CHICAGO, Sept. 10, 2008

States Urged To Raise The Driving Age

Auto Safety Group Admits "Tough Sell," But Notes Car Crashes Are Top Cause Of Teen Deaths

  • Play CBS Video Video Driving Age Debate

    The legal driving age varies by state, but new research linking driving age with driving fatalities is causing a great debate among teens and parents across the country. Cynthia Bowers reports.

  •  (AP / CBS)

(CBS/AP)  Taking aim at a longstanding rite of passage for 16-year-olds, an influential auto safety group is calling on states to raise the age for getting a driver's license to 17 or even 18.

Adrian Lund, president of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a research group funded by the auto insurance industry, acknowledged the idea is "a tough sell," but noted that car crashes are the leading cause of death among teenagers.

"The bottom line is that when we look at the research, raising the driving age saves lives," Lund said. He plans to present the proposal Tuesday at the annual conference of the Governors Highway Safety Association in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Not surprisingly, a lot of teens hate the idea.

"I would really be upset because I've waited so long to drive," said Diamante White, a 16-year-old in Reading, Pa., who got her permit in July. She said learning to drive is a "growing-up experience."

Many parents agree. They also like not having to chauffeur their teens to school, sporting events and any number of other places.

"Do we really want our kids dependent upon parents for virtually everything until they go to college, can vote and serve their country?" asked Margaret Menotti, a mother in Uxbridge, Mass.

She argued that keeping teens from driving would only make them less responsible. Some parents also find it ironic that this conversation is happening just as a group of college presidents have proposed lowering the drinking age to 18.

Among other things, institute researchers have compiled decades worth of data from New Jersey, the only state that issues licenses at 17. Various studies have shown that the overall rate of teens killed in crashes in New Jersey has been consistently lower than in some nearby states.

One study from the 1990s found that the rate of crash-related deaths among 16- and 17-year olds were 18 per 100,000 in New Jersey, compared with 26 per 100,000 in Connecticut. Those rates, researchers said, have dropped even further since both states instituted graduated driver's license programs.

Graduated licensing, which has become the standard across the country in the past 15 years, requires teens to spend more time driving with a parent or other responsible adult before they go solo. Though these rules are sometimes difficult to enforce, many states tie these more stringent standards to declining teen crash rates.

Illinois now has one of the toughest graduated licensing programs, reports CBS News correspondent Cynthia Bowers. Brent Johnson, who's been teaching kids to drive at suburban Chicago Hinsdale High School for 34 years, helped push through the restrictions, which require 100 hours of supervised driving and only one passenger for new drivers.

"We got tired of seeing our kids die on our highways," Johnson told Bowers. "Up through July, the end of this July this year, we've seen a 47 percent drop in fatal crashes>"

More than 5,000 U.S. teens die each year in car crashes. The rate of crashes, fatal and nonfatal, per mile driven for 16-year-old drivers is almost 10 times the rate for drivers ages 30 to 59, according to the National Highway Safety Administration. Many industrialized countries in Europe and elsewhere have a driving age of 17 or 18.

Barbara Harsha, executive director of the Governors Highway Safety Association, said she welcomes a debate on raising the driving age - as do many who deal with public health.

"Getting the highest of the high-risk drivers away from the wheel probably isn't a bad idea," said Dr. Barbara Gaines, trauma director at Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC.

But she and others - even the Insurance Institute officials who propose raising the driving age - agreed it is not the only option.

Gaines noted that teen drivers in the Pittsburgh area who have committed moving violations must attend a "reality education" program at her hospital. They tour the intensive care unit and talk with young drivers who have been in serious crashes.

Andrea Summers, coordinator of the teen driving program for the Delaware Office of Highway Safety, said her state and others have chosen to toughen laws without raising the driving age - by banning teens from using cell phones while driving, imposing stricter driving curfews and expanding supervised driving time. Even New Jersey is considering lengthening the time a young driver has a permit, from six months to 12.

