As with gun control, Australia is there already: see one states rules: http://mylicence.sa.gov.au/gls/the_new_rules#no-driving-between-midnight...
You want to reduce deaths from car accidents, improve (or create) public transportation system. Most of the teen deaths occur in locations where there is very little reliable public transportation. These poor suckers are holed up in some boonies with no cultural, or intellectual outlets, with the choice of kicking ball and/or guzzling beer. What kind of a life is that? If you ask any teenager in New York City if they want to drive, they will look at you like you're crazy. They can Uber or take subway anywhere at any time and it is a lot cheaper.
5
In Australia every new driver (and many adult drivers who have committed a driving offence of certain kind) is on P (Probationary) plates and cannot drive between midnight and 5 am, cannot carry more than one other 16-20 year old, etc etc. and fines for non compliance are huge. See just one website with more detail at http://mylicence.sa.gov.au/gls/the_new_rules#no-driving-between-midnight...
Italy has a similar tiered license system that seems to work well. The 'entry' level restricts highway speed as well, which can be problematic, but overall works well.
The article avoids three pertinent facts: 1. The Obama admins. push to reduce police reports of high school violence was warmly embraced by Broward county and allowed the killer to avoid the database that would have prevented him from buying a gun -- apart from the other police incompetence and 2. the overwhelming portion of gun deaths in this agre group results from violence in black communiities, where the pathologies are highly complex and largely evadse gun control proposals andn 3. with 300,000,000 guns in the US, no gun control can avoid these tragedies. It's just too late. That is a fact of life.
1
I note a common theme here, a claim that when people (young or old) shoot other people the intent is to kill. No. That's why our legal system distinguishes so many different kinds of homicide. The intent of young people is more likely to be to show how they feel: afraid, angry, confused, disrespected, annoyed, lost. I taught philosophy to young people for fifty years with happy results, because philosophy is the effort to "know thyself," to master your feelings rather than simply to display them.
1
You have somewhat described the Australian system which has 3 steps to full unrestricted driving privileges. I lived down under from 2011-2016 and became a much safer driver as a result, between speed cameras and red light cameras and really expensive tickets, try $300 and up, I just learned to follow the rules. I know I drive my fellow American drivers crazy now that I'm back because I actually drive at the speed limit. Hey maybe we could start by adopting their driving rules then their gun laws next!
2
Part of the problem is that the driver's ed program in most states in a joke. "An octagon shape is what type of sign, etc." There is a short (6 hour) driving instruction and a short written exam. Then, here you go, have your license and good luck.
I send my kids through that program, but also one additional accident avoidance workshop and a separate attentive driving seminar. In both extra formats, the teens are exposed to high stress environments in a controlled situation and get to repeat over and over until they perform well. It costs a bit, which is a problem as it should be free for all.
Check out:
Accidentavoidanceworkshops.org
Teensmartdriving.com
1
The universe is not a safe place. Nor should it be. Ever heard of natural selection?
1
...very well, but if it were your child who did not survive in a car crash, then would you be so flip?
1
The US no longer does policy based on evidence, rigorous testing, data analysis, etc. Nope. We make our decisions based on greed; "FREEDOM" for the individual with the biggest voice and the most cash; bigotry and bias. Dead kids are other people's dead kids ... until they aren't.
2
By the headline, I thought I was opening an article about letting teens be their sassy, self-discovering selves. Leonhardt convincingly presents a case that in order for kids to do the let-loosing and enjoying they should be embracing in their youth, we need to reign in the elevated stats of useless losses by traffic and shooting deaths.
1
Stop the over-medication of our children Before they reach adolescence and do not prescribe catatonic-inducing Anti-depressant and Anti-anxiety meds, which turn them into monsters. It's not the cars or guns alone that kill people... kids on drugs do!
Can we do this with MetroCards too? Drunk teenagers on weekends are irritating.
Teenagers have the right to go places like everyone else, some of them have kids, or are taking care of sick relatives and some of them are not joyriding but actually have good reasons to need to drive at night. If distraction is the biggest problem, how about not letting teenagers have phones until they're 18?
2
We tie ourselves into knots about so many issues because we insist that kids—yes, kids—are adults. But they’re still juveniles in many ways. The supervision and protection they would’ve been afforded a year or two before—as well as the same forbearance—do not suddenly become unnecessary. They become “gradually” unnecessary.
The difference between driving deaths and gun deaths is that people can choose to drive; however with gun deaths, the students are mandated by law to be sitting ducks while attending school, (unless they home school.)
It's true that teenage driving deaths are very tragic, but parents, teachers and mentors have to come into play somewhere. We can't legislate good parenting practices that include supervision and training, parental boundaries and limits with regards to safe driving. Too many laws eventually makes everyone a criminal.
I think this article is working too hard to compare apples and oranges. Mass shootings and driving accidents have very little in common.
1
Everywhere I go I see drivers with one hand on the wheel and the other holding a cell phone to their ear, and some of them look like adults in their 40s or so.
A few years ago my wife and I were walking across the street when we were hit by a woman in her early 20s who was texting while driving. We had the light but she just zooped around the corner, not even looking to see that we were in the crosswalk. We were very, very lucky--broken arms but no head injuries, spinal cord injuries, etc.
Teenage drivers are certainly more dangerous than older ones. However we still must find a way to stop people from using their cell phones while driving.
4
1034 was the number I remember growing up in Melbourne Victoria. It was the road toll for 1969 and the cry for enough was enough. Since then aggressive campaigns and laws from drink driving (if you drink and drive your a bloody idiot), teenage driving(p plates restrictions ),speed restrictions and others have brought this toll down under 300 and this is still considered not acceptable.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theage.com.au/national/victoria/the-lon...
The measures mentioned in this article have pretty much been applied in Victoria and could make a good comparison on the effectiveness in reducing the road toll here
2
Simon I spent 2011-2016 in Sydney I had not had a ticket in the states for a couple of decades in the first two years I had 3 down under. I decided it was to expensive to drive like an American and began never speeding stoping on yellow lights and religiously following the hands free phone rules and never consume as much as a single beer and drive. Now that I'm back in the states I continue to drive like an Aussie and drive my fellow Americans crazy because I actually observe the speed limit.
It is simple physics speed kills and combine that with distraction and you get the US deaths. The other really positive thing about what Australia has done is now create a whole generation that has grown up with the new rules and for them it is just normal. Same as with the gun laws most young Aussies I met could not understand why anyone would need let alone want to own a gun.
Gun accidents kill at least 1 kid every other day
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/10/14/ap-usa-today-gun-accident...
1
Let's just lock them in a huge, safe, plastic bubble.........would that be acceptable to the writer?
1
Congratulations! You win the stupid ad absurdum post of the day.
1
Another excellent piece from Mr. Leonhardt.
School districts no longer offer driver's education in schools.
Why do these liberal gun control activists insist on claiming the USA has the worst gun murder rate in the world. It's not true. It is such an obvious and easily confirmed fact that those who continue perpetrate such misinformation are meeting every definition of being liars.
The USA has the 31st worst gun murder rate in the world. Oh! You mean among developed countries. What's a developed country? America, the most powerful country in the world has the most expensive medical system, and worst performing, in the 'developed' world. Medical error is the third leading cause of death in the nation. Our infant mortality rates are worse than Cuba.
1
One would think today's helicopter parenting would extend to where it really counts: motor vehicles and firearms. Indications in my little Bible Belt town is that parents of teenagers are far more concerned about on-line eroticism or as they call it "pornography."
1
It is worth recalling that this country assassinated its youth who were exercising their right to protest the war some forty years ago at Kent State University.
1
Good article, thank you. And it's not just teenagers who have poor driving habits, I see adults Every Day crossing the center line, failing to use turn signals, speeding, etc. We have a more than one a month average pedestrian death here in Nashville ~ many roads have no shoulder, very few bike lanes, and public transportation is abysmal.
Also just ban assault weapons outright (we're not allowed to drive tanks), and do background checks for all gun purchases, drop the drive for state reciprocity on concealed carry, etc. Hunt all you want, protect yourself and your home, but let's be realistic: gun sales are just about making money and the rest is gun-crazy weirdness. NRA? Good organization turned cult. I plan on shopping at Dick's Sporting Goods this week in support of their stand.
4
Forget teens, my neighbors in their 40s and 50s routinely barely avoid running over me and my dog, just because they are texting or watching something on their smart phones while turning into our street. I am lucky to be alive...I daily cross the street with my dog at a school crossing, and have observed people’s noses deep into their phones, paying scat attention to the street. This is an epidemic.
4
I understand that many teenagers (and their parents) are unwilling to go through the increasing rigamarole and red tape of the "graduated license" procedures. They are simply waiting a few more years to seek a license, and their greater maturity at that point may be largely responsible for the reduced accident rate. But there may be fewer teen driving deaths simply because there are fewer teens driving. The graduated licenses may have little to do with it other than dissuading young people from driving.
And course their parents get to act as a chauffeur for a few extra years.
1
For once, I find myself in at least some agreement with Mr. Leonhardt. We do need better rules to protect teen drivers (and the rest of us too). But the problem isn’t just lack of experience, it’s primarily lack of skill combined with underdeveloped judgment. None of the proposed solutions address the lack of skill.
No state currently requires meaningful skills training and the license exams barely test for skills competence. None require demonstration of loss of control avoidance and recovery, which is one of the leading causes of accidents. Properly and safely operating a motor vehicle requires skills training and practice under controlled conditions. Emergency braking, rapid steering changes, and skid control are necessary skills as most drivers will encounter situations requiring at least a couple of those maneuvers multiple times each year.
When conducted by professionals, skills training also helps to develop better judgment. Yes, there is added expense (and time) associated with skills training but it will make a far greater difference in lives saved than just tougher traffic laws and require less, rather than more, police enforcement to get those results.
Here is a story about me. (I am now 50--mother of two teenagers.)
