Why States Should Ban Adolescent Driving (cont’d)

You may also like...

3 Responses

  1. nidefatt says:

    You haven’t even come close to proving cause and effect here. The salient point is that millions of teenagers drive and no one dies. You would punish an infinite number of young people on the basis of frankly unimpressive statistics.

  2. PrometheeFeu says:


    My comment regarding treating teens as presumptive delinquents was aimed at John Anzhaf. I understood you to mean that teens are bad at making decisions under certain conditions and that therefore, we should reduce their exposure to such conditions. But bad decisions are not necessarily illegal decisions.

    John Anzhaf was arguing for high-speed cut-offs at or under speed-limits effectively saying that unless you physically prevent teens from speeding, they will speed. In other words, he was arguing that teens should be presumed to be law-breakers. (specifically breaking the speed limit)

    The comment I aimed at your post was mostly that I don’t understand how you justify the age of 18. Yes, teenagers and others are put at a higher risk because people under the age of 18 can drive. But this is on a continuum. 17 is safer than 16 and 18 is safer than 17 and 19 is safer than 18. The scale is logarithmic, but I didn’t see you make a cost-benefit analysis to explain why 18 instead of 15, 16, 17, 19 or whatever.

  3. Ron Miller says:

    I picked this up from Overlawyered…

    One theory from the comments there is the idea that 18 year old drivers with no experience is the same as a 16 year old with no experience I expect that the inexperienced 18 year old is a better driver than the inexperienced 16 year old driver. If I wrong about this, I would question my premise that something has to be done with 16 year old drivers.

    One difficult issue is how embedded driving at 16 is in our culture.