Still others say we are worrying too much about teen drivers, and not enough about others who cause serious problems on the road.

Karen Sternheimer, a University of Southern California sociologist who studies accident statistics, cited federal data from 2007 showing that drivers ages 25 to 34, as well as those ages 45 to 64, were nearly twice as likely to be involved in alcohol-related fatalities as 16- to 20-year-old drivers.

"The intense focus on teens diverts our attention from the real threats to public safety: speeding and driving while intoxicated," she said.

© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Share:
  • Share
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Mixx
Add a Comment See all 16 Comments
by j0xujahc September 12, 2008 6:21 PM EDT
Raising the age to 18 would not impose an undue hardship on our youth and would most definitely aid in ensuring safety on our highways.
I remember how I was at 16-17 and I would not say any of my pears were any different. We all drove fast, fast all the rime. I lost several of my classmates to automobiles accidents.
Reply to this comment
by yongamerica September 12, 2008 5:13 PM EDT
There will always be evangelists crusading to force others to conform to their beliefs. This a case and point.
Reply to this comment
by cepe10-2009 September 12, 2008 12:42 PM EDT
this insurance funded institute is a sham - they should go after elderly drivers and impeders (left lane lurkers) who are causing the reduced spacing and gridlock if there cared about safety.
Reply to this comment
by barbaram99 September 11, 2008 10:07 PM EDT
I have to say amen to that Vet. 21 years old to drive, 21 years old to drink. 21 years old to go in the military. 21 YEARS OLD TO BECOME AN ADULT. I am 53. Yep. I had to wait to my 21 birthday to be an adult. I was put in fostor care at 5. I was a foster child until 21. The law said 18. I could do very little. When I was in sp ed high school,there was an over 14 year boy who could legaally drive as his parents could not as they had health issues. I knew the boy. The only time he could drive was to take his parents to the Drs,them to where they needed to go. He could not take the car to drive alone. He eas the family driver and that meant a parent ibn the car with him. That was why he was granted to drive. It is a small town. I ''member the kids that were 18 could raise their paw but had to wait to be 21. They should be 21 and the only reason to legally drive at a younger age is if he/she is the family driver, amd a parent be in the car.I am sure ye and yers won''t like this. I am also legally blind from birth. Learn the white cane law and yes there is a law in all 50 states and fed as well. It is too easy to get a driver''s licnese.
Reply to this comment
by madhatter219 September 11, 2008 8:58 PM EDT
I think parents are to blame most parents just sign off driving permit hours for there kids that time is a crucial learning period that everybody needs i say make it longer drinking and driving is such a bigger issue though especially in cali.
Reply to this comment
by stupidrules3 September 11, 2008 9:39 AM EDT
STOP IT! It`s called "Natural Selection".


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by Nancy_Naive at 10:42 AM : Sep 10, 2008


Be careful Nancy, you may be naturally selected. On the road, teens texting and talking on cell phones are a danger to everyone, not just themselves.
Reply to this comment
by blackyowe September 11, 2008 5:03 AM EDT
I agree with the last part of the piece lets push harder to stop speeding and driving while intoxicated!
Reply to this comment
by candy-apple September 10, 2008 8:23 PM EDT
In Louisiana the age is now 17. Teens also are now required to take drivers ed in order to get a permit.

