PDA

View Full Version : So now you need "drivers education" to get a permit for minors...


JonIrenicus
05-14-2009, 02:16 PM
I was recently tasked with taking this kid who is a sort of relative to get his drivers permit, he is about 16.


Apparently, at least in California, you first need to complete drivers education training and obtain a certificate. And t just so happens you also need to pay extra money for this, at least at all the options I have seen so far.

Interesting. I know I am probably late as hell on this, I got my permit years ago with no such restrictions, pay a fee, take your written test, you pass you get a permit and can start practicing driving.

No more it seems. It's not THAT big a deal, but it is annoying, extra hoops to jump through, extra money siphoned away from people. I suppose the purpose is two fold, decrease the number of minors driving in the first place by the placement of the extra barriers, and a fee increase for permits for minors if they DO go through the extra hoops.

A win win in the eyes of the lovely government of California, and for all I know, such a practice is not exclusive to the racket state.

I wonder where I should move to eventually?

bjkeefe
05-14-2009, 02:24 PM
I was recently tasked with taking this kid who is a sort of relative to get his drivers permit, he is about 16.


Apparently, at least in California, you first need to complete drivers education training and obtain a certificate. And t just so happens you also need to pay extra money for this, at least at all the options I have seen so far.

Interesting. I know I am probably late as hell on this, I got my permit years ago with no such restrictions, pay a fee, take your written test, you pass you get a permit and can start practicing driving.

No more it seems. It's not THAT big a deal, but it is annoying, extra hoops to jump through, extra money siphoned away from people. I suppose the purpose is two fold, decrease the number of minors driving in the first place by the placement of the extra barriers, and a fee increase for permits for minors if they DO go through the extra hoops.

A win win in the eyes of the lovely government of California, and for all I know, such a practice is not exclusive to the racket state.

I wonder where I should move to eventually?

You're want to move because there's one more step in the process of getting a driver's license than there was thirty years ago?

Wow. DenvilleSteve's got nothing on you.

Lemme know when you need a ride to the airport, though. We could use a few less whiners in this country.

P.S. And before you start sputtering about the new fee, save it. Or better yet, tell it to the Republicans in the state legislature, who wouldn't raise taxes to pay for water if the whole state were on fire.

JonIrenicus
05-14-2009, 06:22 PM
You're want to move because there's one more step in the process of getting a driver's license than there was thirty years ago?

Wow. DenvilleSteve's got nothing on you.

Lemme know when you need a ride to the airport, though. We could use a few less whiners in this country.

P.S. And before you start sputtering about the new fee, save it. Or better yet, tell it to the Republicans in the state legislature, who wouldn't raise taxes to pay for water if the whole state were on fire.


They do not want to raise taxes because that is their nature. Incidentally the argument that California is in fiscal trouble because of an inability to raise taxes is wrong. We are already a very high tax state. The problem is expenditures.

Raising more taxes and making it even harder to do business in California will just exacerbate the current situation of more productive people leaving the state, at the same time it imports poverty from Mexico. This is a good deal why?

Part of the latter is beyond our control but they could at least tamper down on the endless increases in fees.

Cost, people want more entitlements for health and services, and in extreme cases. homeless apartments...(head explodes), so let them wallow in the smut filled sewer those policies left unchecked bring.

And finally, in terms of shared sacrifice, I do not see public employees sharing the same burdens in many places as compared to private industry.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124227027965718333.html

Must be wonderful, little to no sacrifice, and when things do get tight, instead of doing what the rest of us must do, cut expenses and jobs and salaries, lets just raise fees and let someone else foot our bills.

disgusting

TwinSwords
05-14-2009, 07:03 PM
for all I know, such a practice is not exclusive to the racket state.
You're right -- it's not.


I suppose the purpose is two fold, decrease the number of minors driving in the first place by the placement of the extra barriers, and a fee increase for permits for minors if they DO go through the extra hoops.
Can you think of no other possible reason (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/20090505_Ronnie_Polaneczky__Saving_teen_drivers__i n_Lacey_s_name.html?cmpid=16339736)?

So, HB67 would require 65 hours of driving experience for teens seeking a license, including at least 10 hours of nighttime driving and five hours of driving in inclement weather. It also would forbid junior drivers to have more than one passenger under age 18 in the car (exceptions are proposed for family members).

