U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Arkansas
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 03-06-2009, 01:57 PM
 
Location: Mountain Home, Arkansas
436 posts, read 747,742 times
Reputation: 132

Advertisements

Just recently AR passed a law that teens drivers cant have more than 1 teen in the car with them and they now have a curfue. 11pm-4am teens are not allowed to drive. just wait till they pass the law that says you cant get a DL till your 18. (it's to make the teenage deaths get lower and since the parents arent doing their job Arkansas is. now what is your opinion?

 
Old 03-06-2009, 02:23 PM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
8,998 posts, read 12,634,464 times
Reputation: 3536
While it's a good idea and everything....I think the state is going too far and trying to take parents' (or a parent's) place. If a parent thinks their kid is a good enough driver to have a passenger or two in the car, why should the state have any say in the matter?
What about teens who have to pick up siblings from school because the parent or parents are at work? Will there be exceptions for them? I know the law says more than one TEEN but I know people who had 13 and 15 year old siblings and had to pick them up from school. Of course there is always the bus but sometimes there are compelling reasons to pick up a sibling after school.

I am certainly glad to be 18.

I think it would be a better idea to strengthen the graduated license system. I don't think it is doing much to prevent teen deaths.
The tests I took to get my license were WAY too easy.
I know some teens whose parents didn't even practice with them when it came to driving. They just took them to take their test, waited the length of time you have to wait, they took the short little driving test with the cop and receive their passing grade.

It would be better if they made the driving test longer and made the teen display more skills. I felt the driving test was WAAAAY too easy.
Two months after getting my first car (and I loved it too.2005 Toyota Corolla...)...I totaled it.

In my high school, it was a way too common story of how we ALMOST got into a wreck or so and so got into a wreck this weekend.
I think if the state had a way to make teen drivers prove more skills...it would help.

I think the curfew is pretty stupid as well. Parents should be the one to tell their kids what time they need to be home..NOT the state.

The only good driving laws that I have seen so far have to deal with drunk driving: increase the amount of time they can look back on a person's record when it comes to DUI/DWIs (I think it should always be on your record, not 5, 10, 15, whatever years) and I think after the first instance of DUI, you should have the device to put on your car where you blow into it before you drive. It might be on there for 6 months, a year, whatever...depending on how high your blood alcohol level was, etc.
 
Old 03-06-2009, 02:31 PM
 
985 posts, read 2,281,332 times
Reputation: 722
I think it's a good idea. While I'd prefer that parents set these rules for their children and not the state, it's obviously not going to happen. I don't know how many times I've seen drunk teens cruising down the street at 1 am with their butts hanging out the window. It's just asking for trouble, for themselves and other people. Maybe, if this law is enforced, it will put a stop to that nonsense.

LiveToday- I'm guessing there will be exceptions for those who have to pick up siblings or those who work late.
 
Old 03-06-2009, 02:44 PM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
8,998 posts, read 12,634,464 times
Reputation: 3536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaye02 View Post
I think it's a good idea. While I'd prefer that parents set these rules for their children and not the state, it's obviously not going to happen. I don't know how many times I've seen drunk teens cruising down the street at 1 am with their butts hanging out the window. It's just asking for trouble, for themselves and other people. Maybe, if this law is enforced, it will put a stop to that nonsense.

LiveToday- I'm guessing there will be exceptions for those who have to pick up siblings or those who work late.
That's what our cops are for...not the legislature.
There are plenty of teens out there who do follow the rules and aren't driving crazy or drunk...why should they be punished?

Isn't the curfew just for week days?
It will certainly suck in the summer, during spring break, winter break, etc.
for those under 18.
 
Old 03-06-2009, 04:06 PM
 
985 posts, read 2,281,332 times
Reputation: 722
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiveTodayLez08 View Post
That's what our cops are for...not the legislature.
There are plenty of teens out there who do follow the rules and aren't driving crazy or drunk...why should they be punished?

