k4thrynnn: as a 17 year old who's been driving on my own for almost a year, I can say that a stupid magnet isn't really going to make a bit of difference. what is even the purpose of it? so if someone sees me with a caution magnet on the back of my car, what, they speed to get away from me or something?

it makes not one bit of difference. the rest of the world should just be paying attention to begin with. i live in NJ with some of the worst drivers in the county.. sorry but while alot of my friends are sucky drivers, so is the rest of the state so they fit right in.

Yeah basically this.. whenever I'm stuck behind a kid in a student driver vehicle that's going 10 under and randomly braking I blow my horn, flash my lights, and if they don't pull over I pass them over the double yellow lines. The only good this will do is make it easy to target kids who are out past curfew or if they have too many passengers.

It's ok, because when her son drives over
68 he will blow a rod

chrismac: Dinjiin: chrismac: Please stop coming up with new laws to restrict the rights of others

Driving is not a right.

We have driving tests that are supposed to test for a minimum level of competency. Once you pass this test you have proven to the state that you meet this level of competency and can be trusted to drive.

Now this simply isn't good enough for some people like this twat who has too much time on her hands. She has decided that not only will she lord over all aspects of her own child's life, she will do her best to dictate policy for everybody's children. People like her need to be put in their place.

This.

Once you have passed the test then you have met the priviliges to drive. This sticker is just smoke-filled coffee house crap designed to make parents feel better but to make it a law would take away the privilage they earned for no reason. It be different if the kid was in an accident or had a ticket and was forced, he couldn't handle what was entrusted to him.

hicksfa2: I'm sick of being cut off by these little ignorant farkers.

So that's why so many adults vandalize cars and purposely run teens into the ditch, then call the police and make false accusations? If a driver is an idiot, take THAT DRIVER off the road, don't make everyone else a target for the mistake of one person.

In any case, your gross generalization of new drivers only proves the point I made in my OP. Thanks!

Old news - and it works.

Every study ive seen shows that while teens are in more wrecks , they are at fault LESS of the time. basically they are less able to adapt to other people being numbnuts.

itazurakko: mikeisboris: This is almost as stupid as "provisional licenses,"

I don't see a problem with this, I find it different than anything to do with the "age of majority" or whatever it is.

The key though, is that the n00b markers need to be applied to n00bs of ALL AGES. If a 30 year-old learns to drive, he gets the sticker for a year just like the kid who learned in high school.

Reading the thread I'm seeing just how different driving is in the US, as something that all kids supposedly learn. In Japan (a place with n00b markers) it's much less common to learn to drive, it's a skill you have to set out to acquire on your own, with your own money and on your own time, so it's normal for older people to be learning to drive and for people to never bother.

(Apparently fewer people are setting out to get licenses now, after it increasing for decades - found that interesting.)

This is what I don't get about graduated-licensing laws in most US states. In a lot of states, n00bs under 18 or 21 are required to have a learner's permit, then a restricted license for a period of time before getting a full license. N00bs over the magic age are allowed to walk into the DMV with the required ID, pass the written and driving tests, and leave with full licenses. This is insane. A 30-year-old who lived in lower Manhattan her whole life, had a friend teach him how to drive when he moved to LA and got a license is not necessarily a better driver than an 18-year-old who got his license at 16 after a mandatory driver's ed program.

At least the UK, Oz, and B.C. do it right--a n00b is a n00b. Whether you're 16 or 35, you have the L, N, P, whatever on your car.

/raising the driving age won't help; we'll just have inexperienced 18-year-olds on the roads
//the #1 cause of shiatty teenage driving is shiatty parental driving.

saeufer82: A 30-year-old who lived in lower Manhattan her his whole life, had a friend teach him how to drive when he moved to LA and got a license is not necessarily a better driver than an 18-year-old who got his license at 16 after a mandatory driver's ed program.

/FTFM
//...moved to LA, got a sex change...

Gameshot911: Dinjiin: chrismac: Please stop coming up with new laws to restrict the rights of others

Driving is not a right. Let me repeat myself: driving is not a right.

