<p>I haven’t read through all the posts, so forgive me if this has already been said, but I would put one of those “tracking” devices on the car after a no driving period, and let her know it is there. That way you would know if she is picking up/dropping off friends!</p>
<p>I guess you could. But then, GA mom, if my trust in my kids was that low, why would I let them have keys back in the first place?</p>
<p>UCGradmary, fair enough; I expressed my outrage on the main topic, from a very personal place, way back on post #97. After a few rounds, I don’t like the ganging up effect on what is very much a minority opinion.</p>
<p>Ganging up really isn’t possible on a forum like this unless a poster does what Merry has done, continue to defend in an environment where almost everyone disagrees. She is choosing to play this game. If she is a real poster, which I seriously doubt, I’d have to say I won’t be awaiting future posts with interest.</p>
<p>JMMOM - very good post #197 :)</p>
<p>Me thinks Merrymom is getting way too much attention in all of this and it is getting way off topic - IMHO :)</p>
<p>I would really be interested to hear from the OP - regarding the decided outcome…</p>
<p>Thanks payingthreetuitions. I’m flattered some feel they know me. </p>
<p>You are all being outraged about the wrong thing.
You are misconstuing what I have said. I would guess everyone skims a post, without reading carefully.</p>
<p>Concerning the insurance issue, State Farm is my company and has been for about 30 years. Individual agents have a lot of discretion in how they supply data to the decision makers. One’s deductibles, etc. will effect how your insurance is handled. Your length of time with the company will effect how you are handled. Your childs’ grades effect how they are handled. I live in a different state than others and states handle matters differently. BUT, because there is plea bargaining here, and because they were going 45 in a 35 speed zone, they were pled to something like driving with a broken tail light. There are also lots of other ways to play with your insurance coverage, that I have learned from shopping around, so Mary’s agents opinion and Jmmom’s are meaningless. There are just too many variables involved to judge my comments about our insurance.</p>
<p>Good luck to OP and your daughter’s future driving success. I wish you all well!</p>
<p>Mary, just read your comment about me getting too much attention. Actually, I prefer no attention and to just skim and lurk. I don’t spend a lot of time discussing with strangers online. </p>
<p>However, when I feel strongly about an issue and need to protect myself from unfair attacks, I will.</p>
<p>
And decision makers have a lot of discretion in whether and how they pay claims, should one arise. Insurance companies sometimes get motivated to dig deeper when they are faced with an expensive claim. If they find that an agent’s “discretion” has left out material facts,… well that is a risk that may not work out in your favor if your kids graduate to a costly accident.</p>
<p>UUUmmm points levied against ones insurance is applied by the RMV here (and the court outcome - if not an automatic offense) - not by the insurance company…</p>
<p>I would think that the OP’s situation may effect potential points - tho every state tends to distribute points differently - and the length of time that these points will effect ones insurance rates.</p>
<p>Merry, it wasn’t me that accused you of getting too much attention. I for one am happy to have read your posts. They have directly resulted in driving rules added in my house this morning and I thank you for pushing my buttons on this issue.</p>
<p>Here are a couple of articles that are relevant to this discussion:</p>
<p>Massachusetts considers raising the driving age to curb car accidents among teens
Youths couldn’t get licenses until they’re 17-1/2 - the strictest age requirement in any state except New Jersey.
<a href=“http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0329/p02s02-ussc.html[/url]”>http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0329/p02s02-ussc.html</a></p>
<p>Teens may get the car … but also an occupancy limit
<a href=“Teens may get the car ... but also an occupancy limit - CSMonitor.com”>http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1118/p01s02-ussc.html?s=widep</a></p>
<p>I am heartened by all the interest in this subject, and pleased by the variety of advice provided to the OP. In my heart, though, I am saddened by the amount of talk about rules and punishment, and the relative paucity of talk about relationships, nurturing, mentoring, rebuilding and sustaining trust, family and community validation (including that of police and courts). I think much of this is the result of our education system, which has degraded our language, and our way of seeing things. (that would take several hours to write, so I’ll refrain.)</p>
<p>I know from experience what this conversation would look like if presented to a set of tribal elders among those with whom I have contact in the Northwest, and it would look very different - and richer - than what I see here. </p>
<p>All you have to do is look around you at our society as a whole to see that a primary focus on rules and punishments doesn’t work. Things might work out within the context of our individual families, but, I’d dare to suggest, often in spite of the rules and punishments, rather than because of them.</p>
<p>Marite - Raising the driving age in MA to 17.5 does bother me - tho does not effect me. Many a kid will be leaving for college with little actual experience and/or supervision if this becomes effective. The Junior Op license as of now is 16.5 to 18 and only with drivers ed and now 12 hours of supervised driving during drivers ed - not enough in my opinion. I would rather they leave the age at 16.5 or 17 yo and increase the required number of supervised hours.</p>
<p>Alot of kids were only getting the 6 hours of supervised time before taking their driving test - now increased to 12 hours with the new law in place. After 18 - no drivers ed is required tho the driving hours remain the same.</p>
<p>Mini, I think the things you speak of are the things that boil down to what we’re calling rules in loving families hell bent on raising strong, responsible, loving adults.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Joke, sort of. That’s good. I was really scratching my head there for a minute.</p>
<p>Mini – as always, a different perspective, something worth thinking about, to be sure.</p>
<p>PA requires 50 hours of supervised driving within a 6 month period. Even if a student takes a state-certified driver’s ed course, those 6 hours are just counted toward the 50 required hours. They hand out a booklet which includes “lessons” (which I followed to the letter). Of course, many parents I know cheat on this requirement and sign off on it anyway. :(</p>
<p>I don’t know - I see an awful lot of talk about three months vs. six months, take away the keys, take away the social life (as if kids aren’t in accidents driving to where they need to be), and not a lot of talk about how to rebuild trust, about mentoring, about relationships, about parental responsibility, about the costs of “convenience”.</p>
<p>Yes, I know we can “boil down” - and I think that’s a problem.</p>
<p>Lots to digest on this thread, but I love the humor suggested in post#69 about a bumper sticker suggesting that Mom be contacted if I’m driving unsafely! Not a bad idea for all our kids! A little humor sometimes goes a long way! If only being Mom were an easy thing!! To the OP: Hang in there. This, too, shall pass.</p>
<p>Jeepmom:</p>
<p>I agree that raising the age for driving is not a good idea. I thought the different viewpoints and the statistics were interesting. The important thing is for kids to get the driving experience. They won’t get it easily in college.
After Ss got their license, H sat next to them when they drove for quite a while. Just getting out of our driveway takes some skill and having him. in the front passenger seat was reassuring to all concerned.</p>
<p>What I take away from mini’s posts is that you can’t possibly make a new rule, law, or punishment for every conceivable behavior. So why not address the attitude behind the behavior instead?</p>