Yes, Sue, teens should be able to drive at sixteen. We are legally of age at eighteen. If, at eighteen, we can vote & make responsible decisions with sophisticated weaponry & aircraft while defending our country then we are old enough to drive a car at sixteen.

/tricia

In talking to my friends with teenagers -- the kids are so over-indulged it isn't funny. Everyone I know bought an additional family car for their teen because he/she "had to have a car" to drive to practice.

I know of no teens today that work, save money and buy their own car.

I have to disagree. Modern CT scans and testing show that the human brain lacks cognitive ability (frontal lobes are not fully developed) before age 18 -- even longer.

Kids once were needed to drive when we were a largely agricultural country. It wasn't such an issue either when automobiles only went 20 MPH.

Today, I don't know how many kids NEED to drive, but I know they are astoundingly over-represented in traffic accidents -- many involving serious injuries or deaths, not just of teens, but of others on the road.

Once in a while there's a story about getting 'senile' old people off the road, but the stats for Seniors in accidents are teeny compared to those involving teenage drivers teens.

Impaired is impaired, regardless of age. Gosh, DRUNK is impaired and we recognize that.

Do sixteen year old girls also not have the cognitive ability to make accurate, responsible decisions in caring for infants? Afterall, they are responsible for a life. Should they not be allowed to babysit either? What about their own children...should we take them away because their brains are not yet 'completely' developed? Should the sixteen year old boy not be allowed to take the chainsaw & ax to cut a couple cords of firewood in August? Is he incapable of understanding that he shouldn't cut his leg off? How about hunting? Should a sixteen year old also not be allowed to shoot a deer? Or, is driving the only potentially dangerous thing they shouldn't be allowed to do?

Yes, teenagers have auto accidents. And, yes, some teenage girls should not be babysitting. And, some boys shouldn't be hunting. But, the majority are responsible to handle adult activities including driving.

We can not legislate away every accident or act of negligence in the country. Believe me, if we could I'd be the first to line up in favor of that legislation. My Mom was killed by a negligent accident when I was nineteen. I've missed her every day of my life. Oh, the negligent party was not a teenager...he was in his mid-50s.

Rather than punishing teens how about we work on getting parents to offer meaningful education & boundaries?

I would not allow a sixteen year old to drive 250 miles without an adult in the car. I would not allow a sixteen year old to drive at 1:00 a.m. under most any circumstances short of an emergency. I would not allow a sixteen year old to drive with 8 kids crammed into the backseat.

I would (and did) allow a sixteen year old to drive to a school track practice. I would allow a sixteen year old to drive to our local grocery store for a gallon of milk. And, I'd allow them to drive to a job assuming that job had appropriate work hours for them to be driving at all.

/tricia

As a teen, I worked a "dead end" job. It paid for my car, which got me to my job, which paid for my way through college. I did it all on my own, without parental help. This job appreciated my services so much that they offered to pay all of my expenses for my last year of college if I remained in their employ for one year after graduation at the going pay rate. I refused, but not bad for a dead end job.

A sixteen year old can only drive with parental consent. Also, in my state, the training requirements have become stiffer and the kids have restrictions regarding when they can drive. For those without public transportation, driving becomes much more essential. I have one almost 18 year old driver, and one on a permit. I veiw this as my time to help them become safe drivers. (They both have or will have had their permit for at least a year before they got their license) They are allowed to drive when they have a NEED.

My family didn't need the money I made. My parents still paid for all of my necessities. I was encouraged to save my money and spend it on something nice or save it to spend on college expenses.

Teen drivers need more oversight, but I don't think delaying the driving experience for a few years is in the overall good. No matter what age a new diver starts, that person is still a beginner. I'd much rather see a beginner getting some practice at home with mom and dad still there to help make correction. I think beginner drivers learning away from home would be even more of a nightmare. They'd probably get less experience before they were allowed out on the open road.