Driving is a right. I understand the courts don't rule that way currently. But given how America built up, how far apart things are, and how crappy our public transportation system is, a car is absolutely a right.

I will skip to the part where you ask me to show you exactly where it is a right.

1. Declaration of Independence - "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

2. Ninth Amendment - "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

no, its a privilege to drive on local, state, and gov roads... Anyone is free to purchase a vehicle, and do anything they like with it on private lands...

It is everyones right

Gameshot911: I will skip to the part where you ask me to show you exactly where it is a right.
1. Declaration of Independence - "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

A bit O/T, but just so you know, the Declaration of Independence is a manifesto, not a law, and has no effect whatsoever in conferring any rights upon a person under any circumstances.

I really wish people would stop referring to the DoI as if it were a piece of legislation with the force of law.

Crosshair: Putting "Caution - Newly Licensed" would essentially paint a giant bulls eye on these teens for *ssholes and jerks to screw with them and make a dangerous situation worse.

I'd support this more if we did the same for old drivers.

I believe they do exactally this in okinawa. They have one sticker design for inexperaianced drivers, and the same sticker in diffrent colors to signify senior citizens.

Nascar does it for rookie drivers

I wouldn't drive for a year. I'd tell my friends I failed the test, because that would be less embarassing than this stupid "NEW DRIVER" bs, and then after the year had passed I'd start driving and tell my friends "yea, fark the law, I do what I want", which means I'd get cool points on top of actually getting away with it.

I think this is a great idea. It would allow me to easily identify people to fark with on the freeway.

If it were me, I'd just put a magnet saying "...to kill" after it.

In N.Ireland we have the 'R' Plate, which not only marks the driver as a novice it restricts the driver to 45MPH, even on motorways. They have to be worn for 1 year after passing the test.

'L' plate learner drivers have to be accompanied and are again restricted to 45.

It probably causes more accidents than it prevents. As soon as the 'R' plates come off, you wind up with drivers jumping up to 60/70Mph with no experience of driving at that speed, then promptly winding up upside down in a field after taking a corner too fast. Not to mention the hassle that an R plate driver can get from other drivers, mainly because they frustrate other road users because of the restriction on thier speed.

The emphasis should be on teaching people how to drive properly in all conditions from the get go, not slamming restrictions on that mark the driver out as a novice or forces them to drive differently from the norm.

Highroller48: Gameshot911: I will skip to the part where you ask me to show you exactly where it is a right.
1. Declaration of Independence - "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

A bit O/T, but just so you know, the Declaration of Independence is a manifesto, not a law, and has no effect whatsoever in conferring any rights upon a person under any circumstances.

I really wish people would stop referring to the DoI as if it were a piece of legislation with the force of law.

Look...I know that the DoI is not enumerated rights. I am merely making the case that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is a inalienable right that all Americans have, regardless of whether it is in the Constitution or not.

I consider the ability to travel on public property a right, the ability to get a job in whatever industry I want a right, to jerk it in my own home a right. These things are not privilages, they are rights, and in the same way, having a car is a right. Sure, you can regulate it for safety reasons and common sense, just like I can't get a job as a serial murderer, or take a nap in the middle of the street.

But considering how America has developed, how far apart things are, how crappy (or nonexistant) our public transportation system is, a car is absolutely critical to the lives of most Americans. And in this sense, it is a right to drive a car - and as with all rights it is something that is owned by the people (to be taken away if they screw up), and not something that is to be given by the government as a privilege.

Wow that was poorly written. I apologize in advance.

Gameshot911: Look...I know that the DoI is not enumerated rights. I am merely making the case that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is a inalienable right that all Americans have, regardless of whether it is in the Constitution or not.

I consider the ability to travel on public property a right, the ability to get a job in whatever industry I want a right, to jerk it in my own home a right. These things are not privilages, they are rights, and in the same way, having a car is a right. Sure, you can regulate it for safety reasons and common sense, just like I can't get a job as a serial murderer, or take a nap in the middle of the street.

