i have a great idea for raising the number/percentage of high school graduates across the country...

[dysfunctional press]

it's fairly simple, and would probably lower EVERYONE'S auto insurance rates, and maybe even stave off peak oil just a little bit longer-

raise the requirement for obtaining a driver's license to age 18 AND a high school diploma or equivalent on a national level.

since i'm 48 and have no children to cart around- i love the heck out of this idea.
what does anyone else think?

:hide: :popcorn:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. Strikes me as rather dumb, regressive and classist.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

10. Please explain

In this country, a high school education is free from public schools. There are plenty of provisions for people to get GEDs as well, and the GED prep classes are free (at least where I'm from). Having obtained a diploma shows the individual has taken a little personal responsibility, qualities you want in a driver.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. 1. There's no reason you need a high school diploma to operate a car.

2. Those who are unable to finish high school, for whatever reason, would need a driver's license the most.

3. High school dropouts are more common in and effect poor communities more, removing driving priveleges would only make the discrepency worse.

[dysfunctional press]

14. 1.some determining factor needs to be set- there's WAY too many stupid people behind the wheel.

2. there's no good reason in this day and age.

3. it would be a great incentive for kids in those areas to stay in school.

i also wouldn't revoke current lisences- but on the next renewal date at the end of a two-year period after inception of the rule, people would need a diploma or g.e.d. to renew.

[Thothmes]

28. Under education is a fixable problem

stupid is forever and is not contingent on education.

[Goblinmonger]

58. You've caused me to change my tagline. n/t

[Joe Fields]

87. How about a restricted permit at 16, contingent on finishing H.S, for full status.

[Realityhack]

99. Why?

If the person can safely drive at 16 what makes them suddenly unsafe to drive at 17 or 18 with a year or two of experience?

The only point to your plan would be to force people to finish high school. If that is the goal then make it mandatory, but it has NOTHING to do with wither someone can safely operate a motor vehicle.

[PVnRT]

29. A high school diploma is no indicator of intelligence

Even a PhD is no indicator that someone isn't an idiot behind the wheel.

Furthermore, it isn't always a choice as to whether or not they stay in school. Many factors feed into it, not just a random decision to drop out because stuff, like, sucks.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

40. Although any diploma is not a sign of intelligence

It is a sign of responsibility and a certain conformity to society's rules, both qualities you want in a driver.

[Realityhack]

98. Oh please

I don't think you can claim this is about safe drivers with any intellectual honesty.
A person who drops out of school to work a job to support their family or themselves is probably MORE responsible than one who just drifts through the system.
All those 'conforming' students are the same ones getting drunk on the weekend.
Plenty of college educated people are terrible drivers. Not to mention criminals of various sorts.

If you think we need better driver training I am all on board. But claiming requiring a high school equivalency certificate is a reasonable approach to identifying safe drivers is bullshit.

[Realityhack]

71. Oh BS

1.some determining factor needs to be set- there's WAY too many stupid people behind the wheel.
- There ARE determining factors set like a driving test and vision test.
- I agree they need to be increased, but they should be directly related to the ability to drive safely...and none of those factors are the ability to do an algebra problem.
- 'Stupid' Driving is not education dependent. Many of those 'Stupid' drivers are likely college grads.

2. there's no good reason in this day and age.
- Flat out wrong. Some people drop out for financial reasons (for example). You are jumping to a universal generalization based on what is admittedly a common experience but by no means a universal one. See other posts on this thread for a variety of reasons that people may have dropped out.

3. it would be a great incentive for kids in those areas to stay in school.
- If you think high school should be mandatory just make it mandatory. No need for a 'back door' approach. If you think youth need better incentives... investigate the top reasons why they drop out in the first place and look toward fixing those issues.

[rucky]

31. 4. Parents work. High school students do, too, sometimes.

5. What would be the $$ burden on busing? H.S. districts are usually much larger than Elementary schools. You have to bring in kids from a wider area.

