Mass. looking to raise license age to 17.5

[dazzleman]

The age in NYS was always 17, so what's another six months?  

I also think better driver education would go a long way, but how much can we really do in the name of "protecting" teens?  By the time they're 17 years old, most have already done plenty of drinking at parties and have already tried a couple of other illegal substances.  And......  drinking and drugs are illegal as well.  The WORST thing a government can do is make driving yet another tabboo.  I think raising the age will simply push back the stats one year - you'll have lower numbers of 16 year olds killed and higher numbers of 17 year olds killed.

Another reason death rates are high for teens is because they usually drive POS rustbuckets that lack all of the safety features many of us have in our vehicles.  You can say that I'm bad for spoiling them rotten, but when I have kids, they'll be getting a reliable, well-handling European vehicle with every safety bell and whistle available.  AWD Volvo, Saab or BMW, for sure.

Oh, and do you want your kids to concentrate on THE ROAD and DRIVING rather than cell phones and other distractions?  TEACH THEM TO DRIVE A MANUAL!!!!!  That requires ALOT more attention to driving habits and you become one with the vehicle in many ways.  I'd LOVE to see that "death chart" broken down by auto vs. manual.  I think it really would make a difference!

Dude, I think you're so right about manual transmissions.

In almost all cases, people who can drive with a manual transmission have higher driving skills than those who cannot.

A manual transmission requires a driver to be more engaged with his/her driving, and rules out certain types of distractions.

While you have a point about the car's safety features, I think the worst thing you can give a 16-year-old is a car that performs well.  Kids that age tend to bring the car up to the level of performance of which it's capable, and in a BMW, that is very dangerous.  The best combination is a poorly performing car with good safety features.  I don't know if it exists.

I tend to agree about the whole taboo issue.  Sometimes, if something is prohibited too strictly or delayed for too long, it only makes it more attractive to do it illegally.  Also, we have had a general societal trend of delaying maturity longer and longer, such that many people in their late 20s function in many ways like teenagers, when in previous generations they were responsible adults.

So for now, I would favor continuing to allow teenagers to drive, but with tighter training requirements and restrictions, and penalties for bad driving.

[ifcar]

"While you have a point about the car's safety features, I think the worst thing you can give a 16-year-old is a car that performs well. Kids that age tend to bring the car up to the level of performance of which it's capable, and in a BMW, that is very dangerous. The best combination is a poorly performing car with good safety features. I don't know if it exists."

Corolla, Jetta, and Civic. There's a reason they sell well to parents who buy cars for their kids.

[saxonyron]

Dude, I think you're so right about manual transmissions.

In almost all cases, people who can drive with a manual transmission have higher driving skills than those who cannot.

A manual transmission requires a driver to be more engaged with his/her driving, and rules out certain types of distractions.

While you have a point about the car's safety features, I think the worst thing you can give a 16-year-old is a car that performs well.  Kids that age tend to bring the car up to the level of performance of which it's capable, and in a BMW, that is very dangerous.  The best combination is a poorly performing car with good safety features.  I don't know if it exists.

I tend to agree about the whole taboo issue.  Sometimes, if something is prohibited too strictly or delayed for too long, it only makes it more attractive to do it illegally.  Also, we have had a general societal trend of delaying maturity longer and longer, such that many people in their late 20s function in many ways like teenagers, when in previous generations they were responsible adults.

So for now, I would favor continuing to allow teenagers to drive, but with tighter training requirements and restrictions, and penalties for bad driving.

I want my kids' 1st car to be a manual.  My wife countered that saying shifting might be too much of a distraction when they're first learning.  I think there's merit to that, but as noted above, kids will find plenty of other distractions a lot more dangerous than missing a shift or grinding a gear.  I've been letting them help me shift lately, explaining why and when to change gears.  They love it now - I think they'll buy into it.  

I'm not sure I agree with the taboo aspect.  The taboo thing works with drinking and sex - overly strict attitudes will cause backfires for sure.  But aside from the rogue kid who steals the keys and goes for a joy ride, I don't see this being a problem. It's not like it could ever happen every day. It'd be kind of hard for them to buy a car.  "Johnny, why is that Pinto parked in our driveway again?  Do you know who owns it?"  "No, mom....errrrr....I have no idea!"  The late maturity thing is a definite problem, but I'd rather see them mature in other directions first, then hand them the keys.    

[Lazerous]

Dude, I think you're so right about manual transmissions.