In states where restrictions like these exist, teen-caused crash fatalities and injuries have plunged.

In other words, the laws protect teens from themselves - and the rest of us from them.

graz
05-14-2009, 07:12 PM
I wonder where I should move to eventually?

SimCity.

uncle ebeneezer
05-14-2009, 08:14 PM
Or better yet:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/science/earth/12suburb.html?_r=1&hp

nikkibong
05-15-2009, 12:42 AM
SimCity.

LOL @ graz . . . relentless, yet (almost) always hilarious.

popcorn_karate
05-18-2009, 07:25 PM
all the snark aside, I think the new restrictions and hurdles for teen drivers are awful.

what i see is that once you get "in the system" for whatever reason it is really hard to ever get back out. This is one more way for people to become criminals for doing absolutely nothing wrong.

(there a bunch of new rules: no driving after dark, no driving with friends in the car etc. etc.)

graz
05-18-2009, 07:46 PM
all the snark aside, I think the new restrictions and hurdles for teen drivers are awful.

what i see is that once you get "in the system" for whatever reason it is really hard to ever get back out. This is one more way for people to become criminals for doing absolutely nothing wrong.

(there a bunch of new rules: no driving after dark, no driving with friends in the car etc. etc.)

My sons are 16 yo Californians, engaged in this process. It was so much easier for me over 30 years ago in N.Y. And I also nearly killed myself and friends as a 17 yo by mixing intoxicants, hubris and taking advantage of lax regulation.
Kids don't have the sophistication to consider the option of remaining off the grid vs. "in the system."
What they are itching to do is drive. As Twin replied up-thread, the restrictions are for your benefit as well.
As coordinated as the average teenager might be, their immaturity leads to unnecessary risk and actuarial certainty. The more restrictions the better. It's a privilege not a right.
But that doesn't mean I will disallow "track days" (which they are already pining for) after enough time, legal hurdles and training.

popcorn_karate
05-19-2009, 01:03 PM
meh.

you survived, your kids probably would too.

our society is becoming far too overprotective - freedom is dangerous. I'm ok with that - with out taking the risks inherent in freedom you don't get the pay-off of fully developed humans actualizing their potential.

I've noticed that babyboomers in particular like to mythologize their wild, care free childhoods while denying anybody else the opportunities they enjoyed.

graz
05-19-2009, 02:38 PM
our society is becoming far too overprotective - freedom is dangerous. I'm ok with that - with out taking the risks inherent in freedom you don't get the pay-off of fully developed humans actualizing their potential.

I've noticed that babyboomers in particular like to mythologize their wild, care free childhoods while denying anybody else the opportunities they enjoyed.

Nobody is stopping you from doing - or particularly saying foolish things - as evidenced by your response.

Your treatment of simple common sense restrictions as an affront to freedom is way overblown.

Your baby-boomer insult also has no sting. Maybe you should take your own best advise and go live it up instead of acting the thrills vicariously with words.

graz
05-19-2009, 03:19 PM
meh.you survived, your kids probably would too.
I guess it's likely they would. But it doesn't require tempting fate.

our society is becoming far too overprotective - freedom is dangerous. I'm ok with that - with out taking the risks inherent in freedom you don't get the pay-off of fully developed humans actualizing their potential.

Referring to what? Bike Helmets? Condoms? Of course freedom has inherent risks.. better to have loved and lost, etc... But we are talking about driving rules right?


I've noticed that babyboomers in particular like to mythologize their wild, care free childhoods while denying anybody else the opportunities they enjoyed.
I might be considered on the cusp (b-day 1960) but I don't identify as one. I'm in agreement about anyone of any age mythologizing their existence as somehow unique or grounds for eulogizing along the lines of "the greatest generation" as reason to be suspect if not scornful. But you would need to be more specific as to who is denying you what?

cragger
05-19-2009, 04:36 PM
The linked article seems worth a bit of Devil's Advocacy. Some observations to stir things up:

It is often reasonable to cast a somewhat jaundiced eye on laws passed to restrict only others. It can also be useful to consider the lawmaker's decision process from a game theory perspective. In this case, there is an emotional issue in which a legislator can garner support from those unaffected by the law, gasp "you're against safety!" incredulously to anyone who questions it, and pretty much ignore those actually affected by the law since they can't vote anyway. Good law or bad, the built-in incentives are for lawmakers to pass it.