6. Wouldn't attendance rates decrease, with more limited ways to get to school? After-school activities? Seniors with abbreviated schedules?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

41. What ever happened to bicycles?

I grew up in a town of 100,000, and my brother biked to high school--and to his after school jobs. He graduated in 1959, I graduated in 1968. Neither of us had cars, and very few students drove cars to school. I went to a university lab school, and there was no such thing as busing. I would hitch a ride with my parents or I would walk the 5 miles to school or take the city bus. Never in my wildest dreams did I think of having a car to drive to school. You got a car when you had a full time job and could pay for it and the insurance on it. I still don't understand this idea that kids in high school "have" to have a car. (And I still walk to work--its good for the environment and good for my health.)

[No.23]

50. If the parents don't pedal...

there's little likelihood that their kids will.

I think that it's a great idea, which is why I peddle whenever I can.

Can't expect the kids to do something that their parents don't, though.

Well, you can. But it won't get you far.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

51. I don't ride a bike

because I was never taught when I was young and when I was older, my terrible sense of balance did me in. However, I walked nearly everywhere when I was younger and still do a lot of walking today.

[JerseygirlCT]

53. I also biked everywhere.

Though things are far more dangerous and congested now where I grew up, and the thought of my son biking around where I did is a little frightening, I have to admit.

[henry chinaski]

63. I agree with you totally! I see kids driving to school and they probably live 5 blocks away!

Besides the obvious environmental concerns, the annual cost to maintain a car is staggering to a workingclass family (kids in my area). I mean, it's like about $7000! Imagine how much money could be saved for college and a nice used car paid outright for the student to use during college?

[Raineyb]

82. And if somoene lives in an area where biking and walking to jobs isn't feasible?

Then what?

Our problem seems to be how we do our post-secondary education. For people who either can't or won't go to a traditional college the time spent getting a high school diploma may be considered time that could be better spent getting experience so they can get a higher pay rate.

We need an alternative system serving the role apprenticeship used to for people who aren't doing college because that high school diploma isn't doing as much for people as it used to. If the HS diploma isn't going to do much for them a lot of people will drop out to pursue things that will do more for them in the short run.

Regards

[Realityhack]

91. Good points.

And it may not just be the short run. Many jobs have no use for a college degree and are perfectly respectable and can make good money. For someone entering those fields college may just mean tens of thousands in debt.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

38. Thank you for your answers

but I will respectfully disagree with items 2 & 3.

Why do those who are unable to finish high school need driver's licenses the most? Don't tell me it is for getting to a job. My brother had a job helping to support our family from the age of 9 until he graduated from high school at age 17. (Yes, you can have a job and still graduate from high school.) In that time he rode his bicycle to work. If someone is poor and drops out of school in order to get employment, how are they paying for a reliable car to get them someplace? A bicycle is much cheaper, and, especially in urban areas, easy to operate on the streets. And there is public transportation in most urban areas as well, which is what I used when I was in high school and college--I didn't get a car until I was 21 years of age and had a job so I could pay for it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

56. You're saying bicycles are an adequate substitute for cars?

That's the sort of response I'd expect from somebody who hasn't got a high school diploma.

[henry chinaski]

64. I have a BA and I use a bike instead of a car...Yes, if someone lives in a suburb or city

a bike (or one's legs) are completely, utterly adequate and actually superior.

Gee, how did people before 1900 ever survive without cars?:shrug:

[Realityhack]

90. Try getting a Pizza delivery job with that bike...

or a light construction gig where you need to bring along your own basic tools...
or a number of other jobs where personal transportation is required by the employer.

And a lot of those jobs are the kind people work when they haven't graduated.

Just because a bike works for many of us doesn't mean it works for everyone.

[itubeutubewealltub]

104. Actually, you could do just that...I have a cargo trailer that attaches

and I do loads of laundry at one time! I could carry a chair from a garage sale, if I wanted:)

[catnhatnh]

17. And oddly enough

I completely agree with you....

[Midlodemocrat]

2. I've been saying this for years. Tie a driver's license to a high school diploma

it's a win, win.

No flames here. I have two teenagers who drive. They certainly could have used an additional couple of years of instruction.