But considering how America has developed, how far apart things are, how crappy (or nonexistant) our public transportation system is, a car is absolutely critical to the lives of most Americans. And in this sense, it is a right to drive a car - and as with all rights it is something that is owned by the people (to be taken away if they screw up), and not something that is to be given by the government as a privilege.

You have the right to travel on public property. You can walk, ride a bicycle or travel as a passenger.

However, if you want to operate an car, you have to prove you are capable of operating the vehicle safely and with knowledge of the applicable laws. A license is that proof.

Highroller48: Old news - and it works.

My favorite version of this is when the noobs put the "N" on sideways (to try and disguise it or something?)

Hopefully a cops stops them and writes them a nice big ticket for being idiots...

dustman81: Gameshot911: Look...I know that the DoI is not enumerated rights. I am merely making the case that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is a inalienable right that all Americans have, regardless of whether it is in the Constitution or not.

I consider the ability to travel on public property a right, the ability to get a job in whatever industry I want a right, to jerk it in my own home a right. These things are not privilages, they are rights, and in the same way, having a car is a right. Sure, you can regulate it for safety reasons and common sense, just like I can't get a job as a serial murderer, or take a nap in the middle of the street.

But considering how America has developed, how far apart things are, how crappy (or nonexistant) our public transportation system is, a car is absolutely critical to the lives of most Americans. And in this sense, it is a right to drive a car - and as with all rights it is something that is owned by the people (to be taken away if they screw up), and not something that is to be given by the government as a privilege.

You have the right to travel on public property. You can walk, ride a bicycle or travel as a passenger.

However, if you want to operate an car, you have to prove you are capable of operating the vehicle safely and with knowledge of the applicable laws. A license is that proof.

What inherently makes riding a bicycle a right?

k4thrynnn: as a 17 year old who's been driving on my own for almost a year, I can say that a stupid magnet isn't really going to make a bit of difference. what is even the purpose of it? so if someone sees me with a caution magnet on the back of my car, what, they speed to get away from me or something?

it makes not one bit of difference. the rest of the world should just be paying attention to begin with. i live in NJ with some of the worst drivers in the county.. sorry but while alot of my friends are sucky drivers, so is the rest of the state so they fit right in.

Every state has sucky drivers. Your skills will improve once you start commuting, since driving at 70 mph at distances usually referred to as tailgating or drafting (in NASCAR)will sharpen your skills.

Just remember that DRIVING is the primary activity, not talking on the phone, texting, eating, drinking, etc.

\I was a 17 year old driver in NJ once.
\\Learn how to drive in snow and ice and how to navigate a NJ traffic circle and you should be fine.

AgonistAlex: Every study ive seen shows that while teens are in more wrecks , they are at fault LESS of the time. basically they are less able to adapt to other people being numbnuts.

I call pure unadulterated bulshait. Teens generally have quicker reflexes then older drivers, but this advantage is severely tempered by overreacting to stimuli. What's the advantage of reacting 2/10's of a second faster than your mother, if all you're going to do is crank the wheel and pile it into the guard rail?

Teen drivers are probably the safest on the road for the first month after they finish driving school and pass their test. After six months they think they're old hands at it, start driving recklessly, and then the accidents start piling up.

If you've *ever* been involved in a collision you are responsible, no matter what the cop/insurance company says. I used to drive for a living, and I had to quickly learn how to anticipate and avoid other people stupid and reckless behavior, or my company would have fired me. When you're driving 20K miles a year, an accident every 60K or 80K is easy to rationalize. When you're driving 100K or 150K a year, that means two accidents a year, which means your insurance is going to go through the roof, which means you get fired.

Those truckers with one or two million miles accident free? That's not dumb luck, and if you or your teenager is in a wreck, they're at fault for not avoiding it.

the ha ha guy: hicksfa2: I'm sick of being cut off by these little ignorant farkers.

So that's why so many adults vandalize cars and purposely run teens into the ditch, then call the police and make false accusations? If a driver is an idiot, take THAT DRIVER off the road, don't make everyone else a target for the mistake of one person.