When I was a teenager, I lost countless friends to early death. Here is the grim tally:
- When I was 14, a classmate was shot at the mall by an assailant. (never apprehended)
- Shortly around then, another classmate was raped and murdered-assailant caught
- When I was 15, two classmates (new school) crashed and died following a mo-ped accident
- When I was 16, the first car accident claimed a girl I knew.
- When I was 17, the second friend died from car crash.
- When I was 18, I lost a friend to suicide.
- When I was 20, the third car crash fatality.
....and in between all that, I lost one friend to lupus and one friend to diabetes.
By the time I was 20, I had lost TEN FRIENDS.
Ten.
......and in the ensuing thirty five years, I have not lost a friend since.
I don't know if my story is common, but I do know as a result I look at the teen years the same way the Victorians looked at early childhood: a dangerous, dangerous time.
With my kids, I am paranoid. Add gun violence, the Internet, drugs, vaping, opiods, undeveloped frontal lobes and bogeymen I don't know even exist, well, it's a scary damn time.
I have no other comment other than to register my abject horror and my deep felt prayer that the next few years pass REALLY QUICKLY so that I can feel the way one feels after crossing a graveyard at night.
Saved.
18
When I was a teenager in high school we lost one classmate who rode a motorcycle to school. He died in a traffic accident. No alcohol was involved. No other deaths, until a few years after we all graduated, several classmates, then adults, died of AIDS. The high school I attended in New Orleans was said to be the most violent in the city. Every week the police were called in. But we got a good principal with a PhD and by the time we graduated the school was safe.
Even the violent riffraff who enjoyed fighting had no desire to kill. I don't think anyone even used a knife in all of the fighting that occurred.
That just shows that malls and driving are not good for teens. Sorry for your losses.
Who can argue against reducing teen deaths from car accidents? Certainly not I. I fear that raising this issue now, though, might dilute the recent upsurge in advocacy for stricter gun laws. This moment is far from the first time the majority of US citizens have demanded greater responsibility for gun sellers and owners. But the NRA and all the politicians it funds have consistently pushed back against even the mildest restrictions, like back-ground checks. While cars obviously kill multitudes, at least there are constant, concerted efforts to monitor and improve car safety. No defective air bag goes unpunished (nor should it). For now, let us keep our eyes on gun legislation. The time is overdue.
2
I was fortunately never in an accident as a teenager (or since), but with thirty years of retrospect I can say with certainty that it was a bad idea for me to get my license at the age of 16: too many close calls, too much needlessly risky behavior. 18 or 20 is more like it.
1
With all we know about teenage brains (and that they are not fully developed until the early 20s) they should neither drive nor have access to weapons. In an urban area like Milwaukee, the bus should be the primary mode of transport for youth. The buses are safe and prompt, but people seem afraid/hesitant and instead let their kids drive cars without enough practice.
2
Absurd comparison. It's fine to discuss how to avoid deaths related to auto accidents, but it's wrong to do so in the context of guns. The purpose of a car is transportation from point A to point B. The purpose of a gun is to kill.
This surly wasn't Leonhardt's intention, but by linking the deaths of Stoneman Douglas students in a tragic 2009 accident to the more recent deaths in a tragic shooting only serves to diminish the unique horror that took place last month and provides some form of cover for the NRA. The shooting wasn't an accident. The gun did exactly what it was designed to do.
1
Note that Mr. Leonardt has only used the term car "crash" as opposed to car "accident". These are two different things. Crash is the neutral term experts use because if a driver is reckless or careless the result cannot necessarily be concluded as accidental. Correct language is essential to useful discussion.
The overall elimination of societal restraints has led to aberrant behavior of all types, from bad driving to drug abuse and on to mass homicide. None of these problems will be solved unless society as a whole promotes and enforces appropriate standards of conduct.
Besides being a conspicuous and inexcusable omission from the lives of better than half the population of eligible American citizens, registered or not, voting in any and all elections is the simplest and most profound statement of not just individual patriotism but also our very grasp of community.
Make no mistake, legally here or not since we are all immigrants, the fact, being both a right and privilege, that we can respectfully and pointedly comment here and not feel the slightest trace of paranoia or doubt is under attack from the GOP and right wing at all levels of government and society, and from POTUS.
THIS is all the reason anyone needs to be at a polling station whenever the call arises.
6
"Reduce deaths by following the evidence"! What a concept!
Surely, this would be the sensible thing to do. It should not shock, it should enlighten.
I wish I lived in a country where following the evidence was the rule rather than the exception.
Instead, following blamecasters and liars seems to be taking us all down the path to extinction.
Get your climate catastrophe here, going cheap, it's easy if you know how.
3
In Matthew Walker's groundbreaking study of sleep, "Why We Sleep" he mentions a school district in the Midwest which DELAYED THE START OF CLASSES BY 45 MINUTES AND SAW AN 80% DROP IN TEEN MORTALITY FROM AUTO ACCIDENTS. Teens die in automobiles for a host of poor decisions on the road, but the BACKSTORY IS: THEY'RE SLEEP DEPRIVED. ABS brakes on cars, introduced in the '80's, reduced national vehicular homicide rates by 25%. When teens in this school district had 45 min. more of sleep per nite, death rates plummeted. Like most of the populations of the developed world, teens are sleep deprived. Grades drop, drug use climbs, auto accidents proliferate.
When I was a kid, if you got a car, it was dad's old station wagon or a used VW bug. Nowadays, cars are more powerful, faster, smoother and the manufacturers make them very easy to buy.
Also, when I was a kid, Driver Training was mandatory in ninth or tenth grade (I forget) and it was a real course, with equipment to demonstrate the distance traveled between seeing a reason to stop and coming to a stop, or the many tricks your eyes can play on you. Driver Training is pretty much gone these days. We make them learn academic things that are useful, but we don't teach them the one thing that could save their lives.
3
Drivers in their 30s are after than drivers in their teens because of the end experiemce thst they gained as teenagers. Therefore, delaying the age at which people start driving could make older drivers less experienced and less safe. There really should be now lower age limit for supervised driving so long and the teenager in question can pass a meaningful driving exam.
Use of phones should be prohibited in cars. And use of keyboards should automatically be blocked in moving cars. And there should be a national standard requiring that controls in cars should be identifiable by touch so that drivers don't have to look at screens in order to work them.
2
O', puleeze, Mr. Leonhard. Have mercy. Don't give ideas to Trump and the gun lobby that is already working overtime to find distractions to the gun problem in the country.
Everything has its time and place. Now is not the time for dragging car crashes into violence by lethal weapons. No one plans car crashes; those are accidents that just happen without any pre-planning. Shooting and killing using guns are almost always pre-planned and pre-meditated. Apples and oranges both are fruits, but they are not one and the same thing.
Back Off, please............ .
2
Emotional appeals containing blatant factual errors are unlikely to convince those who recognize the errors. Cars have not weighed 2,000 lbs. since well back in the last century. The typical car driven by a teenager, or anyone else, who does not drive a Porsche 911 or Boxster, or a Mazda Miata, weighs in excess of 4,000 lb.
1
I am concerned about my teenage grandchildren. I am driving a fairly new (3 years) and well-maintained car. They are driving 20-year-old cars, and much faster. I think tie rods and the like. (From listening to the Car Guys)
My last car was traded in when my mechanic noted a seriously rusted drive train and a seriously rusted front stabilizer. The latter is no longer available new. I opted for a new Kia Soul, with stick shift, which I recommend. Can't be stolen!
I completely agree with the thesis of this column and applaud Mr. Leonhardt for writing this. However, the link in paragraph five shows that suicide is the second leading cause of death in teens and homicides are the third leading cause. The misunderstanding arises because suicides are broken into three types: firearm (2,461) and suffocation (2,119) and poisoning (409). Homicides are broken into two categories: firearm (4,140) and knives (312). Also the suicide rates in teens are rising while the homicide rates are declining.
But a death is death and any death (vehicle, suicide or homicide) is a tragedy. Thank you for writing this column, Mr. Leonhardt.
Physical harm and death due to illnesses caused by smoking and overeating are horrific. Aside from instant death, the process involves disintegration and progressive loss of bodily functions, accompanied by great pain, over months. These will take the lives of more people, prematurely, than any other causes. Addressing them should be our highest priority.
The physical harm and death from traffic collisions and accidents are horrific, too. A lot more of them could be prevented amongst teenagers because it's most often due to ignorance and poor judgment which can be addressed.
The physical harm from firearms could be reduced by removing them from the possession of people known to be more likely to use them to harm themselves and others, and from those who use them recklessly. But the number of lives saved by any means of controlling who has these weapons, is not as great as the lives that could be saved with better teenaged drivers, nor from the elimination of smoking and overeating would have. The fear of guns is emotionally greater than the fear of illnesses from smoking. It reveals how popular attitudes are sometimes unrelated to the significance of problems society should address.
That sounds like a toxic school to me. Teens have the ability to prevent deaths. Apparently the students of that school are not very successful in establishing a record for doing that. Maybe the adults are failing to impart a regard for the value of human life. One of the first questions I asked after hearing of the shooting was Nikolas Cruz targeted by the military for recruiting, did the school allow recruiters on campus? Yes to both questions. He wanted to be in the army, he had talked to an Army recruiter at school just weeks ago, he was in the JROTC, a military recruiting program run and staffed by the military. He was staying in a home whose head was a retired military man who had served in combat. In 2002 all high schools are required to submit personal information on all of their students to the military for recruiting purposes.
Someone should ask the military how many school shooters were targeted by recruiters. Do you think they would answer that question truthfully?
Cruz, like Adam Lanza, and other school shooters played combat themed video games obsessively, 12-15 hours a day. The military uses games like these to condition new recruits, to kill. One person who played these games with Cruz said it was hours and hours of killing.
Why is America's mass media ignoring these rather glaring similarities? Have they been instructed by the Pentagon to shut up?
