IIHS Wants to Raise Driving Age

Getting a driver’s license is one of those all-American rites of passage that most teenagers cherish. As of now, 49 states allow teens at least a restricted license — usually with restrictions on the hours of the day during which they can drive and the number of passengers they can carry — under the age of 17. However, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety would like all states to raise the minimum age to 17 or older, with or without restrictions.

IIHS says drivers between the ages of 16 and 19 crash at a substantially higher rate than older groups and that, within that group, 16-year-olds have the highest crash rate of any age category. According to IIHS, places with higher minimum driving ages — like New Jersey, Great Britain, Australia and European Union states — have lower vehicular crash rates than places with lower driving ages.

One argument IIHS has tried to sort out is the association between young drivers’ crash rates, their experience and their maturity. After all, if it’s a driver’s rookie habits that are to blame for accidents, then delaying licensing will merely postpone the problem. IIHS says its research proves that 16-year-olds, especially girls at that age, have a higher rate of injury in crashes than older teenagers who have the same amount of driving experience.

IIHS says that raising the age for licensing, combined with a graduated licensing program (including learners’ permits, which many states require), will significantly reduce vehicular crashes/fatalities for an age group that disproportionately contributes to the problem.

One potential con to this initiative is the burden it places on the parents of teens. For many parents, a child getting his or her license is helpful in a country that’s overly reliant on private automobiles, and where teens typically keep busy schedules. Teens might not be able to find a job as easily or take part in other activities without independently driving themselves around.

A 2004 USA/CNN/Gallup poll found that 37% of parents endorsed a driving age of 16 or older, while 61% wanted it at 17 or older. Add your voice to the issue. What do you think about rising the driving age? 

Comments

[Capeplates]

Doesn't make any difference in the UK - Most of the problems caused by young drivers are those without a licence and under age, often as not in stolen cars. Changingthe age limit here would have no effect

[J]

So, if one particular group of people tend to crash more, their rights are forfeited?
Welcome to the land of the "free".

[Allen]

I have to weigh in on this, raising the driving age will do nothing.

You can make statistics show ANYTHING, even the same statistic. As a spoof project during my masters in accounting, I created numbers showing how higher rates of cat ownership increased alcoholism and how to properly account for and insure against liabilities created by such people. The funniest part was it actually wasn't just out of the air: I found a proper sample base that assured the results. You can do this for any statistic you want to create, sure you have to use some controls but they are easily overridden with proper method.

There are countries with the SAME driving age as the US and they have lower crash rates. Huh. Assuming (probably with error) that those statistics were all compiled in the same way, what could lead to lower rates of accidents? To this I say: TRAINING. And good training, not just the BS currently in drivers manuals in America.

Germany does have a higher driving age, but they also give better driving advice. One thing I would like to see implemented in America is "drive right," a German policy for highway travel about keeping the left lane open. German drivers are instructed to drive in the right lane of traffic except when passing, and when done passing, they move right back into the right lane, allowing the left lane to be open.

Of the few accidents I've witnessed or seen on TV, I can't tell you how many of them occurred when someone was "passing" and/or changing lanes. The unsung factor in many highway crashes is that person who does lower than the speed limit in the left lane: it causes people to back up behind that car, and then when they finally get a chance to pass they are usually so angry at being backed up behind a slow-poke that they lose their sense of focus. Perfect conditions for a crash.

And its also the experience factor: the IIHS has found a statistic to say that drivers who are older and who have low levels of experience do not crash as much as 16 year old drivers with the same level of experience. In a nation where the vast majority of first time drivers are 16, we are talking different sample sizes, and I'd like to see how the IIHS corrects for that. Also, we are leaving out important variables in that statistic, such as time and place these accidents occur. States with higher first time driving ages do have variations in their driving rules from states with lower ages, hell, the rules are different between states regardless of the age. Also, we can be talking about cultural differences: many midwest states have 16 year old ages, compared to eastern states with 18 year old ages. There is a culture difference between the two, and such a thing as the mindset of the driver can and does make a difference.

The only way to be relevant in an analysis without having a large factor for error is to survey states with many equivalencies. Culture, first time age, and amounts and quality of training provided prior to licensing must all be held equal. I'm certain we'd still find relevant variances even after that between different geographies.