In any case, your gross generalization of new drivers only proves the point I made in my OP. Thanks!

...Hold on, my insurance agent is laughing at me through the phone after telling her that...She's quite loud...

Last time I checked, I'm paying higher insurance premiums as a guy opposed to most women my age based upon a "gross generalization" that guys are more aggressive drivers than women. I'm paying a higher premium because I'm under 25 based upon a "gross generalization" that people in my 16 - 25 age bracket are negligent and irresponsible with automobiles.

There was a reason why my insurance when I was 16/ 17 was well over 2400 a year (with USAA) due to this "gross generalization" (I'm a higher risk due to my age, therefore higher premium).

It's because of "gross generalizations" that most insurance premiums are generated in the first place. So if I was to base my decision off of your logic, you're basically trying to tell me that a 16 year old driver is equal or more experienced, less prone to accidents- than me, a 24 year old who has been driving for over 9 years, with no accidents, no speeding tickets, no warnings or other forms of citation(s) due to moving violations, and therefore should be treated the same in terms of laws and insurance premiums...Even though the number ONE raison d'être for people under the age of 18 (and new drivers for that matter) is STILL by-and-large automobile accidents?

Stop fighting for the rights of people that have no business being behind the wheel of a car without substantial supervision. I'm sick of being the sugar daddy that funds the insurance money pot for their epic driving .

In all fairness it DOES make it easier for the cops to find and harass people who are not likely to pay a lawyer to fight bogus tickets in traffic court.

Fano: What inherently makes riding a bicycle a right?

It's not exactly a "right" I suppose, but currently in most places riding a bicycle doesn't require a license.

You can of course be ticketed for breaking the law while doing so, but it seems they recognize that if you're riding your bicycle in the ROAD and you fark up, odds are the only person you'll kill is yourself, so they're less stringent.

Playerslight: Teens generally have quicker reflexes then older drivers, but this advantage is severely tempered by overreacting to stimuli.

I think a good part of the "overreacting to stimuli" thing is just n00bness though rather than some inherent trait of teenagers. Newbies just don't have the experience to filter out the "this isn't really a problem" stimuli.

By necessity teenagers are going to be new drivers, and so it's understandable that they get high premiums and whatever, but I think older adults new to driving need to be viewed with the same suspicion - as they ARE in countries where learning to drive at an older age is common.

As for the older drivers, the really old drivers, I'm thinking perhaps a bumper sticker "this vehicle does not stop for farmers' markets" would do the trick?

lajimi: In all fairness it DOES make it easier for the cops to find and harass people who are not likely to pay a lawyer to fight bogus tickets in traffic court.

Yeah, because cops get to keep that ticket money personally, don't ya know!

That's gotta be one of the most uninformed statements I've read on Fark in...well, okay...hours.

itazurakko: Japan requires this already:



It's a "new leaf" mark, you have it for one year after getting a license.

/link hot like a car in the sun

Israel has a requirement like that too, only not nearly as discreet and tasteful. It's just a sign like those "Baby on Board" signs, except it reads "New Driver." Required for all newly-licensed drivers, not just teens, and I'm not sure for how long it has to be displayed. Oddly - or maybe not - there's no "thing" there that other young people consider it an invitation to screw around with the n00b. Must be a cultural thing in certain locations.

Playerslight: AgonistAlex: Every study ive seen shows that while teens are in more wrecks , they are at fault LESS of the time. basically they are less able to adapt to other people being numbnuts.

I call pure unadulterated bulshait. Teens generally have quicker reflexes then older drivers, but this advantage is severely tempered by overreacting to stimuli. What's the advantage of reacting 2/10's of a second faster than your mother, if all you're going to do is crank the wheel and pile it into the guard rail?

Teen drivers are probably the safest on the road for the first month after they finish driving school and pass their test. After six months they think they're old hands at it, start driving recklessly, and then the accidents start piling up.

