Login/Sign Up




Should teenage drivers be limited to carrying only a set number of other teens at once?
Society

christek91
May 14, 2007
6 votes
7 debaters
1


+ Add Argument

3
Yes, Teens should be limited to carrying a small number of teen passangers at once.


henthorn
May 15, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Perhaps not all teens; there is a good case for new drivers. Perhaps in the first six months after passing the test, as well as provisional licensees (I think there are restrictions on this anyway) should have restrictions on the number of passengers.

Personally, I would also sugest a restriction on how far a newly licesnsed driver can travel on thier own, or with them as the sole driver. Obviously this would be very hard to police, but would prevent thousands of dangerous accidents every year from new drivers on thier first motorway jaunt.

 
nbcrusader
May 15, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Teens, as learning drivers, do not need the added distraction of teenage passengers. Accident statistics would support a limitation.

 
dereksemeraro
May 15, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Designated Driver :-)

 
nbcrusader
May 15, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: tggdan3 Show

Yes, I can.

Try this for starters:

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/teenweb/more_btn6/traffic/traffic.htm

Think a little before calling something "an assumption"

 
gogopoet
May 15, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
I say ban teens from driving at all. We now have conclusive scientific evidence that people do not develop the capacity to rationally assess risk until about age 25. Why should we let people engage in the riskiest activity around given the evidence?

 
henthorn
May 16, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: rhys Show

"were you ever a teenage driver"

Not in Australia, no. (That's the nationality you state in your profile, correct me if my guessing is incorrect.)

"this isn't a hard statistic"

Here's a hard statistic; 'drivers ages 16 to 19 are four times more likely than older drivers to crash.'
(http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_48207.html)

Look, I'm not here to attack _all_ teen drivers. The point I'm trying to make is that the reasons people are giving are not entirely unfounded, and have good thinking behind them. Personally, I support a scheme which prevents new drivers (not just teens) from becoming fully liscenced road users for a period of time, even after passing the standard test and having the current liscense qualifictions.

 
gogopoet
May 16, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: unlabled00 Show

Teens can be responsible. That is NOT the question. They cannot, however, assess risks very well. If a person can't assess the risks involved in driving 100 MPH while cutting up with friends, the person has no incentive not to engage in that behavior. The insurance rates are so high for teens because they have far more car crashes than more mature drivers.

Economic viewpoint? Aside from the fact that it costs plenty when people injure, cripple, and kill others on the road, I do not put money considerations ahead of lives. I'm not a capitalist.

 
gogopoet
May 16, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: rhys Show

http://www.caraccidentlawyerpros.com/AccidentCarStatisticsTeens.html

National Teen Driving Statistics (accident car statistics teens)
It is estimated that 16-year-olds are 3 times more likely to die in a motor vehicle crash than the average of all drivers. ƒÏ 16 year-olds have higher crash rates than drivers of any other age.

Motor Vehicle Crashes are the leading cause of death for teenagers.

3,571 16-20-year-old drivers died in auto accidents in 2003, down 4.1% from 3,723 in 2002, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

$40.8 billion was the estimated economic impact of auto accidents involving 15-20 year old drivers in 2002 (NHTSA).
Inexperience behind the wheel is the leading cause of teenage crashes.
In 2001, two thirds of teens killed in auto accidents were not wearing seat belts

And your 1000s of accident free teen drivers don't mean they are safe. They are just lucky.

 
gogopoet
May 17, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: rhys Show

RE: "i think we can firstly assume that there are more teenagers that are not involved in serious car accidents than those who are."

Let's not ASSUME. That's what you accuse me of by way of rebuttal. We know there are more teens with a safe driving record than without. We do not know what that can be attributed to. For all we know it is luck, or maybe divine intervention, since you believe in that. What we DO know is that it is NOT because the majority of teenagers have been able to defy nature by developing the brain structures that permit rational risk assessment prematurely. That would be akin to saying that the majority of six-year-olds are now entering into puberty.

