The simple answer is no. As indicated in the article below, since drivers under the age of 18 must take drivers ed., they receive better training than those over the age of 18 who do not have to take drivers ed.
An additional reason teens are waiting to get their licenses is that they no longer have to be together to socialize as a result of social media. In fact, most teens can be in the same room and continue to interact using social media rather than face to face interaction. Please read the article below for more information.
For years, a driver’s license represented to teenagers
tantalizing adult freedoms. That little piece of plastic inspired
visions of sun-kissed road trips, sports cars and make-out sessions in
parking lots where mom wouldn’t drop in.
But for Washington teens, a subtle shift is under way. More are waiting to get licensed.
To
nervous parents, it might sound appealing to put off sleepless nights
worrying about car crashes. But to the Department of Licensing, the
trend is troubling because it means more new 18- to 21-year-old drivers
are hitting the pavement.
“Those are some of the riskiest drivers on the road,”
said Department of Licensing Special Projects Manager Brady Horenstein —
even riskier than 16- to 17-year-olds who, counterintuitively, make
better drivers.
A look at who receives learners’ permits indicates the trend.
A comparison of 10 years of the licensing department’s permit data
and Census Bureau population estimates shows the number of teens 15 to
17 who have permits has fallen slightly since 2004. Meanwhile, the
number of 18- to 21-year-olds permitted has risen nearly 47 percent
statewide during the same period. Without a permit, teens 17 and
younger can’t get a license.
The trend is most evident in poorer communities, where fewer people
seek permits. In ZIP codes with lower median incomes, a higher
percentage of teens wait to pursue licenses until after they turn 18.
Why teens wait
In 2012, the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety surveyed more than 1,000 18- to 20-year-olds across the nation who didn’t get their licenses until after they turned 18.
Why delay, the foundation asked?
Forty-four percent who responded said they didn’t have a car (so
what’s the point?), 39 percent said they could get around just fine
without driving and 36 percent said the cost of driving or gas was too
expensive. (The numbers add up to more than 100 percent because those
surveyed could list more than one reason.)
The cost of driver’s education played a role, too: 28 percent cited
driver’s ed courses as a reason they didn’t get licensed; 26 percent
said driver’s ed was too expensive.
In the past, driver’s ed was offered through public schools, but the
Legislature in 2002 largely stopped subsidizing driving instruction. In
2012, Seattle Public Schools stopped offering driver’s ed programs altogether. By 2013, 88 percent of Washington driving students took classes at private driver’s ed schools.
In Washington, driver’s education usually costs about $500, and until
you’re 18, classes are required to get a license. Janet Ray, of AAA
Washington, said some frugal or financially unable teens simply wait
until they’re 18, so they don’t have to pay for class.
Others just don’t seem to care. Thirty-five percent of teens who
responded to the AAA survey said they “just didn’t get around to it.”
A license might be a ticket to freedom, but the cost is too steep for some and not worth it for others.
Tran Lam, 18, said her family wasn’t in a position to pay for driving lessons.
“I wanted to do driver’s ed, but the thing is, the classes cost $400
to $500 and based on our family’s financial situation back then, I
couldn’t do it,” she said.
Lam plans to attend the UW next spring. She’s saving for a car and
hopes to get her license but said saving for college is more important.
“I didn’t think I would need a car for anything. I could take the bus
around or walk,” she said. “But I’m a senior now and I have a job and I
have to run errands. Living without a car is really hard —
complicated.”
Kaloni Sadettanh, 16, said his dad has been teaching him to
drive (“I’m already pretty good at it”). Still, the Cleveland student
said he wanted to “get the fundamentals” at driver’s ed. Sadettanh, who
takes Metro buses, bikes and walks wherever he needs to go, said his dad
would probably help pay for driver’s ed if he kept his grades up, but
he didn’t feel like he needed a car to impress anybody at school.
“High school’s about fitting in, but you don’t have to have a car to say, ‘Look at me,’” he said.
To Sadettanh, a car represents not adolescent freedom, but something
mundane: “You’re maturing,” he said. “I see it as a privilege.”
Jamilette Ruiz, 19, said her dad bought her a 2002 Mini Cooper, but
it’s been sitting in the driveway. She just never got around to getting
her license.
“It was not one of my priorities,” she said. She takes the bus and her older siblings give her rides.
Ruiz said if she’s 25 and still doesn’t know how to drive, she’ll need to do some “getting my life together.”
‘Riskiest drivers on the road’
The problem with teens waiting to get licensed: Those who wait become worse drivers, statistically, at least.
Recent licensing-department citation data shows drivers who got their
licenses at age 18 received, on average, about three times as many
citations as people who began driving at 16. Drivers over 18 are more
likely to fail their driving tests.