What is missing in this article and from most of the comments is that wearing of seatbelts has dropped significantly in the past decade or so. over & over again I've noticed that in puzzling fatal accidents, accidents in which there shouldn't have been fatalities, those that died weren't wearing seatbelts. Anecdotal comments have been made that warring a seatbelt by teens & young adults is to mark one as far too cautious. Over & over again reports of fatal teen accidents note that the lone survivor was the only one wearing a seatbelt. Today's vehicles are far safer than they were even a couple of decades ago because of advanced 'crushable' designs that encase the passengers in protective cages that absorb the forces gradually so the passenger compartment stays intact but such designs cannot protect passengers who don't wear seatbelts. Note how many passengers are thrown through windows on impact, dying quickly, even painfully, yet photos of the vehicle afterwards show the passenger compartment intact. So before we spend a lot of political energy & time trying to change the licensing laws State by State & nationally we can save a whole lot of teen & young adults lives by getting them to wear seatbelts. Wearing one should be a no brainier but I'm dismayed how many drivers & passengers don't. After all, the only survivor in the single car crash in which Princess Diana was killed, was the one occupant wearing a seatbelt, and that happened to be the front seat passenger.
16
The reason the media and our political class don't shout outrage and propose reasonable regulations, to reduce the toll of many thousands killed in vehicles, that would force reckless drivers to obey traffic laws and stop using cell phones and texting is that the automobile, petroleum and IT devices industries have trillions to pay off our media and political leaders with advertising $$ and campaign contributions. So our fake "free press" never mentions the common sense of mandating cell phone blockers in vehicles, or phones that would not work if moving more than a few miles per hour that would save more than 4,000 live per year, or advocates for systematic campaign of encouraging citizens to photograph/video and report to police reckless drivers in the act of breaking all manner of traffic laws and using cell phones while driving. While the small arms industry with comparably tiny profits to buy off our virtue signaling (don't really give a damn about the common people) elites make a convenient scape goat to blame all our societies problems on. While, by the way, most of the problems that lead to the use of guns in violence are caused by our greedy elites shipping most manufacturing jobs to China, flooding our nation with 10's of millions of desperate immigrants to kill wages for the few jobs that are left and telling an ever increasing number of elite manufactured identity groups that they're 'special' and don't have to obey America's laws.
Why leave out the additional 1070 teens that used firearms to kill themselves?
2
"For NRA supporters, it's a a way to save lives that avoids the Second Amendment."
Why not both? These are not mutually exclusive choices. Let's get kids through high school - or first grade for that matter - without being executed, AND let's teach them to drive safely.
3
Everyone is careless: from the group of darkly-clad pedestrians crossing the road against the signal before the sun had risen to the texting driver of a GMC SUV who nearly rear ended me, this morning, like every other, I narrowly avoided calamity.
I’d favor much stronger enforcement of existing traffic laws— ticket people who fail to use their turn signals, who stay in the left lane, who use cell phones (even hands free!), who jaywalk, who roll through stop signs, who fail to observe rules while bicycling, and yes, who speed (I realize that this last one means my commute will be longer but safer). Making the roads safer for everyone will make them safer for teens, who are not, by a long shot, the worst drivers I see. Teens are dying in car crashes because US roads are dangerous, not because they’re bad drivers.
4
I ride a bicycle, on the roads, a lot, so I always try to make sure that motorists and I are on the same page. I appreciate turn signals from behind so I know where to go.
I have the same outlook in a car: I am not in a hurry and would like to know another driver's intentions. I can wait a few seconds!
I'm rather dismayed at this emphasis only on rules and restrictions, with no concern for the real problem, which is mobility. Teenagers trapped in the abyss of American suburbia wait so patiently for their 16th birthdays so that they can finally be able to travel without being chauffeured by their parents to see their friends, run their errands or go to their jobs, also freeing their parents from the tyranny of the soccer mom shuffle. The real solution is better public transportation, more sidewalks and biking facilities so that teens don't need to drive. We need neighborhoods that are built around the needs of teenagers, not just Wall Street executives. And until we get there, it's unfair to penalize teenagers for the egregious planning decisions of their ancestors.
9
It's not a party you have to defeat, it's a culture you have to destroy. My fear is that way too many are completely willing to do so.
1
Great insight ...We need to focus on these two issues and make changes...Now!
3
We could use NRA logic and say the more teens that drive the safer they will be.
1
Distraction is a killer, but self control is the answer along with an app that stops texts while moving like the iPhones.
When I was young a friend rear ended a parked car adjusting his am radio.
1
Let's make a deal with the extreme among gun owners. You can keep your guns, but we take away your cars and trucks.
2
The number one cause of teen deaths is motor vehicle accidents. Number two is gang and other criminal violence. Both kill thousands per year. Over the last 10 years mass shootings have killed 112. But mass shootings get the most publicity by far. That is a decision of the media. I have my own ideas why the emphasis is so counterintuitive. You may have yours. Regardless, this is clearly an instance where the media tells us what is most important, contrary to all common sense.
2
What about public transit? Why is this never mentioned in this argument. Teens living in urban areas a far less likely to die in automobile accidents because they have the option to use public transit. The idea that you can raise the age for a driver's license and that will keep teens locked up at home is not realistic - teens want to go out and do things and they have a right to do so. Public transit is a safer option.
2
Such a policy has to apply to all new drivers, not just teenagers. New drivers in general are more likely to be in car accidents; why should we single out teenagers? Simply because they cannot vote?
2
I dispute Mr. Leonhardt's contention that the conversation has changed regarding gun control...It hasn't.
It is following the predictable, and well traveled, path of intensity followed by reflection, followed b ymisguided attempts to pass legislation that has a realistic no chance of helping, and finishing with the diminution of interest to the background levels of pre-shooting studied disregard.
I hope for the lives of those who were slaughtered and the lives of our children and their children, and their children's children that something meaningful can come out of this episode, but I have little confidence that it will.
As for teens and motor vehicles, that certainly is a problem of a far broader reach than an assault rifle in the hands of a fool shooting up a school. And it is an issue that has plagued our young drivers since cars became ubiquitous.
Tough laws aren't necessarily the answer, although the tough laws WILL force on the young driver to become both educated and experienced.
Perhaps what we are looking at on the gun issue is not to take them out of the schools, but bring them in and give our young an education in and experience with firearms and safety.
I urge those with the quick response decrying the suggestion as nonsense to pause and think for a while....
Look what education has done with the scourge of smoking...and what MADD's efforts in the 80's to reduce drunk driving. And yes, look at what is happening with driver education.
This may just work.
2
The most effective way to reduce deaths due to driving is not better laws, but to reduce the amount of driving. Unfortunately, that requires reducing sprawl and more investment in public transportation, things that have worked wonders in more-civilized countries but which half of Americans seem to think are part of part of some commie plot to destroy freedom.
1
Agreed. My 16 year old niece is a lively, responsible young woman who is interested in many after school activities, singing, writing, etc. One of her parents must be available to drive her to some of these activities as there is no reliable public transportation in her Westchester town. I grew up in the city and was able to get myself anywhere (within reason and a token) that I wanted to, without my parent's assistance. Drivers' licenses are necessities, not luxuries. Both of her parents work (this is Westchester!) so there's always a chance no one can give her a ride to a great activity. But let's keep building houses in areas unserved by public transport.
When I went to high school in Upstate New York during the 1960's, we had a driver education class that prepared one for a "Learner's Permit". At 16 years old, you could drive (accompanied by an adult) during daylight only. Then came a "Junior License", I believe at 17 yeas and finally a regular driver's license at 18. What happened to this "graduating system"? Is it still used or had it been somehow discredited? Despite the use of this program, Hardly a year went by, especially around prom and graduation seasons, when someone was killed in a traffic accident...usually with alcohol involved. The legal drinking age was 18 and alcohol was very easy to get...once the drinking age was raised to 21, I think that the traffic fatalities declined, but I do not have the statistics. Also, at 14 years old, I had my own shotgun and a permit to hunt, allowed by taking and passing a NRA safety course. For what it's worth, I still remember the lessons taught in these driving classes and firearm safety class.
For those who feel that this saps the gun safety issue I have this thought. Just why, exactly, is it not possible to deal with both issues under the umbrella of teen safety?
Is there some reason that both cannot be addressed? We really can do more than one thing at a time. I understand that keeping the pressure on about guns is important yet that need not keep us from examining teen driving laws. My grand daughter has not been allowed to get her license yet. Her parents do not feel she is responsible enough yet and her decision making is not quite where it needs to be.
I spent 30 years with HS age teens. Slowing down the process certainly is not going to harm them. I've seen the tears and the black border in the year book and the memorials. Enough is enough.
Oh - and make the access to our schools at least as secure as any large business as well.
2
Because it's a fallacy to equate gun safety with the subset of teen death.
Gun death is an EVERYBODY issue!
I'm a senior; I don't go to school. But I've gone to an outdoor concert last year--58 deaths and hundreds of injuries at one of those in Las Vegas. I go to church most every week--Sutherland TX--26 deaths. I went to a movie last week--it wasn't Aurora CO; we all survived.
The kids in school won't be safe until we are all safe. Armed guards at school do not solve the mass shooting problem, even if you accept thee unlikely theory that they will reduce school school shootings by prevention.
Let's solve the shooting problem. The kids have created a moment when something might happen. Seize it!
Then I'll start to pay attention to the kid driving problem, which is unchanged, totally unchanged from 57 years ago when I was let loose on the nation's roads.
If this was handled like the gun fiasco, the AAA would allow the government to ban license plate frames and the country would go wild.
1
Can we please have more and better public transportation now? Car dependency, especially rampant in suburban sprawl, is killing 30,000 Americans each year. For teens, "The top cause, by a large margin, was motor vehicle crashes. They killed 2,829 teenagers."
2
Just out of curiosity although this article doesn't raise or address it - how many of the drivers in the fatal auto accidents are males? I am guessing that the answer is "most".
5
This is an offensive analogy; propping up a case for motor vehicle license reform on the bodies of gunned down students.
