Draconian? Or Loving Parent?

Today (June 3), USA TODAY ran a full, center-page spread, titled:
'Keeping Teen Drivers Safe Begins at Home', and it was
generally very good indeed.

But on the front cover of Section B of the newspaper was a brief
article: 'Black Boxes For Cars [are] Slow to Catch On.'

Apparently, teens around the USA are protetsting that for parents to
fit -- quite literally -- 'black boxes' in the car that their son or
daughter will use during the early stages of learning to drive is "an
invasion of privacy".

It goes on to say:
[quote]
Even the nation's top highway safety official couldn't persuade his
wife and son to accept the device.
.. "We had this debate in my own household," Jeffrey Runge, who
heads the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, said this
week at a USA TODAY roundtable discussion on the risks of teenage
driving.
.. When Runge brought home the device to put in the car their
teenage son drives, his wife resisted. "She said, 'Well that really
doesn't demonstrate mush trust.' I didn't win the argument."
[END OF QUOTE]

[Back to Eddie's comments!]

The first thing to do, here, is acknowledge that the media frequently
"quote" people out of context, so the comments that follow are
specifically not aimed at Dr. Runge, who has done a lot of good things
for road safety in America -- including being honest and outspoken on
subjects that undoubtedly caused him subsequent political grief! [SUVs,
hint hint! - LOL]

None-the-less, the subject here is that of maximizing safety for our
own sons and daughters.

I personally believe that the American (but still not widespread)
idea of having a written contract between parents and offspring,
about what can and cannot happen during the 'learning to drive'
phase, is a good idea. But I very strongly believe that no matter how
much a teen thinks he or she knows about driving or safety (and we ALL
thought we knew it all, at that age, did we not?!!!) the over-riding
factor MUST remain safety.

Maybe this is the ex police officer in me re-emerging, but if I --
with considerable knowledge of safety for young drivers -- decided it
was right for a monitoring device to be fitted to my own teen's car,
then it would be fitted.... period! Having debates and reaching joint
decisions may be a wonderful thing in any family, but for me it would
stop being a debating society the moment safety becomes a key issue.

And if I was unable to explain to my own son or daughter that their
safety -- and, for that matter, their mother's peace of mind, each
and every day the kid went out driving -- both come a huge distance
ahead of bull**** notions of "invasion of privacy" then shame on me. If
I can't tell my own child that I love them so much I'm going to make
darned sure in each and every way possible that they get through one of
the most dangerous phases of their life intact, then I'm not much of a
mentor or an example.

Would a teen have hissy fits over this?
Yep... Not much doubt on that one!

But backing down from something that goes way beyond a duty to
protect one's own children??? Not before a certain place freezes
over and glaciates!

Frankly, I would be incredulous if any father I knew backed down on
an issue such as this because their teen thought it was an invasion
of privacy! Killing OTHER, innocent people in road crashes has to be
the biggest invasion of privacy imaginable. ALL teens -- IMHO -- need
to be focussed on the fact that learning to drive is NOT just about
them -- the me, me, me culture -- it is at least as much about THE
OTHER PERSON.

If any teens happen to read this particular message and object to
what I've written, please DO say so. I may have a parental right to
say how my own son or daughter would have to act under these
circumstances but of course I have no right whatsoever to dictate
what happens in other families. So if anyone disagrees, tell me! LOL

Regards to all... no matter what age group! {:-)

Eddie
www.driveandstayalive.com
(also at the Yahoo! 'teendrivers' Group)

In article . com,
"Eddie" wrote:

If any teens happen to read this particular message and object to
what I've written, please DO say so. I may have a parental right to
say how my own son or daughter would have to act under these
circumstances but of course I have no right whatsoever to dictate
what happens in other families. So if anyone disagrees, tell me! LOL

I'd have to think hard about what would be GAINED by the black box. I
suppose you could look at it and stop letting the kid use the car under
some circumstances.

I'd agree that if I thought it was a serious safety issue, I'd do what I
thought was right. Since we don't "owe" our children a car to drive, it
would be easy to put it in those terms: the conditions for using our
car include that you will allow the Black Box to be installed.

However, there is also an issue of trust. Unless you have some reason
to believe that your child will behave considerably differently when you
are NOT in the car, I think it makes more sense to just have them drive
you places periodically, to make sure they are still driving the way you
taught them to in the first place.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

In article ,
dragonlady says...



However, there is also an issue of trust. Unless you have some reason
to believe that your child will behave considerably differently when you
are NOT in the car, I think it makes more sense to just have them drive
you places periodically, to make sure they are still driving the way you
taught them to in the first place.

Do you generally go by the assumption that teens act the same way when their
parents are present as when they aren't? That one doesn't work IME.

Banty

On 2005-06-05, Banty wrote:
In article ,
dragonlady says...

However, there is also an issue of trust. Unless you have some reason
to believe that your child will behave considerably differently when you
are NOT in the car, I think it makes more sense to just have them drive
you places periodically, to make sure they are still driving the way you
taught them to in the first place.

Do you generally go by the assumption that teens act the same way when their
parents are present as when they aren't? That one doesn't work IME.

One can avoid the whole "trust" issue by insisting that *all* the
family cars be equipped with black boxes, so that there is evidence in
the case of a crash that it is not your fault. If the parents are
unwilling to have black boxes in their cars, then they should not
insist on them for their children. (Same issue with bike
helmets---either they are valuable protective gear and all bike riders
in the family should wear them, or they are unnecessary and children
should not be forced to wear them when their parents don't.
Personally, I go with the "valuable protective gear" option.)

