Ask The Best And Brightest: Drop Out Of High School, Lose Your License?
Given that the most dangerous part of a car is the driver, I’m basically sympathetic to the idea of some kind mandatory driver education… but I also know that my fellow Americans tend to oppose limitations on their “right to drive.” Unless, apparently, you happen to be a high schooler, in which case Minnesota and South Carolina (and possibly California in the near future) won’t let you get a license unless you can prove you are attending a high school. It’s not the only example of automotive ageism out there… and because I tend to favor regular testing for elderly drivers, it’s a little difficult to oppose this on principle alone. Except that, unlike elderly driver testing, this isn’t about auto safety per se, but about school attendance rates. Does that make a difference? Or is there perhaps a safety benefit from banning dropout drivers? Help me out here B&B (especially those with high school-age kids or experience with these laws)… does this make any sense, or not?
More by Edward Niedermeyer
Comments
Join the conversation
Beginning at the beginning, keeping kids in school is one thing, and driving is another. Rules about getting a driving license should be related to safe driving - not school attendance. State legislators get away with this crap because 16 year olds can't vote (and most won't vote until at least 10 years after they are eligible). It's up to us older folks to stand up for younger people's rights/privileges. On a more personal note, my wife grew up in a 3rd world country and could not complete HS because her labor was needed on the farm. She came here -legally- in her early 30s. Should she have been denied a driving license because she had not finished HS? She was able to pass the admissions test to get into a private college and earned a degree in one of the physical sciences (For my own reasons, I don't care to be more specific). She is now one of America's many foreign born scientists, though she still has no HS diploma or GED. As an aside, it makes no sense to talk of a public school system. The US has 6,000 - 7,000 school districts. Quality varies from the very best schools on earth, to some of the worst hell-holes imaginable. Most of you pontificating on public schools really don't know what you're talking about.
I also think this kind of law is wrong-headed for a lot of the reasons noted above. People often learn at different rates and in different kinds of ways (e.g., books vs experience). Further, having a license is pretty much a need for many people and a basic requirement for many jobs (not to mention simple lifestyle issues like going to the store if you live in places where mass transit is not available). This is not to undermine the need for driver education and training, of course, but that's a different matter.
Here is my take. To get a license at 16, I had to prove that I was enrolled in school. Otherwise, you wait till 18. I don't see a problem with revoking it since school is a requirement at 16. When they become 18, they can apply again.
I haven't said anything about this topic yet but I don't think it is a very good idea. But how about this for letting kids drive? I live in Arkansas. They have a hardship license program that allows 14 year olds to drive by themselves. It is supposedly restricted to kids who for whatever reasons need to get to a part time job or something and who don't have a parent or other adult who can drive them. Guess what. in my town anyway, the streets are full of upper-middle class kids whose parents are rtying to buy the kids love driving lifted pickups and muscle cars. With the old people driving here and those 14 year olds, it's a miracle that half the town doesn't die in traffic accidents every year.