To become licensed before turning 18, drivers must get a permit to
practice and take driver’s ed. Once they turn 18, they simply have to
pass the knowledge and in-person driving tests.
Conceivably, someone could pass both tests without ever having driven on a highway. The state driving test doesn’t cover that.
Horenstein said restrictions on licensed drivers under 18 help keep
them safe. Those 16 to 17 years old receive an intermediate license
— they can’t have passengers under the age of 20 for the first six
months, and can’t drive between 1 a.m. and 5 a.m. for the first year,
unless they turn 18.
“There are no restrictions at all on an 18-year-old,” said
Horenstein. “Passenger restrictions, nighttime restrictions — study
after study has shown those produce better public-safety outcomes.”
Instructor Steve Phelan walks into 9-1-1 Driving School before he gives driving lessons. (Sy Bean / The Seattle Times)
Education matters
Teens who take driver’s ed fare much better on the road. A Nebraska study
that followed 150,000 drivers over eight years found those who never
took class were 24 percent more likely to be involved in a fatal wreck.
At 9-1-1 Driving School in Kirkland, former Bothell police Officer
Steve Phelan makes a convincing co-pilot. A lean man with short-cropped
hair and a neatly trimmed mustache, Phelan wouldn’t be out of place in a
“Top Gun” remake.
Not that 15-year-old Paige Henderson, on her third drive for class at
the school’s Kirkland location, needed a co-pilot. Phelan tapped the
brakes just once from the passenger seat during Henderson’s lesson.
She’s a capable driver who narrated her time behind the wheel in a witty
singsong voice.
Henderson didn’t flinch when a Volkswagen cut her off (“My mom says
you’ve always got to anticipate other drivers are stupid,” she said), or
when a car crept into her lane (“Hello there, friend!”), or when a
little girl walking from school let out a bloodcurdling scream for no
obvious reason (“Me too, kid. Me, too.”).
Paige
Henderson, 15, practices parallel parking during a driving lesson with
9-1-1 Driving School in Kirkland. State data shows that younger drivers
in Washington receive fewer traffic citations than those 18 and older.
The driver’s ed requirement and restrictions on new drivers under 18
might be part of the reason. (Sy Bean / The Seattle Times)
But she’d never parallel parked. Phelan directed her to the side of an SUV.
“Don’t you have cones or something set up?” asked Henderson nervously.
“No, we’ve got to have live cars. Makes it more interesting,” Phelan said coyly.
Phelan briefly explained proper technique and then let Henderson give it a try.
“So, you’re going to put it into reverse, turn all the way to the right … ”
Henderson carefully guided the Nissan Versa to a 45-degree angle to the curb and pulled in behind the SUV.
“Sweet. That was way easier than I was expecting,” the relieved Woodinville High School sophomore said.
Henderson is one of those kids with a life-plan already mapped out.
She’s going to keep up her 4.0 GPA and plans to get a zoology or biology
degree in college.
And she has a few advantages on her path to becoming a safe driver.
“Her parents are involved in her driving. That makes a huge difference,” Phelan said.
Her family was also willing and able to pay for driving school.
“It’s been forever since I learned to drive. I don’t want to pass on any bad habits,” Mark Henderson, Paige’s father, explained.
A motivated student, involved parents and driving-school education
right away — that’s the right recipe, said Jack Scott, who owns
Kirkland’s 9-1-1 Driving School. But he realizes that’s not possible for
everyone.
“The cost of driving schools are anywhere from $500 to get the course
completed. That could be an essential amount of money for people,”
Scott said.
Lawmakers
At the governor’s behest, the DOL has been working with
lawmakers to create a driver’s ed class designed for the 18- to
21-year-olds who haven’t become licensed.
Senators this session introduced a bill
that would require those drivers to take up to 10 hours of classes,
including three hours of practical driving lessons. Low-income
prospective drivers would be able to apply for subsidies.
But the bill fizzled in the Senate and failed to get out of committee.
For Henderson, it’s concerning that some of her older peers might not be trained.
“There’s stuff they don’t cover (in written tests) on the practical
drives,” she said. “People on the road should have to take the class or
have certified education.”
I always like to post a reminder at this time of year about speeding in school zones. Below is the NC statute on the issue. Remember that even though traditional calendar schools are out, there are still year round schools that are still in school and you need to watch for those.
Speeding in a school zone carries a $250 fine and the less than 10 MPH over the limit rule that would prevent a speeding ticket from going on your insurance does not apply to speeding in school zones. The only way to keep this ticket off your insurance is with a Prayer for Judgment.
§ 20-141.1. Speed limits in school zones.
