 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / July 2008This is Why CA Has Graduated Licensing
California has a graduated licensing program for teenaged drivers. Newly licensed drivers under 18 may not: * Transport passengers under 20 years of age at any time, for the first twelve months. * Drive between 11 pm and 5 am for the first twelve months. The following story is one BIG reason why. http://ktla.trb.com/news/ktla-malibucrash,0,4996579.story PCH Closed After Deadly Rollover Crash April 9, 2008, 6:32 AM PDT A 17-year-old driver was killed and three other teens were injured, one critically, in a solo-vehicle rollover crash in Malibu, authorities said today. The accident at 32020 Pacific Coast Highway was reported around 10:20 p.m. yesterday, a Los Angeles County Fire dispatcher said. A 2007 Subaru station wagon occupied by five teens was traveling westbound on Pacific Coast Highway when the driver lost control and careened to the side of the road, causing the vehicle to roll over several times before finally landing on its roof, said Lt. Debra Glafkides of the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department's Malibu Station. The driver -- a boy from Thousand Oaks -- was killed in the crash, an Los Angeles County fire battalion chief said. The boy's name was not immediately released. Also injured was a 17-year-old girl who was airlifted to a hospital in critical condition, while two other teens with minor injuries were transported by ambulance, the battalion chief said. Another boy was treated at the scene and released, Glafkides said. Debris was strewn over a large area of Pacific Coast Highway, which remained closed early today as the investigation continued, she said.  Signature"Dave's not here, man!" - Tommy Chong > California has a graduated licensing program for teenaged drivers. > Newly licensed drivers under 18 may not: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > one critically, in a solo-vehicle rollover crash in Malibu, > authorities said today. (snip) OK this was a tragedy that should never have happened. But on the subject of teenage drivers, I will ask the same question I've asked many times. If you start driving no earlier than say, age 17... And it take a minimum few years of supervised practice to even start to learn to drive... And you leave home to go to college in another state, around age 17 or 18... Who is going to teach you how to drive? I'm generally FOR graduated license requirements. But I think parents need a few years to try to teach their kids to drive, BEFORE they graduate high school, because it's too late at that point. Do we want our kids learning to drive from ummmmmmm . . . OTHER KIDS?!? I don't think so. -Dave > > California has a graduated licensing program for teenaged drivers. > > Newly licensed drivers under 18 may not: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > - Show quoted text - British Driving Test How well would the drivers in your state (including you) do with this driver's test? (Assume the eye test of reading a normal license plate in normal light at 67 feet to has been passed.) Pass a multiple-choice computerized test of rules and regulations regarding driving. At a computer, you'll go on virtual a long drive in the city and country, pointing out all hazards, be it the football rolling into the street or the car parked at the kerb with turned wheels and a wisp of exhaust coming out the pipe. Video training disks are available that cover all that's in the exam, but if you learn that way rather than reading, that's OK with authorities. Go on an actual drive with the examiner. Perhaps you'll start parked at the kerb and have to back around a corner without getting the car more than two feet from the kerb. Did you remove your seat belt to make it easier - it's legal to do so when reversing, you know? Your street will approach another qt a 45 degrees or so angle and you'll and stop before entering the main road. The painted centre line curved slightly as it met the give way line. Did your front bumper cross that line into the small area where no one would ever drive? The instructor will ask you to drive to a major landmark downtown from where you are in the suburbs. If you happen to be in a lane that turns into a right turn only lane (Visualized a left turn lane in N.A.) how do you handle it? The goal is to reach the landmark safely and legally - you figure out how. When driving along a main route did you hold up traffic due to your driving at the 30 mph limit where the light posts are within a certain distance? If so, that's a bad mark as the "speed limit" is advisory and obviously unreasonable at this point. During the final procedure you will be asked to explain and/or do: Check fluids (windscreen washer, oil, radiator, battery, brake, and so on. Diffs/tranaxles not included.) Check tires for pressure, wear, cuts/slits and so on. (Did you do the spare?) Check car glass for cracks and obstructions. Check all lights: headlight, signal lights, rear lights, brake lights and so on. (How you do the brake lights is up to you, but don't ask