[Realityhack]

68. It's a win to restrict anyone not graduating from ever driving?

How so?

[notadmblnd]

3. Why do people hate children?

[lunatica]

4. 18 is way too severe, but if

keeping their drivers license is contingent on them graduating form high school that might be a great idea. You drop out you lose your driver's license. Once they've experienced the freedom that driving brings who wouldn't graduate to keep it? Then if they lose the license, they always have the opportunity to get it back by going back to school and graduating, or getting their GED.

[DireStrike]

6. This 24 year old unlicensed New Yorker wouldn't care

Insurance? No thanks.

[lunatica]

8. There's a big wide world outside New York. Did you graduate from high school?

[DireStrike]

23. Sure did

I can go anywhere I need to on mass transit. I don't mind taking a plane, bus or train if there's something to go to elsewhere, though that's rare.

The only way a car would be useful as you describe would be for a road trip. In that case, only 1/4 or less people involved need to have a car. :evilgrin:

I still have 99% or more of this city to explore.

[lunatica]

35. I love New York and it's true there is no need to have a car there

I'm a big city person myself. Right now I live in the San Francisco Bay Area and without a car it really is difficult to get around.

[DireStrike]

49. That's a shame

You think of SF as one of our major metropolitan areas. You're not on the outskirts, are you?

Intra-city transit should be affordable and ubiquitous in every city. It's a wonderful use of money and creates lots of jobs. It's a crying shame that we're not spending more on mass transit as part of the stimulus. Hopefully it will come into play in later bills.

[Gormy Cuss]

65. The SF Bay area has a very extensive network of mass transit.

That said, there are some urbanized areas where it's impractical to live without a car because the mass transit system is too focused on 9 to 5 commuters heading to downtown rather than access to services and decentralized business areas. In the city of San Francisco it's possible to get just about anywhere on MUNI but the other regional systems (BART, CalTrain, AC Transit, SamTrans and Golden Gate transit to name the bigger ones)all have neighborhoods within their bailiwick that aren't served at all or aren't served very well. Even in the city of Oakland there's sparse coverage in some areas, most notably the hills. Once you get beyond San Francisco and Oakland the service thins out pretty quickly, but then that happens in the NYC area too.

[dysfunctional press]

15. a provisionary/priobationary license in high school at age 16 might be a way to go...

with the types of curfews and restrictions that some states have already started enacting on younger drivers.

but- as i said, i don't have any progeny to drive around to all the progeny events, and it sometimes seems that maybe some younger drivers might sometimes tend to be particularly reckless once in awhile...so fudge'em. make it 18.

[PVnRT]

30. How about this statement?

...it sometimes seems that maybe some younger older drivers might sometimes tend to be particularly reckless once in awhile...

So, fudge 'em, make them take a driving test every year, and make the maximum driving age 70.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

42. There are mandatory yearly driving tests for senior citizens

and I strongly approve of that as well.

[PVnRT]

44. I give you points for remaining consistent

I still disagree with the premise of this thread, though.

[Realityhack]

69. I don't think that is true in all states. n/t

[DollyM]

61. Illinois went to a graduated license a couple of years ago.

Illinois has a graduated licensing system in place that will eventually raise the driving age to 18. Honestly, I think it is a great idea. By choice, we made our son wait until he was 18 to get his license. He is so much of a better driver at 18 than he would have been at 16 and licensed. The maturity and judgement level is much higher at 18, the "show off kid ishness" of 16 is mostly gone by 18 and they are ready to actually drive the car as a tool by then instead of a big toy to impress their friends. Illinois requires parents to spend 50 hours with their children driving with the parent supervising. If parents do that honestly, there is no way you could get a license at 16. But parents lie and say they did the hours when they didn't. A friend of our son got his license the day he turned 16 because his Dad lied and signed off the form that he had done 50 hours with him driving. Now the kid is 17 and has had two speeding tickets, two DUI's (yes, a DUI)and has lost his license. I keep thinking that I hope his father sees what his lie really cost him as his son was obviously not ready to be behind the wheel of a car. Several of our son's other friends have also got tickets, lost their license already, etc.
I think we have to get away from the idea that a driver's license is a right rather than a priviledge. If we are putting kids behind the wheel of something that can kill them or someone else, don't you think they should be totally prepared and have all the benefits of age maturity that they can?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

I think it is a great idea

I didn't get my driver's license until I had graduated high school--at age 17.