It''s not always the age of the child that needs to be taken into consideration, it''s the child themselves. Are they ready to take on the responsibility of driving? Not all kids are the same, but changing the age requirements punishes all for the irresponsibility of the few.
Reply to this comment
by hwy71so September 10, 2008 5:26 PM EDT
I think leaving it at 16 is fine. Raising the age is an insult to the parents'' judgment.
Reply to this comment
by sebastian27-2009 September 10, 2008 5:21 PM EDT
I''d go along with raising the underage drinking age to 21 if the federal government will agree not to allow anyone in the military until they are 21. They get these teen-age kids right out of high school and train them as killers before they are mature enough to make the decision.
I was drafted at age 20 for Korea and had been buying beer, but not much, since I was about 18. When I came back home after Korea the first thing that I was asked was my identification. The army had furnished us beer in Korea free of charge. Go figure.
Reply to this comment
by ttiwkram September 10, 2008 3:30 PM EDT
I''m not sure age is the problem; it''s more likely inexperience behind the wheel. You may have an accident rate just as high if people first learn to drive at age 30.
Reply to this comment
by bks59 September 10, 2008 3:22 PM EDT
Wow! bloggers and insurance industry want to do a regressive act, eliminate the ''probelem'' rather than develope a cure, which is; increase training-for EVERY licensed driver. Yeah it would be a burden on ''good'' drivers, you know the one''s that are drivng in the left lane, don''t use turn signals or yield to pedestrians and refuse to wear seat belts.
Reply to this comment
by s9876-6 September 10, 2008 3:19 PM EDT
Limit the weight of a car to under 2 tons, stupid idea, never been hit by a car have you? Being the victim of teendriver stupidity(I was hit by teenagers traveling 110mph, they also killed my dog who was drug under the car( under 2 ton vehicle) for 75ft and fillet like a fish) I say make the driving age 18. That way they can be sued, because they''re classified as an adult, and can be held accountable and responsible for their own actions rather than hiding under the shirttales of their parents who are all the while defending their teens saying" Oh, but he/she''s only a child" when they get in trouble or do something stupid. So if they''re only a child than why are they driving a car? Look at the insurance rates for teen drivers....the insurance companies know that teens can''t drive! Look at the driving stats when school is let out in the afternoon, the wrecks go up! And the sociologist Karen S. stating that there are more fatalities related to drunk driving between the ages of 25 and 64 vs. the 16-20 yr olds? Well no duh! The current legal drinking age is 21 or did she forget that? Dumb chick. As far as the 100hrs of supervised driving... most parents don''t carry through with it. They''re tired of being tortured by their teens to take them driving and after a few trips out just sign the papers at bmv saying yes they did spend all that time with the teen driver when in actuallity is was closer to 2o hrs., but hey who''s counting?
Reply to this comment
by timfitz42 September 10, 2008 2:28 PM EDT
I''m all for raising the driving age ESPECIALLY if states are actually considering lowering the drinking age ... why not just get a bunch of teens drunk and put them in traffic!
Reply to this comment
by rhgiese September 10, 2008 1:38 PM EDT
Make the time into a learning period with reasonable equipment to be used in a reasonable environment. If you care you provide a reasonable learning environment with reasonable conditions.
Limit the Access to Vehicles drivable by 16, 17 year olds.
1. Engine less than 120 HP
2. Vehicle weight under 2 tons
3. Must have front air bags
4. Must have ABS
5. 16 and 17 year old drivers operating a vehicle not within the above criteria would result in a 6 month suspension of license. Modifying and operating a vehicle to exceed the above criteria would result in a one year suspension of license.
6. No non-family members in vehicle if under 17 years old.
7. If parent or legal guardian is in vehicle, while 17 year old or younger is driving, above rules do not apply.
8. Learners license applies to the first year of driving. If an accident is caused by the driver or a moving violation occurs a driving class must be attended. Second offense license lost for 6 months.
9. Driving and talking or texting will result in a 6 month suspension of license
Reply to this comment
by upto007 September 10, 2008 1:30 PM EDT
This is as bad as the one that CBS put on here about the death rate going down. It went down because we drove about 2/3 of the miles we drove before, because of the cost of gas. Lower the age you can drive is a BAD BAD BAD idel. These people are nuts. Kids are the only ones driving today.Idiots that is who wrote this story.
Reply to this comment
See all 16 Comments
Latest News
News in Pictures
Scroll Left Scroll Right
Connect with CBS News

Stay connected with the CBS News using your favorite social networks and online news applications: