My nephew T got his driver's permit recently. I didn't find that at all surprising—until I read that the percentage of young people becoming licensed drivers has dropped radically since at least 1983. In that year, 46% of 16-year-old had their licenses; by 2010 that had plummeted to 28%.
Why? Reasons suggested range from reasonable to ridiculous, from encourging to frightening. Some of them (in no particular order):
- Too busy
- Too expensive
- Driving interferes with texting
- Online resources make travel less necessary
- Preference for public transit/biking/walking
- Changes in licensing requirements
#1 I haven't figured out yet. Most DMV lines are long, but not that long.
#2 I understand as a reason to put off buying a car, but not a reason for not getting a license. A 16-year-old should be happy enough using the family car, and an older, "boomerang kid" still living at home should welcome the opportunity to assist the parents who are still supporting him. Owning a car isn't a prerequisite for acquiring a license!
#3 Okay, once I got over the ridiculousness of being so addicted to your phone that you refuse to drive because most states don't allow texting while driving, I acknowledge that being able to do something else while travelling is one of the great advantages of public transit. My father was a book lover with not a lot of spare time; taking the train to work was like being handed an extra hour to read.
#4 Very true. Since I hate to shop, I really appreciate being able to do much of it online. And watching movies at home is much nicer than getting my feet sticky in a movie theater. But even here in Switzerland, which has the best public transit I've seen anywhere, most people find they have need for a car—if not actually owning one, at least subscribing to a car-sharing service.
#5 The best reason of all. I'm thrilled that it's becoming "cool" to use public transit. I've said for a long time that public transit, along with walking and biking for transport (as opposed to exercise or sport), will never make it in the U.S. until it shakes its image of being just for the poor and for drunks who have had their driver's licenses taken way. But see my comment on #4.
#6 There needs to be more said about this than I've heard so far. Getting a license used to be straightforward and relatively easy, even when it became more restrictive than it was for our parents: "This is my daughter. She can drive; give her a license." "Okay, ma'am; here it is." Many states have become increasingly restrictive when it comes to licensing young people, with more rules than I've been able to keep track of, rules that take away much of the immediate incentive for learning to drive. If they can't drive themselves home after a football game (too late at night) and can't provide transportation for their friends (passenger limits), who can blame many young people for finding the whole process too much hassle to bother with, since they can get fully licensed with ease in just a few more years?
"There's a segment of this generation missing opportunities to learn under the safeguards that [graduated licensing] provides," said Peter Kissinger, the president of the AAA Foundation for Traffic safety.
All I can say to that is that they brought it on themselves by in effect telling young people they are irresponsible idiots. Who can blame those who decide to chuck the whole system?
You have to also consider parents who are willing to continue to drive kids everywhere and restricted parking spaces at schools.
D
On the expense side of the ledger I would suggest that the cost of adding a teenager to the insurance of existing cars in the household could well be what is being referred to.
True, but it still leaves me wondering why parents put up with remaining chauffeurs longer than necessary.
Limited parking space at our school worked well under the then-current rules, because kids worked out efficient carpools. With restrictions now on having unrelated passengers, it must be very difficult.
Sorry. That "true" was referring to D's comment, and Dad-o's sneaked in between them. But it's also true that insurance costs have gone through the roof for young drivers. Though I do wonder -- wasn't the price quite reasonable as long as our kids were driving "family cars"? I seem to recall it only got expensive once we had three cars, so that a teen had to be designated the primary driver on the third.
#6 is related to #1. Many states now have an hours requirement - you must drive a certain number of hours with a licensed adult before you can get your full license.
Oh, more good intentions! But yet another barrier. You'd think they were trying to keep teens off the road. Oh, wait....
I don't know what the laws in NH are now, but back in 1980, you could get your license on the day you turned 16. Currently, in CT, you can't get your permit until you are 16 and then you have to wait at least 4 months to get your license. That cuts off 4 months of drivers from the data. You would think that gap would then be made up at the 17 year old data point, but that appears not to be the case, in fact the gap widens.
From my perspective, there does not appear to be a reluctance by kids or their parents to get licenses. The school has to have a lottery system for parking spaces because they have more drivers than spaces. I think it would be interesting to see the data by state and correlate it with driving laws (maybe they did that, but I can't access the study).
In PA you an get your permit at 16 but must wait 6 months and have 65 hours of driving under your belt before you can test for your junior license. With your junior license you can't drive between 11 PM and 5 AM. You can also only have 1 non-adult passenger for the first 6 months. If you take Driver's Ed (both classwork and behind-the-wheel) you can get your senior license after having your junior one for a year. My kids both got their senior licenses at about 17 1/2 instead of waiting until 18.