Per the article:
As for inexperience, 16-year-old drivers have crash rates three times higher than 17-year-old drivers and five times higher than 18-year-old drivers. The rate drops with age (as the part of the brain affecting risk-taking behavior and judgment more fully develops).

Should one hold that simply increasing the minimum age for obtaining a liscense reduces the number of accidents, should we bump that age up from 16 (16 1/2 in some places) to 17? 18? Would 21 reduce the accident rate further? 25? How should that rather arbitrary point be placed? After all, we have some 40-45k direct (i.e. not pollution related, etc.) automotive deaths per year in the US and we apparantly accept that rate rather than the expense or inconvenience that would result from laws that could lower it but would affect all of us. Sure, there have been some mandated features in cars, but remember "Fifty-five saves lives"? There doesn't seem to be much of a movement to lower the national speed limit back down to lower death rates. Or to lower it beyond 55 since if that saves lives 45 or 35 would certainly save more. What is the acceptable death rate, and who are we willing to affect and how much to achieve that rate?

The article's attribution of reduced accident rates to changes in risk taking seems pretty speculative. I would speculate that the accumulation of driving experience over the two-year age differences given is a significant factor, likely moreso than maturational changes. This would correlate with similar observations regarding experience and loss rates among pilots of greater beginning ages. It is also consistent with the general human experience that we get better at things we practice doing.

The proposed bill does address that somewhat with its experience requirements, presumably to be accumulated with a learner's permit requiring a licensed driver to be in the car with the learner. The specific experience requirements seem unenforcable by a licensing authority however, which is indicative of poor law.

A final slow-pitch for folks to swing at: It has always seemed to me that the main benefit of having the licensed driver aboard during the learner's permit period is that that person might say "slow down some". Once any driving event begins, such as a loss of control due to wet or icy conditions or whatever, someone shrieking in the driver's ear or grabbing at the wheel is a negative influence.

JonIrenicus
05-19-2009, 08:27 PM
My sons are 16 yo Californians, engaged in this process. It was so much easier for me over 30 years ago in N.Y. And I also nearly killed myself and friends as a 17 yo by mixing intoxicants, hubris and taking advantage of lax regulation.
Kids don't have the sophistication to consider the option of remaining off the grid vs. "in the system."
What they are itching to do is drive. As Twin replied up-thread, the restrictions are for your benefit as well.
As coordinated as the average teenager might be, their immaturity leads to unnecessary risk and actuarial certainty. The more restrictions the better. It's a privilege not a right.
But that doesn't mean I will disallow "track days" (which they are already pining for) after enough time, legal hurdles and training.


I do not doubt making driving for younger people more restrictive will save lives. But then so would lowering the speed limit globally by 20 mph.

That too would save lives, should it be done?


The case against the young is easier to make because they are at a much higher risk of causing accidents, so it is not beyond the pale to raise the number of hoops to jump through and expense.

But if I had my way I would put the extra burden on the actual driving test, increase the drive time needed during testing, things like that. Or increase the frequency of driving touchups.


The permit phase of extra hoops, when you must have an adult 25 or older in the car with you ALREADY, seems overkill. On top of being a hassle and annoying, and more costly

nikkibong
05-20-2009, 02:02 PM
meh.

you survived, your kids probably would too.



Logic that specious should require "logicians education."

But seriously folks . . .

. . .you seem to forget that teen drivers are not only a potential danger to themselves, but a danger to all others on the road. Have you stopped to consider this?

I don't have a driver's license, (lamentably, I mostly ride the bus, or rely on the kindness of others), but I did a lot of stupid things behind the wheel when I was 16, 17, 18. (Unlicensed!) Granted, no amount of driver's education is going to solve that, but I'm just saying that 16 year old males are biologically not all that equipped to make wise decisions . . .

popcorn_karate
05-20-2009, 02:49 PM
ok - a bunch of throw-away bile.

on to your next response...

popcorn_karate
05-20-2009, 02:58 PM
I don't have a driver's license

I feel safer already.