If you've *ever* been involved in a collision you are responsible, no matter what the cop/insurance company says. I used to drive for a living, and I had to quickly learn how to anticipate and avoid other people stupid and reckless behavior, or my company would have fired me. When you're driving 20K miles a year, an accident every 60K or 80K is easy to rationalize. When you're driving 100K or 150K a year, that means two accidents a year, which means your insurance is going to go through the roof, which means you get fired.

Those truckers with one or two million miles accident free? That's not dumb luck, and if you or your teenager is in a wreck, they're at fault for not avoiding it.

You can't always blame drivers for being unable to avoid an accident. Sometimes the other idiots on the road are just going to hit you and there's nothing you can do to prevent it. The best you can do is learn to identify poor/novice/elderly drivers on the road and stay the hell away from them to minimise the danger to yourself.

Leper Puppet: You can't always blame drivers for being unable to avoid an accident. Sometimes the other idiots on the road are just going to hit you and there's nothing you can do to prevent it. The best you can do is learn to identify poor/novice/elderly drivers on the road and stay the hell away from them to minimise the danger to yourself.

He's also forgetting that the studies of these teen drivers doesn't include information about the factors leading to their accident. Sure they may not be at FAULT, but from the teen driver's POV, was it a completely avoidable accident had the teen been paying better attention to the road, other drivers, their driving surroundings?

hicksfa2

Rates are based on careful statistical analysis done by the insurance companies who make their living off determing risk and liability. You may be responsible, but on the whole the age group of 16-24 is not and countless of studies have proven this. Insurance companies have no vested interest in turning off potential customers. They simply understand they won't stay in business if they treated everybody equally.

Coincidentally, other psychological studies have confirmed that adults do not develope a full sense of risk assessment until the age of 25. Of course, you may just be special.

japantheman: hicksfa2

Rates are based on careful statistical analysis done by the insurance companies who make their living off determing risk and liability. You may be responsible, but on the whole the age group of 16-24 is not and countless of studies have proven this. Insurance companies have no vested interest in turning off potential customers. They simply understand they won't stay in business if they treated everybody equally.

Coincidentally, other psychological studies have confirmed that adults do not develope a full sense of risk assessment until the age of 25. Of course, you may just be special.


If you read my post carefully, you would have noticed that I wasn't supporting teenage drivers being treated on an equal scale.

I was just merely pointing out the holes in another poster's response to what I said.

Leper Puppet: You can't always blame drivers for being unable to avoid an accident. Sometimes the other idiots on the road are just going to hit you and there's nothing you can do to prevent it. The best you can do is learn to identify poor/novice/elderly drivers on the road and stay the hell away from them to minimise the danger to yourself.

You're correct, of course, but it's an excuse used as a crutch for all sorts of avoidable collisions. Most collisions are caused by people acting incorrectly but entirely predictably. I saw it every day when I was driving professionally. There are few instances of people acting unpredictably, such as some senior citizen missing the brake pedal and stomping on the gas, lurching into a busy intersection against the light. However, if it's a collision involving someone backing out of a driveway, aggressively changing lanes, running a stale red light, missing the point of a yield sign, driving too fast for bad road conditions, or any of those other entirely predictable behaviors, drivers should all be able to avoid those types of accidents.

Want to see something fun someday (for you northerners). Watch the roads during a day when there is freezing rain. This is most noticeable on an interstate, but you'll see hundreds of tractor trailers pulled over on the side of the road, or in rest stops, or anywhere but driving (with the exception of maybe one or two suicidal idiots). Then count the number of cars still trying to navigate those slippery conditions. They'll pile off the road and consider it an 'accident', an act of God that they couldn't have possibly avoided, and remain completely convinced that them sliding off into another car or the ditch was not remotely their fault because the roads were slippery.

Anyway, I'm ranting because the air-conditioning in my office is off and I'm cranky.