In almost all cases, people who can drive with a manual transmission have higher driving skills than those who cannot.

A manual transmission requires a driver to be more engaged with his/her driving, and rules out certain types of distractions.

While you have a point about the car's safety features, I think the worst thing you can give a 16-year-old is a car that performs well.  Kids that age tend to bring the car up to the level of performance of which it's capable, and in a BMW, that is very dangerous.  The best combination is a poorly performing car with good safety features.  I don't know if it exists.

I tend to agree about the whole taboo issue.  Sometimes, if something is prohibited too strictly or delayed for too long, it only makes it more attractive to do it illegally.  Also, we have had a general societal trend of delaying maturity longer and longer, such that many people in their late 20s function in many ways like teenagers, when in previous generations they were responsible adults.

So for now, I would favor continuing to allow teenagers to drive, but with tighter training requirements and restrictions, and penalties for bad driving.

I want my kids' 1st car to be a manual.  My wife countered that saying shifting might be too much of a distraction when they're first learning.  I think there's merit to that, but as noted above, kids will find plenty of other distractions a lot more dangerous than missing a shift or grinding a gear.  I've been letting them help me shift lately, explaining why and when to change gears.  They love it now - I think they'll buy into it.  

I'm not sure I agree with the taboo aspect.  The taboo thing works with drinking and sex - overly strict attitudes will cause backfires for sure.  But aside from the rogue kid who steals the keys and goes for a joy ride, I don't see this being a problem. It's not like it could ever happen every day. It'd be kind of hard for them to buy a car.  "Johnny, why is that Pinto parked in our driveway again?  Do you know who owns it?"  "No, mom....errrrr....I have no idea!"  The late maturity thing is a definite problem, but I'd rather see them mature in other directions first, then hand them the keys.  

Actually IMO it would be much better if their first car is a manual transmission one, since that should make it harder for them do dial numbers, especially in the beginning they will be focusing on when to shift.

[Raza]

FOL and Raza, I'm probably fine with keeping the age the same, but there really needs to be strict limitations on the driving.  No passengers under 25, death penalty for cell phone use, strung up by the balls for more than one moving violation the 1st 12 months, etc.  I remember when I first drove, put a buddy in the car, all of a sudden I didn't want to look like a pussy, so I'd fly around corners, etc.  Judgment was lacking - I didn't know what a reasonable speed was, and I certainly didn't know what a spirited speed was.  I was damn lucky.

Either way, I won't be letting my kids get licenses till 17 1/2, and they won't be driving with any friends who haven't been driving at least a year and are 17 1/2 or more.  Tough titties.

No passengers under 25?  My brother, a financial analyst who wears a button down and proper shoes to work everyday, isn't even 25.  

That's retarded.

Here's a novel idea.  Teach kids how to drive, and they'll learn how to drive.  It's more than a driver's manual.

Parents are idiots.

[ifcar]

Dude, I think you're so right about manual transmissions.

In almost all cases, people who can drive with a manual transmission have higher driving skills than those who cannot.

A manual transmission requires a driver to be more engaged with his/her driving, and rules out certain types of distractions.

While you have a point about the car's safety features, I think the worst thing you can give a 16-year-old is a car that performs well.  Kids that age tend to bring the car up to the level of performance of which it's capable, and in a BMW, that is very dangerous.  The best combination is a poorly performing car with good safety features.  I don't know if it exists.

I tend to agree about the whole taboo issue.  Sometimes, if something is prohibited too strictly or delayed for too long, it only makes it more attractive to do it illegally.  Also, we have had a general societal trend of delaying maturity longer and longer, such that many people in their late 20s function in many ways like teenagers, when in previous generations they were responsible adults.

So for now, I would favor continuing to allow teenagers to drive, but with tighter training requirements and restrictions, and penalties for bad driving.

I want my kids' 1st car to be a manual.  My wife countered that saying shifting might be too much of a distraction when they're first learning.  I think there's merit to that, but as noted above, kids will find plenty of other distractions a lot more dangerous than missing a shift or grinding a gear.  I've been letting them help me shift lately, explaining why and when to change gears.  They love it now - I think they'll buy into it.  

I'm not sure I agree with the taboo aspect.  The taboo thing works with drinking and sex - overly strict attitudes will cause backfires for sure.  But aside from the rogue kid who steals the keys and goes for a joy ride, I don't see this being a problem. It's not like it could ever happen every day. It'd be kind of hard for them to buy a car.  "Johnny, why is that Pinto parked in our driveway again?  Do you know who owns it?"  "No, mom....errrrr....I have no idea!"  The late maturity thing is a definite problem, but I'd rather see them mature in other directions first, then hand them the keys.  

