Season 6: Dancing With the Stars
You've Been Spotted: DPS Scholar Reception
DPS Scholar Reception
Teen drivers weigh pros, cons of new rules
Some say restrictions on the number of passengers will be inconvenient.
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Comment on this story
KETTERING — Teens at D&D Driving School Inc. on Monday had mixed views on the new Ohio teen driving restrictions that take effect Friday.
One of the new rules says probationary driver's license holders under 17 can't have more than one person who's not a family member in the vehicle unless the driver is accompanied by their parent, guardian or legal custodian.
Extras
Latest headlines
Most popular
Get latest headlines via RSS feedsJennifer Grady, 16, of Kettering has had her license for almost a year. "I have to take different persons to AIM For the Handicapped for an allied health class they take," she said. Because of the new rule, "they'll have to find their own way."
The new rules that restrict the time they can be out driving late doesn't bother her. "People out doing stupid stuff at night won't be able to do it because of the time restrictions," she said.
"I can understand the reason" for the restrictions, said J.D. Burleson, 17, of West Carrollton. "A lot of kids are getting in really bad car accidents. My mom is not going to have me driving at 5 a.m. I don't think it's the law's duty, but your parents' (to set restrictions).
"I kind of take offense at the restrictions," said Jordon Couch, 17, of Bellbrook. "It is distracting when there are a lot of people in the car, but I like having a lot of people in the car."
His parents haven't put restrictions on his car use, "but if I act stupid, they would," he said.
"I'm OK with it," said Sean Behn, 16, of Centerville. "There's less people to cart around. ... These don't seem too bad. It's nothing crazy."
His friend Zach Zahora, 16, of Kettering had a different take.
"Some of (the rules) I don't care for," he said. "There should be more than two people allowed in a car."
"There's been a lot of confusion about the new rules," said Sharon Fife, president of the driving school. "They think they can't get a license if they're under 18."
In her view the rules "haven't changed that much. You can't have a car full of friends, but you can have a car full of family members. If it was me, I would say nobody in the car for the first six months," Fife said.
Comments
By discount tramadol ultram
April 18, 2007 3:37 AM | Link to this
Very good site. Thank you! discount tramadol ultram
By cheap ultram, ultram online, order ultram, ultram side effects, buy ultram online, ultram addiction,
April 18, 2007 2:03 AM | Link to this
Good site. Thank you. cheap ultram, ultram online, order ultram, ultram side effects, buy ultram online, ultram addiction, generic ultram, ultram drug, ultram online pharmacy
By ultram, tramadol, adipex, cheap ultram, ultram online, order ultram, ultram side effects, buy ultram
April 18, 2007 12:37 AM | Link to this
Good site. Thank you! ultram, tramadol, adipex, cheap ultram, ultram online, order ultram, ultram side effects, buy ultram online
By ultram, tramadol, adipex, cheap ultram, ultram online, order ultram, ultram side effects, buy ultram
April 18, 2007 12:35 AM | Link to this
Good site. Thank you! ultram, tramadol, adipex, cheap ultram, ultram online, order ultram, ultram side effects, buy ultram online
By smgikyzw tqcsymjiz
April 17, 2007 10:29 PM | Link to this
mufpsbi thwexp rfdwxhiov phtqwgc iodlb pgebj dkxgfcnu kdlijt jpnlqigz
By ukqxwlpem egubpwc
April 17, 2007 10:28 PM | Link to this
ovmze xfcrdbo yvin eyth jghsxioc lbvfa tmikgfbx
By jimbob joebob
April 13, 2007 3:11 PM | Link to this
driving
By liz
April 12, 2007 11:33 AM | Link to this
Too many people on the road is already a problem. Pollution is a problem too if we have so many people on the road the ozone layer will die**. My brother is driving and I dont want to loose him in a car accident because of some stupid rule that we didnt use.
By nathan
April 11, 2007 10:12 AM | Link to this
I think that this law will help prevent some accidents but it wont stop all of them. When these kind of laws are passed it takes more and more power away from parents. This law is also going to force more gas to be used if teens arnt allowed to car pool any more.