for help.) Check underbonnet hoses and belts for condition. You might ask if the inspector wants you to check the brake hoses to make points! Might knowing how to drive well before a licence is issued help? >When driving along a main route did you hold up traffic due to your >driving at the 30 mph limit where the light posts are within a certain >distance? If so, that's a bad mark as the "speed limit" is advisory >and obviously unreasonable at this point. It is my understanding that is where they put the speed cameras in the UK. On the underposted arterial roads. That sounds like a catch 22. If you violate the speed limit and the camera flashes, that's probably an automatic fail for someone who doesn't yet have government permission to drive. > How well would the drivers in your state (including you) do with this > driver's test? [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > Might knowing how to drive well before a licence is issued help? It might. But then again we're back to the original question. If we make kids wait to start driving until the age where they generally leave home to go to college, who is going to teach them to drive? I'm not saying that the parents are perfect instructors by any means, but the parents are a thousand percent better than their peers at that young age! -Dave >It might. But then again we're back to the original question. If we make >kids wait to start driving until the age where they generally leave home to >go to college, who is going to teach them to drive? I'm not saying that the >parents are perfect instructors by any means, but the parents are a thousand >percent better than their peers at that young age! -Dave The government will teach them. Look at how well the government is done in every other educational area ;) >California has a graduated licensing program for teenaged drivers. >Newly licensed drivers under 18 may not: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >The following story is one BIG reason why. I fail to see how the graduated licensing did squat. Looks like it didn't do a damn thing to 'save the children'. The government's police obviously had other things to do that took priority over playing nanny for a bunch teenagers. Why people want police officers to be the nannies of a parental government I can only guess at. The only thing that will 'save the children' is better parenting, not a more intrusive government police. What you have proven here scott, is that you cannot save people from themselves with laws. Irresponsible teens still pile into a car and crash and die. All that graduated licensing does is increase the power of the governments' police to interfere in our lives and act to restrict the responsible teenagers who weren't a problem in the first place. >http://ktla.trb.com/news/ktla-malibucrash,0,4996579.story > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >The accident at 32020 Pacific Coast Highway was reported around 10:20 >p.m. yesterday, a Los Angeles County Fire dispatcher said. >A 2007 Subaru station wagon occupied by five teens was traveling >westbound on Pacific Coast Highway when the driver lost control and >careened to the side of the road, causing the vehicle to roll over >several times before finally landing on its roof, said Lt. Debra >Glafkides of the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department's Malibu >Station. >The driver -- a boy from Thousand Oaks -- was killed in the crash, an >Los Angeles County fire battalion chief said. The boy's name was not [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Debris was strewn over a large area of Pacific Coast Highway, which >remained closed early today as the investigation continued, she said. >>California has a graduated licensing program for teenaged drivers. >>Newly licensed drivers under 18 may not: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >I fail to see how the graduated licensing did squat. It can only work if the kids follow the rules. He clearly violated the "no passengers under 20" rule, and was within half an hour of the "no driving after 11:00 PM" rule. >What you have proven here scott, is that you cannot save people from >themselves with laws. I would agree with that. Stupid always finds a way to be stupid. Signature"Dave's not here, man!" - Tommy Chong >>>California has a graduated licensing program for teenaged drivers. >>>Newly licensed drivers under 18 may not: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >"no passengers under 20" rule, and was within half an hour of the "no >driving after 11:00 PM" rule. So even getting close to breaking the rule is bad? It's an arbitary time... just like a speed limit is often an arbitary value? Would you like to be considered at fault if you were just 5mph under the speed limit? That aside, it's absurd to think that more rules is a solution to save people who don't obey rules from themsleves. (It's also absurd to think that more rules is going to make those who follow the rules safer.) >>What you have proven here scott, is that you cannot save people from >>themselves with laws. >I would agree