Let's Debate Over-Protecting Our Kids

[knitster]

I'd add a third category to that - small towns/country. Where we live "mayberry" rules are common - the kids go down to swim in the river, build forts in the woods, play baseball in the vacant lot, ride bikes all over creation, and come in when it gets dark. And kids aren't segregated by age the way we were in my suburban upbringing - on a typical day around here we've got a group of kids ranging in age from 13 down to 3 playing in our and two neighbors' front yards, older siblings look out for the younger ones and they all know there are a half-dozen trusted adults within earshot to deal with scraped knees and other situations requiring adult involvement.

It isn't quite the same sort of freedom city kids have - my kids would have no idea what to do with public transit (the buses and monorail at WDW are a highlight because those are things we don't have at home! ) - but it is a far cry from the constant supervision and parent-coordinated scheduling of suburbia.

Yep, that's what it's like here in small town west Texas, too. Public transportation is unheard of, here, and the monorail and buses at WDW were almost too much for my kid's to comprehend! lol

 

[mumom95]

Most everyplace but the most rural areas though, have public transportation. Most suburbs have public transit. It may not be like a school bus that stops right on the corner but buses in every suburb I know exist and go to the town center, to the mall, etc. You may have to walk a couple blocks over to get the bus and know the schedule it runs on but it exists.

I live in a township north of Cincinnati and there is no public transportation in our township. None, nada, zip. You drive, ride a bike, walk or I guess you could call a cab. But that's it, no other options. And honestly, I don't think any of the townships around me have any kind of public transportation either. I certainly have never seen anything, but since I don't live there I don't know for sure. Some of the bigger suburbs around have buses I think, but not any of the townships.

 

[ccgirl]

Okay,

So I was having a discussion about the whole misconception around stay at home moms and working moms, but the discussion has evolved past that. So I will relate my story:

I have a 14 year old daughter, a freshman in high school. We live 5 houses away from the junior high (I counted them) you can literally see the gym door of the junior high from my front door. Over the summer the school sponsored a pep rally thing for the incoming freshman, to kind of welcome them to high school. It was held, on a Friday in the junior high gym from 6-8pm. My daughter went with her BFF. The plan was for them to go to the rally then come spend the night at our house. Strangely enough someone dropped them off after the rally. My daughter told me it was "Suzy's" mom. ummm... okay 5 houses...it's her gas. I later ran into Suzy's mom who made this comment to me, "I drove older daughter and BFF home from the rally. I know you work, so you probably weren't home, I'm sure you don't want your daughter walking around at night, and I know that BFF's mom wouldn't. I know you are busy, so let me know when the girls need a ride." Now, I took this as a not so subtle jab that because I work I neglect my kids, but when I posed this to someone else the answer I got was, "Oh she was just worried. It only takes a minute for something to happen, really 14 year olds should not be out at night alone and unsupervised." Ummm... I did mention there are 5 houses between my house and the school. It's a distance of about 50-75 yards.

So that started a discussion about how children are more babied now days. Around here, no kids walk to school, at any age, regardless of how short the walk is, or how nice the weather is. At the 1st sign of trouble the parent is at the school defending them "not my little Ralphie!" even if the evidence was indisputable that Ralphie did it. My friends 10 year old son, a month older than mine, has no jobs in the home. Another's 10 year old daughter says "My job is school and karate." On the DIS here I have even heard parents say they don't make their children do chores at home "because their activities take up too much time." ...don't even get me started on strollers in WDW for big kids.... head on over to the family board for that! I have a co-worker who told me how she follwed her 11 and 12 year olds in the car when they wanted to ride their bikes 3 blocks, in a very upscale suburban neighborhood with no major streets.

The thing is we hear so often about how kids "grow up so fast" but it seems to me that there has been a lot of backlash against this. It's a really strange dichotomy to me. I see a lot of kids who have parents who hover and try to keep them in a bubble, but also, strangely, have little rules, structure, or consequences for their kids. (the aforementioned co-worker with the 11 and 12 year old... her kids stole her credit card and charged something online, she thought an appropriate consequence was 1 day without playstation)

I think kids need to start with baby steps that help teach them independence and responsibility. If my 3 year old leaves her Barbie on the floor and the dog chews her head off (that happened LOL) then it's "Oh well, you should have picked up your toy." If my 14 year old doesn't do her math homework and gets a "D" (also happened) then it's her "D" and she will walk her very hot butt to summer school at 8am to improve the grade. I will not go to the teacher and beg her for make-up work.

