I can see both sides of the argument here, but have to say I am more in favour of Tim's comments about the 1984 Big Brother system where control and responsibility is physically removed from the driver of a vehicle.
The typical nanny-state approach of controlling by removal of options teaches the wrong lessons in my opinion. Far better to let people make the decision themselves but ensure they are fully aware and understand the consequences their decisions and actions may have and ensure they are held responsible if they do occur. You can't teach responsibility and mature decision making without allowing people to be exposed to it in the first place.
Molly Coddling kids and keeping them sheltered from responsibility for too long is (in my view) one of the main reasons this country is in the state it is. Too many people grow up expecting things to be handed to them on a plate and assuming that if things go wrong someone else must be to blame and therefore someone else must sort it out.
Instead of removing the option completely, why not go for the carrot vs stick approach? Install a monitoring system in the car that allows the parent to see if, and when, a car has been driven inappropriately without seat belts, over the speed limit, with heavy acceleration etc. That way the kid has the freedom to do so if he wishes, but does so with the understanding that he will likely be caught and receive some form of punishment with it. This system also therefore allows the facility to reward good driving behaviour as this would also be tracked.
What happens when the driver turns 21, gets in a car without "Nanny Control" and ends up causing a 100MPH pile up because the 4 years previously he's learned to drive in a car that wouldn't allow him to do it????
|