[sandnsea]

5. You have to be in school in Oregon

You can't get a permit or license without proof from the school that you're enrolled. I don't remember if it's until 17 or 18. It hasn't done a thing for the drop-out rate that I know of.

[Quantess]

7. I'm all for raising the driving age to 18

but requiring a high school diploma is unfair. High school graduates aren't necessarily better drivers. I did very well in school, but I was a terrible driver for years, even when I was in college. Now that I'm older I've had a perfect record for the past 5 years, but it took a bit of maturity to finally become a responsible driver.

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. Love it

I have been lobbying for raising the dropout age to 18 as long as I have been teaching. It makes no sense to let kids quit school at 16.

[leftstreet]

11. No More Laws! Do Not Feed the Prison Industrial Complex

:thumbsdown:

[readmoreoften]

79. Agree.

[SheilaT]

13. I'd support it.

I have two sons, now 21 and 26. My rule for them, even though we lived in a state (Kansas) where they could get a permit before age 15, was that at 16 they could get the permit, then had to drive on it for a full year before I'd sign for the license. Too many parents are eager to abdicate all responsibility for their kids, including let them drive themselves when they are far too young to be doing so.

I've read that states that have a higher age for getting the driver's license, have a lower accident rate among 20 and 21 year old drivers, than do states that license younger. Hmmm. Think there might be a connection.

Too many people claim that kids are more sophisticated or more mature than in the past. I strongly disagree. They may have a veneer of sophistication because of what they see on TV or in movies, but they are still kids, psychologically and emotionally.

[Staph]

16. In West Virginia

Any person who is under 18 years of age and not enrolled in or graduated from an approved educational institution can be denied a driver's license. If a student drops out, the school informs the DMV and the person's license is revoked. After age 18, you can get a driver's license without a high school diploma or GED, but not before.

Not a bad law for a bunch of old hillbillies!

[dysfunctional press]

25. not bad at all...

unlike your roads.:evilgrin:

years...well...decades ago, i was driving back from ocean city MD to sweet home elgin IL, in my 78 pacer, iirc...when the interstate changed from pennsylvania to west virginia, it was like the highway ended and you had driven into a mine field. i stopped in wheeling in the middle of the night to get some vivarin. i made the trip straight thru- 1000 miles in 20 hours- just me and ALL of my stuff crammed into the pacer. there wasn't even room for another person- i kind of felt like a mercury astronaut- and they were before even my time.

[ColbertWatcher]

18. My idea: when they turn 16 have them work the most mind-numbing, repetitive ...

... job imaginable for one semester.

They will never want to leave school after that.

[dysfunctional press]

21. AND the summer...

when june rolls around on the first year at the first real job- some of them start to get the shakes.

[ColbertWatcher]

27. Yes. Dropping out of school means working for a living.

Let them know what it's like.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

43. Real work

Most of the dropouts I have known don't tend to work, which is the problem. Back during the Depression, folks had to drop out of school to help feed their families--they really worked, and not always at great jobs. They never regretted the work or helping their families--but they did regret not being able to finish their education.

[Realityhack]

75. The problem there is... 'that you know'

That does not mean those are the numbers. Just the dropouts you know... and those are only the people you happen to know dropped out. You may have met many working dropouts you didn't know had dropped out.
Hardly a scientific (or even sound) basis for a policy.

[catnhatnh]

19. You have a stupid idea which you dress up as a meritricious tart

and send out to walk the street looking attractive. I want A. to happen so I will tie it to B. and force compliance. You ignore the relationship of ends and means to enforce your desired outcome. You are in fact just the exact kind of "liberal" to be abhorred-you posit a social good to be arrived at by punishing those least likely to benefit from it.