Thoughts? Experiences?

I couldn't agree more. I let my DD9 ride her bike down the cul de sac. My in laws that it was horrible, that it is a different world today. I said it wasn't...all these things went on when we were kids we just didn't hear them as much. The news didn't seem so sensationalized, there was no sex offender register (the sex offenders were always there you just didn't know about them). My neighbor, a SAHM, drove her home one day with my DD crying because she knew I would not want my DD riding her bike down there without me. She also took the liberty of scolding my DD for it. I frankly told her that she was doing it with my position. She has no right to discipline my children. My DD is old enough to ride her bike and get exercise. She was mortified I would let her do this. I live in a very safe neighborhood. Only one way in and 1 way out. My road ends in a cul de sac and I know all the neighbors.

I met with my DD teacher yesterday because she kept getting recess taken away and I wanted to hear the teacher's side of things. The teacher thanked me and said most parents don't bother to hear her side; they only hear the childs and make a rant about it. She said she got a nasty call from a parent yelling at her for putting her son in the corner. Umm...never happened. I asked my DD and she said he had to go to the Principal, not the corner. Guess the boy was trying to get the teacher in trouble for sending him to the principal. I got sick of the whole all kids get a trophy so I put my DD in competitive sports so she could see what the real world is like.

I interview candidates and their mommy calls to ask why they didn't get the job and plead their case of why I should give them a second consideration. I frankly tell the mom that thanks to her call there is no way I would ever consider hiring that candidate because I need someone that can make split decisions on their own and doesn't need to consult with mommy.

My DD gets what she gets as far as grades. The dog ate her lunch box because she didn't put it away. Guess what....she has no lunch box. I told her she has to pay for it herself because this was the second time the dog ate it due to her laziness.

I give my children the tools should they ever be faced with a difficult situation. Of course, I hope it never comes to that but I think that sometimes parents are so determined to keep their child safe every waking moment they forget to teach them what they should do when faced with danger. I also believe in exercise. I make my children get away from the t.v., Wii, Nintendo DS and play outside, ride their bike, go for a walk. My DD knows how to make simple meals and even makes her DBro3 breakfast. And, she is so proud when she does it. Could I do it, sure...... I had children what some might consider older in life so some of my friends have children much older. It is amazing to me how they are so reliant on their parents as Freshman/Sophomores in college and can't even cook a simple meal. One of my friends DD dropped out of school freshman year, she got pregnant and flunked out. She was never allowed out and was always coddled. She got one taste of "freedom" and just didn't know what to do.

It is my job to raise a confident, productive member of society.

 

[Feckless]

I totally agree with the comments about our main job being to prepare our children for life. I grew up with very demanding parents - I tell my DD that when I came home with a 98% on a test, my father would say, "What happened to the other 2%?" or "How would you like to go to a doctor who only knew 98% of how to cure you?" Now, I am not that bad with my kids, but they know that if I say something is good it's GOOD, or that I know they did their best.

My kids are pretty free range. They both ride their bikes to school most mornings (about 3+ km I would assume) and they both ride their bikes and walk around the neighbourhood. I cannot imagine driving a 14 year old the length of 5 houses before 9 p.m. When I was 14 I was babysitting kids every single weekend - making them meals, playing with them, putting them to bed... I expect my kids to be doing the same at that age.

 

[mhsjax]

Most everyplace but the most rural areas though, have public transportation. Most suburbs have public transit. It may not be like a school bus that stops right on the corner but buses in every suburb I know exist and go to the town center, to the mall, etc. You may have to walk a couple blocks over to get the bus and know the schedule it runs on but it exists.

You don't live where I am, smack in the middle of the suburbs. Our nearest bus is about 7 miles. I think this may be part of the problem, so many people out there seem to know exactly NOTHING about where a lot of people live.

