Buck wrote:
> "From the data, you will note that the rate of motor vehicle crashes
> (MVCs) drops drastically as young drivers gain experience"
Arthur Harris wrote:
> So is it age or experience that is the critical factor? If the
driving age
> were raised to 20, it would still take folks a few years to gain
experience
> and hone their skills.
Good question. It is likely a combination of both.
Teens are more likely than older drivers to underestimate the dangers
in hazardous situations, and they have less experience coping with such
situations (Jonah 1987).
Teens are more likely than older drivers to speed, run red lights, make
illegal turns, ride with an intoxicated driver, and drive after using
alcohol or drugs. (Jonah 1987).
Both of the above are from
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/teenmvh.htm
Driver Error
Compared with crashes of older drivers, those of 16 year-olds more
often involve driver error.
Speeding
Excessive speed is a factor in higher crash rates among 16-year-old
drivers.
Single-vehicle crashes
More fatal crashes of 16-year-old drivers involve only the teen's
vehicle. Typically, these are high-speed crashes in which the driver
lost control.
Passengers
Fatal crashes among 16-year-olds are more likely to occur when other
teenagers are in the car. The risk increases with every additional
passenger.
Alcohol
Although this is a problem among drivers of all ages, it's actually
less of a problem for 16-year-olds. In 1998, 13 percent of fatally
injured drivers had positive blood alcohol concentrations (BAC). Only 8
percent had a BAC of 0.10 percent or greater.
Night driving
This is a high-risk activity for beginners. Per mile driven, the
nighttime fatal crash rate for 16-year-olds is about twice as high as
during the day.
Low seat belt use
Teenagers generally are less likely to use safety belts than adults.
All of the above are from
http://www.progressive.com/RC/DSafety/rc_teen_driving.asp
But are also found in a variety of other places on the web.
Buck wrote:
> > Now, Maggie, are you ready to defend your position? Can you
> > realistically say that there are no differences in driving ability
> > based on age?
Art wrote:
> Where did she say that? She said "There are good drivers
> and bad drivers and they come in all ages. Just like cyclists...good
> and reckless...in all ages." Do you disagree with that statement?
Her statemnt, put in context of the previous defense of her children,
is clearly an attempt to suggest that there is no difference in a
person's driving skills due to age.
>
> If the data shows that young females have better driving records than
young
> males, should we have a higher driving age for males? Should old
folks be
> forced to turn in their licenses when they reach an age where
statistically
> they are a greater risk? Where does it end? I think what's needed is
tougher
> licensing standards and tougher enforcement for all ages.
I agree with you that we need tougher standards and enforcement. I also
believe that we need a graduated licensing program. The behaviors of
teenage children are very different from the behaviors of young adults.
It is these behaviors, combined with a lack of driving experience that
increases the risks.
Since you seem to believe driving skill is better related to driving
experience and not age, please tell us whom you would hand your keys
to: the 16 year old with 6 months driving experience or the 25 year old
with one month driving experience?
I think it stands to reason that age plays a major role in driving
ability.
> A big thing on the road test in my state is being able to parallel
park
> without hitting the curb. What's that got to do with safe driving?
Clearly, it is a test of the driver's control of the vehicle and the
driver's awareness of the size of the vehicle. If the person can't park
without hitting the curb, how do we expect him/her to park without
hitting other cars? Wouldn't you also expect the driver to have a poor
awareness of where the right side of the vehicle is when driving down
the road?
-Buck