I learned how to drive in MD, where they have what is called the "Graduated Licensing System". Basically, this means that you have your learners permit, which you can get at age 15 and 4 months. then, after you pass your drivers exam, complete drivers ed class of around 2 weeks in a classroom, and do the 40+ hours of assisted driving, you can get your Provisional License. I cannot remember the time restriction for how long you need to have your learners permit, but the provisional you must have for 18 months, if memory serves, or until you turn 18. All a provisional license means is that you cannot drive between midnight and 5AM, and there are passenger restrictions, I believe it was no more than two un-fully licensed drivers in the car at once. After you are done with your provi, you get a full pass. Now, MD gives you a "rookie driver" magnet for a similar reason as to this overprotective idiotic projecting biatch, and i had that on my car three times while driving with my dad before he threw it in the trash for my own safety. People will screw with you something fierce if you have that kind of placard on your vehicle. He actually drove on I495 around DC with it one time to see if it was just my driving or if people are douchebags, and sure enough, it was the latter. This magnet is a terrible idea. Someone needs to forward this woman this thread so that maybe she will realize how idiotic her idea is.

/fark can make a difference
//yeah right

On a completely unrelated note, there were a few kids who decided to start the worst band I had ever heard with the name "Rookie Driver" named after the sticker. They were about as talented as the "Final Countdown... LIVE!!!" band.

People have mentioned the stickers in Japan. I`m living and driving here. They are ubiquitous. New drivers of any age and old people (not sure the age) need them on their cars. Basically, they serve as a `give wide berth` signal to other drivers. I believe everyone has equal driving privileges, but the signs alert other drivers to the presence of inexperienced and/or aged drivers with likely slower to respond motor skills. They seem to do a good job too.

If the U.S. culture is such that we really can`t have these signs in cars do to the likelihood of serial rapists exploiting them and an actual increase in aggression from other drivers, I may end up spending more time abroad than I previously thought.

frizzantik: Japan has a mark for older drivers too

When my grandma visited my parents over in Japan, she learned about the senior driver magnet and was amused. She now has one stuck to her car here in the U.S. Not that anyone will recognize what it means...

XCPirate: If the U.S. culture is such that we really can`t have these signs in cars do to the likelihood of serial rapists exploiting them and an actual increase in aggression from other drivers, I may end up spending more time abroad than I previously thought.

This is sort of the new discovery I'm taking from the thread as well. I never heard of people ganging up on people with new leaf stickers back in Japan, I know they don't have them here in the US but I wasn't suspecting the "oh they'll make great targets hahahahaha" response.

But then, the entire "road rage" thing escapes me.

Mrs Kessler's idea is a good one. Now I'll know which drivers to fark with!

/Not really.
//But other, meaner drivers will.
///Could be good for knowing when a chick is legal, though.

Crosshair: The "student driver" program here in Grand Forks stopped putting the labels on the cars because people, mainly young people who had their 20s, would keep harassing and screwing with the driver by tailgating, driving slow in front of them down a residential street, braking suddenly, coming up beside them and laying on the horn, tailgating with their brights on, etc. Doesn't sound like much, but for a new driver that amps up the stress level significantly.

Putting "Caution - Newly Licensed" would essentially paint a giant bulls eye on these teens for *ssholes and jerks to screw with them and make a dangerous situation worse.

I'd support this more if we did the same for old drivers.


Maybe your state is just full of asswipes and jerks. I live in Canada and new drivers are required to have magnets on their cars. There's the "L", for learner's, which you get one you pass your written test. Once you have your L, you need like 40 hours or a set amount of time driving with someone who has their full licence. You have to have your L for 2 years, or 1.5 years if you take driving lessons.

After you've done your time with the L, you try for your "N", aka your "new licence". It's a driving test with an instructor, and they grade you based on certain things you have to know. If you make an "unsafe manuever", you automatically fail no matter how well you were doing.

You're allowed to have your N for 5 years, after which you have to either renew it or go for your full licence. Once you have your full licence, formally known as your "Class 5", then you're a full-fledged driver.

With both the L and the N, you have to have the coloured magnet on the back of your car. If you're pulled over and determined to be an L or N driver, and you don't have it on the vehicle, I would assumed you get fined and/or points are put on your licence. Once you have a certain # of points, they can revoke your licence, impound your vehicle, etc.