 

[mhsjax]

I totally agree with the comments about our main job being to prepare our children for life. I grew up with very demanding parents - I tell my DD that when I came home with a 98% on a test, my father would say, "What happened to the other 2%?" or "How would you like to go to a doctor who only knew 98% of how to cure you?" Now, I am not that bad with my kids, but they know that if I say something is good it's GOOD, or that I know they did their best.

My kids are pretty free range. They both ride their bikes to school most mornings (about 3+ km I would assume) and they both ride their bikes and walk around the neighbourhood. I cannot imagine driving a 14 year old the length of 5 houses before 9 p.m. When I was 14 I was babysitting kids every single weekend - making them meals, playing with them, putting them to bed... I expect my kids to be doing the same at that age.

YOu have my sympathies for growing up with a father like that. Yep even Dr's don't know everything, sorry he thinks that they do.

 

[Mkrop]

You don't live where I am, smack in the middle of the suburbs. Our nearest bus is about 7 miles. I think this may be part of the problem, so many people out there seem to know exactly NOTHING about where a lot of people live.

I always think people on the DIS like to think that places are exactly like where they live. Even a major city like San Fran is not an easy place to get a cab as say Philly or NYC. I was surprised when we went there this summer that a major city had lousy cab service. We rode the cable car and thought we could cab it back, was told by the girl (actually she laughed) when we suggested that. She told us that we should just get back on the cable car or take one of the bus routes. Luckily the cable car line wasnt as long to come back as it was when we went there.

 

[EMom]

Most everyplace but the most rural areas though, have public transportation. Most suburbs have public transit. It may not be like a school bus that stops right on the corner but buses in every suburb I know exist and go to the town center, to the mall, etc. You may have to walk a couple blocks over to get the bus and know the schedule it runs on but it exists.

I've lived in the suburbs of four major cities in Texas (Houston, Dallas, Ft. Worth, Austin) and have never had access to public transportation. I would have had to live much closer to the city center than the suburbs to have had access to that. You can walk (in 100 degree heat for much of the year) or you can drive. I suppose you could bike, but the reality is, most of the time the roads are not designed to be safe for cyclists. I haven't lived in a rural setting since I moved away to college, but aside from those years in college when we had a bus that would pick us up and take us to campus, I had never been able to take advantage of public transportation. It just hasn't existed in the suburbs I've lived in all over Texas.

 

[spacemountainmom]

Public transit where I live sucks as well and I live on a bus route!. The bus stop is kitty corner from my house and I wouldn't use the bus service if you paid me. I can get on the bus from my house and ride about a mile to the transportation station and then transfer to a bus to the city (I live in a suburb) and then transfer again to where I want to go. It is absolutely useless for anyone in my suburb to travel by bus.

My son was totally fascinated by them wheh he was little to I decided that we'd take the bus to the Children's Museum and make a day of it. I would have to ride three different buses to make the normal 10 minute trip. It would take more than an hour and cost me more than to drive and pay for parking. Why would I use public transit or want my kids to?

 

[disykat]

I always think people on the DIS like to think that places are exactly like where they live. .

So true. People also seem to think that their financial situation, housing situation, etc. is the norm.

 

[LuvsDragonflies]

ccgirl, I read that whole thing and left wondering, what did you dd do to get recess taken away?

 

[badcramps]

We aren't parents yet (hopefully soon!), but we've talked about this sort of overprotectiveness and how we'd like to avoid it. By that I mean that parents don't allow/encourage incremental amounts of independence throughout the child's life. Instead it's very strict rules all the way up into the late teens and then "you're 18 and are legally responsible for yourself in most ways, go to college, develop a career, good luck."

This thread sort of reminded me of this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/16/y...ills-for-the-collegebound.html?pagewanted=all

I teach college students and can't say that I've actually witnessed this sort of lack of knowledge about the world, so I hope this is all a great exaggeration! I mean--who doesn't know how to use a microwave or do laundry or balance a checkbook at 18 years old? But this article really does capture the sort of overnight freedom/independence/responsibility that comes when a kid who has been overprotected goes off to college.

Some of this did ring true for my wife--especially about the financial stuff. She had never worked and so it was the first time she was handling money or a check book. She also was overprotected in terms of social sorts of freedom--i.e. being able to go out and get home by curfew without telling her parents exactly where she was going and when.

