Is it time to take the keys away from our teenage drivers?

>
> Sixty-nine percent said they drive fast to keep up with traffic.

Ummm, because not doing so would be unsafe?

> A
> fourth admitted they were "aggressive drivers" who drive more than 20
> mph over the speed limit.

In many areas, that's just blending with traffic. What's the big deal here?
Hardly sounds aggressive to me.

>
> Thirty-five percent said they speed because it's "safe as long as I
> watch out for cops and stay in control of the vehicle," as one teen
> said.

Yes, that is absolutely, 100% TRUE


>
> Since one-third of all teen fatalities involve speeding,

Oh, you mean like when a teen driver speeds through a green light and gets
killed by a drunk adult driver who blew through the red light? Yeah, we
know all about that "invoves speeding" crap. Yawn.

> . A majority, 61%, said they take risks when driving because they
> "are good drivers."

Ask 1000 drivers of any age to rate their own driving skill and at least 610
of them will say that they are good drivers. What does this have to do with
teens?

> . More than one-fourth said they take risks because they aren't
> thinking of the consequences.

OK, that sounds kind of scary.

> . More than half of the teens said they routinely use cellphones
> while driving.

Again, what does THAT have to do with teen drivers? Probably 90% of drivers
of any age routinely use cellphones while driving, even in areas where that
is illegal!

> . Sixty-seven percent also said they have felt unsafe in vehicles
> driven by friends.

****, I haven't been a teenager in many decades, and I often feel unsafe in
vehicles driven by friends. Most of these assertions could be applied to
the public at large, regardless of age. This has NOTHING to do with teens
in particular.

> . Forty-five percent said they would speak out if scared or
> uncomfortable while another teen is driving. Nevertheless, 50% doubted
> the driver would listen to them.

I wouldn't speak out either, as I doubt any adult driver would listen to me.
People of all ages are very sensitive to criticism about their driving.
Again, this has nothing to do with teens.

> "It's very hard to speak up [because] it ticks the driver off," said
> one teen.

Yes, and it ticks the driver off regardless of how old the driver is.

> The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety has also taken a hard look at
> the issue. A recent analysis showed that a majority of those killed in
> teen driving crashes are people other than the teen drivers
> themselves.

Ummm, teenagers are more likely to survive crashes. Teenagers are big
enough to not be killed by airbags, and still young and healthy enough for
their bodies to take a LOT of damage, and come out of it alive. So this
assertion just agrees with the physiology, and is meaningless.

> Another recent study, by the Automobile Club of Southern California,
> said crash data for the Southland show that drivers 15 to 17 years of
> age were at fault in 68% of the fatal crashes in which they were
> involved.

WELL HOW COULD THEY BE AT FAULT IN FATAL CRASHES IN WHICH THEY WERE NOT
INVOLVED?!?!?!?!?
Sheesh, this is probably the worst anti-teen spin I've ever read. Looks bad
on the surface. But the study didn't look at fatal crashes NOT involving
teenage drivers. Do you think it's just POSSIBLE that more than 50% of
drivers involved in THOSE crashes would be found AT FAULT??? I'd say it's a
statistical certainty, considering that not all fatal accidents involve more
than one driver. So one-vehicle fatals would all be counted as THE driver
was at fault, skewing the statistics somewhere ABOVE 50%, regardless of age.
68%? Yeah, that sounds about right. And again, it has NOTHING to do with
TEEN drivers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

> "The tragedy of teen-driver crashes goes well beyond the teen driver
> and their passengers," says Kathy Downing, manager of a driving school
> program for Auto Club members.
>
> Teens too often put others at risk, she says. Crashes may involve
> family members, even younger siblings.

Jesus ****ing christ, every time you get behind the wheel you put others at
risk. Yes, often those others are loved ones, such as close family members.
If you can't accept that risk, you shouldn't be driving, regardless of how
old you are. Again, this is blatant anti-teen spin.

> The study chose to concentrate on teen attitudes and peer pressure,
> rather than technical driving skills.

Well that's nice. Gotta have some basis for creating another pack of
blatant lies.

> Dr. Jay Giedd, a neuroscientist in Potomac, Md., says areas involving
> multi-tasking, impulse control and the ability to assess risks are
> still developing until age 25

OK, here's the ultimate solution. Every child lives at home until age 25,
and is not allowed to enter the military or college, or work outside the
home at all, until age 25. (Ummm, WAIT A MINUTE!!!)

There are lies, there are DAMNED LIES, and then there are traffic safety
study statistics. -Dave

Mike T. wrote: <brevity snip>
> > Another recent study, by the Automobile Club of Southern California,
> > said crash data for the Southland show that drivers 15 to 17 years of
> > age were at fault in 68% of the fatal crashes in which they were
> > involved.
>
> WELL HOW COULD THEY BE AT FAULT IN FATAL CRASHES IN WHICH THEY WERE NOT
> INVOLVED?!?!?!?!?
> Sheesh, this is probably the worst anti-teen spin I've ever read.
-----
I f e e l y o u r p a i n . . .
-----

- gpsman

>>> Thirty-five percent said they speed because it's "safe as long as I
>>> watch out for cops and stay in control of the vehicle," as one teen
>>> said.
>>
>>Yes, that is absolutely, 100% TRUE
>
> What a disturbing attitude you have!!
>
>>> . More than one-fourth said they take risks because they aren't
>>> thinking of the consequences.
>>
>>OK, that sounds kind of scary.
>
> Yes, there are a few grains of truth scattered here and there.

Yup, driving safely while watching out for cops is pretty disturbing, as
it's so far out of the NORM.

Y'know, I thought about that statement that one-fourth said they take risks
because they aren't thinking of the consequences. . . and on the surface, it
did sound really scary. But then, this survey assumed that 20 over was
"agressive". That right there tells you that the people conducting the
studies had an axe to grind. So I wonder how they define "risks"? THAT'S A
SIGNIFICANT QUESTION TO ASK, of the people who conducted the studies. Every
time you get behind the wheel you are constantly taking risks, even if you
never break ANY law. So what "risks" were these drivers supposedly taking?
Made me wonder if maybe 90% or more of drivers at any age might possibly be
taking the same risks? (that's somewhat likely, considering that most of
the anti-teen assertions in the article apply to drivers of ALL
es) -Dave