Should we also raise the driving age for adults who put on makeup while driving, eat meals while driving, talk on the phone while driving, change their clothes while driving? I'd suggest their brains aren't fully formed, either, and they definitely lack cognitive ability. This group is as much of a risk on the road, if not more, than a 16 yr old.

Teenagers in my neighborhood drive to their jobs and use their earnings to help pay for school expenses. I live in a middle class community.

Please look at why teens are impaired as decision-makers; their brains are not complete! We didn't have this science years ago. We have it now. It's all well and good to have MADD, but drinking isn't the only problem. I think parents whould be behind higher age limits for driving if they looked at the risks kids take because their brains are incomplete!

It's not a matter of practice or experience. Kids take ridiculous risks, and they take them on the road. Science show us that they are not mentally capable of understanding risk.

It's natural to resist change. We still have school calendars set up to serve an agricultural society that needed child labor over the summer and harvest.

Several of my HS classmates would be alive to attend our 50th reunion if they hadn't had driving licenses at 16. One would not be burdened for life with the knowledge his driving ended two lives.

How about a maturity test instead. I see to many adults making bad decisions to think teens have the market cornered.

I would rather see a real drivers education system put in place. Including time in a skid car and behind the wheel of a fully loaded semi-truck. Also some physics classes what happens to a Geo Metro when it cuts off a semi then slams on the brakes.

The only limitations I can see placing on teen drivers is how many other teens can be in the car with them.

The business of how many passengers being in the car is interesting, because while it sounds like a good idea, when they tried to put it in practice here, it got shot down very fast because it made life really difficult for some kids who really depend on each other to get to school (car pooling, if nothing else) and work, etc. I think they might have changed it to having only one other friend, and not after ... a particular time at night, or some other limitation like that.

Sue -- Do you have a link to any of these CT scan "studies" of brain development?? This is a particularly "interpretive" area of medicine at this stage.

dave100 -- I should have said *MRI* studies. I just Googled the subject and came up with many different sites. You are right that this is 'new' science. It seems to provide a reason (undeveloped frontal lobes), but the stats on deaths and accidents are pretty loud all by themselves.

The CDC says (2005 figures) that Americans 15 - 20 are 14% of the population. Injuries sustained in traffic accidents involving this group result in 30% of the cost of care for all traffic injuries.

Automobile fatalities are the leading cause of death for teens, accounting for a third of teen fatalities. (I didn't find anything about how many non-teens were involved in teen-caused traffic accidents.)

Some halfway measures are being taken: Graduated licensing is one.

As for allowing teens to drive short distances and car-pooling...I was a teen. I clearly remember seeing if I could get the speedometer up to 100 on a stretch of mostly deserted road less than a mile from my home. It isn't where or when or for how long or the alleged destination; it's giving kids enormously powerful engines that many of them apparently are not capable of using wisely.

I think car-pooling by teens is one of the more dangerous things -- four or five unhinged brains in one vehicle. All the high schools in my area provide bus transport, but that's not 'cool' so school districts have had to pay to provide *parking* spaces! A few minutes parked outside when school is letting out is quite instructive on the suject of maturity among teen drivers.

I'm only asking that people look at teens' 'need' to drive vs. the risk of licensing teens -- mortal risk to kids, to others, to the cost of caring for people after accidents -- and the cost of everybody's law enforcement and insurance.

The issue of teenagers and accidents is multifactorial. Many of those accidents are caused by inexperience not just lack of maturity or the brain not being fully developed but I am more inclined to think that it should be left in the hands of parents to determine whether or not their children are ready for the privilege and responsibility of driving and thus paying the corresponding insurance rates.

I did not get my licnese until I was 18 and that is most likely what will happen with my children. Driver's ED was no longer offered in schools. We did not have the money to pay for the classes nor the extra money for the insurance so I took the bus. My kids can't take the bus though so we will have to see what we need to do when the time comes. Hopefully they can get a permit while living at home so they can learn under their parents care still.