We plan to avoid the teen-driving problem simply by not having any
cars in the family. The problem then is "reduced" to making sure that
he only accepts rides from good drivers. This is already a problem
since one of the family friends is a poor driver (due to neural
disabilities), and we have not figured out a polite way to refuse to
let her drive. Usually we manage to walk or bicycle with the boys,
rather than have her drive, but this has sometimes proved difficult to
arrange.

------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Karplus http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~karplus
Professor of Biomolecular Engineering, University of California, Santa Cruz
Undergraduate and Graduate Director, Bioinformatics
(Senior member, IEEE) (Board of Directors, ISCB)
life member (LAB, Adventure Cycling, American Youth Hostels)
Effective Cycling Instructor #218-ck (lapsed)
Affiliations for identification only.

On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 21:52:54 EDT, Banty
wrote:

In article ,
dragonlady says...



However, there is also an issue of trust. Unless you have some reason
to believe that your child will behave considerably differently when you
are NOT in the car, I think it makes more sense to just have them drive
you places periodically, to make sure they are still driving the way you
taught them to in the first place.

I was thinking something similar.


Do you generally go by the assumption that teens act the same way when their
parents are present as when they aren't? That one doesn't work IME.

Well, I don't know if "assumption" is the right word, but I usually
treat them as if they behave similarly when we aren't here, and that
hasn't backfired on me. The example was of driving a car
unsupervised, which isn't possible in this jurisdiction until almost
age 17, so I'm speaking of older teenagers. It probably also helps
our comfort level that our house has always been a gathering place for
the crowd, so we know most of the people they hang out with in town.

Both of them will be spending the summer sailing off the coast of a
foreign country, then heading off to universities in distant provinces
in the summer, so it's a good thing that they have experience making
good decisions when we're not around.

Louise

In article ,
dragonlady wrote:

However, there is also an issue of trust. Unless you have some reason
to believe that your child will behave considerably differently when you
are NOT in the car, I think it makes more sense to just have them drive
you places periodically, to make sure they are still driving the way you
taught them to in the first place.

I lost someone close to me in a car accident just days after his 18th
birthday. He was driving in a way he would never have driven with his
parents in the car. I don't know if a black box would have saved his
life or not -- he would have had to have driven in this way (or other
dangerous ways) prior to the accident and survived first, for his parents
to have found out and prevented him from driving that night. But I do
know that lots of teens behave differently when out of their parents'
sight.

--Robyn
..

On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 14:20:02 EDT, (Robyn
Kozierok) wrote:

In article ,
dragonlady wrote:

However, there is also an issue of trust. Unless you have some reason
to believe that your child will behave considerably differently when you
are NOT in the car, I think it makes more sense to just have them drive
you places periodically, to make sure they are still driving the way you
taught them to in the first place.

I lost someone close to me in a car accident just days after his 18th
birthday. He was driving in a way he would never have driven with his
parents in the car.


That's very hard. I'm sorry for your loss.

Louise

In article ,
Banty wrote:

In article ,
dragonlady says...



However, there is also an issue of trust. Unless you have some reason
to believe that your child will behave considerably differently when you
are NOT in the car, I think it makes more sense to just have them drive
you places periodically, to make sure they are still driving the way you
taught them to in the first place.

Do you generally go by the assumption that teens act the same way when their
parents are present as when they aren't? That one doesn't work IME.

Banty


No -- I know they'll behave differently when I'm not with them.
However, in watching my own kids, it's been my experience that those
that tend to adopt unsafe driving practices have a hard time NOT doing
those things when I'm in the car -- for example, my son follows too
close, and one daughter has kind of a lead foot. I can address those
issues. (I have another advantage in that they periodically give each
other rides places, and I certainly hear from their siblings if they're
doing something wrong!)

However, if they are doing wildly unsafe things -- extreme speeding, for
example, or driving while under the influence -- on an occassional
basis, then riding with them once in a while won't catch that.

I guess I'm uncomfortable with the inherent lack of trust implied with
the black box, and I'd need to be convinced that it actually DOES make a
difference before I'd put one in my car.
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

In article ,
dragonlady wrote:

However, if they are doing wildly unsafe things -- extreme speeding, for
example, or driving while under the influence -- on an occassional
basis, then riding with them once in a while won't catch that.


Obviously, the ideal is to instill in one's kids the good judgement
not to do these things, over the years of parenting leading up to
and including the teen years.

But, despite a parent's best efforts, many kids do not develop reliably
good judgement by 16 or 17 or 18. So, if a parent knows that a teen's
judgement is spotty, what can they do? You obviously can't supervise a
"child" of that age all the time. And I'm not saying that a black box
is the solution here, because I agree that saying "I don't trust you so
I'm going to track your behavior" is not really a productive way to
help a child develop trustable judgement (it is more likely a challenge
to get around the surveilance). But, I don't know what is.

--Robyn
..

In article ,
Louise wrote:

Somewhat apropos, I've been wondering lately whether and how
attention-deficit issues and driving schools fit together. Do the
people who diagnose ADD and advise teens and parents on how to handle
school with ADD also give advice about how an easily distractable
young person can learn to drive safely?

On a related note, how do you deal with the fact that a teen with ADHD
may have impulsivity issues, making them perhaps more likely to engage
in occasional instances of extremely unsafe driving behaviors?

--Robyn, without any answers, just questions
..