4 teens die, who is really to blame?

This local tragedy is all over my friends' Facebook pages: 4 Students die in 2 car crash As per the usual script, 'excessive speed' was blamed. No...inability to handle the equipment and/or pay attention to piloting it were. I don't know the kids or their families, so I have a bit more detached view of the whole thing. I've driven that same road plenty of times. I also remember what I was like at that age and how many near-death experiences I had. So my response is "When are we going to stop letting children who can pass a parallel parking test drive?" Why are we so reluctant to give young drivers the skills to help them keep control of vehicles when they eventually do stupid things? Why is it that a country that has gone to regulating every other damn thing refuse to make educating it's young drivers a priority?

I agree! Plus, when are parents gonna stop buying brand new hot rods for 16 year olds? See it all the time: E60 M5 (the famous "how can i do 160 on the M5 forums), Shelby GT500s, C5/C6 Corvettes.... Its like handing them a loaded gun and saying "Go Play."

I am fortunate enough to learn how to drive well before getting my drivers license, and it was in karts. I know what suspension will do if i get two wheels off and i jerk it back on the road, i know what to do if i see standing water and i might hydroplane, i know what to do when i hit ice, i know when im in the left lane and im not passing, i move my ass back to the slow lane.

Guess im a bit weird when most kids my age (now 25) dream of getting a Lambo, Ferrari, Nissan GTR, ect and i dream of building a Ford Escort GT Wagon....

Why is it that a country that has gone to regulating every other damn thing refuse to make educating it's young drivers a priority?

That is a question I ask myself all the time.

DukeOfUndersteer wrote: I am fortunate enough to learn how to drive well before getting my drivers license, and it was in karts.

This could also lead one to believe that they can turn anything into a 90 degree bend at 100 w/o lifting ;)

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

DukeOfUndersteer wrote: I am fortunate enough to learn how to drive well before getting my drivers license, and it was in karts.

This could also lead one to believe that they can turn anything into a 90 degree bend at 100 w/o lifting ;)

you got that right! if only one of my cars could reach 100...

I think manual transmissions should be mandatory in drivers ed.

1. Forces Concentration

2. Gives you more of an appreciation to what a car can do

3. How many times have you had to drive the drunk ass's stick shift home?

OK...I started driving at age 7. John Deere 8 speed.

The answer lies in most people's view of driving. To them, driving is not a skill, it's something everyone needs to do. Manufacturers build cars that require less and less driver skill and input. People don't want to drive, they want the cars to drive themselves so they can read their kindle and text and talk on the phone.

1988RedT2 wrote: The answer lies in most people's view of driving. To them, driving is not a skill, it's something everyone needs to do. Manufacturers build cars that require less and less driver skill and input. People don't want to drive, they want the cars to drive themselves so they can read their kindle and text and talk on the phone.

Exactly. Most people do not drive. They ride behind the wheel. That's what we teach kids to do. A car is a place to sit down, talk or text to your friends, and relax until you get where you are going. That is not driving - it is just riding behind the wheel.

ddavidv wrote: As per the usual script, 'excessive speed' was blamed.

We all know 'excessive speed' is code word for poor judgment or lack of skill, but that wouldn't sound so good to a grieving family. Nobody wants to be told that their son died because he was acting stupidly. They know it, but don't want to be told.

A similar tragedy occurred here while I was working at the Ohio Senate. A veteran aide told me about the last time the state had tried to really tighten driver licensing and training laws. The fast food industry, and some other minimum-wage-dependent industries, lobbied hard against it because it was perceived as a threat to their labor supply.

In addition to more comprehensive training I'd like to see a graduated license system. New drivers (as well as recidivist drunk drivers) ought to be restricted to cars of less than a certain weight and a certain horsepower. (Off the top of my head I'd say <3000lbs. and <150hp.) My high school parking lot was full of clapped-out 4x4's on lifts and mud tires; other motorists pay a heavy price when the inexperienced driver causing an accident happens to be at the helm of a monster truck.