6
That 3-tier license system sounds like the one in effect in New York when I was growing up. One additional element -- not valid in the 5 boroughs or Long Island -- was part of the "junior" operator's permit. If you passed Driver Education in high school you didn't need to take the written test to get a learner's permit and you could get the "senior" permit at 17 instead of 18.
The day I turned 16 I skipped my morning classes at school and was in the door at the DMV the moment it opened. But.... that was a half century ago; there were a lot less cars on the road and they went slower. There were a lot few distractions and NO cell phones. My buddy's dad wouldn't let him listen to the radio while driving. We did, but .......
Twelve years ago my daughter got her supervised permit and we spent the next two years trying to convince her to learn to drive, which she didn't seem that intent on doing. At 18 she finally got her license and we haven't seen her since. Kidding......
We have a system like that in Colorado and kids seem OK with it and teen traffic deaths are declining. In rural areas kids will drive like they always did, when they need to.
4
Raising age limits for guns is good, but raising driver age to 18 would be excellent. Teens of 16 and 17 would need an adult with them yo drive with exception to get to work or school. The smart gadget could enforce.
3
I got my license in Ontario, Canada. I got it under the exact tiered system suggested by the author, in the first year that tiered program was implemented. In all honesty I wasn’t happy at the time to be one of the first to have to go through such a system. However, in retrospect I’ve got to say the system has worked well, and places that use it have seen a reduction in youth traffic fatalities. The program is in no way an onerous one, and it has many benefits. It allowed me to get comfortable just being a driver before it allowed me to legally drive on some of the busiest highways on the continent. It helped me to take the time needed to understand that a car isn’t just a convenience. It can also be a several thousand pound weapon that will destroy lives in a second if not handled responsibly. It helped keep me safe, and that should be all I need to say.
5
Perhaps we need driver trainers that can simulate a car crash with the trainee in a well-secured harness and adequate padding.
Sitting in a car that feels as if it is about to tip over or suddenly crashing into something isn't as nice a feeling as one might think.
1
In many of the highly developed countries that have statistically lower deaths involving teen drivers, in addition to more restrictive licensing, they almost all have much better public transportation, making not driving a viable alternative.
13
The author is wrong about the strong deadly opposition to reducing child traffic deaths.
They are simply doing so by opposing taxes, regulation and public capital.
Many kids need cars because there is no viable alternative. There is no public transit at the times needed. There are no sidewalks or lanes for runners, bikers, skateboarders. Without driving a car, a family member must drive them, or a fellow child.
The article leads off with the children depending on another child driving a car. What was the alternative? Was there a bus or subway? Was biking together an option? Or walking?
Much of urban design today was to eliminate many classes of people by requiring a car to live in it. Requiring a car eliminates the poor, disabled, often very young and old.
The requirement children live in a sea of guns is much like them being required to interact constantly with deadly cars.
Most people argue that living in danger is liberty, and the solution for both is more of both. To protect kids from cars, they need a car, just as there need to be more guns everywhere.
And just as bigger guns bring more safety, so do bigger cars. When a small car is hit by a big car, the problem is the car was too small, just as cops killed by guns meant cops needed bigger guns.
But eliminating the requirement for cars requires paying too many workers with taxes and fees, and paying workers kills jobs, just as banning guns means more gun deaths.
3
Americans lean towards following a trend rather than using judgement and reason. It isn't even divisive, as much as it is hypocritical and neurotic.
1
Are you kidding? How can you even write this piece without addressing the issue of distracted driving???? This is happening because cars have become multimedia cockpits and cell phones are regularly used by teenagers--who have learned by watching their parents.
14
Solution - good public transportation
55
Move everyone into entirely self contained communities, then your solution becomes viable.
I agree with Fran B that regulating guns and cars should be parts of the same discussion. Kudos, Fran B.
Why not regulate guns classifiable as meant for killing people the same as cars, with registration and proven financial responsibility? The people that own cars willingly bear the cost even if they are safe drivers with no evil intent because society understands that this is necessary.
Why aren't there examples of AR15s SAVING lives in the news? After all, that's the rationale for having them.
Should responsible assault gun owners patrol our schools in shifts?
2
OOPS. I meant kudos to David Leonhardt. Kudos to you, too, Fran B
Big, BIG difference. Guns are MADE to KILL. Vehicles, the opposite.
Gun Control OR Dead Children. CHOOSE.
9
Ah, yes, another advocate for taking away freedoms from people different from himself. Maybe an ideal system of free speech wouldn't apply to people like this, who are not like me. ;)
What's worse than a teenager drunk driving? One that is simultaneously texting.
36
Also need blocks to driving and drinking or substance use. Is present in over 50 % of Motor Venicle accidents
3
Mr. Leonhardt presents the statement "the first concern should be saving lives" as though it is an obvious universal fact: unarguable.
With regard to risks and the losses that result... I don't agree. It is very different to pay with one's life for a mistake the individual made, that to be murdered randomly.
It is sad when people drive recklessly and die in car crashes, but there is a justice to it. There is no justice in being murdered by someone for no cause beyond their hate and rage.
And what makes it worse is that all the gun enthusiasts call it "the price of freedom." It is as if the gun hobby sees all these children fed to Moloch, so they can have their guns.
5
Teenagers are poor drivers. That has been known for about a century. They do not understand the significance of risks, and it leads them into acting without regard to consequences. They do so with every risky kind of behavior. When they drink, it tends to be until they are incapacitated. They take up smoking despite the high risk of becoming life long smokers whose inevitable health problems as a population are well known.
Right now, the biggest number of risk takers whose choice of behaviors will eventually take the most lives of today’s teens is cigarette smoking. This year 420,000 people are going to die from illnesses that they have developed because they smoke.
1
Sorry, David. You're contributing to the loss of focus that will destroy all effort to make a real change.
We need a laser focus on banning of assault weapons--any weapon that can deliver many high velocity bullets in a short time.
One thing at a time, David. Let's get something real done, now.
6
A very good, valid comparison here.
"...most 16-year-olds aren't ready to operate a lethal 2000-pound machine that can punish a few seconds of inattention with death, for the teen or someone else on the road."
And the statistics plainly prove the truth of "teen driving kills a lot of people."
And pair this up with Ms. Mandel's account here, this morning, of her single mother defending the family with a firearm. It happens.
Down here among us rural scrappers, this is policy.
Give Mama a shotgun- pump, double-barrel, whatever.
It's a great, short-range defensive weapon.
Nothing strikes more terror in the heart of whomever, than Mama pointing that shotgun in their face, from about 20 feet back.
Marksmanship? She just needs to point it.
But a semi-automatic AR15 is a long range, military, offensive weapon,
of great destructive capability.
Like a 2000 pound vehicle careening down the road at 70mph, with a child at the wheel.
But that AR15?
You don't even need a license to get behind the trigger.
2
The problem with comparing car accidents with an AR-15 intentional slaughter is obvious.
Car accidents kill many Americans every year, the total even exceeding the total deaths in Vietnam, but this has nothing to do with the need to ban certain guns.
4
Let's ban cars. The fact that this carnage is occurring leads to only one conclusion from our current culture, gauging from the response by many, including the NYTs, to the mass shootings that have occurred recently. We must ban cars. Who cares if there is a legitimate purpose for law abandoning ownership, or if people just enjoy ownership and use in a safe legal manner. Just ban them to prevent the outlier events.
Don’t you understand the difference? Cars and drivers are in fact regulated. Cars have a purpose. The only purpose of a military style assault weapon is massacre.
2
There have been any number of fatal train crashes...
Let's ban trains while we're at it.
Planes and boats, too.
Knives...Forks, too...they can do a lot of damage.
Power cords...They can short out and cause a fatal fire.
Glass bottles. Lethal if broken and used as a weapon
The possibilities are endless. Enough work to keep a legislature busy for decades at the public's expense.
Don't confuse the packaging of the firearm for its capability.
The AR-15 remains a single-shot, semi-automatic firearm.
It could be repackaged with the same capabilities looking like a large crueller.
If the goal is "saving lives", it would be great if Mr Leonhardt actually looked at real statistics - because the number one killer of children is backyard pools. They are unregulated, and they kill more children under the age of 18 than guns or car crashes. But Mr Leonhardt ignores this, because it doesn't let him pander to gun-control advocates.
1
Where do you get your info? I can’t find any info that says children’s number one killer is swimming pools. Perhaps it is in your county. But nationwide?
1
To Bill (NYC): Drowning is the number two killer of children between the ages of 1 and 4 in the United States. In Texas and Florida (and I think also in some other southern states, like Arizona), it is the number one killer of children between the ages of 1 and 4. Don't have a citation handy but it's pretty easy to find this one.
You're probably not finding it because you're looking for something related to all children - including teenagers (who are after all the subject of the article).
Also, to KarlosTJ (Bostonia): pools are not unregulated. Most (nearly all? all?) areas that have significant population density require that backyard pools to be totally fenced in with fences of a minimum height and door-latch type so that young children from the neighborhood cannot wander into the pool enclosure. There are also consumer safety regulations such as the ones that require improved drains to prevent accidental death (I'm not going to explain the accident being prevented here because it is the stuff of nightmares).
Way out in the countryside there may not be regulations about fencing. Yes, backyard pools could be better regulated in some places, but (like cars), these regulations are examples of the sort of regulations that are put into place to protect people.
And - to all parents of small children - there is a program that teaches aquatic survival skills to infants: Infant Swim Resource. My son took it at eleven months old. It's very effective.
1
i believe alcohol contributes both to teen and adult accidents. and these days texting.
no regulation or law is worth the paper it's printed on. in new york city you only have to stand on any intersection where there is a traffic officer to see drivers talking with phones to ear. and the officer almost always does nothing.
when i have been in Europe for much of the last decade, there is a blood alcohol limit substantially below ours. and if found driving over it you lose your license for a long period of time. and repeats it's gone period. i have been out with business colleagues who carry a blood alcohol table and if they drink even a glass of wine the check how long must they wait before risking to drive.
so why are we now worse than Europe? i think teen drinking (and adult also) is major factor. teen drinking often from.14 is almost considered a right and too many parents turn a blind eye
2
The problem with your analogy to a certain degree is that Europe hasn't eviscerated its public transit system.