RE: "ALSO: even with your statistics. you are ASSUMING that less teenage drivers in a car would decrease the likely hood of a crash. "

That is not an assumption. It is a logical conclusion:

1. It has been proven in countless tests that distractions contribute significantly to accidents;

2. It can be proven that passengers with low risk assessment capacity are more prone to create distractions;

3. teenagers have lower risk assessment capacity than adults;

ergo teenaged passengers represent a threat to the driver's safety.


 
gogopoet
May 17, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: unlabled00 Show

RE: "I'm 18... I am 100% positive I will never find myself zipping in and out of traffic like a crazed maniac. Hmm, I guess thats a crappy assessment of risk though, because I'm not 25 yet am I? "

That is a perfect example of poor risk essessment. Only an immature brain can be 100% positive of such things.

RE: "My cousin is a year younger than I am and... how risky. "

Anecdotal evidence proves nothing. Find some statistics to support your position or something.

RE: "Give me a figure on how many people are fatally injurred or made paraplegic by teen drivers annually and then give me the same figure for adults. I would LOVE to see how they compare. "

http://www.michigantrafficcrashfacts.org/

All the facts and figures are there for one state at least. I don't have time to compile them for all states.

RE: "You talk about we teens as if we think "hey... an old lady. She's ont he crosswalk.. .hit the GAS!!!!" But news flash... we're not all like that. And not all adults are great at assessing risks either."

That puts words in my mouth. I can, however, envision a car full of rowdy teens engaging a driver in horseplay, distracting the driver at a critical moment, causing the driver to either hit that poor old lady in the crosswalk, or lose control of the vehicel trying to avoid her because he/she didn't see the pedestrian in time.

 
gogopoet
May 18, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: rhys Show

RE: "no. Unlabeled has just proven that there are teenagers that do abide by road safety laws. he dosent need statistics. after all, we are talking about human beings. "

There are two problems with this logic: 1. I can come up with thousands of examples of teens who don't, or I should say didn't, drive safely; 2; the question isn't about whether or not all teens have a good driving record. The question is whether or not there is a significant enough risk for teens to have auto accidents that we should restrict the number of teenaged passengers who are allowed to ride with them.

RE: "I actually cannot debate... ."

You should have stopped right there.

RE: "Clearly the evidence shows that the majority of teenagers ARE SAFE DRIVERS. you cant deny that. oh wait....you can. well let me re phrase that... you cant LOGICALLY deny that. "

I have never denied that. What I question is the reason for their safe driving records.

RE: "have fun in your own delusional fantasy world where teenagers have no brains."

Please show me where I have stated that teenagers have no brains.

RE: "(i wouldn't mind looking at that 'scientific study' you keep quoting, so i can prove how you are abuse the facts, i have no doubt that teenagers might not have as DEVELOPED risk assessment as adults, but any idiot can see they DO have risk assessment ability's)."

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/teendevelopment.html

Please note that I have consistently stated that the brain is not fully developed until age 25. That does not imply that risk assessment appearances instantly on one's 25th birthday or something or that it develops at the same pace in all people.

RE: " If you read my previous debates you'll see that i am a young driver (who is under 25, still waiting for that brain to kick in), i am a more conscientious driver when i have more passengers in the car. "

A. I have no proof any of this claim is true.
B. It is anecdotal evidence even if it is.

 
gogopoet
May 18, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: unlabled00 Show

RE: "Explain how I would not be 100% positive of not wanting to put myself in an early grave?"

That wasn't what I said. I have no doubt you said that and believed it. My point was that no one past their teens are so 100% certain they will never do such and such or so and so.

RE: "I can envision a car full of adult clowns being distracting, I can envision a car full of naked porn stars causing mayhem, I can envision Godzilla sitting behind the drivers seat ALONE and wreaking as much havoc as 4 teens in a beat up old sedan. "

True enough, but there is a far greater likelihood that a teen will be accompanied by other teens who get caught up in whatever they are doing and become rowdy causing the driver to become distracted.