If the highest speed limit around is 75 mph, why should cars be built that can go 100 mph? Seems like we're only asking for trouble.

When I was a teen most of my family worked and we all had different hours. My parents thought it was important to work and encouraged all of us to find a job. We only had two cars and it got crazy trying to shuttle one person and pick up another but we did it (there were 7 drivers in the family by the time I was 19).

I always thought that school was just a training ground to get you used to going to work. You know, you get up early, go to a crowded building, put up with people you don't necessarily like all day, do things you might not care about all day... just like many jobs out there.

Anyway, I feel that my various jobs I've held over time have been just as important as the education I got in school.

I once heard of the stats that more traffic accidents were caused by children, not behind the wheel but in the back seat. Distracted parents evidently were more dangerous than cell phones, drunk or sleepy drivers. I'm not sure if it's true but if it is there is no way our civilization is going to restrict people from raising children.

Lucy, You said that not allowing other teens in the car caused problems because they couldn't get to school. How did they get to school before they got a license?

I got my learners permit at 15.5 and I couldn't stand driving. I knew I didn't have the experince of a more seasoned driver and traffic here is horrible. I didn't get my license until I was 18 and was forced to because I was offered a job but I had to have a drivers license. Now that I have more experince behind the wheel I find I take more risks now than when I was 15. Of course I wasn't the typical teenager I started college at 13. I wasn't much of a risk taker during my teen years before I became a teen I was. The only accidents I have caused have been backing up vehicals mostly semi-tucks in parking lots and out of the 4 only 1 of them did more than scratch paint. I was a truck mechanic not a driver.

I think better driver training would help alot. I also like the idea about setting the govenors on cars to a reasonable speed.

The next question is if you wait until their brain is fully developed are you just going to say well at age 18 90%(or whatever the age and percentages you want)of kids brains are fully developed. Or are you going to require MRIs to prove the brain is fully developed before they can get a license.

One of my nephews turned 18 last month. The traffic is pretty bad where he lives and because of this, he has never been that interested in learning to drive.

His parents and I wanted to be sure he got the best start, so for his birthday I purchased driving lessons for him through a driver education program taught by active duty law enforcement.

I have every confidence that he will pay attention to his instructor, build his confidence and receive excellent instruction during the course of his lessons!

A link that might be useful:

idrivesmart.com/

Driving lessons, parental watchfulness, etc. -- all good, but if teen brains are not adequately 'wired', they will still make irrational choices when the opportunity presents.

No one in my class would ever say I was a 'wild child' -- quite the opposite, I was a Goody Two Shoes -- but remember that 100 MPH quest? Stupid. Irrational. Not 'like me' at all.

It was an honor roll student, president of our senior class whose speeding took the life of one passenger and severely injured another shortly before HS graduation.

This isn't about how 'responsible' a teen may seem day-to-day. It's about the *proven* proclivity of teens to take risks. When the risk-taking involves driving a car it can be deadly.

We don't need to scan individuals. To me, the teen death and injury stats are compelling enough for a change to issuing licenses at a later age. It could be done gradually, the same way we are pushing back age of entitlement for social security. How many lives would be saved? Injuries avoided?

One of the best things about the MRI discoveries is that there's no moral 'blaming'. It's a physical reality -- one I think needs to be recognized if we are more serious about saving lives than carpooling convenience.

"Driving lessons, parental watchfulness, etc. -- all good, but if teen brains are not adequately 'wired', they will still make irrational choices when the opportunity presents."

Some adults don't seem to be all that 'adequately wired' either. How rational is it to be driving while eating, blabbing on the phone, text messaging, applying make-up, etc?

We can blame youth for their inexperience, but you can't fix stupid in those adults who know better (but still don't care).

I didn't go over 90mph until I was in my twenties. For the first 6 months of driving I stuck to the speed limit until I decided that was more dangerouse than speeding. I take more chances now in my mid twenties than I did as a teenager. Yes there were times when I made mistakes driving as a teen most of them because of inexperince not because I couldn't understand the risks.