I've never seen anyone here screw with L and N drivers - if anything, everyone stays away so they don't get hit or vice versa.

I got my L when I was younger, like 17, and then tried for my N once but failed. I've gotten around by getting rides and using public transit since then.

Highroller48: lajimi: In all fairness it DOES make it easier for the cops to find and harass people who are not likely to pay a lawyer to fight bogus tickets in traffic court.

Yeah, because cops get to keep that ticket money personally, don't ya know!

That's gotta be one of the most uninformed statements I've read on Fark in...well, okay...hours.

That's a general statement on the contents of this thread if I've ever seen one.

"Hyuk hyuk, I'm-a gonna go find a new driver an' make 'em run off the road, hyuk hyuk!" Funny. Really.

hicksfa2: Stop fighting for the rights of people that have no business being behind the wheel of a car without substantial supervision.

I will, as soon as you stop fighting for the right of 50 year olds to slash the tires on the cars of 25 year olds.

And while we're at it, most 80 year olds are in nursing homes under "substantial supervision", so why are so many allowed unsupervised on the road?

We have that here in British Columbia, and quite frankly I don't think it does jack shiat. I still see young drivers flying around like idiots and it doesn't change how older drivers drive around them.

It's a useless waste time and resources to keep track of drivers this way.

I know far too many old drivers who drive like d*ckheads for me to be particularly concerned about young drivers. Besides, WTF am I gonna do anyway, take a detour to avoid them? Everyone should be keeping an eye on every car anyway, there are too many a**holes around. This will not do anything except let HS Seniors identify the Sophomores they want to harass more easily. A completely stupid idea.

the ha ha guy: hicksfa2: Stop fighting for the rights of people that have no business being behind the wheel of a car without substantial supervision.

I will, as soon as you stop fighting for the right of 50 year olds to slash the tires on the cars of 25 year olds.

And while we're at it, most 80 year olds are in nursing homes under "substantial supervision", so why are so many allowed unsupervised on the road?

A) I never called for 50 year olds to slash the tires of 25 year olds. Their insurance rates aren't half as affected as mine by the actions of stupid teenagers.

B) I haven't seen a glut of 80 year olds who are just amped to get behind the wheel of a car. Sure they're dangerous, but when's the last time you read a news story about 5 teens dying in a car because the driver was going over the speed limit, lost control of their vehicle, and smashed head on into a utility pole/ tree/ large structure/ off the side of the road into a ditch which subsequently ended up rolling the car/ etc., etc.

Again, an 80 year old crashing into a ditch, because they're old- That's God's will. A 16 year old crashing into a ditch, because they're young and stupid- That's going to raise my insurance rates because I'm guilty by association. Never mind the fact that I have a spotless driving record, and the only insurance claim I've filed was after my girlfriend's brother accidentally backed into my unoccupied parked car.

Highroller48:
I really wish people would stop referring to the DoI as if it were
a piece of legislation with the force of law.

Gameshot911:
Look...I know that the DoI is not enumerated rights. I am merely
making the case that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is
a inalienable right that all Americans have, regardless of whether
it is in the Constitution or not.

Here, here! People like Highroller48 would make anything
not expressly listed in the Bill of Rights, a privilege granted
to us by the Nanny State.

If government is to err, better that it err on side of freedom.

imi:
In all fairness it DOES make it easier for the cops to find and
harass people who are not likely to pay a lawyer to fight bogus
tickets in traffic court.

Highroller48:
Yeah, because cops get to keep that ticket money personally,
don't ya know!

Yeah, because there is no incentive for cops to write bogus
tickets...



Link (new window)

Random question for any of you Farkers who wish to answer:

Which would you prefer to have?
A) Helicopter Parents
B) Apathetic Parents
C) No Parents at all

Great Janitor: "Now, what benefit could having these magnets possibly serve???"

To highlight the fact that the US is teetering on anarchy and its general public is sorely lacking in ethics?

I mean, almost all the arguments against the magnets here are basically pointing these facts out, right?

Make all new drivers drive a Volvo wagon. Problem solved.