I am a CSR for an insurance agency and I have recently read a report put out by State Farm and some alarming statistics regarding youthful drivers. My question then is this: how many of you believe that there should be a nationwide law that anyone under the age of 25 have at least 2 years driving experience with a permit BEFORE they get a driver's license?
2007-10-29 05:39:23 · 8 answers · asked by teejay 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I am now past that in life, my girls are 18 and 22. Point is that in California there are restrictions for the first year you have a license. No one under 25 allowed in the car, or at least one person over 25.
Now, having to drive our daughters to and from school, forming insane car pools (Kids get out at different times as they are in different sports). Getting the kids cars at 16 was great. No friends in the car, to and from school and to and from work.
As I told both my daughters at different ages, once they turn 18, they are free, but the car can (and did) get grounded.
2007-10-29 05:52:36 · answer #1 · answered by Songbyrd JPA ✡ 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that's a great idea. The only change would be the age requirement. Being that kids can get a permit at 16, they should have a permit for at least 4 years before they get an official driver's license. I think 4 years of driving experience is more than enough for a young driver to learn the rules and regulations of the road.
2007-10-29 05:48:54 · answer #2 · answered by NotoriousOne 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Actually, I think that's a good idea. I see young kids driving around with large groups in the car looking very distracted. If they just had a permit, not a license, they would be able to drive only with another licensed driver over the age of 18, right?
If so. I am all for that.
2007-10-29 05:44:31 · answer #3 · answered by ItsJustMe 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Insurance is very high for young drivers, as the stats have shown them to be among the most reckless drivers. Some states like CA have raised the age from 16 to 18 to be able to obtain a licence. I think your idea is right on the money.
2007-10-29 05:49:06 · answer #4 · answered by Gretl 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If by a "permit" you mean the traditional sense -- having to have a licensed driver in the passenger seat while driving -- it seems awfully unrealistic to impose that requirement up to age 25.
Not being privy to the statistics you are referring to, but having two drivers aged 20 and 17 in my household, I do understand the concern over young drivers however.
2007-10-29 05:46:33 · answer #5 · answered by jurydoc 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think it would be a good idea. A lot of younger kids think the minute they get a license they have to show off. A bit of time with supervised driving might insure safer drivers.
2007-10-29 05:51:02 · answer #6 · answered by Mikey D 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I dont but kids should have to take drivers ed and get a permit while in HS rather than having people wait until later and then not have to take a course. They dont have to use a license just because they have it.
2007-10-29 05:46:18 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
A nice thought and it has merits, but from a practical standpoint it would be hard to enforce and most parents won't want to have to accompany their teen for the next 24 months to satisfy that requirement. Not only the teens will balk, but parents will fail too. At least that's my prediction. But the seed of your thoughts is a good one in that a new driver could benefit from something more that a crash course in driving and a quick pass of the written test.
2007-10-29 05:45:24 · answer #8 · answered by nothing 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