[dysfunctional press]

20. but how do you REALLY feel about it?

and what in my proposal do you see as the A and the B in your response?

[Cerridwen]

22. Or, we could the fix the schools and the educational system so

that kids can learn in an interesting environment based on their interests, skills, and abilities. Of course we may have to be sure they have a good social network supporting them so they can eat well in order to enjoy their new interesting environment and we might have to provide well-kept environments.

But, hey. Punitive works, too.

[dysfunctional press]

24. how is it punitive?

it would merely be requiring a little more time and effort before being able to apply for the privilege.

[Cerridwen]

26. You're adding two years to the time during which

"they'll have to be carted around" by a parent or otherwise. That's a bit of a burden on some parents as well.

I notice you slid right past the rest of my post.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

45. Or they could ride their bikes or walk

which is what I did growing up. Didn't get my license until after I graduated high school, and didn't buy a car until I graduated college. What is this idea that you HAVE to have a car to get around? To this day I walk a lot--in fact, I'm getting ready right now to walk to work, something I've done most of my adult life. We need to get away from dependence on cars, and a good way to start is with the kids.

[Cerridwen]

47. As did I. I used to walk everywhere.

That's how I suffered my first case of heat exhaustion. Walking home from high school. It was only about 3 miles. But, it was over a 100F that day. The heat coming up from the sidewalks and the asphalt may have increased the ambient temperature a bit.

It was a bit safer for me to walk back then. Not as many major thoroughfares and not as much traffic. Of course even before that, the reduced traffic levels didn't stop one of my classmates in the 3rd grade from being hit as he rode his bike to school. I can still see his body "fly through the air." I don't remember seeing him actually hit the pavement. It was pretty traumatic. I was about 7 or 8 at the time.

My home town wasn't pedestrian or bike friendly (it's not much better today). The temperatures get well above 100F nearing summer. It's extremely dry which can be tough for the body even when it's only about 80F or 90F out.

I didn't get my license until after I graduated and bought my own car. I was 18 and had to use a friend's car for the driving portion of the test as my parents wouldn't let me use theirs. I was lucky.

Unfortunately for them, not everyone lives in my little bubble so they may have transportation needs and financial needs I was spared.

In some places in this country, having a car is more necessity than luxury because it's not "fair" that government money goes to creating transportation infrastructure for "little, worthless towns and cities." Because creating a transportation infrastructure would place "too large" of a tax burden on those places who already have their infrastructure or whose cities and towns are compact rather than spread out over miles. Because we should all just live some place that has that infrastructure and if we're too "stupid" to be born in a place or live in a place without it, we should just quit our "whining" and "suck it up" or pack our things and move.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

52. I live in rural Arkansas

and even here we have public transportation--you have to call and arrange it, but that's what we used to do when we needed a cab in the city where I grew up. What we don't have is a common carrier between the small towns--something that I hope Obama rectifies. I see his transportation program happening like this: First, high speed rail in existing corridors, then an expansion to link these corridors to each other. Finally, some sort of public transport to link small towns to the high speed hubs, probably bio-diesel buses.

One thing that is vital for this to work is for many to change their mindsets about getting places. Too many folks haven't lived in a time when you planned your trip around the bus or train schedule to get you there--folks just want to get up and go when they want to.

[Realityhack]

74. I live just south of Boston MA.

And in order to get back and forth to one of my closer jobs I had a cab ride that would cost more than I made in a day. No bus to the area and no safe way to walk or bike there especially in the winter.

Never mind the further jobs.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

76. Then the key is to get an affordable mass transit option started

I live in the most conservative part of Arkansas--haven't elected a Republican representative since the 1960s--even Bill Clinton couldn't get the seat when he tried for it. And yet we have local activists and local non-profits that have worked with government and our state legislators to get these sorts of improvements. So I know it can be done--if you have a local activist base.

[Realityhack]

88. Public Transit isn't a cure all.

It doesn't work in more spread out areas, and some jobs flat out require you have your own transportation. I worked some of those.