Based on figures in that link here's how the numbers crunch:
Licensed drivers aged 17 -24 years: 1,111,584 rounded to 1,000,000
Other licensed drivers: 6,105,624 rounded to 6,000,000

Teen drivers in all crashes: 138,975 rounded to 139,000
Other drivers in all crashes: 396,365 rounded to 400,000

Approx 139,000 per million teen drivers had auto accidents.
Approx 65,000 per million other drivers had auto accidents.

This clearly shows that the 15 to 24 year old drivers have a significantly higher rate of accidents per capita.

The report specifically states says, "The 16 to 24 age group has the highest multiple-occupant crash percentage rates of the three age groups."

That doesn't sound like I've killed my arguement at all.

 
gogopoet
May 18, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: unlabled00 Show

Better look at those numbers again.

Approx 139,000 per million teen drivers had auto accidents.
Approx 65,000 per million other drivers had auto accidents.

Only a spin-doctor would try to use the raw numbers to convince someone teens are safer drivers than adults. fifteen to 24 year-olds are 2.13 times more likely to be in an accident while driving than any than all other groups combined

 
gogopoet
May 19, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: unlabled00 Show

RE: "Again with the condecension... "

You started out calling me senile and condescending. Is that your best rebuttal for a logical arguement?

RE: "More adults are causing fatal crashes than teens. "

Just as more adults are involved in all accidents. Don't you think that could have soemthing to do with the fact that there were some 5,000,000 more drivers aged 25 and over than in the 24 and under group? It's about the per capita rates rather than the raw numbers.

RE: "21.5 percent of all drivers involved in fatal crashes were under the age of 25." Which means that a whopping 78.5% of these drivers were over 25."

And what percentage of all drivers are under 25? Approximately 20%. That means the under 25 drivers are involved in a dispproportionate percentage of fatal crashes.

RE: "A 20.2% drop in all crashes and a 34.0% drop in fatal crash involvement."

And how much nave the numbers dropped for the over 24 group? Without the comparison your arguement means nothing.

RE: "If teen drivers are taking steps in the right direction, why penalize them with restrictions? "

Because there is no evidence that it is the younger drivers who are becoming safer drivers as opposed to stricter laws, safer vehicles, etc.

 
gogopoet
May 19, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: unlabled00 Show

Actually some safety features do prevent accidents, eg; better braking systems, better steering systems and better lighting all make it easier for drivers to avoid crashes.

Please note that I have never said teenagers become more willing to break the law because of cohorts chiding them, even though I have actually witnessed that on more than one occaision. I SAID younger drivers can be distracted more easily because their youthful passengers are more prone to engage in behaviors that create distractions. Keeping teens out of vehicles driven by youthful drivers eleminates that risk entirely without causing an undue burden on anyone.

If you look at the study, you will find that the peak accident rate is among drivers 18 to 20, after which there is an almost constant decline in accidents until about age 98 or 99, after which the accident rates increase again. I would advocate yanking those people's licenses altogether. I quit driving because I suffered a partial loss of vision which effected my ability to drive safely. Sadly, the state I live in will allow people to continue driving until they suffer an 80% loss of vision. That's SCARY!

 
+ Add Argument

3
No, Teens should not have restrictions on the number of teen passangers they may transport.


unlabled00
May 17, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: gogopoet Show

I'm 18... I am 100% positive I will never find myself zipping in and out of traffic like a crazed maniac. Hmm, I guess thats a crappy assessment of risk though, because I'm not 25 yet am I?

My cousin is a year younger than I am and she is the most strictly law-abiding person I know when it comes to driving. She drives exactly the speed limit, signals even when its extremely unneccesary, and opts out of taking the highway if there are regular streets availabe. Wow... how risky.

Give me a figure on how many people are fatally injurred or made paraplegic by teen drivers annually and then give me the same figure for adults. I would LOVE to see how they compare.

You talk about we teens as if we think "hey... an old lady. She's ont he crosswalk.. .hit the GAS!!!!" But news flash... we're not all like that. And not all adults are great at assessing risks either.

 
rhys
May 15, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
I remember when there was talk of this being enforced. it is the stupidest thing i have ever heard! Its wrong to just clump all teenagers together as bad drivers.

