six month period

[MindControlFun]

New drivers (ONLY UNDER 18) have to drive for six months before more than one non-relative can be in the car with them. That's utter crap. How could this law not apply to people over 18? I mean when someone turns 18 do they magically lose the handicap of needing a 9 month time period? Please tell me what you think about this absurd law. (I'm not sure, but it may only apply in Illinois)

[StickFigureSamurai]

Actually, I'm pretty sure that it is precisely the same here. I have no official source on this, but I think its from the idea that driving is a right that all adults have inherently. Now, I disagree with this on every point. The majority of people should be kept off of the road. There are far to many problems that would be solved by decreasing the number of cars on the roads.

This reminds me of something I was talking to a friend of mine about recently. Let me know what you think. I think that one half of vehicles should not be allowed on the road every other hour of the day. For example, my license number ends with a seven, an odd number, so I would only be on the road during odd hours of the day. This would most likely be a very light offense, propably a fifty dollar fine, no points or anything. What do you think?

[MindControlFun]

Nah, I don't like that. What if it an emergency (well that would be worked out, but it would still cause complications), or if someone really needs something done? I just think that if they made a law that everyone over 18 has to drive for 6 months before more than one non-relative is allowed to ride in the car as well as everyone under 18.

[MindControlFun]

At 3/3/06 11:05 PM, CadillacClock wrote: It's not very absurd, really. It's assumed that if they've driven for so long with out failure or accident, then they are illegible to drive with more than two passengers. It’s also very minor and insignificant… If you’re a poor driver before eighteen you shouldn’t be on busy roads in general.

Thank you, it doesn't really seem like too much of a constitutional law, anyway.

The law you suggest is oppressive to freedom of transportation and a violation (at least in Canada) to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I know that this also has to violate some law in America, as well (if not, then certainly the pursuit of happiness).

[fahrenheit]

Yeah we have that, except you get a permit (where someone who can drive rids with you at all times) when your 15 and a half. Then when you turn 16 you can ride by yourself.

[MindControlFun]

At 3/3/06 11:28 PM, Velocitom wrote: Yeah we have that, except you get a permit (where someone who can drive rids with you at all times) when your 15 and a half. Then when you turn 16 you can ride by yourself.

yeah, but when you're 16 you cannot drive with more than one non-relative in the car with you at a time (for the first 6 months of your license).

[StickFigureSamurai]

At 3/3/06 11:05 PM, CadillacClock wrote: The law you suggest is oppressive to freedom of transportation and a violation (at least in Canada) to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

There are too many flaws in your idea, mainly for emergencies and the fact that you can have your license changed. As such, no police officer could really know if you tampered with any notification for them to see.

First, let me specify that this is an idea I had, and I brought it here to bounce it around a bit and see if we couldn't work the kinks out of it. If you're a hundred percent against it and would like to see it blocked, that's fine. But this is an important problem in many areas that needs some sort of solution.

I don't know about Canada, and I'm not really talking about Canada anyway. There isn't anything about this in the constition that I'm aware, though if anyone finds anything, I'd like to see it. I do not believe that driving is an undeniable human right. It is very specifically mentioned in the bill of rights that citizens have the right to own firearms, which are statistically far safer than cars, yet so much more difficult to attain. Really there is no reason that everyone should be driving at all. A good public transportation system would be much better, and figuring the costs of law enforcement,DMV,etc., propably would be cheaper to maintain.

Another idea that came up that would help would be to encourage business to not all open and close at the same time. I live on a busy street, and at 7:15 in the morning, its empty. By 7:30 its a parking lot. One minute after eight AM its deserted.

[StickFigureSamurai]

At 3/3/06 11:05 PM, CadillacClock wrote: There are too many flaws in your idea, mainly for emergencies and the fact that you can have your license changed. As such, no police officer could really know if you tampered with any notification for them to see.

Forgot to answer this part. Part of the plan is that people who needed to could change their hours. There would of course need to be a system in place to prevent everyone from choosing the same hours, but that would not be impossible, and propably wouldn't be that difficult. As for emergencies, if you have one, call 911. What else is going to come up that can't wait a half hour or that you can get a ride from someone else? Ideally people, especcially family members and neighbors, would work it out such that they had drivers in each set of hours.

[fahrenheit]

At 3/3/06 11:33 PM, MindControlFun wrote: yeah, but when you're 16 you cannot drive with more than one non-relative in the car with you at a time (for the first 6 months of your license).