When I was a mechanic I was talking with a truck driver that said he would rather drive a truck with no brakes than one without windsheild wipers in the rain. If someone in their thirties can't figure out that if you don't have brakes you can't stop even if you want to but if you don't have windshield wipers you can easily pull over and wait out the storm then should we not allow you to drive until you are 40?

Unless you do a scan of each person you can not say if their brain is fully formed. Some might be by 18 other might not be until they are 20 and then there are some that never seem to fully develop. So either you scan everyone or you use statistics. If you use statistics some will be punished because there brain is fully formed but they still have another year before it is accodiging to the statistics. Of course you also will have some that aren't fully formed getting their license for the same reason.

How about we leave it up to the parent to decide if their kid is mature enough to handle the responsibilty of driving?

Or how about we just start pushing for cars with auto pilot and eliminate the driver completly. Right now we have the technology to do this it is just expensive and the equipment takes up too much space. If the country set out to accomplish this like the moon landing I think we could see auto pilot be mainstream by 2020. I don't think it would happen but if you really want to reduce the risk of driving this is what it will take. We no longer think driving is important enough to do it we have to multi-task while driving this is more dangerous than a teen driver and is done by all age groups.

dreamgarden -- The disproportionate number of teen auto accidents and teen deaths from accidents is proof enough for me that we need to look at any and all 'why's'.

It appears that medical science is showing us that teen brain immaturity is a physical cause of irrational and risky behavior. This has nothing to DO with experience or inexperience.

Sure, we'd all like to get *adult* 'distracted drivers' off the road, but there's no way to identify the group as a group. We ask Seniors to take additional hands-on driving tests because we *know* reflexes deteriorate with age. If we can *know* another group (teens) also have a physical handicap, why not pay attention to that?

What other activities would you like to prevent teenagers from engaging in, Sue? There is danger all around us every day.

We are boaters. Our boat has auto-pilot. We use it carefully & appropriately. Yet, every year, some fool puts their vessel on auto-pilot, goes downstairs to the head & an accident happens...usually deadly. You can't prevent all this stuff no matter the age of the person involved. So, where do you draw the line?

I can think of many things teenagers do that could result in injury, or even death (see my examples above that you ignored). Would you prevent those activities as well?

Our kids went off to school at eighteen. I was very glad they had been driving, with our parental supervision, for a couple years before they left home.

Your example of speeding isn't limited to teens. I did the same thing when I purchased my bright red 1971 Corvette (454) w/silver leather interior. CA Route #395, on my way to Mono Lake to do a construction inspection, two-lane highway...floored it. Why? Just because I could. Got to 125 mph & scared myself so I backed off. At that speed one slip up & I'd of flipped that fiberglass buggy, for sure. I wasn't sixteen. I was twenty-seven.

There's no age limits on 'stupid'.

/tricia

The driving age in Europe is mostly 18, with a few countries at 17. I know that it is much harder to pass the driving test in the UK than it is here in the states.

If you want to strip teen's of their driving privileges, you might also consider that plenty of senior citizens should lose theirs, too. What age should the plugged be pulled for the oldsters? 75? Earlier? Later? While the brain may be sharp, there's no denying that old reflexes don't work as well as young.

patser -- It's beause we recognize failing reflexes in the aged that we don't permit Seniors to automatically renew their licenses and require them to take road tests. We pull the licenses of the impaired.

I'm arguing that if we know adolescents also have physical limitations that we not license them either.

BTW, the accident stats on Seniors fade to nothing as compared to those on teenagers. I believe there is a physical reason (incomplete maturity of the frontal lobes) that teens take risks, but even without absolute knowledge that that is the cause, the huge numbers of teen accidents and deaths alone should argue for preventive action.

tricia -- Adolescent risk-taking isns't limited to driving, but we don't have such compelling stats for other activities. (Teen pregnancies?) We do have these horrible stats for teen auto accidents, and medical science is proposing a pretty good reason about WHY. Limiting adolescent access to autos is something I think we can do to try to remedy a life and death problem.