By Cwoo
April 10, 2007 9:16 PM | Link to this
I quess i can see how this law could help save lives. By keeping the number of passengers to 1 will keep distactions down but i dont really see this law really helping much. Honestly i think teens will continue to do it anyways. Also what about carpooling. Have you seen the price of gas today. Im talking to all of you parents that think this is such a good idea. Think about you being a teen and having to pay for gas with a minimum wage job. Remember, you were a kid once too.
By Nick
April 9, 2007 11:33 PM | Link to this
…I think some of the comments on this forum are misguided in regards to the adverse effects of this new law. 16 year old drivers make up a very small proportion of total drivers on the road (less than 1 percent), so the effects of extra pollution and more dangerous drivers on the road are probably negligible. Also, 18 year olds are not affected by this law, so chill out. By the way the sponsor of this bill was Blackwell’s running mate, Rep. Raga, not a “friggin democrat” as one guy claimed.
By Nick
April 9, 2007 11:26 PM | Link to this
This law is not about inexperience; it is about peer influence. The basis for creating the new passenger restrictions are based on studies, particularly a JAMA study (Chen et al, 2000) that showed that the risk of a fatal crash among 16 and 17 year old drivers increases as the number of passengers increase. Other studies show that risk behaviors among teens are primarily driven by peer influence, rather than inexperience. For once our legislators paid attention to statistics.
By willow
April 9, 2007 7:13 PM | Link to this
I think that the laws against people under 17 are good. However i don’t agree with having people who are 18 have these restrictions. They are legally an adult and should not have the law put a restriction on them. They should take care of an accident like everybody else. The real problem is with people talking on cell phones not just people who are 17-18 they should be aloud to be out and not have a note from their work saying thats where they were coming from. So some of the law is fine not all
By Courtney
April 6, 2007 3:51 PM | Link to this
I disagree with the new teen age driving law. First and foremost by limiting the number of persons in the car, you are only putting more teenagers on the road. I am one of the many teenagers being affected by this. I am sixteen. I passed my drivers test. I should not be limited to only one of my friends in the car with me. Instead of limiting teens, I propose that we cut down on the drivers test and make it harder, but don’t penalize the drivers who already have their liscense. They earned it.
By Natalie
April 6, 2007 2:26 PM | Link to this
This new law is great. However, this law should exclude 18 year olds because they are legally recognized as adults and, therefore, should be recognized as such, thus, giving them the independence that adults have. I like the fact that teenagers aren’t permitted to be out on the roads between 1 AM and 5 AM because they shouldn’t even be out that late, especially if it’s a school night. Now Ohio lawmakers need to turn their attention to those who drive while talking on their cell phones.
By John
April 6, 2007 11:52 AM | Link to this
Teenagers have been driving for over 100 years. Now it has become such a big issue. Take the cell phones out of everyones hand including adults. This becomes a hardhip on both working parents. Rides to and from school, choir, after school sports. Not to mention more drivers on the road , more gas used making more pollution. We have enough laws in this state that aren’t enforced now.Concentrate on stopping all the killings (murders) in Cincinnati and other Ohio cities.We don’t need more laws.
By Shawn
April 6, 2007 7:16 AM | Link to this
I disagree with the new law. I know teen drivers are not very experienced however, accidents are caused from not paying attention. If they want to reduce accidents they need to eliminate eating, drinking, talking on cell phones, reading the newspaper, putting on make-up etc… My kids and their frineds go to the movies, bowling etc. and now we have to put 2 or 3 drivers on the road to get everyone there and back. So, their saying more teen drivers on the road together is good!!!
By E
April 6, 2007 12:42 AM | Link to this
Just because you are an inexperienced driver doesn’t necessarily mean you’re a bad driver. Anyone who has just recently gotten their license or even have had it for a year is still inexperienced. I’m a teen and an excellent driver, yet I am definitely still considered an inexperienced driver for the mere fact that I haven’t been driving for that long.
By max Edelman
April 5, 2007 10:05 PM | Link to this
so if teens are so inexperienced and such bad drivers and all these things that everyone is saying,then how do they get licenses? maby since only the inexperienced ones are crashing make it harder to pass the driving test. im an exellent driver and i love driving my friends places, also most adults that i know admit that i am a better driver than them. yet i still have to suffer. instead of banning all teens why cant we weed out the ones who arnt ready to drive before they get their licens?