with that. Stupid always finds a way to be stupid. Which is why graduated licensing isn't a solution. If a state government was interested in teen drivers knowing how to drive they would do some autocross type stuff, skid pad, etc etc... The teens venture into the great forbidden with no idea what they are doing. >>>>California has a graduated licensing program for teenaged drivers. >>>>Newly licensed drivers under 18 may not: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >So even getting close to breaking the rule is bad? You're missing the point. The graduated licensing law is based on statistics: some large percentage of teenagers crash with other teens in the car, some large percentage crash late at night, etc. Clearly there is a distribution, with some smaller percentage crashing after 10:00, etc. The bottom line is this kid was engaging in statistically risky behavior. >>>What you have proven here scott, is that you cannot save people from >>>themselves with laws. > >>I would agree with that. Stupid always finds a way to be stupid. > >Which is why graduated licensing isn't a solution. I never said it was. I simply pointed out why we have it. >If a state government was interested in teen drivers knowing how to >drive they would do some autocross type stuff, skid pad, etc etc... But that would cost money, and we don't have enough money as it is. Signature"Dave's not here, man!" - Tommy Chong >>>>>California has a graduated licensing program for teenaged drivers. >>>>>Newly licensed drivers under 18 may not: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >10:00, etc. The bottom line is this kid was engaging in statistically >risky behavior. Again, those who engage in risky behavior are not going to be influenced by a law that passes the responsibilities of parents on to the state. This is like telling a 16 year old gang member he cannot legally own a gun. He's not going to care what the law says. Same here, the kind of 16 year old who is going to go get drunk and drive into a tree isn't going to care about some stupid graduated licensing law. All your laws serve to do is restrict and allow the police into the lives of those who weren't a problem in the first place. Then there is the incrementalism. You are alreadying arguing that 10:30pm is close enough to 11pm. Next a 19 year old will be close enough to 18.... some tragic even will occur... the group that falls under these laws grows. >>>>What you have proven here scott, is that you cannot save people from >>>>themselves with laws. >> >>>I would agree with that. Stupid always finds a way to be stupid. >> >>Which is why graduated licensing isn't a solution. >I never said it was. I simply pointed out why we have it. lol. No, that the excuse that sold it. Why we have it is in part the concept that the government has to 'solve' every 'problem'. >>If a state government was interested in teen drivers knowing how to >>drive they would do some autocross type stuff, skid pad, etc etc... > >But that would cost money, and we don't have enough money as it is. Lots of money to piss away on wars and empire. >You're missing the point. The graduated licensing law is based on >statistics: some large percentage of teenagers crash with other teens >in the car, some large percentage crash late at night, etc. Clearly >there is a distribution, with some smaller percentage crashing after >10:00, etc. The bottom line is this kid was engaging in statistically >risky behavior. Are you an actuary, Scott? Do you want your life run by actuaries and insurance companies? Because if not, "engaging in statistically risky behavior" is not in itself a bad thing. (and also, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics -- did you know that 40% of sick days are people trying to get in a long weekend by calling in on Monday or Friday?) Of course, the kid was also engaging in risky behavior where there was an actual mechanism, not mere correlation, between the behavior and the risk -- to wit, he was drunk off his rocker. But for some reason you ignore that and focus on the passenger-carriage violation. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >(and also, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics -- did you know >that 40% of sick days are people trying to get in a long weekend by >calling in on Monday or Friday?) lol... >Of course, the kid was also engaging in risky behavior where there was >an actual mechanism, not mere correlation, between the behavior and >the risk -- to wit, he was drunk off his rocker. But for some reason >you ignore that and focus on the passenger-carriage violation. In chicago the loud mouth groups are all up in arms about teenagers killing each other with guns. Yapping about more restrictions on people who aren't the problem getting guns, etc and so forth. Then one teenager kills another with a baseball bat. So much for the theory that guns are the problem. Of course the next move will be to ban baseball bats, then kitchen knives.... soon it will be like the UK around here where criminals have all sorts of weapons, the people are disarmed and