Pattern for Teens Killed in Car Accidents

[CMAN]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...bs_usatoday/deadlyteenautocrashesshowapattern

I always knew young drivers are not good drivers. But wow, that's a good amount of evidence for a maintstream news article.

<Pats self on back for getting past 20 years old>

I remember though, thinking how I always thought I was a good driver as a teenager. Now that I am just a little bit older I know how much better I am now than I was then. I'm sure my parents are thinking "I told you so!"

I will never let my kids (when I finally have kids) drive at night with friends in an SUV after reading the article![/url]

 

[Killer-Kris]

I agree with the article where it was talking about vehicles with high roll over rates. But when you starting talking about how the driving age needs to be raised because young drivers don't have experience. You have to stop and realize that they aren't going to have any more experience if they start to drive at 16, 18, or 20. Responsibility will likely (hopefully) increase, but knowledge and experience with how to deal with how to safely avoid an object won't change.

 

[JBark]

I'm glad many states are starting to put limits on young drivers. I just missed the graduated license in IA by a couple years, but it definitely would have done me some good. It seems pretty strict, with limits on number of passengers and hours you can drive. I also believe if you get a moving violation on the GDL, you're forced to attend an interview or you lose your license. A 2nd moving violation is an automatic suspension until you're 18 (or maybe it's 12 months).

I know I could have used this, thinking back to all the times I was driving like a total idiot at night with a bunch of friends in the car.

 

[OpenGL guy]

I agree with the article where it was talking about vehicles with high roll over rates. But when you starting talking about how the driving age needs to be raised because young drivers don't have experience. You have to stop and realize that they aren't going to have any more experience if they start to drive at 16, 18, or 20. Responsibility will likely (hopefully) increase, but knowledge and experience with how to deal with how to safely avoid an object won't change.

I disagree. The fact that you don't get an unsupervised license until a later age doesn't preclude you from getting more experience beforehand. That's why you go driving with your instructor or parent: To get experience driving while a more experienced driver is looking over your shoulder.

One thing that needs to be stressed is that a vehicle is a dangerous object, especially when moving at high speeds.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

You have to stop and realize that they aren't going to have any more experience if they start to drive at 16, 18, or 20.

Part of the point of the article was that in states where the initial driving age is higher, accidents are lower. In other words, it's not "just" inexperience that seems to be at play here.

I do agree that no matter what age you start, inexperience is going to play a role in more accidents.

 

[CMAN]

The insurance for male teenagers was killer though. I am so glad it is finally coming down (my insurance that is).

 

[nelg]

I agree with the article where it was talking about vehicles with high roll over rates. But when you starting talking about how the driving age needs to be raised because young drivers don't have experience. You have to stop and realize that they aren't going to have any more experience if they start to drive at 16, 18, or 20. Responsibility will likely (hopefully) increase, but knowledge and experience with how to deal with how to safely avoid an object won't change.

I have to agree with OpenGL guy here. I would say that when I was between 16 and 19 I had better reflexes and vision than I do today (ouch, that pains me to say) but I was an extremely fast and unsafe driver. Maturity trumps physical acumen WRT safe driving.

 

[The549]

I've always been a slow and careful driver, and I generally love being catagorized with idiot 16 year-olds drunks and punks.

I think there should be some sort of compromise for those who have certain grades (more than we have now) and something for those who haven't gotten tickets by an earlier age than 24 or whatever it is now.
America seems to be getting more and more age-biased, although America's youth is probably getting a lot dumber.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I too think 16 is a very inappropriate age to start driving alone, 18 is a much better age. I do think however that kids can learn to drive at 16 or less, although always under parental supervision.

Kids should also realise that when driving, they have to be responsible. Unfortunately this isn't taught readily enough. Then there's the parent factor.

US

 

[jvd]

Even when I was a kid I was supportive of a permit at 15 , liscense at 17 . That gives you 2 years of practice .


Anyway , i was in one bad acident when i was younger that was my fault .

The other big accident was some 76 year old driver came from the shoulder lane and into the left hand lane (All one merge ) and droped down to 25mph in a 65mph zone. Just had no time to stop , went flying into a pole .

 

[Killer-Kris]

I should probably clarify what I meant earlier. I mainly took issue with the articles notion that because someone is older they some how get the ability to better control the car, which we all know is wrong, that's something that comes with experience.

I'm a huge advocate of gradual licensing, the state where I originally got my license has had it since as far back as I can remember so it just seems like something that everybody has. Which I know is incorrect, especially after seeing how people drive in my current state. But when you assume that there are prerequisites for getting your license like having driven with a licensed driver for so many hours, passing both a written and a driving test, as well as having further restrictions that are gradually lifted as time passes. It just seemed silly to think that just because you are older that you gain valuable experience you'd only get through that process.

 

[Killer-Kris]

The other big accident was some 76 year old driver came from the shoulder lane and into the left hand lane (All one merge ) and droped down to 25mph in a 65mph zone. Just had no time to stop , went flying into a pole .

Maybe I don't understand the scenario quite right, but you probably should have hit him instead of the pole. 65 into 25 is a bit nicer than 65 into 0.

 

[jvd]

The other big accident was some 76 year old driver came from the shoulder lane and into the left hand lane (All one merge ) and droped down to 25mph in a 65mph zone. Just had no time to stop , went flying into a pole .

Maybe I don't understand the scenario quite right, but you probably should have hit him instead of the pole. 65 into 25 is a bit nicer than 65 into 0.

the pole was a wooden pole for like a flag plus i was able to slow down a bit more before i hit it and the pole gave. All in all about 300$ damage to my car .

If i hit the guy i would have most likely killed him and because of the laws no matter what happened someone rear ended is allways in the right .

 

[Killer-Kris]

The other big accident was some 76 year old driver came from the shoulder lane and into the left hand lane (All one merge ) and droped down to 25mph in a 65mph zone. Just had no time to stop , went flying into a pole .

Maybe I don't understand the scenario quite right, but you probably should have hit him instead of the pole. 65 into 25 is a bit nicer than 65 into 0.

the pole was a wooden pole for like a flag plus i was able to slow down a bit more before i hit it and the pole gave. All in all about 300$ damage to my car .

Ahh ok, I was under the impression it was your standard concrete base, steel lamp pole along most highways.

If i hit the guy i would have most likely killed him and because of the laws no matter what happened someone rear ended is allways in the right .

I could be wrong but that might actually just be a bit of urban legend. If the person was making unsafe lane changes (which it sounded like), or just plain old cut you off, or some other combination of things, it's often deemed not your fault. Just that usually in a rear-end collision it's the person in the backs fault.

 

[jvd]

yea . THe only good thing is the asshole kept driving . That meant No insurance gain as my insurance would cost so much money