By E
April 5, 2007 6:41 PM | Link to this
I just don’t understand why this law is being applied to 18 year olds who are -gasp- legal adults. There is a huge difference between a 16 year old driver and an 18 year old driver. If the government is this concerned with reducing the amount of wrecks by restraining inexperienced drivers, why not just raise the the legal driving age to 18? I’ve seen plently of middle and older aged adults that are worse drivers than most kids. This new law is useless.
By Brittany
April 5, 2007 4:26 PM | Link to this
Plus, if everyone is so concerned with this ozone layer and pollution, why are you forcing everyone to drive twice as many cars. killing two birds with one stone? more like killing earth and all its inhibitants while saving a few teen’s lives.
By DM
April 5, 2007 3:57 PM | Link to this
I think they should just change the law to 18, driving is a responsibility and a privledge and them 2 years would make a great difference in maturity. Also anyone over the age of 65 should be tested every 2 years. And pass a law for no cell phone use while driving everywhere you look there is someone driving and talking on a cell phone and it is just not the younger generation. Wait till 18 and let them make the adult decision.
By terri
April 4, 2007 12:04 PM | Link to this
I like the new law. Many parents allow their teens to do things that they KNOW are reckless. If the parents can’t find the backbone to enforce rules themselves, then the state steps in to keep people safe. Sad, but necessary.
There is no reason for kids to be on the roads at those hours anyway, with few exceptions, which are addressed in the law.
By JJ
April 4, 2007 11:32 AM | Link to this
Why does’nt the state just go ahead and raise the driving age to 21-they have been inching toward it for the last few years. If we are going to put all these restrictions on teens and make things so complicated and obligate adults to ride with teens-just simplify matters.
By Diane
April 4, 2007 3:31 AM | Link to this
I love this law because alot of teenagers died last 2 years more than average. The law is saying under 18…not 18. 18 years olds can drive between the hours 1am to 6am… once you turn 18 you can drive anytime…I think it will teach the teenagers to be safe drivers.. 15 year old drivers die by the time they are 17 because of alcohol,drugs, racing, cell phones, and just totally careless..
By kevin
April 4, 2007 12:29 AM | Link to this
18 year olds are NOT affected by this law. If I ask you for $1-$2, that doesnt mean your goin to give me $1-$2.99, thats the same with the age. It means people between the age of 17 and 18 not 18years and 364 days.
By Mari
April 3, 2007 10:54 PM | Link to this
I got in three accidents b/f 18. I was an honor roll student, and never got in trouble. But when I got behind the wheel, and my friends were in the car, I wanted to show off. I’m now 25, and a much careful driver, but I still see youn drivers doing the same stupid moves in a car that I did at their age. Personal, I like the law, except the part about the restriction when your 18. That’s going to extreme.
By jack
April 3, 2007 9:58 PM | Link to this
lol
By jack
April 3, 2007 9:56 PM | Link to this
I didnt know we lived in a communist country.Alot of you need to pratice what you preach I see more parents on cell phones then kids.Most kids wreck from drag race each other.So what next parent not allowed to drive either? So you mean that 18 year old kids need there paernts to go out on a date.The United States is getting to were it sucks.You know what the law can do.
By John
April 3, 2007 9:11 PM | Link to this
As a former paramedic, I have seen - and carried - the mistakes that inexperienced drivers make. Cell phones, make-up, chatting with friends in the vehicle, inattention, lack of experience, horse playing - - - are all precursors of deadly auto accidents involving teen drivers. A parent whom has lost a child will be the first to support these changes. So would their children if they were still alive.
By jmac
April 3, 2007 8:34 PM | Link to this
Just another prime example of moronic lawmaking.This sacrosanct law will have no affect in the end. Moronic kids(and we all knew them in high school) will always exist.Maybenot for long but theywill.Accidents will always exist.Once again the lawmakers punish the millions of great, responsible, law abiding, hard working student achievers, just to try to protect little Jimmy down the street. You know the kid who egged your car and house.Killed a neighborhood pet, sells dope and is a lifelong punk
By Mark Hinrichsen
April 3, 2007 8:10 PM | Link to this
While this new law should have happened a long time ago, it did not matter to my kids. We drew up a page driving contract which the kids had to sign. OUR rules included transporting other kids or use of radio(no way 1st 6 mo then restricted for a year after that), lack of seat belt use when in motion; consequences of speeding tickets; maintenance of vehicle and including where the car “keys” would live. They didn’t like it, but it kept them out of trouble. Family laws over state law.