to do so much as fool a criminal with a toy gun to defend your life or property will land you in prison. >In chicago the loud mouth groups are all up in arms about teenagers >killing each other with guns. Yapping about more restrictions on people >who aren't the problem getting guns, etc and so forth. And the loudmouths are sending students to protest in Springfield every day this week. What a way to waste your Spring Break! >Then one teenager >kills another with a baseball bat. So much for the theory that guns are >the problem. Heh. Signature"Dave's not here, man!" - Tommy Chong >>(and also, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics -- did you know >>that 40% of sick days are people trying to get in a long weekend by >>calling in on Monday or Friday?) > >lol... Stolen from Dilbert, though the IIHS did use something similar in getting teen night-driving bans passed in Florida. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>You're missing the point. The graduated licensing law is based on >>statistics: some large percentage of teenagers crash with other teens [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Are you an actuary, Scott? Do you want your life run by actuaries and >insurance companies? Guess what? It already is. And so is yours. >Of course, the kid was also engaging in risky behavior where there was >an actual mechanism, not mere correlation, between the behavior and >the risk -- to wit, he was drunk off his rocker. But for some reason >you ignore that and focus on the passenger-carriage violation. Boy, nothing gets past you. Have I mentioned lately that Sloth Kills? Signature"Dave's not here, man!" - Tommy Chong >>>You're missing the point. The graduated licensing law is based on >>>statistics: some large percentage of teenagers crash with other teens [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Guess what? It already is. And so is yours. So it's just roll over and accept more and more of it? >>>You're missing the point. The graduated licensing law is based on >>>statistics: some large percentage of teenagers crash with other teens [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Guess what? It already is. And so is yours. No, it isn't, actually, if only for the paucity of enforcement agents. And whether it is or isn't, I certainly don't want it that way. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>>Are you an actuary, Scott? Do you want your life run by actuaries and >>>insurance companies? >> >>Guess what? It already is. And so is yours. > >No, it isn't, actually Can you live reasonably without driving a car? Can you legally drive a car without automobile insurance? I rest my case. Signature"Dave's not here, man!" - Tommy Chong >>>>Are you an actuary, Scott? Do you want your life run by actuaries and >>>>insurance companies? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Can you live reasonably without driving a car? No. >Can you legally drive a car without automobile insurance? > >I rest my case. Legally? No. But I can -- and have -- driven a car without automobile insurance. Nothing untoward happened. And if the insurance companies make unreasonable demands again, I'll do it again. They lack the ability to enforce their will upon me. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>>>>Are you an actuary, Scott? Do you want your life run by actuaries and >>>>>insurance companies? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >insurance companies make unreasonable demands again, I'll do it >again. They lack the ability to enforce their will upon me. At least until you get caught driving without insurance. :) Signature"Dave's not here, man!" - Tommy Chong >>>>>>Are you an actuary, Scott? Do you want your life run by actuaries and >>>>>>insurance companies? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >At least until you get caught driving without insurance. :) Maybe they can use checkpoints to catch teen drivers too.... checkpoints all over the place, what glorious freedom. >>>>>>Are you an actuary, Scott? Do you want your life run by actuaries and >>>>>>insurance companies? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >At least until you get caught driving without insurance. :) If they had the ability to enforce their will, I would have been caught. I wasn't. Though even were I to have been caught, the punishment is merely a fine -- a fine likely to be considerably less than they were demanding for insurance, and more to the point, a fine not paid to them. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > California has a graduated licensing program for teenaged drivers. > Newly licensed drivers under 18 may not: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > The following story is one BIG reason why. Being over 18 doesn't keep you from doing really, really stupid things (notice age, 3 am time, beer, driving 1/4 mile off the road, in the following story): <http://www.fayobserver.com/article?id=290783> Car plunges into pond, two die By Nancy McCleary Staff writer Rescue workers examine a car that was pulled from a pond off Hayfield Road in Cumberland County on Tuesday morning. BETHANY - A man and woman died when the car they were in plunged into a farm pond off Hayfield Road early Tuesday. The driver, Stephen Andreas Loweke, 24, of 2942 Beard Road in Eastover, and a front-seat passenger, Robynn Lynn Cockrell, 22, of Wake Forest, were killed. A third person - Timothy Scott Ledbetter - survived, said Sgt. Joel Siles of the state Highway Patrol. Ledbetter, 23, of the 6100 block of Smithfield Road in Wade, was riding in the back seat of the black Honda Accord, Siles said. Ledbetter managed to get out of the car after it plunged down an embankment and into the pond at a 45-degree angle. Ledbetter returned to his home about two miles away and reported the crash, which happened between 3:15 and 3:45 a.m., Siles said. The pond, estimated to be between 30 feet and 40 feet deep, is more than a quarter-mile off Hayfield Road at Adidas Drive, a short, sandy turnoff that merges into a rough road skirting a field. Lawmen did not know who owned the property. The pond was created when dirt at the site was used for construction of Interstate 295, Siles said. Tire impressions were visible in the grass along the top of the embankment. Siles said the car hit the water and rolled onto its side, then came to rest on its roof. The Honda was filled with sand when it was pulled from the pond several hours later, Siles said. Loweke was found outside the car, Siles said, indicating he may have been trying to save himself. Cockrell was still in the car, Siles said. Two beer bottles were found in the vehicle, said investigating Trooper Mike Chavis. Divers from the Cumberland County Sheriff's Office were called to retrieve the bodies and pull the car from the pond, Siles said. They were assisted by members of the Bethany Volunteer Fire Department. Siles said a trooper asked Ledbetter what the three were doing in a field in the middle of the night. "He said they were celebrating," Siles said. "I don't know what." On Apr 9, 7:45 am, "C. E. White" <cewhi...@removemindspring.com> wrote: > > California has a graduated licensing program for teenaged drivers. > > Newly licensed drivers under 18 may not: [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > field in the middle of the night. > "He said they were celebrating," Siles said. "I don't know what." How long has this guy been driving? http://www.10news.com/news/15823376/detail.html?rss=sand&psp=news How long has this guy been masturbating? http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/15829662/detail.html?rss=dgo&psp=news jg -- @home.com is bogus. "Don't blow and drive!" - National Lampoon On Apr 9, 10:45 am, "C. E. White" <cewhi...@removemindspring.com> wrote: > > California has a graduated licensing program for teenaged drivers. > > Newly licensed drivers under 18 may not: [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > field in the middle of the night. > "He said they were celebrating," Siles said. "I don't know what." THE PEOPLE CITED HERE ARE MY FAMILY. DO NOT USE THEM AS AN EXAMPLE. YOU DO NOT KNOW THE FACTS. THE NEWSCASTERS DID NOT KNOW THE FACTS. PLEASE KEEP THIS IN MIND WHEN SCOURING THE COUNTRY TO FIND EXAMPLES. THEY DO NOT DESERVE THIS. USE STATISTICS, NOT PEOPLE. >THE PEOPLE CITED HERE ARE MY FAMILY. DO NOT USE THEM AS AN EXAMPLE. >YOU DO NOT KNOW THE FACTS. THE NEWSCASTERS DID NOT KNOW THE FACTS. >PLEASE KEEP THIS IN MIND WHEN SCOURING THE COUNTRY TO FIND EXAMPLES. >THEY DO NOT DESERVE THIS. USE STATISTICS, NOT PEOPLE. THEY'RE BACK! (the "boo hoo that was my relative" trolls, that is) SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. On May 14, 3:37 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: > In article <bd02a43d-9411-4842-9526-06c41ee96...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can > result in a fully-depreciated one. How old are you? I won't take up any more room after this post responding to ignorant individuals such as yourself...but when you lose someone close to you, I hope someone has the decency to NOT act the way you have. >On Apr 9, 10:45 am, "C. E. White" <cewhi...@removemindspring.com> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> > first twelve months. >> > * Drive between 11 pm and 5 am for the first twelve months. First of all the driver had his license for over 12 months so the restriction did not apply. Second, the drivers handbook does not state that a driver under 18 may not.... It states: "During the first 12 months after you are licensed, you cannot drive between 11 PM and 5 AM and you cannot transport passengers under age 20 unless you are accompanied by your parent or guardian, a licensed driver 25 years of age or older, or a licensed or certified driving instructor." THE PEOPLE CITED HERE ARE MY FAMILY. DO NOT USE THEM AS AN EXAMPLE. YOU DO NOT KNOW THE FACTS. THE NEWSCASTERS DID NOT KNOW THE FACTS. PLEASE KEEP THIS IN MIND WHEN SCOURING THE COUNTRY TO FIND EXAMPLES. THEY DO NOT DESERVE THIS. USE STATISTICS, NOT PEOPLE WHOM YOU DO NOT KNOW. THIS IS THE WORST EXAMPLE OF JOURNALISM I'VE SEEN IN A LONG TIME. SHAME ON YOU FOR USING THIS TO PROVE A "POINT" WHEN A FAMILY IS GRIEVING. THESE STORIES, EVEN IF THE FACTS ARE WRONG, STILL INCLUDE PEOPLE WHO ARE LOVED. THEY ARE NOT ENTERTAINMENT FOR YOU. MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON YOU. On Apr 9, 10:45 am, "C. E. White" <cewhi...