Also, where is the evidence that teenagers drive worse when there are more passengers? i am more self conscious of my driving skills when i have passengers, and i have broken the most laws when i have no passengers, so really this law would only increase dangerous driving from my point of view.

I cant even begin to explain how stupid this is! argh!

 
unlabled00
May 15, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
...whats next? A limit to how many bags of groceries you can have in your car? :P

 
tggdan3
May 15, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: nbcrusader Show

Can you provide said statistics?
If not then you're assuming.



 
dereksemeraro
May 15, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: gogopoet Show


I say banning the irresponsible from driving.

Coordinated 16 year old vs. Uncoordinated 20 year old?

 
tggdan3
May 15, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: nbcrusader Show

Read your post. It said teens carrying PASSENGERS are more at risk- it had nothing to do with the passengers also being teens.

The topic was limiting the # of TEENAGED PASSENGERS.

And I didn't say you were assuming, I said without evidence it is an assumption.

 
unlabled00
May 15, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: gogopoet Show

Well there are also studies showing that over the past 20 someodd years, teenagers have breen growing more and more responsible. 15 year olds are able to take on some of the responsibilities handed out to 20+ year olds from 10 years ago.

As well as this, you need to think about this issue from an economic viewpoint. How much of a country's population is between the ages of 16-24? Assuming that each age in the workforce age-span (16-65) accounts for the same % (which, I know, it does not), 18% of the workforce would be immobilized. Incapable of delivering pizzas, dropping off drink supplies, etc. etc. Unless, of course, their mothers drove them around.

 
rhys
May 16, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: henthorn Show

were you ever a teenage driver???

I am currently still on my P plates, which means i have limited points on my license. I understand i am on a probational period and that if i am caught speeding i will most probibly have my license taken away.

But i appreciate the respect given to me by my government who realizes that all teenagers are not bad drivers. I have driven long distances (all day) with a car FULL of people. my driving ability has not been compromised in any way, if anything i was more conscientious because of the passengers i had.

A law like this a the worst form of generalization. For every teenager who crashes there are ten who do not (this isn't a hard statistic, but you get the general idea)

 
rhys
May 16, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: gogopoet Show

how about the evidence of 1000's of teenagers driving around accident free every day of the year?

Your "scientific evidence" is not relevant. It reminds me of reports that say things like "5 cups of tea a day will reduce the risk of cancer".

 
rhys
May 16, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: nbcrusader Show

sure your information looks convincing.
But i would like to see facts about how many out of ALL teenage drivers are involved in serious crashes.

I bet $100 that the majority of teenagers have not been in a seriosu car accident. so WHY should a whole age group be punished for the crimes of a small portion of them?????

 
rhys
May 17, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: gogopoet Show

ok. lets look at the facts. i think we can firstly assume that there are more teenagers that are not involved in serious car accidents than those who are.

secondly you just stated that: "your 1000s of accident free teen drivers ... are just lucky."

So if its just a coincidence that the MAJORITY of teen drivers are accident free, then doesn't it stand to reason that if a MINORITY of them DO CRASH. that this is an even MORE freakish and amazing coincidence????

Thank you for just disproving your own argument.

ALSO: even with your statistics. you are ASSUMING that less teenage drivers in a car would decrease the likely hood of a crash. until you can prove this assumption to be correct than your facts are irrelevant. You might as well argue that we should place small dogs in cars with teenage drivers. as far as you know it would achieve the same effect as less passengers.

 
rhys
May 17, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: gogopoet Show

"Anecdotal evidence proves nothing. Find some statistics to support your position or something."

no. Unlabeled has just proven that there are teenagers that do abide by road safety laws. he dosent need statistics. after all, we are talking about human beings.