By ken
April 3, 2007 8:09 PM | Link to this
Look, I know what the statistics say, but please an 18 year old can serve his/her country and die in Iraq, BUT CAN’T DRIVE BETWEEN 1:00 AND 5:00 AM? Let’s get a grip folks. Oh, and where are the STATS that say that banning 1:00-5:00 driving is going to result in a significant change? And in case anyone wonders, I’m 51, served my country in the Air Force, and have 17 & 20 year old sons. This law is crap.
By Adam
April 3, 2007 7:56 PM | Link to this
They just need to make the legal driving age 18 and be done with it.
By JM
April 3, 2007 6:30 PM | Link to this
AMEN. Its about time.
By Tom
April 3, 2007 6:01 PM | Link to this
It’s about time they did something, now if they would get the kids that skip school and punish them AND their parents. I see young kids hanging around everyday, walking the streets standing on the corners, calling and emailing Middletown H.S. doesn’t do any good either.
By Patty
April 3, 2007 4:33 PM | Link to this
I think it’s about time….I have a 14 yr old daughter , thats talking already about having her tempts ….Omg kids now adays just dont think before they drive its all about fun and games…
By Nancy
April 3, 2007 4:15 PM | Link to this
My parents never allowed us to drive our freinds in the car when we were in high school unless a parent was with us. They said it was too much liability/responsibility that we were not ready for. At the time it seemed strict, but looking back I think it was the best thing they could have done for us at that age.
By steelerhawk
April 3, 2007 4:14 PM | Link to this
The highest number of accidents per mile driven is undoubtedly at the teen level. This is mainly because they are just starting to drive…If you made the driving age 18 or 25, the same would be true…It’s called a learning curve. The second most risky group is drivers 65 and older. “drivers age 65 and older experience higher crash death rates per mile driven than all age categories, other than teenagers.” (International Risk Management Institute). They help Ins Co’s determine risk based rates.
By Paul
April 3, 2007 4:10 PM | Link to this
I live close to Miamisburg High School, I see on a daily basis how kids drive coming and going from school. Come watch as the kids come to or go from school, it will make a believer out of you.
By TL
April 3, 2007 4:03 PM | Link to this
I just think that the driving age should be 18. There are too many accidents at the teen level. Not only at the times specified by the law, but early evening. I believe parents have the perogotive to allow the teenage driver or not. If the child does not show the maturity to handle the vehicle, then don’t let them get the license. Just because the law says they can drive at 16 doesn’t mean that they have to.
By steelerhawk
April 3, 2007 4:00 PM | Link to this
Did some research…the law is not primary enforcement…so the driver has to be pulled over for some other violation.
By Andrew
April 3, 2007 3:48 PM | Link to this
The new laws are in response to many teenage deaths - but those teens were not 16, they were 18 and 19 year old young adults. I doubt much will change. Good luck to the police officers who pull over a young looking 18 y/o because they might be an “under 16” driver with many passengers. I bet the trial lawyers can see the law suits coming now!
By gas poo
April 3, 2007 3:11 PM | Link to this
The problem is this: Parents are too sorry to watch their kids because they have spent too much money and spend too much time paying their bills so the state has to intervene and make parents watch their kids. You sorry scumbag parents should be smacked silly. If the state would pay me I would do it for them. The reason that kids have so many problems is the stupid Generation X parents are a pile of crap. I would love it if the state bends sorry parents over. I am sick of them.
By gas poo
April 3, 2007 3:04 PM | Link to this
The problem is this: Parents are too sorry to watch their kids because they have spent too much money and spend too much time paying their bills so the state has to intervene and make parents watch their kids. You sorry scumbag parents should be smacked silly. If the state would pay me I would do it for them. The reason that kids have so many problems is the stupid Generation X parents are a pile of crap. I would love it if the state bends sorry parents over. I am sick of them.
