http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-07-03-teen-drivers_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA

They sure do like to play with statistics. Harder to get a license at 16 = less people driving at 16 = less dead 16 year olds.

I would like to see the study done on 17 year olds with full licenses.

7/3/2006 3:09:00 PM

I fully support legislation that would make it harder for EVERYONE to get licenses, including renewals. Too many idiots on the road.

7/3/2006 3:12:16 PM

thats just shifting the problem. Then 17 year olds will be the problem.

7/3/2006 5:19:15 PM

i'd like to see a different sort of tiered licensing system...have, say, classes "1", "2", and "3" (in addition to the commercial licenses we have now).

make it a function of how much training you've undergone and how well you've demonstrated your skills to be (big emphasis on vehicle control, but also in rules and regs, etc)

if you're a Class 1 driver, in/on a high performance vehicle, you would be exempt from speed limits (except in school zones and maybe construction zones). you could turn right on red even where it says not to (places like hillsborough from dan allen or western from avent ferry).


this would give people a reward for learning how to drive worth a damn.

and of course, there would need to be a provision for getting busted down a class if you repeatedly or egregiously demonstrated lack of judgement or ability.

7/3/2006 7:27:25 PM

Other than being ridiculously expensive and difficult to put together, that sounds cool.

7/3/2006 8:55:32 PM

instead of having 16 year olds who cant drive, you have 18 year olds who cant drive.

With that said, I fucking hate anyone younger than me and don't give a shit about whether they can drive or not.

[Edited on July 3, 2006 at 8:57 PM. Reason : sdfsdf]

7/3/2006 8:56:26 PM

Quote :

"this would give people a reward for learning how to drive worth a damn."

That's like saying that people who don't kill people should be given a license to kill.

7/3/2006 9:12:51 PM

even the best drivers have lapses in judgement or get distracted. there is 0 reason to let ppl drive 100mph and it only takes 1 "egregious error/lapse in judgement" to kill one or many people.

throw into the mix all those class 2 and 3 drivers on the same road and you have a system that is no better than the current one and is harder to enforce.

[Edited on July 3, 2006 at 11:06 PM. Reason : .]

7/3/2006 11:04:22 PM

Instead of different, figure some method to encourage insurance companies to reward the different levels with cheaper rates/smaller hikes the few times you do run into a problem.

Or, more realistically, just make it harder to get licenses across the board.

7/4/2006 2:06:29 AM

what about old fuckers.

you know those blue haired bishes making right hand turns across 3 lanes of traffic.

7/4/2006 2:37:35 AM

Quote :

"there is 0 reason to let ppl drive 100mph and it only takes 1 "egregious error/lapse in judgement" to kill one or many people."

there are circumstances where NOBODY has any business running 100 mph.

but a talented driver, in the right vehicle, in right place, isn't hurting anything at 100 mph. that's not even fast.

7/4/2006 1:12:08 PM

Quote :

"even the best drivers have lapses in judgement or get distracted. there is 0 reason to let ppl drive 100mph and it only takes 1 "egregious error/lapse in judgement" to kill one or many people."

the germans seem to get by ok with many people driving 100 mph when it is appropriate

7/4/2006 1:29:26 PM

the american interstate system could easily support speeds of over 100mph for every driver in a lot of places

7/4/2006 1:32:34 PM

theres plenty of places that is very untrue as well...like the whole of new jersey.

the whole right place, right time, right driver, right vehicle scenario has too many variables. you are better off just keeping it as is. it wont kill you to drive 70 and err on the side of safety.

i do agree, however, that harder overall tests and/or insurance fixes would be welcomed.

7/4/2006 5:43:38 PM

try merging onto the highway in richmond for an example of why 100mph speedlimits would never be successful

7/4/2006 6:34:33 PM

Quote :

"a talented driver, in the right vehicle, in right place, isn't hurting anything at 100 mph. that's not even fast."

Driving isn't all about talent...

7/4/2006 6:39:43 PM

grade a: allowed to drive 200mph in the middle of utah or similarly crappy state (read: montana, nevada, idaho, nebraska, etc) when no one else is visible
grade b: normal rules
grade c: immediate suspension of license with any dumbass move, wreck, or ticket

now we can all agree

[Edited on July 4, 2006 at 8:08 PM. Reason : edited since 100mph is so slow to some of you]

7/4/2006 8:08:22 PM

Quote :

"I fully support legislation that would make it harder for EVERYONE to get licenses, including renewals. Too many idiots on the road."

It surprising how little is required to drive in this country. I mean, for gods sakes, there are alot of states that grant driving priveleges to ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.

7/4/2006 11:00:47 PM

there is no way to police theduke's idea - thus it sucks

7/5/2006 1:05:18 AM

he doesn't really care about the "idea" he just wanted to take another opportunity to tell us all how awesome of a driver he is (even though he regularly disregards bystanders' safety)

7/5/2006 12:27:37 PM

Quote :

"you could turn right on red even where it says not to"

There is a reason they put the no right on red signs at some intersections.

When I was driving there daily I would have loved for them to put a no right on red sign on Ridge Road turning on to Wade. Just about every day I'd have to slam on the brakes because some idiot would get impatient at a red light and yank out in front of me. They usually have a no right on red where it impossible to see what is coming, where you would block the ped route when you pull out to where you can see, or where it is difficult to get up to speed when jumping in front of traffic that is going 55mph.

I think those two places you mentioned run the risk of all three risk factors.