Actually IMO it would be much better if their first car is a manual transmission one, since that should make it harder for them do dial numbers, especially in the beginning they will be focusing on when to shift.

I think they should require driver's ed classes to teach the manual transmission. The two main reasons people don't learn would be that they don't see a need or don't have a car to learn on.

[saxonyron]

No passengers under 25?  My brother, a financial analyst who wears a button down and proper shoes to work everyday, isn't even 25.  

That's retarded.

Here's a novel idea.  Teach kids how to drive, and they'll learn how to drive.  It's more than a driver's manual.

Parents are idiots.

OK, maybe 25 is a little high - I'd go along with 24   .  Your proposition sounds great, except it's not based in the real world.  Our entire driving culture needs to be radically "Germanified" - until that happens, penalties and limitations need to be instituted and enforced.  And yes, most parents are idiots - and not just regarding driving. Their approach to parenting is beyond lazy - if the kids are quiet and out of their hair, everybody is happy.  These are the ones who shouldn't procreate.  

[Raza]

No passengers under 25?  My brother, a financial analyst who wears a button down and proper shoes to work everyday, isn't even 25. 

That's retarded.

Here's a novel idea.  Teach kids how to drive, and they'll learn how to drive.  It's more than a driver's manual.

Parents are idiots.

OK, maybe 25 is a little high - I'd go along with 24   .  Your proposition sounds great, except it's not based in the real world.  Our entire driving culture needs to be radically "Germanified" - until that happens, penalties and limitations need to be instituted and enforced.  And yes, most parents are idiots - and not just regarding driving. Their approach to parenting is beyond lazy - if the kids are quiet and out of their hair, everybody is happy.  These are the ones who shouldn't procreate.

School, theory and practice, must be mandated, nationally.  I'm not talking drivers' ed, either, it has to go beyond that.  More theory, more physics, and emphasis on controlling the car.  

Testing must also be harder.

I still stand by that parents are idiots.

EDIT:  I know people with spouses that are under 25.  Would there have to be a spousal exemption?  I also know parents under 25 who have children under the age of 25.  Parental exemption.

Raising the age and putting more rules down never, never helps.  You're treating the symptoms, not the sickness.  You can take Tylenol all day every day, until your tumor kills you.  

[saxonyron]

OK, we'll agree to disagree.  My 25 yr old limit is not really the fulcrum point of my argument - I arbitrarily threw that out, but I still stand by limits on passengers for teenagers, etc.  Maybe I'm too jaded regarding politics, but what you're talking about is a sea-change in national attitudes.  That ain't gonna happen.  Even MADD took about 20 yrs to get where they are now, and their argument is very obvious and easy to understand.  What's our slogan gonna be?  "Learn to clip apexes on descending radius curves to maximize vehicle stability and control??"  :blink:  There's not going to be a willing audience - a collective yawn will eminate from middle America as everyone reaches for their cell phones or plugs in another DVD to watch as they sit in traffic.  I'm with you ideologically, but pragmatically, I think the limitation approach has merit.

[Raza]

There may be pragmatic issues with my proposal, but raising age limits is always stupid.
I still say you're not helping anything or anyone by raising the age for driving.  All you're going to get is older corpses.

[Champ]

This was discussed pretty healthily on the Saabnet forums, and there are some very good arguements on here.  Most AGAINST raising the age, but instead INCREASING driver training.
Link

My favorite quote and IMO true...

In a nutshell, I think the current trend of trying to make everyone's life better by making everything illegal is ridiculous. In particular, it only serves to further diminish the almost-nonexistent concept of personal responsibility.

Also some people from Europe there, noting about statistics etc, proving again that Europe has better drivers FOR THE MOST PART.

[Tom]

Using a German system involves more gov and more money.  I'd rather not see wasted money on a governemnt program and I don't trust the governement to do it right to be honest.  Besides, passing such a course is one thing, but using the knowledge given requries maturity, which the driver will either have or not.  

I think the major change should be in dramatically increased punishment for causing accidents and driving dangerously.  This is exactly what we go through so much trouble to prevent, as seen in this thread, but we are caught up in so many different ways to prevent it that don't involve the actual problem.  Beating around the bush.  I don't care what kind of classes or training the driver went through, this is the bottom line.  I wouldn't mind seeing heavy community service hours for accidents/driving dangerously.  