By roscoe
April 3, 2007 3:01 PM | Link to this
Long time coming! Now all we need to do is outlaw cell phone use while car is moving and we’ll be back to actually driving!!
By steelerhawk
April 3, 2007 3:01 PM | Link to this
I asked earlier, and have not seen an answer…Is this a primary enforcement law, or do you have to be pulled over for something else first…more like seat-belt laws?
By Cletus
April 3, 2007 2:59 PM | Link to this
I think that we should invest in Phonics programs for all these kids. The grammar and spelling is horrible.
You kids are mad now, just like I was when my parents told me I couldn’t smoke dope in my room, but now I am glad. You will be happy when you stay alive. Seriously, 85%? That is huge! We actually like you kids and want you to grow up and live. Our economy sure can use it.
By billis
April 3, 2007 2:54 PM | Link to this
Skeptical,
No you are right about who will abuse it, but these kids will be marked and soon they will be the example for everyone else. Boo yeah word to your mommas kiddies! Literally, word to your mommas, cause she’ll be sitting right next to you. : )
Mommy will you go to the store with me. I scoff at you all and actually agree with the Democrats on this one… probably for the first time in my whole life.
By JC
April 3, 2007 2:39 PM | Link to this
As a junior in high school I can live with these restrictions. But what about my Grandpa, who is 87 and still drives everyday. I love him but he has no business behind a wheel. Here’s another suggested law - every two years anyone over the age of 70 needs to be road tested on their driving skills. If they pass go forth and be happy, if they fail not only restrict their license to no driving status but cancel their license plate priveledges for their cars and deny them insurance.
By TAXMAN
April 3, 2007 2:28 PM | Link to this
New way to improve the cities financial situation, park to police cars outside of the Hogh School in the morning and when school gets out. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
By skeptical
April 3, 2007 2:16 PM | Link to this
This is bullcrap. Do you people really think that a law is going to keep these accidents from happening? The only people who are goign to pay any attention to this law are the kids who aren’t going to get in accidents anyways. This will accomplish absolutely nothing. It figures that a friggin democrat would come up with this law…
By Emmy Lynne
April 3, 2007 1:20 PM | Link to this
In Europe the legal age to drive is 18. However there is more public transportantion for the younger peope to travel by. I think that we should get more public transportation to areas not just in Dayton but in other areas. It will help with the traffic, enviroment and teenagers will not have to pile into one car. It would be a lot safer for everyone on the rode.
By tallsandi
April 3, 2007 1:19 PM | Link to this
Part of the reason teenagers have more accidents when there are more people in the car is because they pay more attention to the people than to driving. If you figure ALL teenagers have a touch of ADD, then anyone with half a brain can figure out that less people in the car, less reasons for the driver to take their mind off driving. So Sorry, NOT, if it is inconvenient for some of the parents to have to supervise their children or GASP,take their kids places instead of letting them roam around
By Ray
April 3, 2007 1:06 PM | Link to this
How about we do a bit more by increasing the driving age to 18. Maturity may help. I remember when I was 16 and driving. I was not responsible and mature enough to be driving a car, even though at the time I thought I was.
By Cora Johnson
April 3, 2007 1:02 PM | Link to this
Yes! If the teens listen obey the laws. As a mother who has lived and can tell you about some teenagers who at one time thought they were getting by with something. As, did my neighbors alstar basketball student. In one afternoon ruined her life and two girls lost their life all due to alcohol and speeding in auto. The girls decided to drive across state line to get alcohol. Speeding, on a slippery rainey evening flipped the car, Driver, two sisters. never made a mistake died, (driver prison.
By carol
April 3, 2007 12:58 PM | Link to this
I am all for restrictions on young drivers. I don’t believe they should be aloud to drive until they are 18. Also I agree that no one should drive while using cell phone.
By carol
April 3, 2007 12:57 PM | Link to this
I am all for the driving restrictions. I also agree with the cell phone, not to be used while driving, any age.
By steelerhawk
April 3, 2007 12:43 PM | Link to this
Bill, Do you agree with restricting senior citizen drivers? No one wants to lose a daughter or grandaughter because someone who no longer has the vision or reflexes to drive is too stubborn to quit. Maybe a re-evaluation of driving ability each year?