Isn't the curfew just for week days?
It will certainly suck in the summer, during spring break, winter break, etc.
for those under 18.
I have no idea if it extends to summer break, holidays etc. Yes there are some kids who are responsible but, around here anyways, the majority are not. I never said it was fair but, life's not fair. If it can cut down on the amount of automobile deaths caused by teens then I'm for it. I know I must sound like an uptight old lady (I'm 24 btw), but even when I was a teen I would have been okay with this law. I hate to say this, but sometimes government has to step in when people do foolish things.
 
Old 03-06-2009, 05:11 PM
 
37 posts, read 108,909 times
Reputation: 21
I'd say banning any type of cell phone use, Bluetooth and everything, for drivers under 18 would be far more effective, especially if the punishment was more severe than a simple fine. (such as losing the license until 18) My friend was killed in Little Rock last year because of a teen girl talking on her cell phone and ran off the road. Maybe that makes me biased, but, anyway.
 
Old 03-07-2009, 08:11 AM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
8,998 posts, read 12,634,464 times
Reputation: 3536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaye02 View Post
I have no idea if it extends to summer break, holidays etc. Yes there are some kids who are responsible but, around here anyways, the majority are not. I never said it was fair but, life's not fair. If it can cut down on the amount of automobile deaths caused by teens then I'm for it. I know I must sound like an uptight old lady (I'm 24 btw), but even when I was a teen I would have been okay with this law. I hate to say this, but sometimes government has to step in when people do foolish things.
No, you don't sound like an old lady and I understand that sometimes the government has to step in when people do foolish things.
My big gripe is that its punishing the many for the mistakes of the few.
The limit on how many teens can be in the car will most certainly have an affect on the planet. Instead of teens being able to carpool, more cars will have to be on the road... I know my friends and I carpooled a lot in high school to save on gas.
It would be nice if teens didn't have to drive so much in Arkansas...if we had better public transportation which would keep more teens off the road.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sloth777 View Post
I'd say banning any type of cell phone use, Bluetooth and everything, for drivers under 18 would be far more effective, especially if the punishment was more severe than a simple fine. (such as losing the license until 18) My friend was killed in Little Rock last year because of a teen girl talking on her cell phone and ran off the road. Maybe that makes me biased, but, anyway.
I think a ban on cell phone use for EVERYONE who drives is effective. I would want bluetooths or hands free devices to be used because sometimes there are situations where you need to talk on your phone and drive (getting directions). There was an old man one day who came into my lane and almost crashed into me...he was on his cell phone.
I know I talk on my phone sometimes but more times than not I use my bluetooth.
I think losing the license for a period of time would be a good punishment.
I am sorry to hear about your friend.

I doubt these laws will be overturned because its aimed at teenagers and if you're under 18...you can't vote. ::shakes head::

The state really needs more restrictions on older drivers. Testing their driving skills more frequently after say the age of...65. I've had some pretty scary incidents involving older drivers not paying attention, running red lights and I almost hit them (and I even waited about 20 seconds to go and here comes some elderly woman just flying through the light out of nowhere...). Maybe I'm just a magnet for them but where I live, SOME of the older drivers can be quite a public safety risk. If public transportation was better, a lot of them would probably feel more comfortable taking the bus to get around town.
 
Old 03-07-2009, 08:46 AM
 
Location: South Dakota
1,961 posts, read 5,988,997 times
Reputation: 963
I have mixed opinions. Generally speaking, kids in high school do not have the judgment with driving as older drivers. So driving restrictions make sense in that regard. But it may not make sense in some of the rural areas where a number of the kids under 18 help out on the family farm and have to learn how to drive at an earlier age to drive a tractor or a pickup truck to effectively help out, especially during harvest season.

South Dakota gets some very negative marks from safety groups for allowing kids to drive at age 15, but its issues and driving conditions are much different than say New Jersey. The state is tough if the teen gets a ticket and it places a curfew for teen drivers, still allowing the kids to go to school, school activities, help with farm chores, and work their part-time jobs. Arkansas may have less of the issue of desolate areas. There are some areas in western South Dakota along with other portions of the Great Plains states and the Rocky Mountain West that are very desolate and some districts have limited or no bus services and the younger kids have to learn how to drive to school or school events out of necessity. If they live 30-40 miles from the nearest high school, that may be necessary.