On the other hand I had much more incremental independence happening. I did volunteer work at the hospital as a pre-teen (and saw A LOT!), got a job as soon as I turned 16 and worked during summers and during the school year at a nursing home (doing activities with residents and doing some tasks that had me up close and personal with body fluids), got my permit as soon as I turned 16, bought my own car at 16, got my license as soon as I finished the required practice hours and passed the test. At 16-17 had a curfew and had the freedom to come and go so long as I was home by it without detailing every where I'd be and everyone who'd be there. I managed my own spending money and saved on my own for college, had my own bank account, etc. In terms of day trips a few hours away from home with friends, my parents' only concern was whether my car was in good enough shape to be safe to take such a distance. In my senior year I was allowed to stay out way, way, way past curfew on school nights a few times for concerts I really wanted to go to.

Also on the driving issue, I got my license about 13 years ago. At that time there were some junior/senior license restrictions in my state on teenagers. You got your senior license at 17 or a certain amount of time after having a junior license and the only difference was whether you could drive after midnight. From what I understand, there are many more restrictions on teens now. And after years of these tough restrictions which push the age when teens really have driving-independence older and older, the result is that it's not at all clear the laws do that much to prevent accidents and deaths. Which makes sense if you think about it. If part of the reason why teens have so many deadly accidents is because of inexperience (and not purely stupidity/foodhardiness), then inexperienced people of any age are going to be prone to accidents. Making it the case that 16-17 year olds are so restricted in driving seems to delay independence, but without doing nearly as much as people hoped to avoid tragic car accidents.

In the same vein, I had a friend in high school whose parents forbid her from driving on a particular highway that went through town. (It was really no different than the other highways, but they thought this one was particularly "dangerous".) I never understood their thinking--as of August 15th when said friend was still living at home and hadn't yet gone to college she wasn't allowed to drive on that highway because it was too dangerous for her. Then as of Aug 16th after she moved in at college she could do whatever she wanted--drive anywhere, anytime. And to me, it seems like if the highway is dangerous, why is it less dangerous now? She still has no experience ever driving on it. Wouldn't some practice have been helpful before shew as completely set free?

I also know that in the pre-teen/early teenage range I was allowed to walk to the movies or the pool or to a friend's house with friends or alone during the day within about a mile or two. But just a couple of years ago one my relatives had a daughter who was around the same age and wanted to ride a bike with a friend to get ice cream which was a mile or two away and she wasn't allowed to. My mom told me the story and my mom--who had let me do the very thing in question 16 years ago--agreed that the girl was too young to bike that far away! When I pointed it out she just had no memory of letting me do that. It's like the standards of what is acceptable parenting (and what will obviously lead to your child's brutal murder) have shifted so much in the last 10-15 years that she can't even fathom that she would have allowed such an awful thing!

One final one--I have a relative who had a child who still believed in Santa at age 11/12. I guess they figured "why force her to grow up before she's ready?" Well now that kid is 15 and is going on birth control pills to prevent pregnancy. And I am thinking--what happened to the 5 stages of childhood and adolescence between "I still believe a completely internally inconsistent story about a magic fat man who brings me presents" and "I'm ready to have sex"?

 

[pacrosby]

Also on the driving issue, I got my license about 13 years ago. At that time there were some junior/senior license restrictions in my state on teenagers. You got your senior license at 17 or a certain amount of time after having a junior license and the only difference was whether you could drive after midnight. From what I understand, there are many more restrictions on teens now. And after years of these tough restrictions which push the age when teens really have driving-independence older and older, the result is that it's not at all clear the laws do that much to prevent accidents and deaths. Which makes sense if you think about it. If part of the reason why teens have so many deadly accidents is because of inexperience (and not purely stupidity/foodhardiness), then inexperienced people of any age are going to be prone to accidents. Making it the case that 16-17 year olds are so restricted in driving seems to delay independence, but without doing nearly as much as people hoped to avoid tragic car accidents.

I don't know about all that. If you like, take a moment and read this:

http://www.gjel.com/news/teen-brain-development.html

or if you really have some time and want to tackle the topic of adolescent brain development (or rather, lack there of), this:

http://www.wac77.com/images/70s_img/inside_teen_brain.pdf


Teenagers are not just miniature adults. Treating them as such is a recipe for disaster.