I agree, currently having two kids in driver training, but I think it's more how our Government for many years has been refining the nanny state. Compare 1911 to 2011. We are all much more dependent on the government than we were then, and that's the way they want it. Besides, there's big money in cultivating the nanny state, much less so in providing improved driver training.
From my experience, 16 is too young for a male to drive. My kids are both "A" students, taking AP and postsecondary classes, but one still isn't mature enough and the other is having some issues on the skill side.
Lastly, great driver training is available for those that understand the need. My kids are and will get the best training I can afford, and won't drive until I am comfortable that they can and will do it safely. Unfortuately, most of the country looks at driving like it's a game.

I have often thought, There are drivers and there are operators. The drivers being in the minority.

It's simpler and more profitable to mandate a car that does everything for you so you don't need any skill to drive it.

bravenrace wrote: but one still isn't mature enough and the other is having some issues on the skill side.

Wow, I am a bit disturbed. I was mature enough to get my learners at 14 and only recently received a speeding ticket @ 22. I've also never been in an accident besides being bumped into (twice!) by old people @ 5mph in intersections.

Maybe there is a bit too much helicoptering going on with your kids being such great students... after re-reading your post, yep, too much helicopter. You make it sound like its out of your desire, not theirs. At 16 my parents didn't enroll me in drivers training (or the best of the best, or anything), I enrolled myself. Same with getting a drivers license.

Helicoptering? What the hell are you talking about, and why do you think you know me and my kids so well? Have you been stalking us?

ShadowSix wrote: A similar tragedy occurred here while I was working at the Ohio Senate. A veteran aide told me about the last time the state had tried to really tighten driver licensing and training laws. The fast food industry, and some other minimum-wage-dependent industries, lobbied hard against it because it was perceived as a threat to their labor supply. In addition to more comprehensive training I'd like to see a graduated license system. New drivers (as well as recidivist drunk drivers) ought to be restricted to cars of less than a certain weight and a certain horsepower. (Off the top of my head I'd say <3000lbs. and <150hp.) My high school parking lot was full of clapped-out 4x4's on lifts and mud tires; other motorists pay a heavy price when the inexperienced driver causing an accident happens to be at the helm of a monster truck.

I too am in vavour of a tiered license system that includes restrictive power of vehicle. When I see a young kid in a new Mustang, Corvette etc I think to my self "That kids parents dont want to leave an heir" I also am in vavour of a maximum number of passengers. Also a maturity and intelligence test to show basic levels before a license is issued. These are things I will do my self with my own daughter when she gets old enough to begin driving.

Parents hold the responsibility to look after the well being of their offspring, that includes dangerous behaviour like cooking, alcohol, running with scissors, all the things that are generally safe in life but could be dangerous. Yet it is OK to let them drive a car that has the potential to injure, maime and kill them selves and others before they show the wisdom and maturity to use it wisely.

bravenrace wrote: Helicoptering? What the hell are you talking about, and why do you think you know me and my kids so well? Have you been stalking us?

Simply from the way your post reads. "They'll get the best because I provide it", and "my 16 y.o's aren't mature enough to drive". Personal responsibility is a great part in being mature. I also find it funny that you place all 16 yo males in this category due to your kids immature behavior (while arguing about a nanny state, you make it sound like the legal driving age should be increased lol). Like I said, classic signs of too much helicopter/nannying from yourself. Hey man, its the internet, you can call me a shiny happy person and I won't take (much) offense. Either what I say is true, or it is wrong and you are simply not expressing yourself correct/I'm reading you wrong (or maybe some introspective is in order?). If you would have said that to me (in person) I still would have said it (cause I always do!)

I was driving good at 16, and didn't have any lessons. Paying attention helps, I've found. I also started off in a 76 Toyota Corolla station wagon. No chance of hooning that thing.

DoctorBlade wrote: I was driving good at 16, and didn't have any lessons. Paying attention helps, I've found. I also started off in a 76 Toyota Corolla station wagon. No chance of hooning that thing.

Perhaps this reinforces the inteligence and maturity level quotient I was refering too? If not yours then your parents?

