Slamming Brakes on Teens

[HelioPrime]

Slamming Brakes On Teens -- Courant.com

Long story so I won't quote it all. Basically here in CT people in Hartford are considering changing the law in the model of how things are done in Mass. Stiff fines and punishments stemming from a zero tolerance policy on teen driving for 16-17 year olds.

It has both helped greatly increase revenue to the state and save lives since it was passed last year in Mass. But is it to far? I'm not that far removed from the age group and I still think it's a great idea. The purpose of punishment is also to prevent. I doubt it can really prevent every fatal accident from happening but the law can likely help keep potentially dangerous drivers off the roads until they can learn more maturity behind the wheel.

Stats of Mass punishments: License suspensions
btw: Just a fine for speeding slightly over limit is $500! All teen offenses ALSO carry a stiff fine

Driving while drunk - One year
Reckless Driving - Six Months
Speeding - 45 days
Using a cell phone - 30 days
Violating curfew - 30 days
Violating passenger restrictions - 30 days

[Kite]

I don't think it should be based on general age. Me and my friends are very safe drivers, even though we are young. Last year a girl plowed into the back of my car while I was trying to make a left hand turn. She was 23, and had only got her license about 2 weeks before.

It should be based on how long you have been driving, not your age.

[Halofan48]

Agreed. To base such things on age is just ridiculous.

Driving while drunk - One year Reckless Driving - Six Months Speeding - 45 days Using a cell phone - 30 days Violating curfew - 30 days Violating passenger restrictions - 30 days

Is that time in jail?

[Kite]

No its length of license suspension.

[Compugasm]

Quote by: HelioPrime Stiff fines and punishments stemming from a zero tolerance policy on teen driving for 16-17 year olds.

But it's all victimless crime. Seriously, consider that increasing penalties without consideration leads to what end? So, why not jail time? Zero tolerence leads to unreasonably harsh penalties. It won't stop, or lessen the need for, anyone driving.

[Ditriker]

Quote by: Kite I don't think it should be based on general age. Me and my friends are very safe drivers, even though we are young. Last year a girl plowed into the back of my car while I was trying to make a left hand turn. She was 23, and had only got her license about 2 weeks before. It should be based on how long you have been driving, not your age.

Exactly. Now while teenagers have less experience usually (A 43 year old has likely driven longer in their lifetime than a 16 year old). It would ring as discrimination in many a young mind.

But FAR more importantly. Many kids in Hartford Connecticut (especially East Hartford) are POOR. Now while that's a deterrent. It's also a curse, because if you slip up and come from "Da Hood" you may lose college, an apartment, etc. And accidents DO happen.

I doubt this is the idea of economic control obsessed plutocrat(s). But it risks putting the poor further down than they already are...

[Maryjane]

Driving while drunk - One year Reckless Driving - Six Months Speeding - 45 days Using a cell phone - 30 days Violating curfew - 30 days Violating passenger restrictions - 30 days

What's the big deal?
I was stricter on my kids about irresponsible driving than the courts. None of us were happy about it, but hopefully being unconvinced and coughing up their own money for the fine taught them a few life lessons.

[Halofan48]

What's the big deal? I was stricter on my kids about irresponsible driving than the courts. None of us were happy about it, but hopefully being unconvinced and coughing up their own money for the fine taught them a few life lessons.

But why should it be stricter for teen drivers? Yes were not as experienced, but there are also reckless drivers over 18. Equal punishment, I say.

P.S. Interesting new Avatar, what is it exactly? Tell me in a P.M.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Compugasm But it's all victimless crime. Seriously, consider that increasing penalties without consideration leads to what end? So, why not jail time? Zero tolerence leads to unreasonably harsh penalties. It won't stop, or lessen the need for, anyone driving.

How is it victimless crime?

I wish someone would do a survey of teens killed while driving. The survey would see if these teens had any previous record of speeding tickets or other incidents. I'd safely bet many of the teens would have some record of tickets. It would even better if verbal or written warnings was kept track of all well.

That's what the purpose of the law. To help prevent deaths to teens and other drivers by punishing heavily those who speed or otherwise break the law. The law is the law, 16 or 60 talking on cell phones, speeding, etc its all the same.

[Ditriker]

HelioPrime said-
"I wish someone would do a survey of teens killed while driving. The survey would see if these teens had any previous record of speeding tickets or other incidents. I'd safely bet many of the teens would have some record of tickets. It would even better if verbal or written warnings was kept track of all well.

They have done studies.. Don't you ever listen to Bill O'Reilly scream his guts out on Faux Nooze (Fox News)?.

It would also seem dumbasses are dumbasses and likely stay dumbasses. The problem is in determining WHO is a dumbass and taking measures to reign these dumbasses in. Such attempts have historically degenerated into Racism, Hatred, and mass butchery.

Example: "All the Nazi's REALLY wanted to do was improve the human race. And it just happened to include killing off the other 90% of people on Earth".