This parenting stuff is really quite complicated. Good luck

 

[cornflake]

There are some people who've replied and said there is literally no transportation available. Okie.

More though, have said that there is public transit, but it takes longer than driving someplace.

Well... duh?

When I said get a bus to the mall, I didn't think people would assume I meant walk down and get a direct bus right to the mall that takes about the same time as driving.

Yes, you might have to change buses! Yes, it takes longer. That doesn't mean it's not usable or that kids shouldn't "have" to use it. Kids here would get to school much quicker if someone drove them in a car, and yet they get on the train (and switch trains) or take the bus to the train to the other train, or etc. Plenty of kids spend 1-2 hours each way to get to school on public transit, because... that's where school is and either there is no car or no one is getting up to take the car and drive the kid to school (and then the kid would have to take public transit home anyway, because school lets out at like 3) just so they get there faster - because everyone's life doesn't revolve around the snowflakes to that point.

I have zero belief that everyone lives the way I do - I said most suburbs have transit. The posts in response haven't convinced me otherwise, as many people said well yes there is but it's not as convenient as hopping in the car so thus it's somehow not a viable alternative. Yes, it might take an hour to get to the mall on the bus when you could drive there in 15 minutes.... so? Kid can take the bus (and yes, change buses) if they want to go to the mall.

There are outliers where there's no transit, or where it's extreme, but... that the bus doesn't go in a direct shot and takes longer isn't exactly, to me, an argument that would mean taking the bus isn't an option - that's coddling to me.

 

[Planogirl]

I personally think that it is bizarre that there is a parent orientation at a university. The first time my mother ever heard words spoken by any official at my university other than on the TV news, the words were "Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to Winter Commencement." Every document that involved my college education was addressed to me, not Mom.

My DS has an LD, and he just started HS. DH & I met with the LC before he started to brief her on his situation and give her some notes for his teachers about his various issues, but we told her that next year we expected that it would be DS sitting in her office rather than us. When it comes to college I intend to "hand him his checkbook" and drop him and his boxes outside his residence hall, and I'll only be doing that because most schools don't allow freshmen to bring their own vehicles. I firmly believe that if he cannot independently handle that responsibility, then he really isn't ready for college.

When I was in school parents didn't pay tuition for you; you walked up the bursar's office window and did it yourself on registration day, and I NEVER saw a parent present at registration. I know that the process is automated now, but AFAIC, he needs to be the one that makes sure that the bills get paid, not me. I'll make the funds available, but the details are going to be his row to hoe.

Our colleges have such days but they are mostly about the financial aspect of college and kids bring their parents or not as they choose. I did go with DS because I was still trying to figure out how to pay for tuition but other than that I stayed out of it.

 

[Planogirl]

There are some people who've replied and said there is literally no transportation available. Okie.

More though, have said that there is public transit, but it takes longer than driving someplace.

Well... duh?

When I said get a bus to the mall, I didn't think people would assume I meant walk down and get a direct bus right to the mall that takes about the same time as driving.

Yes, you might have to change buses! Yes, it takes longer. That doesn't mean it's not usable or that kids shouldn't "have" to use it. Kids here would get to school much quicker if someone drove them in a car, and yet they get on the train (and switch trains) or take the bus to the train to the other train, or etc. Plenty of kids spend 1-2 hours each way to get to school on public transit, because... that's where school is and either there is no car or no one is getting up to take the car and drive the kid to school (and then the kid would have to take public transit home anyway, because school lets out at like 3) just so they get there faster - because everyone's life doesn't revolve around the snowflakes to that point.

I have zero belief that everyone lives the way I do - I said most suburbs have transit. The posts in response haven't convinced me otherwise, as many people said well yes there is but it's not as convenient as hopping in the car so thus it's somehow not a viable alternative. Yes, it might take an hour to get to the mall on the bus when you could drive there in 15 minutes.... so? Kid can take the bus (and yes, change buses) if they want to go to the mall.

There are outliers where there's no transit, or where it's extreme, but... that the bus doesn't go in a direct shot and takes longer isn't exactly, to me, an argument that would mean taking the bus isn't an option - that's coddling to me.