What would be the harm in only licensing people over 18? What would the benefits be? I don't belive we would just transfer the traffic death/accident age upwards -- not if the problem IS the unformed brain of adolescents.

chisue-"dreamgarden -- The disproportionate number of teen auto accidents and teen deaths from accidents is proof enough for me that we need to look at any and all 'why's'.

It appears that medical science is showing us that teen brain immaturity is a physical cause of irrational and risky behavior. This has nothing to DO with experience or inexperience."

Regardless of what medical science says, teens still have the legal right to apply for a license at 16. And after the age of 18 there isn't much a parent can about it.

My suggestion would be to prepare your children by having them take approved driving courses (that show videos of what can happen in accidents). In some cases, I might recommend using GPS monitoring devices on the cars they will be driving.

What solution would you suggest?

A link that might be useful:

www.rmtracking.com/teentracking.html

This post started out as teen wages, but has gone to the teen driving issue - it is an issue that really polarizes. I have had so many responses going through my head, but I find it hard to express them in this format. Regardless of what I personally think, it seems to come down to this question: Teens brains are not fully developed, so should they be banned from driving?

NO! The brain is not completely understood, and it is only one of many variables that affect teen driving. To legislate based on very new medical findings will lead us down a very slippery slope. Do we order brain scans as a requirement to drive, and in the case of our older drivers, as a condition to keep one's license? If we are not "biologically complete" enough to use good judgement, does that mean that we can pursue those activities in which we are complete for (like procreating when aged 12 and up)? Have girl brains changed so much in the last few years that their accident rate has caught up to boys?

Teens do create a special challenge. If we want to really change the accident rate, especially the mortality rate, it needs to be looked at in a rational manner and the right questions asked. What are the common demoninators in the accidents? (Too many kids, not enough training, too many distractions, bad conditions, choice of vehicles, driving tired, DUI, etc) As a parent, I keep my eye out for any info that will help me in making decisions for my teens and I use common sense. I've been ridiculed by other parents for my restrictions, while at the same time I shake my head over their permissiveness. I would welcome measures that would bring the accident rate down (my pocketbook would welcome it too - I can't beleive what insurance costs for teens), but I don't beleive a ban would be the answer.

What states require senoirs to take driving tests? I remember a few years ago some states thinking about doing that but I never heard of any that made it mandatory.

Illinois's "highly restrictive" senior citizen rules requires that seniors renew every 2 years instead of every 4. Under this law, a senior is someone aged 81-86. When that person gets to be 87, they are subjected to annual renewals. That's not very rigid in my book - in face, I'd say it's a joke.

As an aside, my sister's father-in-law, now aged 92 and suffering from alzheimer's, is still driving with his wife in the passenger seat giving directions. You tell me who you'd rather be driving behind - a teen or this man.

I started driving at 16-thank God- because I lived in the country and the only job was three towns over. I worked at a grocery store where many adults worked so I would never assume it to be a dead end job- it paid the car insurance and my clothes and senior pictures which was a huge relief to my parents who struggled financially.

I think the simplist solution goes back to the most neglected- parenting. If you have an immature, irresponsible child- don't let them get their license. If you have a child who IS responsible and shows good judgement and you are willing to put in the time to ensure they can drive safely then go for it.

Our oldest has already saved the money for diver's ed, knows what driving school she wants to go to, and has basically plotted out the earliest date she can sign up. She'll be fine.

I have one child who won't be getting their license for a loooooong time........easily distracted and spacy but he probably won't care- he's our coach potato and we love him.

I know some adults who shouldn't be driving- folks on the phone, drinking a coffee, blowing through the neighborhood with a car load of kids in the backseat. Yikes!

