Monday, September 02, 2019

More Most Popular: #46-49

History Becomes Lost But Is Found Again By The Beatles.  Still one of my favorite insights, that we were far more influenced by the photographic capabilities for our impressions of nearly a whole century than we would dare admit.  We prefer to think we are more intellectual than that.  December 2005. I thought of this again when the film They Shall Not Grow Old came out. 

FlamingosMarch 2009

"Systemic" hides some bad intellectual assumptions. February 2017

Appropriate Ages. Let me add:  In a few decades, people are going to ask in amazement "You let teenagers drive cars?" September 2018


Donna B. said...

We let teenagers fly airplanes, why not let them drive cars?

Assistant Village Idiot said...

They have to take lots of expensive training and pass many more tests. Physically managing the controls is not the issue. I don't hear reports of drunken Saturday adventures with too many people in the plane. The safety numbers aren't good for teenagers, even though "most" of them are fine.

Christopher B said...

The current graduated license process means that the effective age for a full license is already 18. The license you get at 16 now is the same as the learner's permit I got at 14 back in the day (can only drive with a licensed driver over 21 in the car) but carries eveb more restrictions, such as a limited number of non-relatives the car and limits on hours of operation. The accompanying driver restriction is lifted after a year but the others remain until you turn 18. It's almost a 'why bother?' because if you just wait until you're 18 you can get a full license immediately just by passing the testing requirements.

Donna B. said...

Wouldn't it be more sensible to make getting a driver's license more like getting a pilot's license -- at any age? Being 18 or over isn't a sign of maturity OR being able to manage the physical controls. I also like the idea of drivers of any age having to get 'checked-out' on different types of vehicles like we do with motorcycles and commercial licenses. I really embarrassed my daughter the night of her junior prom when her date showed up in his Dad's Corvette.

Perhaps the question should be "You let people drive cars without proper training?"

Assistant Village Idiot said...

No, I'll stand by it because of the numbers. There is a solid reason that the cost of insurance for young drivers is very high: they have more accidents. The fact that you can improve things by giving more training and more restrictions doesn't get past the basic neurology that everyone is more responsible at 21 than they were at 16, and more responsible at 25 than they were at 21. They don't get all that attentive until they have a baby in the back seat.

It comes down to a question of what is "good enough." At 16, a well-trained student who makes the honor roll and has parents who insist on certain standards still has more accidents than an average 25 year-old. You can say that the risk is not high - I didn't have a ticket or an accident from 16-21 and neither did my wife. My oldest sons had minor infractions that led to 30-60 day license suspensions. But how much of a population has to reach that mark for us to say "Okay, that's essentially safe?" 80%? 90%? 95%? We tolerate a high number of accidents in that group mostly because we consider it normal and think high numbers like that are "okay."

I can remember the great relief when sons could get themselves to their own dentist appointments, or back from basketball practice, or drive to church youth group on Sunday night. And certainly, we want to encourage young people to have jobs and be responsible. We have adjusted to a level of risk that we think is fine. What if it's really not fine, it's just one of those things that has grown up in descent from driving farm equipment, so we accept it for historical rather than logical reasons?

I did things from 16-25 that I now know were insanely risky - and I was well up the Bell curve for responsibility.

Donna B. said...

I'm not arguing that age isn't important, I'm arguing that training is equally important AT ANY AGE. And it needs to be 'proper' training. Eliminating the restrictions of supervised driving, hours of operation, and number and type of passengers at age 18 simply means we're getting grossly inexperienced drivers who still aren't neurologically mature.

Aggie said...

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned cognitive capability in teenagers as it relates to brain development. I'm no expert on this, but I've read in a few places that the brain's ability to render judgment does not become fully capable (physiologically) until one is in their mid-20's. In our species, and I'm guessing in others, physical/athletic development precedes cognitive development, a potentially dangerous combination where risk taking is concerned.

Texan99 said...

They may be asking instead, "You treated 16-year-olds like toddlers?"

Assistant Village Idiot said...

@Aggie This is why the insurance companies who aren't fools with money don't decrease auto insurance costs for boys till age 25!
AVI's wife