I am hugely pro-mass transit. But it is utter BS to claim that removes *everybody's* need for a personal vehicle. And forcing people off the road arbitrarily is not the right way to go about getting better mass transit.

[Cerridwen]

80. Ack! Boston. Paved cow paths.

I've driven the freeways in Los Angeles; "driven," defined as attempting to play bumper cars without actually bumping anything. They're crazy. Hell, I even drove a stick in downtown San Francisco during rush hour. But, when I went to Boston, I would NOT drive. Uh, uh, no way, no how. Being a passenger took some years off my life.

Anyway, aside from the flashback to Boston I just had :D thank you for the compliment down thread. :hi:

[Realityhack]

97. Thanks!

:hi:

Boston traffic takes some getting used to. We have our own unwritten rules, and if you don't know them your basically screwed.
Fortunately I don't have to drive through the city very often. When I did it was quite 'interesting'.

[Cerridwen]

78. Actually, I was hoping to get some people to examine the mindset

that "if I did it, so can you" or "well, we were able to such-and-such, why weren't you?" That denies the very real options or lack of same, that many have had to or still have to face.

Rather than get into some weird contest of "yeah, well I had to walk to school in the snow, 5 miles, uphill, both ways!" "yeah, well I had to..." I thought I'd try to point out that your options are not the same as others have had or do have. Just as mine were not yours.

We are not a cookie-cutter country. We do not have cookie-cutter options or lives.

I don't think school or education should be forced as some form of punishment. I think it should be interesting and enlightening and educational; not a carrot dangled in front of children then used to whack them in the behind should they not grab it.

Real change, real "fixes," come over time and require many less than optimal choices in the interim. I refuse to blame people for not having had the luck or opportunities I had.

[Realityhack]

73. Very well written. Thank you. n/t

[Realityhack]

72. A requirement that is unrelated to what you are restricting.

We restrict peoples right to drive based on safety issues. By all means make the driving test harder, make people attend drivers ed. Increase the drivers ed requirements.

But requiring a high school diploma or GED is arbitrary.

You have any idea how many absolutely terrible drivers have a college degree never mind a high school diploma? This does not enhance road safety. It is just a way of trying to force kids to go to school.

And if that is what you want go ahead and propose making high school mandatory. But don't pretend it is related to driving. Someone who drops out to help feed their family may be MORE responsible than the kid who glides though school. And they may need that license a LOT more.

[Cerridwen]

81. If I may return the compliment; very well written. n/t

[PVnRT]

32. If you can't put it on a standardized test, it will never happen in this country

The politicians are too obsessed with "metrics" and testing.

[Cerridwen]

77. More's the pity.

I enjoyed the classes I enjoyed because I learned "stuff." I was one of the fortunate "last ones" who attended public schools (K-12) during a time before "teaching to the test" took hold and strangled the educational system. I can remember some talk during that time of teaching to children's skills and interests rather than lumping them into age groups and requiring conformity. It wasn't perfect, not even close, but it was far better than what I see happening today.

:(

[vanderBeth]

33. You already must (in my state at least) be enrolled in school if you are under 18.

It doesn't matter if you are over 18.

[lightningandsnow]

34. People don't just drop out because of laziness or stupidity.

I know a very intelligent woman who dropped out of high school after 10th grade. Because she was getting bullied mercilessly every day. I'm not just talking a bit of name-calling here - I'm talking being tormented, including actual physical intimidation. The school did nothing, and she couldn't take it anymore. Oh yes, and did I mention she's transgendered? She basically presented as a feminine bi guy then, I think, but even that was enough for the administration to completely ignore what was going on.

You seriously think forcing someone to stay in a hostile environment is better than, I don't know, making the environment less hostile?

[vanderBeth]

36. I'm actually surprised by some of the comments here.

There are many reasons people drop out, more than have been said. Sometimes people will drop out for some reasons we can't help. Sometime they can be helped. Maybe we should focus on how to help them instead of this, which will nothing. :eyes:

[surrealAmerican]

37. I thought I remembered reading ...

... that the most common reason people drop out of school is financial. They just cannot support themselves without working, and frequently their parents can't afford to support them either. Add to that students who have their own children to support and care for, and I just don't see keeping them from driving making any real impact in drop-out rates.