By KARON
April 3, 2007 12:38 PM | Link to this
CHRISTINA, YES DAYTON AND CINCINNATI NEED A PASSENGER RAIL THAT WOULD CONNECT THE 2 CITIES.THIS WOULD CREATE THOUSANDS OF NEW JOBS FOR AREA.AND HELP BRING BACK THE CITIES OF DAYTON AND CINCY,ALSO LESS DEPENDENCE ON CARS. SUPPORT PASSENGER RAIL
By Bill
April 3, 2007 12:35 PM | Link to this
I believe restricting the youth under 18 is a good start. How many of you have been to the Emergency Room or the morgue when a youthful driver has made a serious mistake while driving and paid with their life? You don’t want to have to go there, I’m telling you.
Difficult to manage the driving and limitations, etc.? How about loosing your daughter or grand-daughter because someone had to go have “fun”! You don’t want to deal with it, I’m telling you! Lawmakers do what it takes!
By steelerhawk
April 3, 2007 11:59 AM | Link to this
Matt, I’m more of a NoCal vs. a SoCal guy…San Jose. We just never moved…you could almost get out of the car go grab a cup of coffee and come back : )
By Parent of a new driver
April 3, 2007 11:53 AM | Link to this
I agree with the laws but I also agree that there should be a driving while on the cell phone law. I feel most teenage drivers are more aware and focused when they are driving then most of us are that have been driving for years. People come down pretty hard on teenagers.. adults do not always act like the “responsible” ones.
By Matt
April 3, 2007 11:49 AM | Link to this
steelerhawk, you are misinformed! I frequently make trips to Los Angeles and there are literally dozens of accidents a day on the 405 alone! Most are caused by people too preoccupied while talking on cell phones. The reason a 5 minute commute takes 90 minutes is normally because of lane closures caused by accidents. I say forget about limiting teen driving and instead make it illegal to be on your cell phone while driving!
By Christina
April 3, 2007 11:47 AM | Link to this
KARON - YES, a light rail from Dayton to Cincy would be a great thing. When are they finally going to get the hint and just build it already?! If we had reliable, clean, public transportation, not only could we move the driving age to 18, but there would be fewer cars on the road in general because they would be on the trains.
By Christina
April 3, 2007 11:42 AM | Link to this
N8tsMom-good point about carpooling “to school, football games, and other after school functions without a parent. So how much sense is it to have twice as many inexperienced drivers on the road since they have to take multiple cars instead of one?” I have another solution - how about public transportation such as street cars/trains on their own tracks? That would help with the pollution problem, traffic jams, and teen driving. Even I would take the train if that meant I didn’t have to drive!
By JD
April 3, 2007 11:36 AM | Link to this
I lied. One MORE comment… I think of the Autobahn in Germany! That seems to work for them. Either you drive well, or you die. No real inbetween.
By KARON
April 3, 2007 11:35 AM | Link to this
LIGHT PASSENGER RAIL FOR CINCINNATI AND DAYTON THE TIME IS COME
By JD
April 3, 2007 11:34 AM | Link to this
Steelerhawk: I am starting to think your first comment is the best solution: Get rid of all cars. That way, all the young and careless, all elderly who can no longer see the road/signage, all cellphone junkies, all people in a rush to get somewhere, etc. etc. won’t be at issue. Personally, I wish we were back to horses. Sore bottoms and guns at the sides! :)
PS - you make some good points. Chow.
By steelerhawk
April 3, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this
JD, When traffic is really bad it’s not much of an issue either…ever drive in California…not too many accidents at 2 mph on the interstate : ) My friends out there actually do a lot of office work on their laptops on the way into the office…Some of their 5 mile commutes take over 90 minutes…
By Mandra
April 3, 2007 11:17 AM | Link to this
That is great that they are making laws like this, but it seems that the readers here are so eager to want to make it seem like the teens are the only ones with problems when it comes to distraction. In the last week I have almost been in 3 accidents with grown ppl that have cut me off while talking on their cell phones. A cell phone law should be put into effect to make sure that EVERYONE is not distracted.