@removemindspring.com> wrote: > > California has a graduated licensing program for teenaged drivers. > > Newly licensed drivers under 18 may not: [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > field in the middle of the night. > "He said they were celebrating," Siles said. "I don't know what." THE PEOPLE CITED HERE ARE MY FAMILY. DO NOT USE THEM AS AN EXAMPLE. YOU DO NOT KNOW THE FACTS. THE NEWSCASTERS DID NOT KNOW THE FACTS. PLEASE KEEP THIS IN MIND WHEN SCOURING THE COUNTRY TO FIND EXAMPLES. THEY DO NOT DESERVE THIS. USE STATISTICS, NOT PEOPLE WHOM YOU DO NOT KNOW. THIS IS THE WORST EXAMPLE OF JOURNALISM I'VE SEEN IN A LONG TIME. SHAME ON YOU FOR USING THIS TO PROVE A "POINT" WHEN A FAMILY IS GRIEVING. THESE STORIES, EVEN IF THE FACTS ARE WRONG, STILL INCLUDE PEOPLE WHO ARE LOVED. THEY ARE NOT ENTERTAINMENT FOR YOU. MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON YOU. (snip) Ok, when I read the post you are objecting too, I was far from entertained. I read the article, and if the facts as stated in the article are accurate, I'd say it's a good example showing that you don't magically stop making mistakes just because you were born more than 18 years ago. I'd say it proves a point pretty well. And I'm not putting your family down by saying so. I don't know them, so I can't have a strong opinion of them, personally. But I'm curious. If you are family, what's the real story here? How did the car end up upside down in a pond, seemingly nowhere near a road, and far FAR from any main road? Or did the reporter get that wrong? Nobody is asking for entertainment, but it's an interesting story. It would be interesting to hear a different viewpoint on this. What really appened? -Dave > <daiz...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > interesting to hear a different viewpoint on this. What really > appened? -Dave Dave, I wish I could clarify. The fact is, yes the accident resulted in the car being found in the pond. I can't say what happened because it's all under investigation; it's also why the story has not been corrected in the press. I understand you're making a point about driver's licenses here. I agree changes need to be made. I'm a high school teacher; I've seen plenty of kids die because they weren't equipped to handle a vehicle or were distracted by other things in the car. I was very upset the day I wrote this; I hope you understand my response. There is so much more to the entire story...it makes the family member to which I was referring look like he was responsible and I was infuriated that the lies were being replicated. Did the other young man "miraculously stop making mistakes because he was born more than 18 years ago?" Nope. But he's responsible for two deaths and walking around right now without a care in the world. It is that fact that aggravates and grieves me; not your post. I lashed out at you for something that is beyond my control; namely, correcting the facts as they stand to the public. Please be more cognizant of the fact that there are grieving families who do find the use of the stories in this capacity hurtful. I appreciate that you are attempting to make a point about drivers licenses; can you explain your argument? I'd like to understand it better. > Dave, > I wish I could clarify. The fact is, yes the accident resulted in the [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > about drivers licenses; can you explain your argument? I'd like to > understand it better. Sure. My position on teenage / graduated licensing is this: - I don't think you are an irresponsible driver just because you are young, even if "young" is 14 or 15. I grew up in an area where I started driving at 12 and LEGALLY driving at 14. Many of my ~15 year old peers were very good and responsible drivers. But then I grew up in an area where driving was necessary. No bus service at the high school level, all high school students drove to school or got a ride with siblings. - I don't think you are a responsible driver just because you are older. Where I'm living now (upstate NY) some of the ~18 to ~20 year old drivers scare the HELL out of me. - I see many states pushing up the minimum age for licensing to 16 or 17 or even higher, and I'm OPPOSED to this. Whether you think that age equals maturity or not, the reason I'm opposed to making kids wait so long to get a license is simple. If you get your license right before, or at the same time that you leave home to go to college, that means that YOUR PEERS are going to be teaching you how to drive. And that's some scary sh.t, there. Not to imply that all parents are good driving instructors. But it takes at least a few years to TRY to teach a new driver how to drive, if you care to try. That means that new drivers need to be licensed no later than 15. IMHO Or the alternative is to let