It's definitive punishment of drunk driving certainly is worth considering here, however, in communities, we often see people being detained with their fourth or fifth OUI while driving with the suspended license.
At a time when there is all this clamber to reduce the number of persons in jail, it would seem that actually giving serial reoffenders some serious jail time isn't going to fly, even though it is the only way that some are going to be kept off the roads during the terms of their license suspension.
The graph at Leonhardt https://nyti.ms/2jEkr9m comparing deaths per billion miles driven (d/bmd) 1990 and 2015 is of particular interest to me since we spent our first year in Sweden in 1991-92 and the next 22 1996 to the present. Here partial explanation of dramatic improvement in Sweden (SE)
1990 SE 12 d/bmd, USA 12.7 d/bmd
2015 SE 3.2 d/bmd, USA 7 d/bmd
In 1991 in our first drive on RV 40 and E4 from Göteborg to Linköping we saw accidents and were somewhat terrified. E4 was substandard, Swedish males (x %) passed with reckless abandon even on two-lane roads RV 40.
By 2015 E4 was uniformly expressway standard and RV 40 was transformed by a Swedish innovation, 2 lanes on one side of cable fence, 1 on the other with this pattern alternating every few kilometers. The 2 lane side makes safe passing possible.
That dramatic design change transformed the experience of driving, helped by ever more speed cameras and adherence to speed limits.
All other elements of Swedish driving that differ from the US (New England) have been constant; these are:
Seat belt use 80%, strict alcohol law, headlights on at all times.
Most of the remaining 3.2 d/bmd involve alcohol, no seat belt, low standard highway. Do not yet know role of Smartphone use.
Leonhardt’s two articles are important, data from auto rental companies would be a useful addition.
And for Verified Ann, we have plowed bicycle roads far out into the countryside.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
US SE citizen
3
Great article. The shooting that took place last month has stirred the consciousness of many people. It’s like a raging river that come into an eddy and everything slows down and you can now see the beautiful stones beneath the water. I call this hidden reality; things that are moving so fast that few of us take the time to understand what life is all about.
Out of the chaos of Douglas High School, most of us saw the light of possibilities emerge from some of the students who survived this tragedy. At first I thought “Wow. These kids really get it. They can be the hope of the world”. There was this great energy to change gun rules. Was this finally going to be the moment when the Republicans in Congress would finally realize that automatic weapons of death have to be banned? Guess again. That’s not going to happen. Why? Because like everything else that’s happening in the US, the person sitting on the throne in naked. We don’t have a leader. If you’re waiting for “The Children will Lead Us”, you can forget that too. Why? Because although some of them have great ideas of what to do and how to fix it, it’s just not that simple. Change doesn’t come just because of emotion. It takes commitment on the part of everyone. It takes a real leader to have followers. Who is that leader going to be? If not you, then who?
2
Dave, I have railed about the slaughter on our highways forever. No one listens. We are, as you write, totally inured and oblivious to the many teenage deaths on our highways, most of which are avoidable. The carnage on our highways is far greater than the slaughter by guns.
When I was a high school senior my first prom date was a very good and wonderful young lady, Judy Layer of Susquehanna Twp. Judy was cute as a button and I had a huge crush on her. We knew each from band from 8th grade. I fell in love with her. He warm smile and beautiful red hair separated her from the crowd. She was a beautiful, sweet young girl.
In the spring of 1966 I came home from college to learn that Judy had been killed in an automobile accident. A tragically unnecessary accident that could easily have been avoided.
I am 70 years old now and I'm still heartbroken. Last night, before this article was published I was looking through old photos and I came across the photo of Judy and me going to the prom. I couldn't hold back the tears.
You're 100% right David. We need to find a way to let our teenagers live. We need to protect and defend them and treasure their lives. And we must make a far greater effort to end the slaughter of our teens on the highways.
Judy I always miss you. I loved you then and now. I wish I could have come home to ask you out again.
Maybe David, maybe your column may influence some change and save the lives of our precious children. I pray that you're successful.
4
In both 2016 and 2017 there have been over 40,000 motor vehicle fatalities in the United States. These are record numbers, much worse than in previous years. Factors include increased speed limits (85 mph in several states), distracted driving, and American road rage. What will save us from ourselves is the advent of driverless cars. When all cars are self-driven, thousands of lives and billions---yes, billions with a "b"---will be saved. You can bet there will be resistance to mandated driverless cars. Is there a constitutional right to drive?
1
While guns and cars both have adverse health impacts on Americans, the issues can't be fully conflated.
When teens die because of cars, it is because of inexperience behind the wheel, not because of an intent to kill.
The issue with assault-style semi-automatic rifles is that they make it much more feasible for an angry person to commit mass murder. Teens, for the same reason they lack full legal capacity, are at extra risk for using weapons of mass murder.
The goal right before us, from which distraction is not welcome, is to make assault rifles no more accessible to teens than rocket-propelled grenades and land mines. If we choose to permit civilians to possess assault rifles at all, we need age limits and we need serious punishment for anyone who makes these accessible to youth.
If we can destroy the lives of adults for hosting teen parties where drinking alcohol occurs, we must do the same for adults who irresponsibly create the risk of mass murder in our schools.
42
Yes there is a group like the NRA in the traffic death situation, it the cell phone industry that strongly resists any regulation to stop cell phone distracted driving.
They are just as extreme as the NRA in resisting any regulations. They also don't care who dies as long as they continue to make money.
1
"The reality is that most 16-year-olds aren’t ready to operate a lethal 2,000-pound machine"
The reality is that unless your kid is driving a 40 year old beetle, today's autos are closer to 4000#.
Here is a link to some of the apps that block cell phone use while driving.
https://www.verizonwireless.com/articles/best-apps-to-block-texting-whil...
People need to take control of their own kids.
Most European countries require provisional drivers to display a learner’s mark (an L in the UK) on their car. Such a warning to other drivers is a good way to further reduce accidents.
Gun violence, in addition to being a statistical cause of death, is a moral outrage in that it involves intentional murder, enabled as a result of the availability of instruments of death essentially as toys. Gun violence damages our moral fabric. Please, don't next equate it with the (statistically significant) issue of, say, falling over in the bathroom as a cause of death. Dealing with any problem is good, but don't lose sight of moral significance in the discussion.
48
Gun violence also includes suicides and hunting accidents. Major Depressive Disorder often starts during the teenage years, but it's way more likely to be fatal if the parents own a gun. Perhaps we should require tests and learner's permits for teenagers who want to go hunting with their dad or uncle. And when we lived in rural Michigan in the '90's, my across the street neighbor Mrs. Quick told my mother that when she went to shoot the groundhogs in her garden or that mangy coyote, she never took more than 2 shotgun shells because after that "you're just wasting ammunition." No one needs an AR-15 to go hunting.
While absolutely correct, the suggestion that we should address teen vehicle safety along side preventing teen (and adult) gun deaths is an old tactic and should be rejected. Dilution of focus results not in greater safety, but in depletion of resources (time, energy, focus, money, personnel) of those who support the original initiative. Do cars kill more kids than assault-style weapons? Yes. Should we make them safer for all? Yes. Must the teens from MSDHS and their supporters take on the burden of this issue? No way!
As an entrepreneur, I have had investors tell me that single-minded focus and dedication is required to realize a project and carry it to completion and success. Those young voters and soon-to-be voters should remain laser-focused on their goals to increase safety and decrease the danger posed by easy availability of weapons of war.
Let others, who have more than enough reason to work on auto safety issues, take up that banner and may they enjoy full success.
2
A teenager is more likely to be involved in an accident if there are other young people in the vehicle.
No doubt we should look at every cause of death...teen or tween or infant or adult or elder... more closely and "do" something about it. But the reality is people have short attention spans. I'm including myself in that. So while this column certainly contains truth and good ideas it does little other than give the "guns aren't the problem" folks yet another argument that something other than guns is the problem. And I don't think that was the author's intent.
Americans spend approximately 30 billion hours per year just commuting, yet auto deaths and gun deaths are roughly equivalent.
1
Driver distraction is a top cause of accidents and deaths, especially for younger drivers. Smartphone manufacturers, e.g., Samsung, LG and Apple, and wireless service providers, e.g., Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile, need to team up and do more to block access to texts and social media while driving, as well as communicate that multi-tasking while driving is socially irresponsible (like drunk driving) and way too dangerous. Their trade associations and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) must address this issue.
1
Yes road fatalities are an issue. But self-driving cars will solve this soon. Now I wonder if having to wear a seat-belt (which I personally consider as a infringement on my constitutional freedom) was a cause in their death?
What is sure is that discussing road fatalities is another way to distract from the gun debate and make sure nothing gets done on that front!
1
@ ev Beirut, Lebanon - The data on seat-belts as life savers tell a clear story especially in Sweden which was first and where seat belt use is 80 percent or higher. Sweden has the lowest fatality rate per billion miles driven (my comment on this has been waiting all day) and the few fatalities that occur are mostly for people not wearing seat belts.
As concerns distracting from guns, Leonhardt is trying to help Americans understand that viewing both causes of death should be seen as public health problems of major importance as they are seen in more advanced countries.
I have a reply at km that addresses this.
Curious about the Lebanese constitution since you refer to your constitutional freedom as if you were living in New Hampshire with a LIVE FREE OR DIE auto license plate.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
1
Apples and oranges, David.
1) Many more people drive cars than own guns.
2) Cars have a purpose in our culture that guns do not. Cars get you to work, to school, to the supermarket. Gun just emit bullets.
3) Reasonable controls on how people use cars-- testing, licensing, laws regarding seat belts and driving while impaired-- cut the death toll from traffic accidents.