Raising the driving age may be a good idea for other reasons. For one thing it could lead to improvements in mass transit.

[vanderBeth]

39. Yeah, I would see this as having zero effect

I can honestly never see there being 100% graduate rate no matter what we do to improve the education system, especially if the compulsorily age is 18. Don't have any idea why not giving them a license would do any good.

[Realityhack]

70. Worse... it could severely impact their earning potential n/t

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

55. Focusing on helping to insure

people don't drop out is very important. There are many reasons kids drop out, but now there are many solutions to the problem.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

54. Most states allow home schooling

and there are any number of curricula you can get to do that. I will say that if I were a teacher at her school, the bullying would have stopped. No tolerance towards bullies for me, and I upheld that rule while I taught in public school.

[dysfunctional press]

60. as i stated- it would be graduation or equivilent...

people who choose to drop out can always get their g.e.d.

[ejpoeta]

46. I understand the reason for the idea, but i don't think it's a good idea.

It makes it harder for kids to have a job. I wonder how many parents depend on driver age children to drive siblings to school or something. I get the idea but I really don't think it's practical. Now, i didn't have my license until I was 19, but I really think the responsibility to get the kids focused should be the parents. they have the authority to take the driving privileges away from a child, they can even keep them from getting their license if they don't think they are ready to have it.

[NeedleCast]

48. Bad Idea

First, I doubt insurance companies are going to lower rates, they'll just take the extra profit.

Second, many kids I knew (myself included) were working (by choice) by the time we were 15. A good percentage of kids at my high school got jobs so they could get a hard-ship license at age 15 instead of 16. It's also legislation that generally hurts the people who need the privlage to drive at a younger age the most. Further, I think it would do very little to keep kids in school or force them to get a GED but significantly increase the number of people driving without a license and with no drivers ed training.

[dysfunctional press]

59. i had a job when i was 15 as well- i rode my bike to get there and back.

cars are FAR from a necessity.

[DollyM]

62. Less people are driving and accidents are down but do we see . . .

a drop in insurance rates? I am paying more now than ever before, even with a perfect driving record. Insurance is such a crooked industry. There is evidence that the accident rates are down as people are driving less and slowing down to save gas but it is sure isn't reflected in the cost of insurance premiums. They just keep going up.

[lumberjack_jeff]

57. Getting a drivers license is a very strong motivator for students. n/t

[deoxyribonuclease]

66. Lower the cost of universities and get parents to care about their kids' education

Other than the obviously rising and ridiculous cost of obtaining a university degree, I have a feeling that what's really suspect here is American cultural values. I have a feeling that many kids stop caring about completing high school and realizing their dreams to get into college due to cost and lack of incentives.

More parents need to be actively involved in their children's education and stress the importance of being an informed, educated member of society.

[Realityhack]

67. No for a number of reasons.

1. I don't think you need a high school diploma or GED to drive safely. Drivers license requirements do need to be improved but the focus should be on safety not on using it as an incentive. This arbitrarily hurts those who chose not to graduate in an unrelated way. Thus taking away their rights, not based on them being unsafe but based on what you think they should do with their life education wise.

2. Raising the driving age to 18 and requiring a high school diploma would most likely decrease safety. Currently most people learn to drive while living with their parents, often in a parents vehicle. Thus supervision requirements are easier and someone has the legal ability to discipline the child even for technically legal activity. Having people learn to drive after that point, many while in their first year of collage would likely increase the rates of stupid behavior behind the wheel and make it more difficult to impose supervised driving requirements.

3. This would likely drastically increase both the number of unlicensed uninsured drivers, and the number of people who get a GED though basically pay-to-play. Again this imposes a restriction on driving unrelated to safety.

