Kimberly Melton
Oregon House transportation committee approves bill requiring Portland-area teens to take driver's education course
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/03/oregon_house_transportation_co.html
3/28/2011
Topic: Driver’s Education
The House Transportation and Economic Development Committee approved a bill that requires teens younger than 18 in the Multnomah, Clackamas and Washington counties to take driver's education before receiving a license. Intended audience: Teens, parents with teens.
Key Points: teens who take Driver’s Ed usually know more about driving than those who don’t—passing this bill will increase safety amongst new drivers. The concern here is that teens already have Driver’s ED available to them, how will this affect costs for the public and where is the funding coming from?
Relevance: Driver’s Ed is a form of education I suppose. I have not taken a Driver’s Ed class, so I do not really know what kind of “learning” goes on in the class. Since some of you have teens, probably most under the age of 18 who are learning to drive or already have a permit, I figured this might be something to bring up. Also I would like to see more data and evidence, contrasting the pros and cons for taking this class—is the practice of safe driving kept consistent as time goes on? Should this be something that one has to “renew” as they do their licenses?
And kids should be taking drivers ed, I totally agree! Scrap this whole financial issue and instead let's just make a decision based on rational needs for kids. We make a huge deal about kids being immature and really needing to focus on the road, not drink and drive and make sure to drive responsibly. We are in favor of teaching all of these lessons, so it makes sense that as part of teen education, drivers ed would be required.
ReplyDeletePlus, if you take it, you get an insurance break that lasts a lifetime. So in the end, maybe you're actually saving yourself some money, and making better drivers.