I can only go by our situation and we have no transit in our city of just over 100K. No trains, no buses - I don't even know if we have taxi service. So it wouldn't take longer here, it just wouldn't happen.

 

[Coconut36]

There are some people who've replied and said there is literally no transportation available. Okie.

More though, have said that there is public transit, but it takes longer than driving someplace.

Well... duh?

When I said get a bus to the mall, I didn't think people would assume I meant walk down and get a direct bus right to the mall that takes about the same time as driving.

Yes, you might have to change buses! Yes, it takes longer. That doesn't mean it's not usable or that kids shouldn't "have" to use it. Kids here would get to school much quicker if someone drove them in a car, and yet they get on the train (and switch trains) or take the bus to the train to the other train, or etc. Plenty of kids spend 1-2 hours each way to get to school on public transit, because... that's where school is and either there is no car or no one is getting up to take the car and drive the kid to school (and then the kid would have to take public transit home anyway, because school lets out at like 3) just so they get there faster - because everyone's life doesn't revolve around the snowflakes to that point.

I have zero belief that everyone lives the way I do - I said most suburbs have transit. The posts in response haven't convinced me otherwise, as many people said well yes there is but it's not as convenient as hopping in the car so thus it's somehow not a viable alternative. Yes, it might take an hour to get to the mall on the bus when you could drive there in 15 minutes.... so? Kid can take the bus (and yes, change buses) if they want to go to the mall.

There are outliers where there's no transit, or where it's extreme, but... that the bus doesn't go in a direct shot and takes longer isn't exactly, to me, an argument that would mean taking the bus isn't an option - that's coddling to me.

When taking the bus takes almost 3 hours that is not "well duh" that is ridiculous when the actual drive to the mall by car is less than 20 minutes. That is beyond a normal expectation of something taking a bit longer because it is public transit. Add to that the 20-30 minutes it takes to get to the bus stop and not including whatever time is required to walk from the bus stop to your destination..so easily pushing 4 hours to get to something that is a 20 minute car ride. How long are the kids going to actually have to get or do a darn thing with those kind of issues. I find it it ridiculous that public transit takes the time it does and I darn well know in places with decent public transit it can get you there better than by car in some cases or at least on par with it. Almost 4 hours by public transit for something that would normally take 20 minutes isn't worth it especially with teens and curfews (oh no..I must be overprotective because I do expect them home at a given time).

I don't give a crap what anyone calls me or thinks of me..I would not have my 12 or 13 year old (or any age for that matter) spending a minimum 3 and a half hours ONE WAY just to get to the mall. It would take them 6 hours round trip to and from the mall. 6 hours for something that would be less than a hour both ways in a car. That is ludicrous. If you feel that is best for your child..good for you. I don't think that is best for mine and it has jack to do with "over protectiveness" as it does with managing ones time and maximizing it where possible.

 

[Coconut36]

You don't live where I am, smack in the middle of the suburbs. Our nearest bus is about 7 miles. I think this may be part of the problem, so many people out there seem to know exactly NOTHING about where a lot of people live.

This was a far more to the point reply to the comments regarding public transit/buses. This exactly.

 

[cornflake]

When taking the bus takes almost 3 hours that is not "well duh" that is ridiculous when the actual drive to the mall by car is less than 20 minutes. That is beyond a normal expectation of something taking a bit longer because it is public transit. Add to that the 20-30 minutes it takes to get to the bus stop and not including whatever time is required to walk from the bus stop to your destination..so easily pushing 4 hours to get to something that is a 20 minute car ride. How long are the kids going to actually have to get or do a darn thing with those kind of issues. I find it it ridiculous that public transit takes the time it does and I darn well know in places with decent public transit it can get you there better than by car in some cases or at least on par with it. Almost 4 hours by public transit for something that would normally take 20 minutes isn't worth it especially with teens and curfews (oh no..I must be overprotective because I do expect them home at a given time).

I don't give a crap what anyone calls me or thinks of me..I would not have my 12 or 13 year old (or any age for that matter) spending a minimum 3 and a half hours ONE WAY just to get to the mall. It would take them 6 hours round trip to and from the mall. 6 hours for something that would be less than a hour both ways in a car. That is ludicrous. If you feel that is best for your child..good for you. I don't think that is best for mine and it has jack to do with "over protectiveness" as it does with managing ones time and maximizing it where possible.

