U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [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)
View Poll Results: Increase DL age requirement to 18
Yup 57 55.34%
Nope 46 44.66%
Voters: 103. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-06-2008, 10:58 PM
 
392 posts, read 1,682,052 times
Reputation: 278

Advertisements

I think it should stay where it is. I think responsibility is good for teens and I would prefer they learn with some supervision. My neighbors didn't allow their daughter to drive until she graduated from high school and turned 18. In September she started driving 20 miles each way to college in heavy traffic on freeways. Completely unprepared she had a couple of accidents. I think she would have had a much easier time learning close to home rather than figuring it out in rush hour traffic.
I think the problem lies much more with parents than teens. My kid's drove at 16. They had to pay for gas and maintenance on their cars, this meant securing and keeping a job. They learned having a car isn't cheap and if they didn't take care of the cost would get much, much higher. I left no doubt in their minds that any driving infraction (ticket) would mean the loss of all driving privileges until they had the means to purchase and insure a car with their own money. I would not pay higher insurance rates if they made irresponsible choices. The whole theme of the lesson was with the freedom to drive comes responsibility.
I really don't think the mom drives me places lesson would have been nearly as effective.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-07-2008, 10:58 AM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,236 posts, read 40,279,788 times
Reputation: 10915
Quote:
Originally Posted by elvislives View Post
When i was in the service you had your weapons on you 24 hours a day 7 days a week.I ate with it slept with it even pooped with it right beside me. ,nobody yelled time out after dark and stopped the war.
Sentries have a purpose...and its so everyone can run and get their guns.

Didn't you hear the complaints about our soldiers walking around without ammo in their guns?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-07-2008, 11:20 AM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,107 posts, read 34,371,245 times
Reputation: 4893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polybius View Post
I've not been to Iraq or Afghanistan but I suspect it's much like Vietnam- continuously locked and loaded even when you're in the rear.
Weapons are at the ready - locked and loaded, in Iraq and Afganistan - at all times.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2008, 09:07 PM
 
Location: Aiken S.C
765 posts, read 1,681,247 times
Reputation: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
Sentries have a purpose...and its so everyone can run and get their guns.

Didn't you hear the complaints about our soldiers walking around without ammo in their guns?
The only tme i recall my weapon not being loaded is when i was cleaning the sand out of it. ever been to war???
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2008, 02:18 PM
 
Location: Ottawa, Canada
609 posts, read 1,043,692 times
Reputation: 173
this thread should seriously change to "should the drinking age be lowered". it really is a stupid thing. you wanna know why?

1. we can decide the fate of our country by voting a year before we can even legally take one sip of beer.

2. we can join the army,protecting our government and country, as well as kill a man and hold a gun 1 year before we can have a shot of rum

3. as you said, we can drive. at the age in canada of 17 we can have our full liscence (drive alone) and have control of this massive metal "weapon", able of putting the lives of ourself and others in danger before we can even buy 'coolers" for our girlfriend.. of course for our girlfriend...only women drink those...(we really need the msn's "awkward looking in a circle smiley")

anyways my philosophy teacher brought that to our classes attention one day for fun. i thought it was neat. not that we didnt realize it before, but to put it into context like that kinda makes you think how dumb the current rules are huh?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2008, 04:43 PM
 
Location: CITY OF ANGELS AND CONSTANT DANGER
5,409 posts, read 11,072,228 times
Reputation: 2244
the ability to drive or vote does not have the same mind altering effects that imbibing alcohol does. alcohol alters the persons perception, movement, judgement. voting and driving dont.

silly comparison.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2008, 05:02 PM
 
Location: Ottawa, Canada
609 posts, read 1,043,692 times
Reputation: 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by the one View Post
the ability to drive or vote does not have the same mind altering effects that imbibing alcohol does. alcohol alters the persons perception, movement, judgement. voting and driving dont.

silly comparison.
are you actually implying that an 18 doesnt have the ability to handle being drunk, and yet does have the ability to handle quick brain functions involved in driving. many of them you names like perception, judgment, reaction time and so on. im saying they do have the ability and responsible to handle both (although i think drivings more dangerous)driving and alcohol.

your arguing that someone whos 18, can drive, vote and has fought in a war and killed someone isnt responsible enough, or as you seem to be implying isn't ready physically to drink? the fact that european teenagers (france for example) can buy alcohol like beer and wine at 16 and hard liquor at 18 is explained through your explanation of the effects of alcohol? are they somehow more evolved and can handlee it? because as we know france doesnt have more problem with youth drinking then the united states.


in which case that would mean its a cultural thing and has much less to do with your "amazing breakdown of the effects of alcohol" and more with the fact that we simply dont allow it because its the law, not because theres "good evidence" like the type you were trying to show. i wasnt making a silly comparison.you just made a stupid comment.

Last edited by leangk; 10-14-2008 at 05:13 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2008, 05:25 PM
 
Location: Ottawa, Canada
609 posts, read 1,043,692 times
Reputation: 173
Quote:
Originally Posted by the one View Post
the ability to drive or vote does not have the same mind altering effects that imbibing alcohol does. alcohol alters the persons perception, movement, judgement. voting and driving dont.

silly comparison.
so are you saying then that an 18 year old is not physically able to handle the effects or not responsible enough?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2008, 08:38 PM
 
1,158 posts, read 1,545,865 times
Reputation: 1150
Yes.
Kids who are 16 are (ever increasingly?) still WAY too immature to be driving tons of high-speed steel around the streets.....I still see way too much crazy driving from kids with way too many hormones rushing through their systems....and they have cars....driving like idiots....
Sorry...I'm sure some 16 year olds are very responsible drivers....but way too many are NOT.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2008, 01:03 PM
Status: "Done with the 100s (hopefully)?" (set 24 days ago)
 
Location: East Central Phoenix
5,411 posts, read 8,299,874 times
Reputation: 5760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Cells View Post
Yes.
Kids who are 16 are (ever increasingly?) still WAY too immature to be driving tons of high-speed steel around the streets.....I still see way too much crazy driving from kids with way too many hormones rushing through their systems....and they have cars....driving like idiots....
Sorry...I'm sure some 16 year olds are very responsible drivers....but way too many are NOT.
My thoughts exactly! The accident rate among this age group is high ... so my thought is that if the driving age were raised to 18, all of our insurance rates would be somewhat reduced. There would be fewer cars on the roads, and the accident rate would likely decline a little as well.

In any case, it's all about legality. The legal adult age is 18 ... therefore, it only makes sense to raise the driving age to 18 because operating a vehicle is an adult responsibility. Under the law, people under 18 are classified as minors, and not held fully accountable. It makes absolutely no sense to allow juveniles the responsibility of driving when they can't legally be held responsibile for their actions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

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 > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, 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