4. Insurance rates would not decrease. This isn't so much of a reason as just a comment. Young drivers get in a lot of accidents based mostly on inexperience (In fact with the above note on safety the accident rate might go up). Raising the driving age will just delay when the accidents happen. It will not likely affect the high rate for inexperienced drivers. Even if accident rates trivially decreased, insurance rates would likely be unaffected.

5. I do not think you have a good reason for the restriction. IMO in order to justify restricting peoples freedom we need a compelling reason. Public safety is a compelling reason to require a driving test to be allowed to drive. The same is true of regular safety inspections for cars. I seen no compelling reason to require graduation in order to drive. The two are not related.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

83. Punishing people for something that doesn't harm anyone but themselves is wrong.

This is a foolish, illiberal and immoral idea.

[Realityhack]

89. Illiberal is a very good point.

We are all about supporting peoples rights when they don't endanger or infringe on others.
Driving tests keep unsafe people from killing others... a reasonable infringement of rights.
This is arbitrary. It is interfering with a private choice that has nothing to do with driving.

I don't see that as progressive.

[dysfunctional press]

93. driving a car on public roads isn't a "right"- it's a privilege.

why not lower the age to 11, then? after all- they charge 11-year old killers as adults, right?

[Realityhack]

94. Right may be the wrong word.

It isn't a constitutionally guaranteed right as in freedom of speech. But we don't restrict personal freedoms without a reason. It isn't a 'right' for me to be allowed to own a stuffed animal or a dog either. But we don't restrict that freedom on arbitrary grounds.

We don't let 11 year old children drive on public roads because we have found that it is a reasonable safety trade-off. The same for speed limits and safety gear on cars.

But what we don't do is arbitrarily limit personal freedom. If said you thought we should require 50 hours of supervised driving to get your license, or that skid pad training should be required, or that you thought there should be additional requirements to drive a light truck, you would have my support.

What you are doing is trying to force people to complete school by punishing them in an related area. In the process ignoring that not everyone grows up in anywhere near the environment that you did. And that as liberals we do NOT limit personal freedom on arbitrary ground to try to force people to think a particular way.

[dysfunctional press]

101. there's only one response for people who want to dictate what liberals do, don't do, or think:

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[Realityhack]

103. Not a mater of dictating what they think.

Rather pointing out that a particular concept is or is not very liberal.

[Realityhack]

96. How about requiring a PhD?

Or requiring the person have a net worth of at least $50,000. That would encourage education an personal savings.

It would also be an arbitrary limit on personal freedom.

[dysfunctional press]

92. "doesn't harm anyone but themselves..."

maybe you should do a little research into the accident stats for 16 and 17 year-old drivers.

besides, it's not "punishment"- it's merely raising the age for everyone. a driver's lisence is a privilege to begin with- not a right.

[Realityhack]

95. Bullshit.

The thread is not about just raising the age. It is about both raising the age and more controversially an arbitrary educational requirement. If it was just about changing the age it would be a much different story.

And those stats tend to hold for all inexperienced drivers. Changing the age just tends to push around the age of the stats. There is a small change but better drivers ed etc. will likely make a larger difference.

[dysfunctional press]

100. a lot of jobs require high school diplomas as well, when it has no relation to the work.

what's the matter- did someone tell you that life is always going to be fair? :shrug:

[Realityhack]

102. That is the employers choice not public policy.

You do know the difference right?

You are proposing a limit on personal freedoms without a clear justification. Essentially trying to force people to behave the way you want them to. That isn't very progressive IMO.

[scrinmaster]

84. I didn't turn 18 for two and a half months after I graduated from high school.

And my brother didn't turn 18 for nearly five months after, he was in college for a month and a half before turning 18.

Bad idea.

[mzteris]

85. in North Carolina

if you're under 18 you have to be in school and making "adequate progress". Certainly helped curtail the dropout rate there.

"The legislation reflects a coordinated statewide effort to motivate and encourage students to complete high school. The revocation of a student’s driving permit or license will result if the student is unable to maintain adequate progress or drops out of school."

[Liberal_in_LA]

86. No. lack of academic education shouldn't prevent someone from driving.