It is a strategy that has been used rather successfully throughout Europe and I think it’s being used in both Australia and Japan now as well. So to say it’s an extreme measure is lacking in merit given it is widely used. Even in ever progressive Holland and Sweden new drivers, regardless of age are identified in some way or fashion. The Japanese model does it one better by having one for both young drivers and another for drivers 70 years old or over.

To be honest it makes complete sense and contrary to what some of you may believe it provides a great deal of benefit. It permits other drivers to give room to those just learning (from my experience driving throughout Spain this is exactly what happens) and at the same time makes it easy to identify new drivers that are violating the probationary elements of their license.

I know it pisses young drivers off but the statistics are pretty clear in demonstrating that new drivers (once again regardless of age) are the single most accident prone category of driver. Couple that with the fact that car accidents are the leading cause of death amongst youth and young drivers being the most likely to use cell-phones while driving and you have more than enough reason to identify new drivers, at least for a short time.

Originally Posted by Taunton

On CNN.com, there's a poll on right now asking:

Should newly licensed teen drivers' cars be required to carry warning signs?

The whole thing bothers me and I'm against it, but the 'teen drivers' part is the worst.
If they want to point out that they are new drivers, fine- I don't like it, I think it's stupid, but if they decide to do it they'll do it.

But they shouldn't do it just to teen drivers. You're just as inexperienced if you're a 40 year old who just got a liscence as you are at 17. The 'teen drivers' part makes it an age thing rather than an experience thing. If they're going to point out new teen drivers, they should point out ALL new drivers, regardless of age.


Anyways, there's a lot of idiots that have had their liscence for years and years and years. I don't really know what doing this would accomplish other than flustering some new drivers.

Originally Posted by Flag

The whole thing bothers me and I'm against it, but the 'teen drivers' part is the worst.
If they want to point out that they are new drivers, fine- I don't like it, I think it's stupid, but if they decide to do it they'll do it.

But they shouldn't do it just to teen drivers. You're just as inexperienced if you're a 40 year old who just got a liscence as you are at 17. The 'teen drivers' part makes it an age thing rather than an experience thing. If they're going to point out new teen drivers, they should point out ALL new drivers, regardless of age.


Anyways, there's a lot of idiots that have had their liscence for years and years and years. I don't really know what doing this would accomplish other than flustering some new drivers.

I'm guessing that the reasoning is that teen drivers, not new drivers of any age, are the (statistically) bad/dangerous drivers. I read an article by PIRE (Pacific Institute for Research somethingorother, I'll have to find it again) about this, stating something along those lines. I could be wrong, but that sounds like reasonable justification for it being only teens.

Again, I don't agree with it, just saying why I think it may be this way

I think it's discriminating and shouldn't be implemented unless it's done to ALL the new drivers and not just teens.

But are teens bad drivers because they're inexperienced?

Because that would be a reason for the gap of teenagers being statistically worse than others- there's more new teen drivers than any other age group, so of course they're going to be worse.

But a 40 year old inexperienced driver isn't going to have much of an affect on their age group, would they? Because there's not nearly the same number of inexperienced drivers...

So is it that they're bad drivers because they're teens, or is it because they're inexperienced?

Originally Posted by Flag

But are teens bad drivers because they're inexperienced?

Because that would be a reason for the gap of teenagers being statistically worse than others- there's more new teen drivers than any other age group, so of course they're going to be worse.

But a 40 year old inexperienced driver isn't going to have much of an affect on their age group, would they? Because there's not nearly the same number of inexperienced drivers...

So is it that they're bad drivers because they're teens, or is it because they're inexperienced?

That's very true, never thought about it like that.

Plus, if teens drivers are such bad drivers is it because of their age or because of other reasons such as cellphones. If this is the case then I'm positive it's not only TEEN or even NEW drivers. Plus I heard cellphones are now against the law while driving the car.

Originally Posted by jhan523

Plus I heard cellphones are now against the law while driving the car.

Not til the fall. The ban was approved, but as of yet hasn't taken effect.

Originally Posted by Flag

But are teens bad drivers because they're inexperienced?

Because that would be a reason for the gap of teenagers being statistically worse than others- there's more new teen drivers than any other age group, so of course they're going to be worse.

But a 40 year old inexperienced driver isn't going to have much of an affect on their age group, would they? Because there's not nearly the same number of inexperienced drivers...

So is it that they're bad drivers because they're teens, or is it because they're inexperienced?

Young people's brains are not fully developed yet. The part of your brain which is responsible for good judgment and resisting bad judgment isn't fully developed until approximately age 20. This could be one reason why young people are more likely to make poor choices in general, not just when driving.

Originally Posted by reeves

Not til the fall. The ban was approved, but as of yet hasn't taken effect.

Ah ok, thanks for that update. That's pretty near in the future.

I'm not sure how I feel about it, in terms of road safety. I don't see how it could make much of a difference.
I definately don't think a bunch of 16 year old girls should drive around with a sign proclaiming "I'm young and just learning to drive".. that could lead to some dangerous situations.

[[I know that not all new drivers are 16, but a lot of them are]]

Originally Posted by HeatherH

I'm not sure how I feel about it, in terms of road safety. I don't see how it could make much of a difference.
I definately don't think a bunch of 16 year old girls should drive around with a sign proclaiming "I'm young and just learning to drive".. that could lead to some dangerous situations.

[[I know that not all new drivers are 16, but a lot of them are]]

Just wondering, but why did you specify the gender? ("16 year old girls")

Originally Posted by Flag

The whole thing bothers me and I'm against it, but the 'teen drivers' part is the worst.
If they want to point out that they are new drivers, fine- I don't like it, I think it's stupid, but if they decide to do it they'll do it.

But they shouldn't do it just to teen drivers. You're just as inexperienced if you're a 40 year old who just got a liscence as you are at 17. The 'teen drivers' part makes it an age thing rather than an experience thing. If they're going to point out new teen drivers, they should point out ALL new drivers, regardless of age.


Anyways, there's a lot of idiots that have had their liscence for years and years and years. I don't really know what doing this would accomplish other than flustering some new drivers.

You're forgetting that most teenagers are dumbasses.

There is a difference between a new 16 year old driver and a new 40 year old driver, driving experience equal.

I think most people here don't like the idea because they might be subject to its effects. I bet there are lots of people out there that have been driving around for ages that think its a great idea. In a number of other countries, they like it so much that they made it law long ago.

Originally Posted by lawleypop

Just wondering, but why did you specify the gender? ("16 year old girls")

I was referring to people attacking girls in their cars or something like that. I've read and been told be the people at Workplace Safety that women are most likely to be attacked when sitting in their car in a parking lot. If they have a sign that says they are new drivers, they may be more likely to get attacked because people will assume they are young.

i wouldnt mind
i might even put one on myself even if it isnt manditory
bound to scare some ppl :p

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0L5jpclvgI
take advantage of what society sees of you