No, I live in Washington State and when people turn 16 and get their driver license they can drive by themselves.

[SgtBash-RF3000]

you should probably have to be driving for a year to get a licence, even if your over 18. most accidents occur because of incompetance behind the wheel

[Ted-Easton]

It's a perfectly justifiable law.

According to the most recent Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) study on crash rates by the number of passengers across different driver age groups, crash rates for teens rise significantly as the number of passengers increases. This is especially true for the most inexperienced drivers (16- and 17-year-olds). In 1999, 16- and 17-year-old teens driving with no passengers were involved in 1.6 accidents per 10,000 trips, yet the rate rises to 2.3 accidents with one passenger, 3.3 accidents with two passengers, and sharply rises to 6.3 accidents with three or more passengers in the car. This latter number is three times greater than the accident rate per 10,000 trips for 18- and 19-year-old teens driving with three or more passengers (2.1). Source.

The highest death rate was among drivers aged 16 years carrying three or more passengers (5.61 per 10 million trips). Source.

Further reading: Here and here.

[TwO-FaCeD-PaRaNoID]

in holland you have to be 18 to drive, you then have to do lessons, and then its just over.
so i dont have an opinion

[StickFigureSamurai]

At 3/4/06 12:53 AM, SgtBash_RF3000 wrote: you should probably have to be driving for a year to get a licence, even if your over 18. most accidents occur because of incompetance behind the wheel

Actually, all accidents are caused by incompetence behind the wheel.

[jmaster306]

At 3/4/06 09:33 AM, Ted_Easton wrote: It's a perfectly justifiable law.

I was actually just going to post that info, and it really is true. I remember back before that law was passed in my state (WI) I was riding with a friend that had just turned 16 and was driving around with a bunch of friends. Both her and her friend in the front seat were talking to the two of us in the back seat and had completely turned around to do it... including the driver. If I hadn't been paying attention to the road and screamed, we would have gone crashing into an oak tree at about 50mph.

As kids we get very used to being passengers in the car and when you've got a bunch of friends in there with you, it is fairly easy for a new drivier to forget their responsibilities and act like another passenger, like my friend did. This 9 month period is in hopes that after that long of driving, the teenager will have developed enough of a driving sense to not be completely distracted by friends in the car.

Also, as far as I know in the state of Wisconsin, there is a similar kind of restriction to the 9 month rule for those over the age fo 18. (Had a friend over 18 try a couple of weeks ago, all he said is there was a bunch of stuff he had to do to actually get it)

[TheShrike]

At 3/3/06 10:39 PM, MindControlFun wrote: New drivers (ONLY UNDER 18) have to drive for six months before more than one non-relative can be in the car with them. That's utter crap.

No it isn't.

Young drivers are among the worst, anywhere you go in the world. This isn't just me claiming they're bad, there are tons of facts, figures, and statistics backing this up.

[MindControlFun]

At 3/4/06 12:23 AM, Velocitom wrote: No, I live in Washington State and when people turn 16 and get their driver license they can drive by themselves.

No, when you're 16 you can drive by yourself, but or the first 6 months you can't have a bunch of people in the car with you (only one person who's not related, maximum). Also, I'm not saying we should get rid of this law, rather make it apply to all age groups who their license, not only people under 18. Some people wait for awhile to get their license, why should they be exempt to this rule? It's still 6 more months of driving practice with no distractions.

Now do you see what I'm saying?

[MindControlFun]

At 3/4/06 09:33 AM, Ted_Easton wrote: stuff

But you have to take into account the fact that (the majority of) 18 year olds have been driving for 2 years. What about the (albiet small amount) of drivers that for whatever reason don't get their license until after 18? The moment they get their license, they could have 5 other people in their car, while under-18-new-drivers have a 6 month waiting period until they can drive more than one other person.

In case you cared (this is to everyone), I just brought this up because my friend recently got his license (after he turned 18), and the day after he got in a crash. There were 4 other people in the car distracting him, and he didn't yet know how to drive so well (because he hadn't been driving for 6 months without distractions).

[Lawndeer]

At 3/3/06 10:39 PM, MindControlFun wrote: New drivers (ONLY UNDER 18) have to drive for six months before more than one non-relative can be in the car with them. That's utter crap. How could this law not apply to people over 18? I mean when someone turns 18 do they magically lose the handicap of needing a 9 month time period? Please tell me what you think about this absurd law. (I'm not sure, but it may only apply in Illinois)

its the same pretty much everywhere. its a matter of maturity, plus sixteen year olds have the option of having a relative with them. if you're twenty-two and live in virginia, and get your first liscense, and your relatives all live in michigan, how the tard do you get them to drive in the car with you? its just that simple. 30 year old men dont live with their parents usually, and 16 year olds do.