inexperienced drivers (college kids) be driving instructors. Which is NOT a good idea. -Dave > > Dave, > > I wish I could clarify. The fact is, yes the accident resulted in the [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I think you make a good point. It sounds like you're advocating tougher testing of drivers to insure they are capable of operating a car, though; not simply fighting age requirements. I do agree; I saw my 20 year old friend learn to drive and THAT was something that scared the hell out of me. If anything, being older diminished her confidence. I understand that you are trying to make a point that older doesn't mean smarter. We do employ an educational system that believes in kids starting school as young as possible, right? So that by the time they are adults, they are ready to succeed in the "real world." I understand you are seeking examples that prove this point. I, too, advocate drivers being prepared over a number of years starting at a younger age. However, I'm asking that you not use stories that end in death (keep reading, please). Yes, there are millions out there that will prove your point...to an extent. As for our family's situation, the other "adult" (I'm using that in the same way you would...very loosely) finally admitted to driving, three months after the accident. Does he prove your point? Certainly. But he is alive and, if he chooses, can defend against your argument. Steve and Robyn can't. Please, don't use the victims. Use the criminals or just the stupid people out there :) Do you see my point? Let me know if there is anything I can do to help. I'd love to see an end to reckless driving and replace them with educated motorists. >THE PEOPLE CITED HERE ARE MY FAMILY. DO NOT USE THEM AS AN EXAMPLE. >YOU DO NOT KNOW THE FACTS. THE NEWSCASTERS DID NOT KNOW THE FACTS. OK, so what can you tell us that will convince us that your family members were not driving drunk (despite the empty beer bottles found inside the car) and do not deserve their Darwin Awards? Signature"Dave's not here, man!" - Tommy Chong > California has a graduated licensing program for teenaged drivers. > Newly licensed drivers under 18 may not: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > http://ktla.trb.com/news/ktla-malibucrash,0,4996579.story Like age had anything to do with it. They were DRINKING and smoking "medical" marijuana. Now, had he learned how to drive while intoxicated, maybe things would be different. ;-) He got his well-deserved Darwin Award. Enough said. >> California has a graduated licensing program for teenaged drivers. >> Newly licensed drivers under 18 may not: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Like age had anything to do with it. They were DRINKING and smoking >"medical" marijuana. But you KNOW the accident statistics are only going to reflect that there were other teens in the car and that it was late at night. Then, when someone questions the graduated licensing law, they will point to those same statistics and say "See? The statistics back us up!" Signature"Dave's not here, man!" - Tommy Chong > California has a graduated licensing program for teenaged drivers. > Newly licensed drivers under 18 may not: > > * Transport passengers under 20 years of age at any time, for the > first twelve months. > * Drive between 11 pm and 5 am for the first twelve months. These restrictions are useless government interference. Legislation cannot stop people from doing stupid things. > http://ktla.trb.com/news/ktla-malibucrash,0,4996579.story > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The accident at 32020 Pacific Coast Highway was reported around 10:20 > p.m. yesterday, a Los Angeles County Fire dispatcher said. I wonder if this driver passed the classroom instruction and the considerable amount of driving practise that is required to get a license. >> California has a graduated licensing program for teenaged drivers. >> Newly licensed drivers under 18 may not: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >I wonder if this driver passed the classroom instruction and the >considerable amount of driving practise that is required to get a license. Sure. He had a license. He didn't crash from a lack of _skill_ in any case. If you go after the wrong target, you're going to get wrong answers, like Scott's above. A rule like "no passengers" makes sense if your theory is that teens are poor drivers due to lack of skill or inexperience and you're just trying to reduce collateral damage. But it doesn't make sense if your theory is that teens are bad drivers because they deliberately flout safe practice. If they're already breaking the rules on drinking, and the rules on drinking and driving, then extra rules on passengers are really not going to make any difference. "No passengers under 20" makes even less sense; the justification for that one requires a lot of twisting. You have to posit that passengers under 20 actually make teens worse drivers, and that whatever mechanism causes this does NOT make them violate the rule also. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.