The "or where it's extreme" was meant to cover a three-hour trip.

As much as I'm getting the 'you don't understand how other people live...'

Mass transit is often not faster or on par with a car, as I said. Plenty of kids travel 1-2 hours each way to school and it'd be significantly faster by car. That doesn't mean someone will get up to drive the kid, and again, how would the kid get home if they did?

Someone I went to h.s. with had to take a bus to a ferry to a bus or train to a train to get to school every day. It certainly would've been faster to drive.

Yes, if it's three hours, that's extreme. There are people in the thread saying it's 50 minutes or they'd have to change buses or other things that seem perfectly normal to me, and ridiculous to not consider transit over.

 

[badcramps]

I don't know about all that. If you like, take a moment and read this:

http://www.gjel.com/news/teen-brain-development.html

or if you really have some time and want to tackle the topic of adolescent brain development (or rather, lack there of), this:

http://www.wac77.com/images/70s_img/inside_teen_brain.pdf


Teenagers are not just miniature adults. Treating them as such is a recipe for disaster.

This parenting stuff is really quite complicated. Good luck

Thanks for the luck!

Oh I have no doubt that teens take more risks and make more driving mistakes than adults in part due to the way our brains develop. But I'm not sure how that speaks against my point that it doesn't make sense (based on actual empirical evidence) to put a lot of restrictions on 16-17 year olds and then set them completely free at 18. After all, the first source you quote clearly says that the white matter doesn't begin to spread until age 20 and doesn't finish until age 25-30. If lack of white matter is the problem and 18-19 year olds also lack it, then doesn't it follow that 18-19 year olds will also be dangerous drivers?

So the information you provided (first source at least--didn't look at the second) seems to support my point--if 16/17 year old brains aren't mature enough for good driving then 18/19 year old brains aren't either.

Your source at the end points out that graduated licensing has prevented many crashes amongst 16 year olds. I don't dispute that at all. But that is not the whole picture. The study in the link I included to the NYTimes agrees with that finding, but also found that such restrictions led to an *increase* in deadly crashes amongst 18 year olds (whom everyone agrees--as far as I know--ought to have no restrictions):

Over all, the tougher laws — which most states began adopting in the mid-1990s — have been credited with a 30 percent drop in highway fatalities among teenagers.

But “most of the prior studies on graduated driver licensing have only looked at 16-year-olds,” said Scott Masten, a researcher with California’s Department of Motor Vehicles and the lead author of the current study. “When you do that you go, ‘Wow, these programs are saving lives,’” he said.

To get a broader perspective, Dr. Masten and his colleagues looked at data on fatal crashes involving 16- to 19-year-olds that occurred over a 21-year period, beginning in 1986. “When you look at the bigger picture across 18- and 19-year-olds, it looks like we’re offsetting those saved crashes,” he said. “In fact, 75 percent of the fatal crashes we thought we were saving actually just occurred two years later. It’s shocking.”

The study, published Wednesday in The Journal of the American Medical Association, found that since the first graduated driver programs were instituted, there have been 1,348 fewer deadly crashes involving 16-year-old drivers. But at the same time, there have been 1,086 more fatal crashes that involved 18-year-olds.

So (if this study is a good one) it looks like my earlier point still stands. And note that the source you provided (the first one at least) makes the same mistake the study I am talking about has rectified--it looks *only* at changes in crashes amongst 16 year olds and assumes that lowering those crashes means lowering crashes over all. But this is simply not what is happening.

ETA: Of course, the restrictions do overall seem to save some lives/prevent some crashes--just not nearly as many as was assumed. I can see supporting any restrictions that will save any lives on the one hand. But then on the other hand, couldn't we save even more lives by making the driving age (for full licensing) 21? At some point we as a society say "look we know we could save X number of lives a year, but the burden on millions of people that this restriction would cause just is not worth it." That captures how I mostly feel about the increasingly burdensome graduated license requirements. I am not 100% against, but I am very skeptical that in the end the burden is actually worth it (especially when seen as just one more way that older children/teens are coddled more and more.)