on the way home -- might not even really be her fault. My insurance company can refuse to pay for the other kids medical bills because my kid shouldn't have been driving her -- but, they DON'T give me a break for the first six months when her license is practically useless to me -- she can't give her little sister a ride, she can't give a friend a ride and she can't EVEN drive with both of her parents in the car.
Reply-
100%
amazed1 year, 4 months ago
I should be responsible for MY kid. Legislators should not be telling me how to raise my kid or what restrictions I should put on her.
Oh, yeah, there's also a driving curfew for under 18 in CT -- meaning that I either have to hire a limo, go pick them up myself or hope they don't get caught on prom night.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
ipodwheels1 year, 4 months ago
From: trnscndr To: ipodwheels
Old issue. Studies have proven if you move the driving age up to say 18, then you just make the first 2 years of their driving experience most dangerous between 18-20. It doesn't save lives; just puts off the inevitable. I wouldn't mind if they extended the "leaner's permit" and only allowed 16 year olds to drive during the day, but frankly I was driving when I was 14 with my mom next to me. The problem, as usual, is not the kids, but the lack of guidance given them.
Reply-
0%
el-jefe1 year, 4 months ago
Extending adolescence indefinitely is a fool's game. If you treat adults like children, they'll either act like children indefinitely, or rebel in some very nasty ways.
I've actually heard a parent (of a teenager, no less!) say that their child would NEVER be unsupervised until they were 18. My reply to that is, what are they going to do when they turn 18 and try to leave the house by themselves for the first time? Wet their pants?
And people whine when their 28-year old kids move back in with them.
Reply
-
-
0%
ipodwheels1 year, 4 months ago
From: trnscndr To: ipodwheels
2000 pd killing machine. My son takes it seriously, or he loses his license without even changing the law. I am the law! He wishes the cops were his only watchers. The result, he drives like grandma, or he doesn't drive. Easy choice.
From: trnscndr To: ipodwheels
PS- You will never see me favoring the reduction of our freedoms, only the requirement that we be held responsible.
Reply-
-
100%
zaph221 year, 4 months ago
so if most people don't deserve their freedoms why are you complaining about them being overprotected, not being allowed to do what they want, I mean if they don't deserve their freedome, according to you, what is the problem you see with them not being allowed to do things? Isn't that contradicting yourself?
Reply
-
-
-
-
57%
jrmunro1 year, 4 months ago
In British Columbia a new driver gets a learners permit for 2
years. They have to have someone with a licence that is at least 25 yrs old when they drive. After 2 years they can take their road test and if they pass it is another 2 years before they can get their full licence. During the second 2 years they have quite a few restrictions on what they can and can`t do.
Reply -
100%
FordTruck5Speed1 year, 4 months ago
Mention death, and people go nuts. I think many of you make good observations, but I disagree that we need more restrictions. I have literally been driving since the day I turned 16. I never passed up an opportunity to get behind the wheel, and still don't. I love to drive and always have. Restricting freedom is never the answer. Proper training and accountability is. We have turned our society into a nanny state, where the government has to solve our problems and protect us from ourselves because we're too incompetent to do it ourselves. Instead of banning cell phones and imposing curfews and restricting passengers, I have a better idea. Ban automatic transmissions and GPS maps. That would force everyone to LEARN HOW THE @#&! TO DRIVE!
Reply -
-
27%
mark-stevens1 year, 4 months ago
Right now the only freedom I'm sure I have is breathing air
everything else falls under The Patriot Act
Reply
-
-
57%
amazed1 year, 4 months ago
If people are so worried about safety, here's a proposal that I believe will make things much safer without curbing anyone's freedom.
Instead of laws restricting actions -- you MUST wear a seatbelt, You must NOT talk on a cell phone, you MUST wear a helmut on a bike -- how about changing the tort laws so that people are responsible for their own actions..
Wear your seatbelt or not, BUT if you're in an accident even if it's the other guy's fault, you may NOT sue for your injuries unless you were wearing the seatbelt. You may not sue for head injuries from a motorcyvle crash (even if the other guy was at fault) UNLESS you're wearing your helmut
Laws like this would have the desired effect of encouraging the use of safety measures, while leaving the individual free to choose -- and truly NOT affecting anyone else.
Reply -
100%
mark-stevens1 year, 4 months ago
Makes sense until six kids get into a '66 Mustang V8 putting out 230 horsepower that the parents bought for a 17 year old's birthday.
Add a couple of celebrating beers and you get three kids killed and three in the hospital in critical condition from hitting a telephone pole at 50 miles per hour.
Happened in Seattle about 10 years ago. Do you feel safer parents... well do ya!!
Reply -
100%
Upset_In_Indiana1 year, 4 months ago
I live in Indiana.I found out yesterday that I can not ride alone with my 16 year old son because I do not have a drivers license.I have seizures and have not drove in 9 years.It is state law in Indiana that if you are going to have passengers you must have someone who is at least 21 and holds a legal drivers license.Well me his Mother is 39 and I cant ride with him unless we have a 21 year old with a drivers license with us.It makes no sense.He drive alone but he can not drive with me his mother.I am going to do what I can to get this law changed where at least the parent or gaurdian may ride with the driver even if they dont have a valid drivers license.I sure hope someone understands my feelings on this.
God Bless
Reply
Add a Comment
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.