Your suggestions are good, but comparing teen driving to gun violence is just a harmful distraction at a time when we should be focusing on controlling the use of guns to kill each other.
3
Teenage driving deaths are lower in countries which have saner, more efficient, better functioning, better integrated and more extensive public transit systems (i.e. almost every developed country except the United States), and who worship cars less.
3
@ Sage Santa Cruz - a point I often make. Last summer my daughter drove me along the interstate highway from New Hampshire to Saco ME - did not see a single bus whereas in the same stretch here in Sweden I would have seen countless buses, one of which, Bus4You, the best I have ever seen or experienced takes me back and forth between Göteborg and Linköping every 2 or 3 weeks in great comfort (Swedish roads are smooth unlike those in my New England, USA).
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
1
GOP and NRA allies apparently see our youth, and tens of thousands of other "innocents", as Collateral damage: " a general term for deaths, injuries, or other damage inflicted on an unintended target." This won't change until GOP is either willing to defy NRA, or gets voted out of office and no longer has any power over lives of others.
1
Teenagers, especially males, think that permission to drive is fun like a video game. Many in fatal car crashes are drinking beer in the car and often they are returning from high school sports games or just having fun on the weekend. Part of driver's education should include videos of fatal car wrecks and blood soaked bodies strewn about. That is the reality of irresponsible driving.
1
Teenage driving, it's the same old story. Teens are equipped with superb coordination skills but lack experience, something we adults have honed. As Dirty Harry Callahan implored, one has to know their limitations. As we grow older, and mature, we come to realize we need to compensate for our diminished skills. Teenagers are naive to the dangers a speeding vehicle and the horrific effects that occur should one lose control of said vehicle. Add to teens feeling invincible, and you've got a volatile combination brewing.
The author states no set of laws can eliminate driving deaths. What not only teenagers but all of us must learn is how to drive properly, to drive defensively not aggressively. That is also what gun owners must learn. They must know the power to gather an arsenal of weapons for their "private use" comes with responsibilities, enormous ones.
Whether deciding to careen carelessly down a highway at unreasonable speed (define: unreasonable) or arming oneself to the teeth, the individual plays a crucial role. When citizens abdicate that right, the government intervenes. And here's where driving and guns are alike, despite Second Amendment zealots. The way to lower teenage driving deaths is to restrict driving. The way to reduce gun violence is to restrict gun use. We the people attempt to balance both the rights and responsibilities one has as a citizen to preserving the General Welfare of the people. When that is threatened, we the people act.
DD
Manhattan
4
David, I hope you were paid well by the NRA for that nicely crafted attempt to normalize the slaughter in Parkland. I could accept your arguments if these motor vehicle deaths were the result of sociopaths driving their cars into crowds of school children. You sadly try to equate the risks of highway mobility with the risk of staring down the business end of an assault rifle.
In no ways are guns and car crashes similar public-health issues. We live in a mobile society where most people are drivers or passengers in a motor vehicle every day. Because of that exposure and the inherent risks, the results, though unfortunate, are considered considered acceptable by those who climb in and drive off.
The students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and now around the country are saying that they refuse to accept the risks associated with confronting an armed killer seeking some manner of retribution against the society. Listen to them and stop trying to normalize the absurd situation this nation finds itself due to governmental dysfunction.
3
Growing up in the late fifties and early sixties, i lost several friends in automobile accidents (one in high school three more in college.) Since then, I have offered sympathy to parents and grandparents as teen fatalities pile up. One factor not mentioned in the editorial is alcohol use. In some communities there is a culture of early age drinking that makes driving almost suicidal not to mention potentially homicidal.
44
My father had one ironclad, non-negotiable rule vis-à-vis driver's licenses: you're not going to get one until you're 18. Period. His reason? As a man who owned a garage in our small town & who drove the tow truck most nights, he saw more fatal & injury accidents involving carloads of teenagers than he ever wanted to see; & swore that that would never happen to his children if he could prevent it. As in all learned skills, you get better at driving the longer you do it; tiered-responsibility licenses are a sensible way to acknowledge that reality.
4
As the parent of several children, I have supported Connecticut's stricter rules for teen drivers over the years, but still worry when my 18 year old heads out for the 30 mile drive to Community College classes. One reassurance is that she calls home when she is starting home--the older children never had cell phones.
However, consideration and new rules should also be given to elderly drivers. Deafness, impaired vision, slower reflexes, and early forms of dementia develop slowly, but to some degree inexorably. What about requiring drivers over 80 to have a licensed passenger in the vehicle?
2
do you call for higher taxes to fund public transit so individuals do not need cars to live conveniently?
Thanks for making a very good point...statistics do matter and teen driving deaths could and should be lower. It is part of protecting kids! The same should go for older adults as well (and I'm one of them) testing should be more rigorous across the board.
When I was young, like most young people I suppose, I thought I knew it all and chafed at the rules imposed by the old people. At the far side of that divide, now in my mid sixties, I look at it differently of course. It seems to me that people don't really mature until their early thirties. The time from their late teens until early thirties is for finding out who they are, how the world works, and what their place in the world will be. Perhaps in their thirties most people are ready for serious responsibility, which to me, would also include starting a family. Some people mature quicker than others and some never grow up. We have one of the latter in the White House now.
2
Beyond the ideas you've suggested is the woefully inadequate nature of training and testing required to obtain a driver's license in this country (at least in most states) compared to countries in Europe, for example. As far as I'm aware, most driving tests consist of driving around the block, making a three-point turn, and backing into a parking place back at the DMV.
Contrast this with the training and testing - and the age requirements - in Germany or the UK. If we had similar requirements in this country, I can guarantee that the teen-age death rate from automobiles would drop dramatically.
7
I applaud the concept of using the synergy around gun violence to shine the lights on many harms to adolescent health and well-being. I am seeing the President's call for mental health services as a launching pad to address the failed foster system and lack of supporting services for at-risk youth. Things fall apart for far too many teens because of circumstances beyond their control, decisions made by their parents, and too few services to support them. We should have a national call for full funding of youth services in every community. In the meantime, we can make donations to the local organizations that serve youth.
1
David's arguments and conclusions make a great deal of sense. However, he shouldn't limit his comments to the younger drivers but include the elderly as well. While I realize I am opening a hornet's nest here, more needs to be done to evaluate the capabilities of the elderly behind the wheel.
I can't tell you the number of times I have seen frail elderly people looking through the steering wheel rather than over the steering wheel as they navigate the roads. We've all read reports of an older driver mistaking the brake pedal for the gas pedal (I've been a passenger in one of those instances and it is a memorable experience, to say the least.) Two weeks ago I was nearly sideswiped by an octogenarian driving with three of her precious yapping small dogs in the front seat.
Any effort to provide greater scrutiny of young drivers on the road is a good thing. But, it ought to include looking at the other end of the age spectrum as well.
7
I think the actual statistics of older driver accidents are much rarer than teen drivers, however. And I don't want to fall into a trap of age discrimination. Most elderly drive close to their house, slowly, and with care. My 88 year old father just gave up his license because of failing eye sight, he never had an accident and the independence driving in his eighties just to the store and doctor's appointments was important. Also I felt safer in a car driving with him than with my teenager driving.
2
I agree that we can do more to cut the death rate for driving. But let's use statistics more rationally as well. Driving is something older teenagers in most parts of the country do almost every day. Their exposure to potential death is commonplace. Most teenagers do not have daily unsupervised access or exposure to guns. So let's start by throwing out the false equivalency.
The ideas for gradual exposure to driving make a lot of sense. But then let's look at the elephant in the room which you have pretty much ignored: cell phone useage while driving. Just count how many people whom you see every day talking or texting on phones while driving. Like many other people, I've been rear ended by an idiot who didn't see my turn signal when they were looking at their phones. Yesterday, I saw the result of an accident where a distracted driver ran into a fence on a quiet rural road: two ambulances, a fire truck, and several sheriff's deputies. Even with bluetooth enabling, cell phone useage should be forbidden entirely. It is in those countries which now are surpassing us in automobile safety. It's also time to simplify and standardize automobile dashboards. Some of the worst are the people who are glued to their GPS maps instead of looking at the road. The very word: infotainment centers says it all. Driving is about getting from one place to another, not about being entertained.
1
And old people often fight tooth and nail to keep their licenses. Even when their grown kids are highly concerned and want them to stop driving. If grandpa and grandma had more places where they could take the bus or the train, the elderly wouldn't lose their independence along with their license.
I'm all for lowering teen driving deaths, fully support the graduated licensing that we have in CT.
What bothers me about this column is the authors comparing auto deaths and gun violence. First, he only uses homicides. In 2016 2878 teens died from bullets (all intent) and 2947 died from Motor Vehicles (MV). Second, he fails to explain that in 1999 MV teen deaths were 5,722, nearly double 2016. This is due to safety features, either voluntary or legislated, and medical advances. Gun deaths also decreased since 1999, but only from 3,151 to 2,878. Third, the amount of exposure a teen has to a car is exponentially to that exposure to guns. And yet the amount of deaths aren't that far apart. Lastly, both firearm deaths and MV deaths have risen recently from their lows. 2013 had 2670 MV deaths, 2,242 firearm deaths. The rate of MV deaths went from 9.04 to 10.05 and firearm deaths from 7.59 to 9.81.
So based on math, it would appear that firearm deaths should be more alarming than MV deaths.
CDC information on teen mortality an be accessed via fatal injury reports at https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fatal.html
and selecting the age range 13-19, deaths by firearms and deaths by motor vehicle.
40
In 1968 my brother graduated from high school, turned 18, and, one month later, died at the wheel of the family station wagon. I agree that kids and cars deserve attention, but maybe not at the expense of watering down discussion of gun control.
You do, though, hint at a key distinction in the gun debate. The goal—for both car and gun related deaths—is to save lives. While once in a while a civilian shooting back may save some lives, far more lives would be saved overall by reducing the availability and lethality of guns.
