Driving Age

When I was growing up the driving age in NYC was 18. But I agree with YW Moderator-127. There shouldn’t be a Drinking Age either.

I got my Farm License at 14. I think 16 is a good age for a driver’s license for kids who live in rural or suburban areas. City kids who tend not to be car savvy should wait until maybe 18. I’m an old geezer. As a general observation, I think the country was in better shape when the drinking age was 18 and the voting age was 21.

nfgo3, driving at 16 is a time honored American tradition. Jews everywhere recognize that tradition often trumps a “factual answer”. Anyway, accident rates of various age groups should affect insurance rates and do so. The ability to drive safely and courteously is not necessarily a function of age as anyone who lives and drives in Monsey, BP, Flatbush or Willy can observe for themselves.

Age discrimination is not fair. I was a better driver at ten years old than most people are at thirty. Anyone who can pass the test should be given the opportunity.

NFGO3: While my comment was written somewhat tongue-in-cheek, the comparison is, in fact, quite sound. Current Chareidi tradition often disregards metzius. A example of that is something with which we all had to deal with recently. I speak of kitnios, the determination of which is irrational and solely based on arbitrary tradition but, be that as it may, if getting a driver’s license depends on actuarially determined risk then there would also have to be a maximum age as well as a minimum age. Frankly, I do not think that manageable risk should be a criterion for obtaining a drivers license. If one can understand the rules, pass the tests and is physically capable of operating a motor vehicle, a condition that most kids reach around the age of 16, than they should be entitled to drive on public roads. (N.B. No license is required to drive on private property. A twelve year old could legally drive a Ferrari at 180 MPH on your 1200 acre ranch).

A further thought: Freedom, in general, implies risk. There is always a tension between freedom and safety. How much freedom are you willing to give up for an undetermined amount of safety? To continue the automotive example, it is an intuitive fact that driving 55 is safer than driving 75 (the limit on most Interstates in the U.S.) so why don’t we bring back the 55 limit? And, surely, 30 mph is safer that 55 so why don’t we insist on a national 30 mile an hour limit (which was, in fact, the national limit during WWII)?

The answer, of course, is simply that we all are willing to accept the increased risk, both to ourselves and others, in order to gain more freedom and utility. So, yes, young drivers and old drivers are involved in more accidents than, say, 30 to 40 year old drivers but outside of urban areas with good mass transit (New York and Boston) the utility and freedom gained by 16 and 70 year old drivers outweigh the increased risk.

P.S. The discussion of why things are and aren’t kitnios is a good subject for another thread. Was there one such?

In New York City one can survive without a car. In most of the country, inability to drive guarantees unemployment and rules out most education.

It is unfair to discriminate based on age. Driving ability should be tested, and leave it at that. Making assumptions based on statistics is unethical when it comes to giving or taking freedoms.

or your joking kav