I actually cannot debate against someone with so many contradictions within their own argument. this is ridiculous!

you said "We know there are more teens with a safe driving record than without." And then you propose this could be because of luck or divine intervention? Clearly the evidence shows that the majority of teenagers ARE SAFE DRIVERS. you cant deny that. oh wait....you can. well let me re phrase that... you cant LOGICALLY deny that.

have fun in your own delusional fantasy world where teenagers have no brains. (i wouldn't mind looking at that "scientific study you keep quoting, so i can prove how you are abuse the facts, i have no doubt that teenagers might not have as DEVELOPED risk assessment as adults, but any idiot can see they DO have risk assessment ability's).


RE: "ALSO: even with your statistics. you are ASSUMING that less teenage drivers in a car would decrease the likely hood of a crash. "

you think: That is not an assumption. It is a logical conclusion

But no. If you read my previous debates you'll see that i am a young driver (who is under 25, still waiting for that brain to kick in), i am a more conscientious driver when i have more passengers in the car. So clearly your logic is flawed or else it is impossible for that to happen.

Unlabeled, lets not wast our precious fingers on this pathetically flawed debate.

 
unlabled00
May 17, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: gogopoet Show

Only a senile mind can be so condescending and... well, senile. Explain how I would not be 100% positive of not wanting to put myself in an early grave? I was 100% positive I wouldn't drink in high school and, hey look... I haven't touched a drop.
But I'm immature so surely I must've thought something different.

I can envision a car full of adult clowns being distracting, I can envision a car full of naked porn stars causing mayhem, I can envision Godzilla sitting behind the drivers seat ALONE and wreaking as much havoc as 4 teens in a beat up old sedan.

Thank you for the URL... it shows figures that show that the more occupants in a car with a driver between the ages of 16-24, the less likely they are to have a crash. WOW.

At the exact same time it also shows a dramatically larger number of 25-64 year old driver crashes! Exceeding 5 times the number in some cases.

Did you just kill your own argument?

 
unlabled00
May 18, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: gogopoet Show

Yet if you examine the quantitative data given teen's have a much lower fatal crash toll than other aged drivers.

If you look at the percentages they are marginally different from one another, and even then the other aged drivers are causing nearly three times as many casualties across the board.

 
unlabled00
May 18, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: gogopoet Show

Again with the condecension... take a look at the data given about fatal crash tolls for the three age groups. More adults are causing fatal crashes than teens.

"Auto accidents" does not specify what nature of accident it was, and could be as minute an incident as a fender-bender on a rural road or as severe as a head-on collision on the freeway. Zoom in on the data and look more closely.

"21.5 percent of all drivers involved in fatal crashes were under the age of 25." Which means that a whopping 78.5% of these drivers were over 25.

Looking at the graphs presented the number of all crashes accounted for by teens has dropped, just like all other demographics, in the past 10 years. A 20.2% drop in all crashes and a 34.0% drop in fatal crash involvement. If teen drivers are taking steps in the right direction, why penalize them with restrictions?

Heading back to the root of the debate, the trend shown in these figures is that the more passengers in the car, the less likely it is for a crash to occur. In all age-groups. Maybe there should be a restriction on all people driving alone?

 
unlabled00
May 19, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: gogopoet Show

Safer vehicles do nothing to prevent crashes, at least none of the models available to the public market.

You noted earlier that you find teenagers easily willing to break the law if chided on by their cohorts, so why would stricter laws change it?

If there were figures saying that a greater number of elderly drivers (65+) were causing accidents in equal percentages to adolescents, would it be justifiable to disallow the elderly to drive?

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

society Abortion alcohol america Animal animals army art ban BBC black Britain British Capitalism child children Chinese Communism control convinceme council Court crime criminal culture death death penalty Debate Democracy drugs Economy education England english equality ethics EU evil food Frankie Freedom Gay girls good Government Great Britain health House of Lords human illegal Internet Islam Judge Justice language Law lawyer Legal lesbian Liberty life love marijuana marriage men money morals murder music Muslim Obama opinion parenting parents peace people police politics poor Porn pregnancy prison privacy punishment race racism religion Responsibility Rich Rights School science sex slavery smoking social society Students suicide technology terrorism the UK UN United Kingdom united states USA VanCam Video Games violence war weed white women world