17
I think this is a great idea. However, in my experience, it's as much the parents who want their kids to drive so the parents don't have to chauffeur the kids around. Unfortunately, when dozens of teenagers in our community were caught by police at a party with alcohol (to which most of the kids had driven), ours was one of only a few who lost his driving privileges for a significant length of time. When talking with other parents, it became clear that some parents chose to avoid inconvenience for themselves rather than issue a significant consequence in response to the kids' poor choices.
10
I very much agree about the age of driver's and the need for at least a tiered system. 16 is far too young and though some kids have to get to work or help pick up siblings, we could put measures in place that require an adult to accompany young drivers or limit the hours they can drive (daylight) etc. Some states do this, but many do not. We need to modernize our thinking on teens driving.
Highway death rates are still a lot lower than when I got a license at 16 in 1968. Although I had no serious accidents, and only one very minor one that was my fault, young drivers do take time to get accustomed to watching out for other drivers. So I think that there is sense to a graduated license for the youngest of drivers and perhaps for new drivers of any age, too.
BUT, for heaven's sake, graduated licenses should at least be state-wide and ideally, more-or-less national in structure with perhaps local variations allowed. In New York, to figure out where, when and with whom a 16-year can drive practically requires a law degree. a GPS to watch local borders and identify roads, and a clock to watch time and darkness. One county is different from another in the rules. At least, that was true a few years ago when my children became license eligible. Maybe some body can report a change.
By-the-way, uncertain laws is an endemic problem in American law. The same problem exists with the gun laws we have.
Madison made inconsistent laws a repeated theme in the Federalist: "The laws are so far from being uniform, that they vary in every State"(53)."Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed" (62).
4
I think one problem is the cars teenagers tend to drive; particularly for lower-income families without the resources to put a priority on vehicle safety. Typically, at least around here in rural Maine, teenagers drive older vehicles, often cheap junkers, with worn tires. Remember: tires are the only thing between the driver and the road. If a car's tires lose grip, it will be more difficult for an inexperienced driver to maintain control of the vehicle. Throw in texting and other driver-distractions, and it's an accident waiting to happen.
I know a mechanic who said he's always dismayed when parents come in looking for used tires for their children's cars.
Tire safety deserves more scrutiny, particularly for inexperienced drivers.
21
David, we have the technology to begin this process. Our cars already are equipped to detect the smartphones inside the passenger compartment and to communicate with those devices. We simply need the software to disable functions that would distract drivers while the vehicle is moving. Similarly, driver ID incorporated in each vehicle like user recognition in our phones, that could then be used to dictate maximum speed and acceleration, and also detect erratic driving would be far more useful to society than some mandated "accessories" ( like the moon roofs I can't seem to avoid purchasing with my cars.) some of these parental tools are already appearing. Let's mandate them!
6
sigh - all already available via apps and diagnostic port plug-ins - it is a simple fact that most folks are too 'otherwise-busy' to investigate what is available to control and manage their kid's smartphone and automobile usage.
1
There is an NRA for driving safety, and it's called the telecommunications lobby. Distracted driving via smartphones is an issue for ALL drivers; teens just happen to be more susceptible to compounding the errors due to their lack of experience.
22
Although it is tempting to pivot to consider all causes of death among teenagers,
there is no disguising the fact that firearms are designed for one purpose, destruction, and no amount of prayers or crying or hand-wringing will solve the problem of a culture that allows, no, glorifies, these implements of death.
35
In the day to day battle of life, when death touches us we are surprised by our mortality and especially surprised by the death of those who are younger. Death changes things. It reevaluates life. It may adopt new thoughts of anger and despair. It offers a new incite into the value of life. If we ignore it, death will enter and consume us, make us mean and spiteful. Death is lonely. Death is sad. Death comes when we pretend that our lives are safe and protected. They aren't. One doesn't know death until it's an experience of your life. I don't recommend it. What happened at Stoneman Douglas High is tragic, and shares many many other senseless deaths. We can and should do better. We owe that to our children.
4
Reducing gun deaths first and foremost means dealing with weapons, almost exclusively handguns, held illegally in high crime areas. The vast majority of gun violence especially among teens is in low income neighborhoods with 'neighborhood guns'; guns that are bought and sold totally outside the system.
There is no meaningful gun control; no reduction in teen deaths until both parties find a way to deal with guns already illegally held in high crime communities.
5
Many illegal guns were once legal guns that became illegal when they were stolen from law abiding citizens. Look up FBI burglary stats on how often guns get stolen.
I completely agree with the author's overall message. However, note that the Table Mr. Leonhardt refers to focuses on *unintentional* deaths only. Overall, gun homicides are in 3rd place after motor vehicle accidents and suicides (which do not include gun homicides). Teen suicide is another larger societal problem that needs to be addressed.
6
Americans risk their lives every day, when they drink a little too much wine, eat too many French fries or don’t exercise. The risk of dying a car crash as a teenager is ~7 in 10,000 (2900 deaths per year over 4.1 million births). Nothing will cut that risk to zero, heavily restricting teenage driving in urban and suburban areas might cut it to 4 or 5 in 10,000. I would think twice before further restricting the most highly regulated and protected generation in American history.
3
I remember the New Jersey graduated license program. I can't say the program was very effective though. The only people enforcing the intermediate license restrictions were parents. A police officer was not going to pull you over for looking young. I still don't know anyone that ever received a ticket for violating the provisions of an intermediate license. Punishment was strictly parental. In which case, maybe teenagers aren't the problem.
I think 16 and 18 year olds are equally capable of operating 2,000 lb deadly vehicles if trained properly and kept on a short leash during the learning curve. Age is mostly irrelevant. You're confusing correlation with causation. The problem is too few parents, or instructors acting on their behalf, spend enough time educating young adults on how to drive properly. Actually, too few adults know how to drive properly themselves. Monkey see, monkey do. Bad habits follow bad examples.
I do support the idea of treating gun control as a public health issue though. People die by firearm. The public interest is generally best served by keeping people alive. Hence, we have a public health issue. Simple. I just don't want gun advocates to use data collection as an excuse to delay any action on gun control. I'm being generous in saying I'm willing to allow data to guide policy on gun control in the first place. However, how long has the tobacco industry been suppressing research on cigarettes?
This is my concern.
11
I am an American living in Ontario, Canada. Ontario went to graduated licensing, with zero per cent alcohol for drivers under 21, over twenty years ago. Some said at the time that the legislation was much easier on affluent families in places like Toronto and Ottawa, where public transportation was adequate and young people were less likely to need part-time job and to give friends lifts to such jobs (there are night time and passenger restrictions with graduated licensing). The government stood its ground, though, and the law has been successful. People have adapted. We live in a small town with very limited public transportation and work in a city 30 minutes away by car. When our teenager reached high school age, we knew we would have parental taxi duty for either school itself or for extracurricular involvements, whichever school our teenager chose. Graduated licensing meant an extra year of that responsibility; even considering our teenager's summer job (in the opposite direction from our workplaces, of course!), it was much less onerous than the driving we did when we had a preschooler who needed day care and could not be left alone. At least for us, graduated licensing also meant a spin-off worthy of broader consideration. My spouse and I have never been big drinkers, but we decided to set an example by limiting ourselves to a single drink and to wait three to four hours before driving — and then to drive only if we have to.
17
While I share your concern about teens and driving (I have 4 teenagers), I want to point out the data that says drivers of all ages are at higher risk for accidents in their first year of driving. Older drivers, however, reduce their accident rate sooner than teens - meaning they drive better sooner with less experience. I am in favor of graduated licenses and also letting children drive a lot when they get their permits and their licenses. Experience behind the wheel is what reduces accidents not necessarily age.
3
Your important article will unfortunately be ignored. It is part of a subject far too big for most to wrap their head around. it is about how we organize the society and what we truly value. I grew up in an inner city. ( We did not have "drive") We used public transit or walked everywhere. There were no guns present. I do not know a single kid who died, other than a natural cause, among my high school of nearly 3000. There were no "devices" other than the transistor radio and the portable turntable ( record player.) I know people are thinking how archaic it all sounds. But, maybe we should think just a little harder about how we have come to this place. That way, people will pay the appropriate attention to the last few sentences of your essay. You have distilled it all down for us.
32
I am in favor of the graduated driving license for teenagers, but there is a significant difference between car crashes and gun shootings which I don't see stated here. Although both result in teen fatalities, our massive numbers of car crashes are accidental and our mass gun shootings are intentional murder. Bringing a stop to both is of utmost importance.
20
@ kmw michigan - I think we need a separate article explaining differences between death by school shooting and death by auto accident involving students.
I have seen comments minimizing school shootings because so many more people die by gunshot suicide or by auto accidents. The school shooting cases would have to be seen particularly by studying the long term consequences. I believe that Sandy Hook CT could be a prototype for the school case consequences.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
4
Larry - Based on the past two decades' data, the cumulative probability of a student dying in a school shoot is is about the same as dying via a lightning strike.
@ Steve RR CA - Use of simplistic probability thinking tells us only that the user, in this case SteveRR. perhaps wants to distract us from any serious thinking about school shootings.
My reply above is very brief since serious thinking requires research and analysis all set in a longitudinal study framework.
That is why I named Sandy Hook.
No reason to go further here.
Larry L.
Using smart phones while driving also needs more attention. With cars now having Wi-Fi (a nutty idea, in my opinion) the issue goes far beyond texting and voice calls. Many teens and far too many adults seem to think both that they are different, i.e., that they can be "good" drivers, but dial that phone or send that text without a problem, and that there is little price to pay. Stand on a CTA platform in the middle of Chicago's expressways and watch how many cars have drivers, whether traffic is stop & go or fast moving, are holding smart phones and looking from phone to road and back again. It is 'against the law' in Illinois.
The wired generation, which thinks it can text safely anywhere including driving or crossing a busy street without consequences must be confronted with good laws and intensive enforcement or many more lives will be lost.