If you are going to scale licensing then make the current license the pinnacle. I don't see why they need to incorporate asinine bonus privileges to implement such a program. Something akin to:

a) Someone with a class 'c' license must accompany you in the passenger seat
b) Can't drive at night or under other hazardous conditions.
c) Normal license

Quote :

"but a talented driver, in the right vehicle, in right place, isn't hurting anything at 100 mph"

Ha.
Driver: "But your honor, I'm a talented driver"
Judge: "But were you driving the right vehicle?"
Driver: "Doh!"

7/5/2006 2:04:46 PM

i'm not saying there wouldn't be enforcement problems

but a license plate could serve as a quick ID tag for what you are or aren't allowed to do

[Edited on July 5, 2006 at 4:20 PM. Reason : and not many people would be in that top tier. it would cost too much.]

7/5/2006 4:19:59 PM

LOL I'M THEDUKE AND SINCE I HAVEN'T KILLED ANYONE FROM MY RECKLESS DRIVING THAT MEANS I AM A SUPERIOR DRIVER LOL AND I GO ZOOM FAST!11

DARE TO YOU!1 STOP ME!

7/5/2006 4:32:43 PM

fast and reckless are not necessarily the same thing.

7/5/2006 4:33:35 PM

you are a reckless driver, though

7/5/2006 4:35:57 PM

the poor dont deserve to drive fast!

7/5/2006 4:38:46 PM

^^how do you figure?

yeah, i've done 170 mph on a motorcycle a few times, but not around other cars.

i've driven and ridden really hard (although less so in the last couple of years), but not only has it never caused me to hit anyone, i can't think of even having any close calls. it's pretty simple, really. don't haul ass around other people.



^if you can't afford or don't want to spend money on the right machinery, then no. you don't have any business hauling ass with the wrong tool for the job.

7/5/2006 4:42:38 PM

that was more of a troll, but ive never blamed the car. im sure 99% of accidents is human error.

7/5/2006 5:22:47 PM

I see what Duke is saying and I agree, although I also agree that total enforcement won't be feasible.

At the very least, people who have a clean driving record and have been shown to consistently follow the rules should be allowed things such as being able to go 10mph over the speed limit. On the other hand, people with lots of moving violations or other stupid shit should be forced to follow the speed limit give or take 2 mph, maybe also be forced to drive with someone competent or qualified. Something along those lines. Again enforcement is an issue, but basically people who can show that they follow the rules should be given a little more leniency, and idiots who show that they can't drive worth a damn should have a stricter eye kept on them.

7/5/2006 5:22:59 PM

I am surprised instead of dismissing the stupid idea as retarded and asinine, not to mention encroaching on civil liberties, you people

are trying to defend it.

Amazing.

I am glad you people don't run the country.

7/5/2006 5:26:45 PM

everyone always talks about speed, but tailing people is 100x more dangerous then going 10mph over the limit, but id bet there are 100x more tickets written for people who drive over the limit

if anyone ever tails me while i am doing 0-5mph over the speed limit, i drop my speed by 15 mph. its safer and very enjoyable. plus that gives them the chance to go around you, or to get the idea.

7/5/2006 5:26:51 PM

Quote :

"At the very least, people who have a clean driving record and have been shown to consistently follow the rules should be allowed things such as being able to go 10mph over the speed limit. On the other hand, people with lots of moving violations or other stupid shit should be forced to follow the speed limit give or take 2 mph, maybe also be forced to drive with someone competent or qualified. Something along those lines. Again enforcement is an issue, but basically people who can show that they follow the rules should be given a little more leniency, and idiots who show that they can't drive worth a damn should have a stricter eye kept on them."

that's sorta missing the point.

moving violations (like speeding tickets) are no measure of a person's driving ability.

and everyone is already allowed 10mph over.

7/5/2006 5:44:25 PM

tailing is a lot harder to "prove" and enforce, thats why there are less tickets.

7/5/2006 5:56:59 PM

cops dont have to prove fucking anything virtually ever

7/5/2006 6:50:23 PM

thus the quotes.

7/5/2006 6:56:32 PM

Quote :

"At the very least, people who have a clean driving record and have been shown to consistently follow the rules should be allowed things such as being able to go 10mph over the speed limit."

Yeah, I can see that one now. A cop clocks some guy going 10 over, speeds after him with blue lights on, gets close enough to read the plate, runs the number, pulls up a picture of the primary owner of the vehicle, determines if the driver of the vehicle matches, and decides to back off when they discover that they guy has a clean record.

Seriously, how would you enforce this? When a car zooms past how is a cop going to know if the mystery driver has a clean record or not? Maybe they should just pull them anyway, run the DL number and let them go if they have a clean record?

How about passing a law banning cell phone use in cars? That would be more feasible than these silly if/then/else non-enforcable things everyone is coming up with.

Surprised no one has mentioned this already. Moving violations have more to do with generating money for the state than they have to do with safety. Case in point. In ?Charlotte? they pretty much got rid of the red light cameras because the money that they generated had to go to the schoools. If they were concerned about safety, and if the red light cameras made the roads safer, they would have just left them in place. They just took them down because they were not the source of revenue they were hoping they would be.

7/5/2006 10:52:16 PM

well and the cameras increased the number of accidents at intersections because people would stop so they wouldnt get a red light ticket

7/5/2006 11:00:51 PM

Quote :

"it's pretty simple, really. don't haul ass around other people."

you can't be sure that no one else is around and thatsa even more true when you're driving 100+ mph

7/6/2006 3:42:33 PM