The point: experience and proper training make the driver, not age. You do not get to be wise by age, you get to be wise by experience. You do not become C++ certified by continuously hammering away at it, you have to be properly educated.

The same goes to driving. Driving is a skill, and as such it has to be honed. Postponing the introduction and instruction in driving will merely move drivers outside of the age by when they are still learning at their prime rates. Studies not based on statistics but on cold hard science have found that the human brain is setup as such that a person learns best before the age of 18 (roughly, some people's brains mature earlier, others a little later). Moving people outside that time period to learn how to drive will just be to their detriment.

What really needs to happen is that young drivers need to receive proper instruction in driving. As it is today, most young drivers are given a book by the state they live in, told to read it, and then asked to pass a test on it. Out of that, someone seems to have the idea that young people will learn how to handle hydroplaning, how to not overcorrect, and how to properly change lanes and use the lanes provided. You can talk about it all you want in a book but until it actually happens most young people will not know what to do.

Want lower rates of teen accidents? Train them better. They shouldn't get just a book, they should get hands on time on a course and parents need to do more with their kids when they drive than just say "turn here" and "do this." They need to be showing them the results of an action in a car. A good example: a teen driver is driving with her mom in the passenger seat. When changing lanes, the mom says "notice how the car lists a bit. This is called body roll, and too hard of turn can induce too much of it. With the weight of the car off balance, you can lose control of the car and end up in the divider or rolled over."

However, something in me says that parents today aren't good enough drivers to even do that. Seriously, most parents I know approach their kids getting a license with nothing but relief and think nothing of actually training them to drive. And of course they get mad when their kids fail their first test. Hence, its probably best we require current drivers to take road course instruction before ever setting off on real roads. Eventually as Americans become more skilled in driving, we can go back to parents training their kids.

I agree with you Allen. They should receive more training. Raising the driving age will not do anything.

[Bloke]

Honestly, I don't buy much of the argument made above. I think the only thing that helps a teen improve their driving is experience. And I don't believe most of the accidents happen as someone is changing lanes on the highway. As I was told in my driver's ed course and I've heard it cited many times, most accidents happen five minutes from home. You can say that parents have to take their kids out and train them and whatnot but there is never enough time for that. Really if the kid is hydroplaning whether the parent is there or not do you think it will help the kid? The parent can tell the kid slow down because taking a turn fast will cause the car to tip, but as soon as the parent is out of the car do you think the kid follows what the parent said? It all depends on the kid. You can say all you want about statistics, but I doubt if the IIHS has it out for teens. I think there is something to the fundamental scheme of science that you can test a hypothesis and then analyze the results.

Allen, I don't know what parents you know, but all the ones I have ever spoken with are very nervous about the day their child first gets their license. They don't want to see their child get hurt and that is their primary concern.

J, there is no right to drive. A even if someone who is sixteen tried to argue constitutionally that there is such a right, I doubt they would get that far because the group of sixteen year olds in this country is not a special class. It is very typical that laws are made that are seen as discriminatory against specific groups but yet not held to be discriminatory by the courts.

I wouldn't be against seeing the driving age raised as an experiment, but I do believe the results would vary by state. But after five or ten years I would like the results to be looked over and if it doesn't work then go back. Training is a joke unless the kid is mature enough to realize the consequences of his/her actions. That is one of the biggest reasons I can see for raising the age.

[hope]

I agree with Alan--kids need experience, practice makes perfect. To take the IIHS' argument to an absurd level, would making the driving age 35 decrease the accidents even more? no, you'd just have a bunch of inexperienced 35 year olds driving, and crashing, around.

Bloke, I'm not sure the IIHS is out to get teens, but remember that they are funded by insurance companies, and insuring teens can't be very expensive. Just a thought.

[Bloke]

Hope, so take your argument the other way, do you want a 12 year old out on the road? Probably not. But when you look at extremes, that is all you get. I don't think a 35 year old will be in as much of a rush to get to the Mall or text their friends while driving - Yes there are exceptions, I understand that.

I also don't get the comment "insuring teens can't be very expensive." If any teen tries to get there own insurance it will be higher than any other age group. Teens cost the most to insure, when is the last time you were quoted insurance?

I am pretty sure it costs more to insure teens... so if the insurance companies want to insure less teens by raising the driving age, then wouldn't they be hurting themselves? When it comes to driving, insurance companies will make out in the end, accidents or not.