Uh, let's just say I didn't express myself correctly, and you might understand better when you're older and possibly have kids yourself. My job right now is to keep them alive. They've had go karts since they were six. They have been autocrossing a sprint kart for the past two years. They've been driving my crew cab dually on our property since they were 13. They are not immature, just not mature enough in my mind to take on the responsibility of driving. More specifically, driving together. As far as other 16 year olds, sure there are exceptions, but I've yet to meet a 16 year old boy that is prepared to responsibly drive a car. If they are, then why are so many of them dying in car wrecks they caused? Saying that speed isn't to blame is incorrect. If they hit that tree going 25 mph instead of 60 mph, then they might be alive. Skills are important, but they must come with the maturity to drive responsibly.
If you think I'm being a nanny with my kids, so be it. But what I'm really doing is giving them the training everyone here is saying that kids should have, and as a result it is taking them longer to get their licenses. Do you think that kids would get their licenses as quickly if driver training was more comprehensive?

porksboy wrote: When I see a young kid in a new Mustang, Corvette etc I think to my self "That kids parents dont want to leave an heir"

Consider that some of these "kids" are spending money they earned in places like Afghanistan or Iraq. Just because someone is young does not mean they are any more irresponsible or less capable than you are.

I am an advocate (and volunteer instructor) for Street Survival and other classes that teach car control. Setting limits on who can drive what should not be age based. The kids, on average, do a lot better than their "experienced" parents in skills drills.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: The kids, on average, do a lot better than their "experienced" parents in skills drills.

WHEN THEY FOCUS ON DRIVING.

Unfortunately put a couple in the car and soon their attention is on other things. Since they haven't had the time behind the wheel to develop certain reflexes, nor have they had the experience behind the wheel to understand instinctively what to do in certain situations ANY lapse in attention can and does prove fatal at a rate much higher than when they are older.

As I've gotten older I've realized that with age does come something. It's not wisdom as the saying goes, but instead is experience. Another saying says it better "Experience is the best teacher."

That's what the younger ones lack, we just have to make it so that they survive long enough to gain that experience.

bravenrace wrote: Uh, let's just say I didn't express myself correctly, and you might understand better when you're older and possibly have kids yourself. My job right now is to keep them alive. They've had go karts since they were six. They have been autocrossing a sprint kart for the past two years. They've been driving my crew cab dually on our property since they were 13. They are not immature, just not mature enough in my mind to take on the responsibility of driving. More specifically, driving together. As far as other 16 year olds, sure there are exceptions, but I've yet to meet a 16 year old boy that is prepared to responsibly drive a car. If they are, then why are so many of them dying in car wrecks they caused? Saying that speed isn't to blame is incorrect. If they hit that tree going 25 mph instead of 60 mph, then they might be alive. Skills are important, but they must come with the maturity to drive responsibly. If you think I'm being a nanny with my kids, so be it. But what I'm really doing is giving them the training everyone here is saying that kids should have, and as a result it is taking them longer to get their licenses. Do you think that kids would get their licenses as quickly if driver training was more comprehensive?

bravenrace wrote: Uh, let's just say I didn't express myself correctly, and you might understand better when you're older and possibly have kids yourself. My job right now is to keep them alive. They've had go karts since they were six. They have been autocrossing a sprint kart for the past two years. They've been driving my crew cab dually on our property since they were 13. They are not immature, just not mature enough in my mind to take on the responsibility of driving. More specifically, driving together. As far as other 16 year olds, sure there are exceptions, but I've yet to meet a 16 year old boy that is prepared to responsibly drive a car. If they are, then why are so many of them dying in car wrecks they caused? Saying that speed isn't to blame is incorrect. If they hit that tree going 25 mph instead of 60 mph, then they might be alive. Skills are important, but they must come with the maturity to drive responsibly. If you think I'm being a nanny with my kids, so be it. But what I'm really doing is giving them the training everyone here is saying that kids should have, and as a result it is taking them longer to get their licenses. Do you think that kids would get their licenses as quickly if driver training was more comprehensive?

Sorry, but I agree that you need to take a look at what you're saying.

In reply to carguy123: Using myself as an example... I had an 11 sec Camaro I built with my fathers help when I was 17 and I drove it to school every day. I put myself thru college driving a newspaper delivery van hundreds of miles a night. I had more experience driving a vehicle on my 21st birthday than some people have in their whole lives. I did some stupid things. I did some smart things. I wish I had access to some car control clinics but... I made due in snowy parking lots.

Experience does not come from age - it comes from doing.