The cell phone issue is a very touchy subject and I can see both sides. I am more nervous about people, espcially kids, texting. There are some people who overdo it on the cell phones while they drive, do it when they should not (in heavy traffic), or are not good period at multitasking. If they ban cell phones, then they might as well ban eating in the car or putting on makeup (those are also distracting). It is understandable that a cell phone ban or limits are good for public safety, it is more so having government protecting people from themeselves. If not cell phones, kids and people do something else that interferes with their driving (human nature).

Kids everywehere that age test their limits and some drive reckless, which is scary enough in itself. It is nature for teenagers to test their limits, but they need some boundaries. I was a teenage driver ten years ago and can remember those days. I was cautious but had a couple of minor goof ups, one that shook me up and made me learn in a quick hurry. But that is part of learning, and we learn from our mistakes so we do better in the future. Unfortunately, some do not or not willing to learn. Boundaries for kids are needed definely for their protection and society's protection, but banning kids from driving under 18 is not the right approach.

Tougher testing, rules for no/reasonable cell phone use, tougher seatbelt laws, ect. are better than an outright ban on driving under 18. For rural areas, the under 18 law is very impractical. For larger towns and cities, it may make sense but may have unintended consequences. Education, textbook and hands-on, is very important and would definitely help (and a better solution than outright banning younger drivers). Yes, it costs more money, but may be well worth it in the long run.

I agree with the older drivers being a public safety risks. They should take periodic driving tests after a certain age (65 or 70). This may help keep some of the hazardous older drivers off the roads. It may be hard to do since old people are often reluctant to give up the wheel and many of the politicians leading in our states and country are older people and would receive a lot of flack from the elderly if they even condidered the idea of closer monitoring of older drivers.

The teenage driving issue and driving in general needs to be looked at from different perspectives. An interesting subject.

Last edited by Chris19; 03-07-2009 at 09:07 AM..
 
Old 03-08-2009, 05:53 AM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
68,186 posts, read 78,096,818 times
Reputation: 37458
I think it is a great idea or some form of controlling teen driving is a good idea. Of course I grew up in the era where most girls didn't drive until they went to work or college cause most homes only had 1 car and we had great public transportation. Guys did drive younger and there was a curview in Ca at the time period.. It had nothing to do with driving..

I do see both sides of the issue, I will agree. I think in Texas the law says you can't have any teens in the car until you have been driving 6 months. Ca has some restrictions as well and NJ diid have (I don't know if the still do) a law not allowing kids to get their license until they were 17. Most teens think they know a little more than they do, they love the freedome the car gives them, they think they can do about 12 things at once and do not have the experince to use good judgement. I also believe and god I hate to say this, seniors over 75 should have to take, at least an eye test every every year and after a certain age a driving test each year..

Twice yesterday, this hit home. One time my granddaughter and I were driving from OKC to Ark and in the fast or passing lane was a little old man driving 55 an hour.. why he was not in the outside lane who knows? Then after I dropped her off and headed to my house I got behind another elderly couple. They were going 35 miles an hour on highway 71. I almost rear ended them cause I didn't realize how slow they were driving, slow yes, but they were beyond slow. I know taking away someones license is taking away all their freedom, but sometimes there isn't any other answer.

So, now that I have blabbed my mouth or busied my fingers on the subject, I shall shut up and let's hope they don't take my license away from me for a few years..

Nita
 
Old 03-09-2009, 01:12 PM
 
Location: Mountain Home, Arkansas
436 posts, read 747,742 times
Reputation: 132
Well CA passed that cell phone law... if you cant be a responsible driver then theres consequences(however you spell it) i am 17 and don't have a DL (a lot are ticked about this law but i'm happy)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Arkansas
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top