[MindControlFun]

At 3/4/06 12:27 PM, Lawndeer wrote: 30 year old men dont live with their parents usually, and 16 year olds do.

No, it's not about driving with a parent (that's before you get your license), it's about not being able to drive with friends (the first 6 months after you get your license). I totally agree with that law, but that law does not apply to new drivers over 18. I'm saying that the law should be consistent for all ages, because 6 extra months of driving practice is good for every new driver, not just the ones under 18.

[TheTrueMrJack]

At 3/3/06 10:39 PM, MindControlFun wrote: New drivers (ONLY UNDER 18) have to drive for six months before more than one non-relative can be in the car with them.

What about non-related gaurdians? Or non-related gaurdian's relatives?

[MindControlFun]

At 3/4/06 09:57 PM, TheTrueMrJack wrote: What about non-related gaurdians? Or non-related gaurdian's relatives?

I have no idea, but I would assume that adoptions are good enough to qualify for "related", and I think an uncle for example would be related.

[PharaohRamsesII]

At 3/3/06 10:39 PM, MindControlFun wrote: New drivers (ONLY UNDER 18) have to drive for six months before more than one non-relative can be in the car with them. That's utter crap. How could this law not apply to people over 18? I mean when someone turns 18 do they magically lose the handicap of needing a 9 month time period? Please tell me what you think about this absurd law. (I'm not sure, but it may only apply in Illinois)

Up here in British Columbia once we get our New Drivers, we need it on for two years I believe. And we can't have more than 1 friend in the car with us during those whole two years. Stop your bitching.

[BeFell]

A couple of weeks ago I watched my best friends family bury his little sister because she was trying to talk on a cell phone and drive. It's reasonable to say that having a friend in the car would be just as distracting.

[MindControlFun]

At 3/4/06 11:24 PM, BeFell wrote: A couple of weeks ago I watched my best friends family bury his little sister because she was trying to talk on a cell phone and drive. It's reasonable to say that having a friend in the car would be just as distracting.

...And my point is that the law should apply to all new drivers, not just those under 16.

[BeFell]

At 3/5/06 12:07 AM, MindControlFun wrote:

At 3/4/06 11:24 PM, BeFell wrote: A couple of weeks ago I watched my best friends family bury his little sister because she was trying to talk on a cell phone and drive. It's reasonable to say that having a friend in the car would be just as distracting.

...And my point is that the law should apply to all new drivers, not just those under 16.

You're point is a stupid one. Teenagers are dumber than adults there is no question about it.

[fahrenheit]

At 3/4/06 12:13 PM, MindControlFun wrote: No, when you're 16 you can drive by yourself, but or the first 6 months you can't have a bunch of people in the car with you (only one person who's not related, maximum).

No, thats not true.
High schoolers drive all the time with people in their car (non relatives) that are in plain view if a cop ever actually looked for it.
No one at my school has ever been pulled over for that.

[Electronika]

At 3/3/06 10:39 PM, MindControlFun wrote: New drivers (ONLY UNDER 18) have to drive for six months before more than one non-relative can be in the car with them. That's utter crap. How could this law not apply to people over 18? I mean when someone turns 18 do they magically lose the handicap of needing a 9 month time period? Please tell me what you think about this absurd law. (I'm not sure, but it may only apply in Illinois)

Nobody I know abides by that law. It's a kind of stupid law, but do you know how terrible teen drivers are? It's fucking scary to ride in my sister's car when she's driving. I guess that law was made to cut back on the total number of people in the car when a teen's driving so they can concentrate on driving more. They get distracted really easily.

[TwO-FaCeD-PaRaNoID]

in holland, many 18yearolds who just got their license get killed by an enormous stupid car excident(like bashing into a tree on a straight road) while they're having other people in their car, so i think the whole law is a good idea, but like said before: it should aply to everyone.

[TwO-FaCeD-PaRaNoID]

forgot to say that it happend three times in my neighbourhood last month.

[XxTheShortOnexX]

Well, in Maryland as soon as u wait 11 months after ur b-day u can get ur permit but you wont get it til ur around 18, and we can only drive immediate family (mother,Father, brother,sister and thats it.) around until we turn 18(actually I'm not entirely sure about that one).