By JD
April 3, 2007 11:17 AM | Link to this
Steelerhawk: You win (kind of)! Though a Daytonian from birth, I just returned from living in Florida for several years. I guess each city/state has it’s own population stats AND you’re right — night restrictions? MY issue has always been with drivers afterschool and into evening. I still think, however, the restrictions on new drivers having passengers is pertinent — because of “stupid” (your words) driving of teens. I’m sure we all were stupid drivers at 16 — we were “invincible.”
By steelerhawk
April 3, 2007 11:11 AM | Link to this
Another thought…is this law a primary enforcement or do you have to be pulled over for something else…If it is primary enforcement, are police going to pull over everyone that looks young? A great use of police resources…or it could be another “tool” for the DUI industry. i.e. The driver turned out to be 30, but they looked young and I noticed a smell of alcohol when they rolled down the window…Not that the government would ever use their authority to do something like that : )
By steelerhawk
April 3, 2007 11:07 AM | Link to this
JD, Dayton’s (and possibly Ohio’s) population has decreased since the early 80’s when I was a teen, so there may actually be fewer cars on the road. Also, with sprawl, the concentration of traffic has decreased…that being said… why then are most of the restrictions late at night, when very few cars are on the road?
By JD
April 3, 2007 11:02 AM | Link to this
Dear Steelerhawk: You’re right — human nature is still the same — it’s just more of it with more people and traffic (population statistics can verify that), which is what makes it more dangerous, requiring more laws for safety (i.e., small parties need little supervision — while concerts require more control). In good humor though, what kind of car do you drive so I make sure I’m off the road when you’re on it? (just in case you still drive 100MPH, while drinking beer and doing donuts!) :)
By steelerhawk
April 3, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this
cont.. that will be the end of civilization. My Latin teacher once had us read a quote to that effect and had us guess when it was stated. We all guessed the 1950’s. It was actually Cicero in about 75 B.C. To summarize…Lighten up!
By JD
April 3, 2007 10:51 AM | Link to this
PS… What is the point in reiterating the fact that “all passengers under 15” wear a restraint? I thought Ohio law required ALL passengers (regardless of age) wear restraints. Maybe the writer is confused? Maybe I’m confused. Maybe it’s just typical law writing — confusing.
By steelerhawk
April 3, 2007 10:51 AM | Link to this
I think JD is mistaken. I will be 40 this year…my friends and I did all kinds of stupid stuff when we were teenagers driving: We drove 100+ mph, we had cases of beer, we did donuts in parking lots, we raced our friends. We got pulled over by the police, who dumped your beer or gave you a warning. The issue is that these days everything is a crisis that must be stopped. Human Nature hasn’t changed. Every generation is sure that the new generation is a bunch of no good, irresponsible degenerates
By John
April 3, 2007 10:48 AM | Link to this
If I read this right a person under the age of 17 can not have more than one other person in the car unless family members. I quess the school districts are now going to increase the number of parking spaces since students can not car pool and save gas. This in turn will increase school taxes and the amount of gas this states uses. Other than that the law makes sence expect for the restrictions on 18 year olds. Can vote fight for there country but not drive between 1 and 5 am.
By ric
April 3, 2007 10:47 AM | Link to this
does this mean that when prom comes up next month that any senior who has not turned 18 can not take his date to after prom since it usually occurs after 1 a.m. This is a school sponsored event but will that make the criteria for this law.
By JD
April 3, 2007 10:44 AM | Link to this
Unless you live in a cave, things ARE different from when we were young. I am glad there is something being done about highschool-age drivers driving carelessly to “impress” their peers. However, I agree that drivers age 18+ should be exempt from these laws since we have given them every other legal privilege — it only makes sense. Rather than “17 to 18,” it seems all these new regulations should be imputed specifically to “ALL drivers UNDER 18.” Keep it simple AND effective.
By MW
April 3, 2007 10:40 AM | Link to this
DK and Brian,
I think you are misreading what is being said… granted the text in the article is a little misleading. What it looks like to me is that if you are at least 17 years old, but not yet 18, then those restrictions hold true. It says “Drivers 17 to 18 years old are prohibited…” not drivers 17 AND 18 years old, or Drivers 17 thru 18 years old…
The way I read it, once you are 18, all restrictions are lifted. I don’t know why they didn’t just say “Drivers 17 years of age…”
By steelerhawk
April 3, 2007 10:39 AM | Link to this
It’s interesting how politicians always restrict those who cannot vote. I know that I would like to see restrictions on senior citizen drivers…however, politicians will never target that group…safety is not as important as votes!
By Cody
April 3, 2007 10:34 AM | Link to this
Why do these laws for driving always reflect on teens? Teens are not always the ones causing the crashes. There are some pretty stupid adults out there so why not have restrictions are them also. This is the most stupidest law ever in attempt for politicians to gain votes for future elections. You can only have one non family member with you in the car. What about nights like prom when we want to take our friends and dates. Are we supposed to have our parents in the car with us in the car?
By steelerhawk
April 3, 2007 10:33 AM | Link to this
I think we should just get rid of cars altogether. Think how many lives we would save! After all, any thing that saves lives is good right? We have to protect the children!
By momofteen
April 3, 2007 10:32 AM | Link to this
I think it is a great idea however, I do agree with some of you that once they turn 18 they should be “free” on the driving restrictions.
By N8sMom
April 3, 2007 10:30 AM | Link to this
I agree with most of this law, and see the reasoning behind most of it. However, I don’t agree with limiting the number of kids to 1 passenger (other than a family member). Maybe limiting to 2 or 3 at the most. I know many older teens who carpool to school, football games, and other after school functions without a parent. So how much sense is it to have twice as many inexperienced drivers on the road since they have to take multiple cars instead of one?
By ann
April 3, 2007 10:18 AM | Link to this
Are all of you parents forgetting when you were young? Things today are no different than they were when we were 17, the only difference is that we are now the parents. Teach your kids about safety and responsibility behind the wheel and set your own curfews and “rules for the road”.
By DK
April 3, 2007 10:16 AM | Link to this
HMMMM….Okay with most of the law, but let’s see here, an 18 yr old that has graduated, can smoke legally, give blood, get married, vote, live on their own, join the military, might work a second shift job and/or go to college; all in all they are considered adults(with the omission of drinking)and they are being told that they cannot drive from 1-5. Please let’s either treat them fully like adults or change ALL privledges to the age of 19. or better yet 21 to go with the legal age to drink!
By Rob
April 3, 2007 9:49 AM | Link to this
Most of these laws will have little impact once the driver is 17. OK, fine, I’m onboard. Personally, I sit on the new drivers in my family till they show me some maturity behind the wheel. BTW, I REALLY like law that requires a parent to accompany their little darlings down to traffic court for every ticket. That was a SUPER idea! I’ve been a guest at traffic court twice now(One Son, One Daughter)!!! My next mental breakdown starts in eight weeks as my third child should earn her temps.
By Missy
April 3, 2007 9:32 AM | Link to this
I think this is a good thing, kids now days really don’t understand what happens when they make a bad decision when driving. One of my sons friends has had his license for a while and I have seen him screeching his tires and then wonder why I won’t let my son ride in the car with him. I think they should be made to wait until they are 18 things are different today, from when I was 16.
By Brian
April 3, 2007 9:18 AM | Link to this
I agree with SOME of the provisions… But from what I’m reading here if you are even 18 you can’t drive after 1am. What happened to being 18 and independent, a legal adult? Make the 18yr olds responsible for themselves, after all they could go to jail even prison, because now they are 18. If I misread this article on that part well then the law is great!!! But we also need to take a look at people talking away on their cell phones while driving.
By Peal
April 3, 2007 9:03 AM | Link to this
Yes, its a step in the right direction, but they need to add a cell phone law. Maybe even a provision that prohibits use of the radio (at least at high volumes). Kids are distracted way too easily these days - I’m sure you all have experienced it at one time or another. Everything from kids having an arguement on a cell phone and not paying attention to their driving… to kids with stereos so loud they don’t hear the ambulance behind them trying to pass them…
By 4winston7
April 3, 2007 8:46 AM | Link to this
It’s not a “cure all,” but a definite step in the right direction. Hopefully, the parent/guardian riding w/them will also “encourage” them to stay off their cell phones, too.