[Compugasm]

Quote by: HelioPrime How is it victimless crime?

Do you not understand the meaning of the word?

Quote by: HelioPrime The law is the law, 16 or 60 talking on cell phones, speeding, etc its all the same.

Come on HelioPrime, that is total propaganda to belive zero tolerance is an intelligent solution to crime prevention. It's precisely the reason we can't carry toothpaste on airplanes. So before you champion upping the ante of punishment, consider what the crime really is.

[Kite]

I say that the first two years that you drive, whether you're 16 or 60, these punishments should be instated. Your driving experience is not a function of your age, no matter how you slice it.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Kite I say that the first two years that you drive, whether you're 16 or 60, these punishments should be instated. Your driving experience is not a function of your age, no matter how you slice it.

Still, it does make sense that drivers over the age of 65 should be retested at a
minimum of every five years. Driving is one issue where some type of regulation is obviously reasonable -- at least in a society that is highly addicted to cars. This is one reason I never, ever drive.

Grandpa h.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Compugasm Do you not understand the meaning of the word?

Your going to have to explain how suspending a teens license for an offense if a victimless crime. The teen has lost their license likely stemming from improper driving behavior that could potential lead to a fatal accident.

Come on HelioPrime, that is total propaganda to belive zero tolerance is an intelligent solution to crime prevention. It's precisely the reason we can't carry toothpaste on airplanes. So before you champion upping the ante of punishment, consider what the crime really is.

This is completely different from the airplane. The police are not taking away a teens right to drive as a preventive punishment, they're acting AFTER the teen breaks a law by punishing to prevent future incidents.

[grandpa]

Quote by: HelioPrime Your going to have to explain how suspending a teens license for an offense if a victimless crime. The teen has lost their license likely stemming from improper driving behavior that could potential lead to a fatal accident.

The problem is, though, that practically every driver suffers from an occasional lapse in driving ability. A lot of people won't admit that, but I think it's true. With that in mind, virtually everyone could lose their drivers' license. It's one of those uncomfortable, general truths. This is why many people think you shouldn't be punished (by losing your license or having it suspended, for example) unless you actually do cause a serious accident. I think it's a legitimate line of argument, and highly defensible.

Grandpa h.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: grandpa The problem is, though, that practically every driver suffers from an occasional lapse in driving ability. A lot of people won't admit that, but I think it's true. With that in mind, virtually everyone could lose their drivers' license. It's one of those uncomfortable, general truths. This is why many people think you shouldn't be punished (by losing your license or having it suspended, for example) unless you actually do cause a serious accident. I think it's a legitimate line of argument, and highly defensible. Grandpa h.

Yet studies show teens are the most at risk for deadly accidents or crashes. It could come from lack of experience behind the wheel. But just trying to take human error into consideration doesn't change matters.

10,000 teen deaths in the last 6 years due to auto crashes or accidents isn't helped much by just say "Shit happens."

Personally I'd say add devises to everyone car that records Max speed, Acceleration, Road handling, tire slips, sudden braking, etc.. It could be recorded then copied and viewed by the cars owner. Know exactly what you kids have been up to behind the wheel. Of course I'm sure some people would cry foul for violation of privacy.

[grandpa]

Quote by: HelioPrime Yet studies show teens are the most at risk for deadly accidents or crashes. It could come from lack of experience behind the wheel.

As indicated, I'm rather against the idea of singling out a portion of a population for "projected damages." If anyone is going to be punished in some way, it should be for things they have actually done individually. This is just my general principle. For example, if society singles out and punishes groups for being more susceptible to types of diabetes or dyslexia, I'd probably object to that as well. The logic is rather similar. A more dramatic example is racial profiling.

Grandpa h.

[Compugasm]

Quote by: HelioPrime This is completely different from the airplane.

But what do your statistics have to do with cellphone usage? Zero tolerance makes everyone a criminal, that's it. You might as well make every teenager take a breathalizer before the car could start, considering how many of them have consumed alcohol within the last 30 days. Additionally, according to your stats, half of those deaths the kids weren't wearing seatbelts. So, a 30 day suspension for talking on the phone will stop anyone from driving? That's a joke.

Why not up the ante to 30 days in jail HelioPrime? If the issue was truly a safety concern, then the drivers should be taken off the road! Certainly that would prevent them from driving with a suspended license, while talking on the phone, with no seatbelt. Certainly there are more pressing crimes which demand police enforcement. Wouldn't community service be a reasonable punishment?

[grandpa]

Quote by: Compugasm But what do your statistics have to do with cellphone usage? Zero tolerance makes everyone a criminal, that's it.

Exactly, which is why I hesitate to say I'm in favor of any zero tolerance policy, regardless of the issue. It simply overlooks all the variable factors.

Grandpa h.

[Compugasm]

Zero tolerance only works if the punishment fits the crime. Unfortunately, it never works when applied to "possible" future outcomes, with universally imposed draconian penalties, backed up with bogus statistics. That is how everyone becomes a criminal.