71
And the law-abiding gun owner in the pickup in front of you on the highway; you can tell by the NRA sticker in the back window. Law-abiding until pass, glance over and realize he's chatting merilly away w/ one hand on the wheel - in NY - where it's also 'against the law.' The article references a high rating for NY on traffic safety.
"Good guy with a gun" only matters by which law(s) you choose to obey or ignore, apparently.
1
The problem starts and stops with the parents. My kids are not allowed to listen to the radio while driving. Period. Cell phones? Are you kidding? I was so adamant in that regard, that I sought to make an example so my wife and I also no longer talk or text on the phone while driving.
Lead by example and your kids will follow.
Putting wifi in a car is about as responsible as putting in a beer keg.
Teen driving is a part of a larger economic problem. All people need licenses to get to work which is often far away from home. Part of the solution is better transit systems. Another solution is lower housing costs which would remove the necessity to have teens work. A solution that exists in other countries is increasing the costs of licenses. That would simply punish the poverty stricken in America, but it would also slow the flow of licenses to teens. The graduated license system is not a bad idea, though.
12
"Lower housing costs so that teens need not work."
"Increasing fees for licenses would punish the poverty stricken."
How about increasing the minimum wage to 15 hour and changing our economic structure, so that anyone working a full time job could afford a decent place to live, and would not be poverty stricken?
Pretty radical, huh?
there is no way right now, that if i am texted, i can press a button that says, i am driving right now. i have the forbearance not to look at the phone. And these smart phones ! i used to feel much safer driving with a flip phone which answered when i opened it. Blue tooth is okay but i still have to find the button to press to answer.
i believe that we need to install a device that blocks all cell phone usage in teens, young adults while the car is moving. No head phones etc. And why buy a car when someone turns 16 ? i have seen some parents encourage a teen to drive so they dont have to transport them any more. i did not get my first car until age 27, when i really needed one, and what a big old clunker it was. and finally a curfew. No teens driving at night, it just leads to trouble, unless they have a work release license.
Maybe we need some advocacy by the insurance industry as well as steeper rates. If they disallowed teens as being listed as part time operators and they were full time, the rates might reflect their risk as well as actual usage.
1
Actually the smart phone app already exists. It inactivates the phone once the vehicle in which the occupant is traveling exceeds 20 miles per hour. It was created by a high school student in Connecticut, a state with graduated licenses for those under 18. And PS, when a text comes in, one need not reply to it.
59
Actually, the newest operating system on IPhones has a "Do Not Disturb While Driving" mode. It has a lot of different features with regards to when and how it comes on, who may still contact you, and what message goes out. Pretty neat safety feature.
18
I tried to patent an automotive cell phone blocker (actually a low-powered jammer) that would only be enabled when the car is in motion. If a phone is in a cradle, hands-free, that phone would be enabled. Pitched it to several car manufacturers who raised the objection that a passenger with a phone still needs to have it active, what if someone is chasing you in a car and you need to call the police, and the only way they would build it in was if a law was passed and they were forced to. All other non-integrated solutions could be worked around therefore all hands-free phones in a moving vehicle need to be disabled by the car. Do you see this happening soon?
2
In as complex and frenetic a society as ours, with so many PEOPLE creating so many hardly frictionless interactions, some of that friction will take lives. It WILL – regardless of what we MANAGEABLY can do to prevent it.
I’ve had a fairly standard talk over the decades with clients who need something big and complex done, such as replacing their software systems, made “risk-free” – because the cost of failure can be hundreds of millions or more; and failure in such initiatives, to one degree or another right up to writing off the entire investment, is not unusual. It might be surprising that pretty intelligent businesspeople don’t have a better handle on the nature of risk and the relative cost of its avoidance, but many don’t. I need to explain that there’s an arc of risk-avoidance, from none to extremely-tight controls that squeeze almost all known risk of failure out of a complex endeavor. The problem is that the degree of risk avoidance that lies at the far-right of that arc, that reduces the risk of failure to negligible, could be as expensive to implement as the project itself. I give examples. Eventually, they get it.
What proceeds from that point is analysis that determines the vulnerabilities to failure for THAT client, and their willingness to tolerate cost in effectively managing them. We then settle on where on that arc lies the level of risk-avoidance that represents the best balance between most-likely vulnerabilities and their tolerance for added cost.
David’s column implies that the correct level of risk avoidance with guns and cars lies at or near the far-right of the arc; and I suggest that he’s very wrong. He seems to argue that no cost to society generally is too high to prevent the possibility that a young person might be shot by a deranged mass-murderer, or even as the consequence of an accident – and that suggests the panacea offered by extreme gun-control advocates of getting all the guns; and he pushes graduated driver’s licenses to better align driving privileges with age, with which comes more experience and maturity. The costs to society in each case are different, but they’re both very high, and probably not salable: in both cases, we’ll almost certainly need to find compromises that cost less, even if they protect less.
In the case of guns, the desired level of protection requires the surrender of a constitutional right practiced by millions of responsible Americans, and that’s almost certain to be a non-starter. In the case of autos, the cost of enforcing such laws could dramatically increase manpower and training costs to police forces that are installing traffic cams to generate fine revenue because taxes no longer can fully fund police operations; and serious challenges in developing probable cause to stop a vehicle would immediately appear.
We need to approach both problems as a negotiation that probes for the maximum amount of protection we can get for the social cost we’re willing to tolerate.
2
That’s what people are doing. Extremists on both sides don’t speak for the majority. Basic common sense approaches–banning future sales of the AR-15, limiting access to high capacity magazines, funding government research into gun violence, universal background checks are pretty simple fixes and would move us in the right direction.
3
Try bench-marking. In additional to NY & Demaware, European countries apply what was suggested here and have postive results. No, American teenagers are not different.
Your clients would no doubt appreciate the same approach
David this article elevates this problem to its proper priority. The teen driver death rate should be given a much higher priority than it is now; James Powell and I have been writing about fatalities and injuries for decades. Safety has improved after the late Senator Pat Moynihan and Ralph Nader called attention to our national problem. They were largely responsible for passive safety features now in every car -- like seatbelts, airbags, and safer brakes and car frame designs.
Senator Moynihan invited James Powell and his co-inventor Gordon Danby of Brookhaven National Lab to the Senate to determine if the US were to develop a Maglev network built mainly along our Interstate Highway System what would it cost and how would this system benefit the US.
They found that the system would move both highway freight trucks, passengers, and passenger autos much cheaper, much faster, and safer than driving.
The Senate Environment and Public Works committee were excited about the prospects and reported an R&D program to prototype the Powell and Danby system. The bill was passed by the Senate but failed in the House because of strong opposition by industry interests.
This was in 1992 and if passed, we would now have an all-weather, 300 mph system that would move freight and passengers for much less and make highways much safer. Failing to pass this legislation and failing to not even finance testing and competing this system, I believe, was a huge mistake.
27
I beg to differ; it was not a mistake: it was a deliberate effort of cost versus lives, perhaps the ultimate price of capitalism.
2
To build such a system would require paying millions of workers. Imposing taxes and fees to pay workers kills jobs. To build the future you propose would require paying workers which kills jobs.
Only by cutting costs, stopping paying workers, can jobs be created.
I would love to see more designated bicycle-only pathways in cities and routes between cities. America needs to follow some of the trends embraced by enlightened European countries. However, living in San Francisco, I only felt safe using my bicycle to travel across the city once; on Christmas. Too many drivers, too many distracted drivers, caused me to hang up the bike. Perhaps this column can provide the push for other transit options and measures to make young people safer as well as the rest of us.
15
@ Ann - The last line in my comment, just now accepted 12 h after submission, points to the nature of bicycle networks in Sweden. URL is
http://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/04/opinion/teenagers-driving-cars-guns.ht...
Larry L.
If vehicular deaths have increased in the past two decades, that's probably from the increased distracted driving, namely from cell phones.
But social awareness and legal avenues have both worked in tandem to reduce certain risks. Drunken driving is met with appropriately harsh consequences, both in courts of law and of public opinion.
Looking at phones while driving is similarly a newer focus of public safety campaigns.
Professional drivers, especially of trucks, have to be accountable for their hours spent resting and on the road, as well as passing sobriety tests, to address driving while sleepy or under the influence.
Driving is seen as a privilege, not a right. Drivers generally get permits for supervised driving, followed often by Drivers' Ed, then passing a road test, before licenses are issued. Licenses can be suspended or revoked.
There is no analogy for guns with the above. There are more driving than gun fatalities because of the prevalence of vehicles in our lives. Car safety should continue to be a priority. Let's see what we can do about guns, too.
17
Drivers are also required to have insurance and I think most insurance companies require a police report when someone files a claim for a stolen car.
This could be a good start. But it is not enough. In this country, we have, for the vast majority, a beginners class in driving. We need more advanced courses. There is a lot more to driving than can possibly be taught in the classes we have now. There should be a series of classes which teach more advanced aspects of driving. Some could lead to a "super" license, or different levels of licenses. Or we can just wait until the vehicles control us.
18
My town, Media PA, has one of the last trolley cars in the U.S. running down a major street (State Street) . I always joke that this makes State Street not for beginning or inexperienced drivers. I'm sure that while trolleys and San Francisco cable cars are rare there are other quirky situations on this country's roads that make for advanced driving situations.
Teaching high school for 30 years and I live a mile from one of the largest university campuses in the world. Texting, texting, texting. While driving, walking, eating, listening to music on headphones, at red lights, at green lights, bicycling, in theaters, at in church, and always always always, in class. But it is the first one that has me so concerned and most relevant to this piece. We put the devices in their hands, and they combine young developing brains with that prime attention-grabber and then give them keys to vehicles. No surprise what the result is.
121
Agreed, but it's not just teens. Most of the people I see on the roads around here who are staring down into their phones are grown, middle aged adults.
5
and I don't think putting no texting as a condition of the second tier license will stop it.