I'm going to let this go. This is an inappropriate forum for the teen death rate via car accidents problem.

I'd just like to say in parting that many people replying seem to ignore the fact that it isn't *irresponsibility* or *lack of practice* or *not having had driver ed*. None of those account for the often fatal random risk taken by a seemingly upstanding young man with driver's ed under his belt and much paractice under watchful parents. I think the undeveoped brain is a physical handicap that needs to be considered carefully. If it is proven...raise the age at which a driver is licensed. Save lives.

patser -- You could do everyone a favor by reporting this to the doctor treating the Senior w/Alzheimer's.

When I became old enough to get a driver's licence my father told me that if I got a driver's licence while I was still living under his roof , even if I never drove his car, that his car insurance would increase by $99 a year. That was in Montreal in the 1960's when $99 was still a lot of money.
On the other hand if my sister were to get a driver's licence under the same circumstances it would have only raised his car insurance by $1.

That same sister told me a few years ago that she was having to subsidize her daughter's car insurance because the Ontario government in it's wisdom had outlawed different rates based on gender as discriminatory.

I have to say that in my state, deaths caused by teen driving are greatly outnumbered by drunk drivers. I think that it would be difficult to prove in a double blind study though that the cause of teen accidents is due to the incomplete development of the brain at that point.

Yes, chicagosue, I could....if I was to butt in and probe for the name of a doctor to a man that I might, if lucky, see once a year/18 months. That's a degree of rudeness and nosiness that I won't be participating in.

patser-"As an aside, my sister's father-in-law, now aged 92 and suffering from alzheimer's, is still driving with his wife in the passenger seat giving directions. You tell me who you'd rather be driving behind - a teen or this man."

chisue-"patser -- You could do everyone a favor by reporting this to the doctor treating the Senior w/Alzheimer's. "

patser: "Yes, chicagosue, I could....if I was to butt in and probe for the name of a doctor to a man that I might, if lucky, see once a year/18 months. That's a degree of rudeness and nosiness that I won't be participating in."

Why report it to the doctor? If I see someone driving dangerously I will call the police. My father in law had alzheimer's. He was refused to stop driving even after several near misses with accidents that could have killed us all. We finally hid the keys and claimed we couldn't find them.

If we had it to do over, we would have shared his license plate with the police department and let them handle it.

I learned to drive at about 9 or 10, steering the old red pickup, while my dad threw hay bales to the cattle. I got an agricultural license at 12, when the state of Montana said I could drive a tractor. Drove to school, 30 miles each way. And as the song says
"There wasn't much to do in my little town
'Cept get drunk and drive around"

My kids grew up in LA, and they learned to drive via AAA, and after they turned 16, and the state of California has various stages of licensing. Different world, different circumstances.

My daughter will be 17 next week. Most of her friends have their drivers licenses but she does not. Her permit will probably expires before she can take the test.

Her dad suffered a job loss in February. He has found another position, but it pays about 25,000 less. We currently only have one car. We'll probably get another next month (he lost his company car with the job).

Right now we don't have the additional funds to have her driving. It will be $1000 a year to add her to our policy. She does have a part time job paying a little over minimum. She works about 15-20 per week, mostly on the weekends. When she does get her license she will have to pay at least 1/2 of that. A couple of her friends parents have let them get their licenses and drive their cars but never added them to their auto policies. Can you do that? I can't take the chance of coverage not being there. Especially with a teen.

Will I be purchasing a car for my teens? Noooooo. You can get one when you make enough money to buy one yourself, pay for all the gas, insurance, repairs, tags etc. I guess that means after college!

chisue: Very interesting post, even though it strayed a bit from your OP. Thanks for engaging in a very lively discussion.

Ironically, I found the last post by ellenj quite revealing, even though it's a known fact to us all. Regardless of what it is you want to blame, the insurance companies have the bottom-line answer: teens incur higher rates. They simply have/cause more accidents. Pick your poison as to why.