The Board of Transportation or local authorities within their respective jurisdictions may, by ordinance, set speed limits lower than those designated in G.S. 20-141 for areas adjacent to or near a public, private or parochial school. Limits set pursuant to this section shall become effective when signs are erected giving notice of the school zone, the authorized speed limit, and the days and hours when the lower limit is effective, or by erecting signs giving notice of the school zone, the authorized speed limit and which indicate the days and hours the lower limit is effective by an electronic flasher operated with a time clock. Limits set pursuant to this section may be enforced only on days when school is in session, and no speed limit below 20 miles per hour may be set under the authority of this section. A person who drives a motor vehicle in a school zone at a speed greater than the speed limit set and posted under this section is responsible for an infraction and is required to pay a penalty of two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00).
Great blog about PJC (Prayer for Judgment Continued)
Thanks to the NC SOG for the post. A lot of people misuse the PJC and think its uses are unlimited as is their number.
Judges can continue prayer for judgment in any case. Except when they can’t.
In North Carolina, when a defendant is convicted, either after a
trial or by guilty plea, the court is generally viewed as having the
authority to continue prayer for judgment in the case. A prayer for
judgment continued (PJC) can serve different purposes. It can be a mere
continuance of sentencing in the case, allowing the court to obtain
additional information about the defendant before entering judgment. It
can take on the character of a suspended sentence, with the PJC set to
continue “from term to term” for some specified period on condition of
the defendant’s good behavior, with the understanding that the State
will pray judgment and the court will sentence the defendant in response
to any reported misconduct. Often, however, it is everyone’s
understanding that a PJC will be the last thing that happens in a
case—an exercise of judicial mercy that will leave the defendant with a
conviction but no punishment for it. I sometimes refer to that last type
of PJC as a dispositional PJC. Practice on all types of PJCs varies
across the State.
The precise legal underpinnings of the dispositional PJC are hard to pinpoint. I walked through some of the history of PJCs in this post, noting that the modern appellate courts generally approve of a trial judge’s broad authority to continue prayer for judgment. See State
v. Van Trusell, 170 N.C. App. 33 (2005) (“North Carolina courts have
the power to continue prayer for judgment . . . .”). If you look
carefully at the cases cited in support of that authority, they are
mostly talking about a probation-like, term-to-term type of PJC. But
suffice it to say that at this point, the baseline rule is that a judge
can continue prayer for judgment in any case unless some legal authority
says otherwise.
There are a small number of legal authorities that say otherwise.
In a few circumstances, PJCs are prohibited by statute.
Under G.S. 20-141(p), a driver charged with speeding in excess of 25 miles per hour shall be ineligible for a PJC.
Under G.S. 14-205.1(a),
any defendant who solicits another for prostitution—be it a first
offense, a second or subsequent offense, an offense against a minor, or
an offense against a severely or profoundly mentally disabled
person—shall not be eligible for a PJC under any circumstances.
Under G.S. 20-217(e), a defendant who passes a stopped school bus shall not receive a PJC under any circumstances.
In one important circumstance, a dispositional PJC is prohibited by case law. As Shea discusses in The Law of Impaired Driving and Related Implied Consent Offenses in North Carolina
(p. 145–46), our the appellate courts have interpreted the sentencing
provisions for impaired driving in G.S. 20-179 to be a “mandatory”
sentencing regime that prohibits dispositional PJCs in DWI cases. In re
Greene, 297 N.C. 305 (1979) (“We hold that the Courts at North Carolina
do not have an ‘inherent’ power to continue prayer for judgment on
conditions or to suspend sentence where the sentence is made mandatory
by the General Assembly.”). Now, one could argue that all of North
Carolina’s sentencing laws, not just G.S. 20-179, are “mandatory,” but
cases like Van Trusell show that the Greene rule has been limited to impaired driving.
In 2012, the General Assembly enacted a final statutory limit on PJCs in G.S. 15A-1331.2.
Under that law, the court shall not dispose of any Class B1–E felony by
ordering a PJC that exceeds 12 months. Any PJC ordered in those cases
must include as a condition that the State shall pray judgment within
some specific time not to exceed 12 months. Once that time has expired,
the court must enter a final judgment, unless it finds that it is in the
interest of justice to continue the order for some additional time not
to exceed 12 more months. The court may not extend the PJC beyond that
one additional 12-month period.
This relatively new rule obviously precludes a dispositional PJC for
any serious felony. That’s not something you hear about very often in
any event, but it used to happen from time to time.
The parties should also be aware of this requirement when a defendant
in a serious felony case is granted a PJC to allow him or her time to
demonstrate good behavior before sentencing. Sometimes 24 months will
not be long enough for the defendant to do whatever he or she agreed to
do. There is some argument that the law applies only to truly
dispositional PJCs (the statute uses the word “dispose”), and not to
mere delays in sentencing. But until we have case law interpreting the
provision, the new timeline is something you may wish to take into
account.
