How many of you parents would like the driving age raised to 18?
in [Drive]
|
From: Speeders & Drunk Drivers Kill Kids on 14 Feb 2010 22:45 Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote in news:hl7pfl$b1v$3(a)news.eternal-september.org: > On 2010-02-13, Speeders & Drunk Drivers Kill Kids > <xeton2001(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> It's such a huge worry when your kids hit 16 and you remember what >> you were like at that age and how easy it easy for a dumb kid to >> drive crazy and kill/cripple himself or someone else and destroy his >> whole life. >> >> Hell - 20 would be even better. Teens, esp boys, are wild and don't >> think about consequences. > > we've been over this before, troll. > the result would be older inexperienced drivers with bad habbits. it > would just be older children. > > Prove it, hateboy.
From: Speeders & Drunk Drivers Kill Kids on 14 Feb 2010 22:47 Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote in news:hl9qtf$bjh$3(a)news.eternal-september.org: > On 2010-02-14, Lookout <mrLookout(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> Wrong. We were all much more mature at 21 than we were at 16. >> Or at least most of us were. > > So you'll punish those who were mature enough at 16? If we are going > to use the slow-ship-in-the-fleet logic, then the driving age would be > somewhere around 65 years old, upon which it would be limited because > of age related problems. People would be allowed to drive for a few > months of their lives. > > > Now that's really stupid. Adults NEED a car while high-school kids don't. It's just a toy to them. Heard of schoolbuses??
From: Speeders & Drunk Drivers Kill Kids on 14 Feb 2010 22:49 Alexander Rogge <a_rogge(a)yahoo.com> wrote in news:7trs8aFnv9U1(a)mid.individual.net: > The common minimum-age for driving is 18 years. HAHAHA. You are so stupid.
From: Lookout on 15 Feb 2010 02:24 On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 08:09:17 -0800 (PST), Matt <matttelles(a)sprynet.com> wrote: >On Feb 14, 3:13�am, Lookout <mrLook...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 16:48:41 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)" >> >> >> >> >> >> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote: >> >Matt <matttel...(a)sprynet.com> wrote in >> >news:437fec10-7e76-43a6-a8c7-0edd43a249df(a)w27g2000pre.googlegroups.com: >> >> >> On Feb 13, 3:09�pm, "RD (The Sandman)" >> >> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote: >> >>> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers Kill Kids" <xeton2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote >> >>> innews:X >> >> ns9D1E772E06965riemann1850yahoo...(a)216.168.3.70: >> >> >>> > It's such a huge worry when your kids hit 16 and you remember what >> >>> > you were �like at that age and how easy it easy for a dumb kid to >> >>> > drive crazy and kill/cripple himself or someone else and destroy >> >>> > his whole life. >> >> >>> > Hell - 20 would be even better. Teens, esp boys, are wild and don't >> >>> > think about consequences. >> >> >>> Why not wait until 21, then they can legally drink at the same time. >> >> >> Many years ago, I suggested dropping the drinking age to 12, removing >> >> the right entirely at the same age as a driver's license. I was >> >> kidding, of >> >> course, but sometimes... >> >> >> Raising ages only makes something more taboo, thus more desireable. >> >> Let them drink when their parents think they are ready. Let them drive >> >> when >> >> they can prove to the state/locality that they are ready. >> >> >> Matt >> >> >There is a point there even though that post was simply a jibe at SADD. >> >> >The legal age of consent or when someone is considered an adult >> >(emancipated youth excepted) is either 18 or 21. �It really needs to be >> >one or the other. �I don't care which one is chosen, however, IMHO, >> >someone who is old enough to marry, vote and be sent by our president to >> >die on foreign soil, is certainly old enough to enter a bar and drink a >> >beer. >> >> On this we agree >> Make it 21 for both. > >21 certainly makes sense. But then, why is it you can be drafted at >18, >serve your country and so forth? Many kids are working full-time at >18, >even some supporting families. > >Age is an arbitrary choice, and too easy an out. > >Matt 21 for draft too.
From: Lookout on 15 Feb 2010 02:25
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:45:19 +0000 (UTC), Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On 2010-02-14, Lookout <mrLookout(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 21:33:10 -0700, richard <member(a)newsguy.com> >> wrote: >> >>>On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 12:42:57 -0600, Speeders & Drunk Drivers Kill Kids >>>wrote: >>> >>>> It's such a huge worry when your kids hit 16 and you remember what you were >>>> like at that age and how easy it easy for a dumb kid to drive crazy and >>>> kill/cripple himself or someone else and destroy his whole life. >>>> >>>> Hell - 20 would be even better. Teens, esp boys, are wild and don't think >>>> about consequences. >>> >>>Would age make any difference? It's the fact it's your first time. >>>Kind of like hitting an amusement park for the first time you want to do >>>everything as fast as you can. >> >> Wrong. We were all much more mature at 21 than we were at 16. >> Or at least most of us were. > >So you'll punish those who were mature enough at 16? If we are going >to use the slow-ship-in-the-fleet logic, then the driving age would be >somewhere around 65 years old, upon which it would be limited because >of age related problems. People would be allowed to drive for a few >months of their lives. IF we have to make an arbitrary age I simply said 21. And there are very few 16 year olds mature enough to drive. And less now than there were 30 years ago. The kids today are idiots. |