And I though Allen said training needs to be better, and experience follows from that. Maybe I am wrong, I couldn't get through the 10th paragraph of redundant statements.

[hope]

Sorry, the "can't" was a typo. I meant they “can” be very expensive to insure.

So if we up the age to license people to 17 or 18, and therefore decrease the years of experience, will that mean car insurance rates won’t drop until we are 26 or 27 instead of 25 as it is now?

As for my argument, which I said was absurd, it was to prove a point-- that no matter what age you get your license it takes proper training and experience to make a good, safe driver. As Alan said, for those of us who read his informative, well thought out post, perhaps we should do a better job of training teens instead of expecting them to be perfect drivers as they drive away to college at 18?

[Bloke]

Okay I read the whole thing, and yes it is redundant and no it is not informative. I think just because someone can write 3 pages on something and they have a masters does not mean they are "informed". Why does it matter when the insurance rates drop? The idea is to have safer drivers right? And I understand your argument and I think it leaves out a vital component, the mindset of the driver. Why do you think teens cost more to insure, and why do you think teens get into accidents only because they don't know how to drive? There are plenty of times where maturity is the dominant factor.

[Gerry]

The IIHS is correct in their research and to discount it is to try to avoid reality.

In any activity there is a risk and a benefit. Those need to be evaluated. Basically, are we willing to have 1000 teenagers killed in exchange for the convenience and status of having the rest of them drive. The answer has been yes for the past 80 years.

Perhaps the better thing is to try and decrease the risk by better training and better parenting. My pet peeve are parents that buy their 16 yo son a Mustang or Corvette and are thus encouraging a racing attitude. Parents should also be demanding seat belt use. (As a paramedic, I can assure you seat belts make a dramatic difference in injury levels.)

The IIHS represents insurance companies. They could put their money where their mouth is by encouraging member companies to only insure young drivers who have had formal driver training and who drive modest performance cars with good crash ratings. But then they would give up the high premiums they get for performance cars driven by untrained 16 yo's.

[Cliff W West]

For the sake of safety the driving age should be raised to eighteen. Most sisteen year old kids are not mature or responsible enough to drive.
The leading cause of teen deaths is car wrecks caused by inexperience or poor judgement.

[Car Insurance Guy]

I'm not sure the IIHS is out to get teens, but remember that they are funded by insurance companies, and insuring teens is very expensive without a doubt. I'm heavily into the insurance side of things and teen insurance rates can be a real killer.

[Bloke]

So what are you saying Car Insurance Guy? It was already stated that the IIHS is funded by insurance companies, if that is so then why wouldn't insurance companies want more teens to be insured? Wouldn't it increase their profits?

i do think that the driving age should get raised. One reason is because I myself have been waiting for two years now to get my permit and if I have to wait another two years, it would just be unfair. I realize and understand that teenagers in the past have messed it up for the future teenagers, but I dont believe or think that the state should raise the driving age.

I just wanted to add a thought here: people used to make similar back-and-forth arguments like this about seat belts. Now that there's a "click it or ticket" program instated in several states, this problem has been rectified. Wouldn't a similar solution be suitable here?

[ashlee]

I think the driving age should be raised because there have been more car accidents at the age of 16 than 18. I think safety is first than just wanting to drive, yes 18 year olds can do the same thing but they r adults now and know what they are doing than 16 year olds. In UK it is raised to 18 will US raise?

[Ben]

I agree with Allen. You can call his statements redundant but they make a point. Training does need to be upgraded and that is one of the best ways to reduce accidents. I also agree with his statement that experience makes a good driver. And above all, parents do need to step up and help their kids become better drivers.

[Ben]

I also think that Ashlee is full of beans when she says that her reasoning for raising the driving age is because there are more accidents at 16 than at 18. If the driving age was raised to 18 then that just means there would be more acidents at 18 than at 20 and so on and so forth however high the driving age was raised.

[Mariam]

hi, um, im doing a debate project in english and im only 13. yes i believe that the driving ag should stay at 16 butat the same time, i frimly believe that it should be raised for the sake of your safety and of the people on the road. im a kid and quite honestly we are much mroe reckless people than adults, and besides, we receive the right the vote at the age of 18, and also at that age we are stated as an "adut" so if we are adults THEN, how come we dont let them drive at that age?? it really makes more sense. . .