The issue of driving age is a tough one.  I'm sure there are 13 year olds who can drive a car(The age is 14.5 in North Dakota) but 30 year olds who can't.  

[saxonyron]

There may be pragmatic issues with my proposal, but raising age limits is always stupid.
I still say you're not helping anything or anyone by raising the age for driving.  All you're going to get is older corpses.

Then to extend that logic, I will proudly strap my 4 yr old into his car seat and hand him the keys.  Obviously, there are reasons for age limits.  A good case can be made to raise them - if nothing else, you're eliminating one year out of 5 teenage driving years, thereby decreasing absolute risk by 20%.  I'm all for personal responsibility, but that only works when the majority of the group are responsible.  Lacking that, other avenues must be taken.

I do like what Tom said - to echo his sentiments, there should be severe penalties for bad driving early on.  I'm pretty sure the vacuous bimbo who rolled her car in front of my house was driving mommy's car again the next day.  There was no downside  for her, so no incentive to act responsibly.

[dazzleman]

No passengers under 25?? My brother, a financial analyst who wears a button down and proper shoes to work everyday, isn't even 25.?

That's retarded.

Here's a novel idea.? Teach kids how to drive, and they'll learn how to drive.? It's more than a driver's manual.

Parents are idiots.

OK, maybe 25 is a little high - I'd go along with 24   .  Your proposition sounds great, except it's not based in the real world.  Our entire driving culture needs to be radically "Germanified" - until that happens, penalties and limitations need to be instituted and enforced.  And yes, most parents are idiots - and not just regarding driving. Their approach to parenting is beyond lazy - if the kids are quiet and out of their hair, everybody is happy.  These are the ones who shouldn't procreate.

School, theory and practice, must be mandated, nationally.  I'm not talking drivers' ed, either, it has to go beyond that.  More theory, more physics, and emphasis on controlling the car.  

Testing must also be harder.

I still stand by that parents are idiots.

EDIT:  I know people with spouses that are under 25.  Would there have to be a spousal exemption?  I also know parents under 25 who have children under the age of 25.  Parental exemption.

Raising the age and putting more rules down never, never helps.  You're treating the symptoms, not the sickness.  You can take Tylenol all day every day, until your tumor kills you.

Raza, you're making the assumption here that if people only have the knowledge, they will do the right thing.

This has proven NOT to be the case in so many different ways.  Teaching kids about the dangers of smoking and drugs doesn't keep them from trying them, and teaching them about sex and how to prevent pregnancy doesn't keep them from getting pregnant.

The problem is two-fold -- one of knowledge, and one of attitude/maturity.  Extensive training may help with the first one, but not the second.  Younger people tend to believe they are invincible, and accidents happen to other people.  Risk taking is not based on logic.

In terms of affecting attitude and maturity, that is where stiff penalties for dangerous behavior come in.  In taking calculated risks, people look at the enjoyment they get from the risk, or thrill, versus the potential consequences.  If the potential consequences are onerous, they are less likely to take the risk.  The pain of the likely penalty has to outweigh the fun of the risk taking.

This is complicated by the fact that different people perceive the same penalties differently.  One person would be ready to vomit with fear at the thought of getting pulled over, while another will shrug off repeated penalties and keep doing what he wants to do.

Having said all this, I don't favor raising the driving age to full adulthood for a couple of reasons.  One is that, as Sax's graph shows, drivers in the 20-24 age group aren't much better than 16-20.  

In addition, I think there is something to be said for kids spending their first couple of driving years while they are still under their parents' influence to some degree.  In my own case, I drove more carefully in my 16-20 years than later because my parents had drilled into me the negative consequences that would hit me -- beyond the legal penalties -- if I started getting tickets or having accidents.  Once their influence waned, I felt more free to push the limits more.  

Once I got into my early twenties, I became friends with some older guys who drove fast and got a lot of tickets.  I thought it was cool, and started to feel like a pussy for not having gotten bagged yet myself.  I started pushing the limits more, and the tickets started to flow in.  My friends' reactions were generally an enthusiastic handshake and a pat on the back, as well as some friendly ball-busting.  This positive reinforcement far outweighed any penalties I got from the legal system.

Still, by the time this was happening, I was a more experienced driver and knew my limits more, so even though I was pushing the limits, it was definitely safer then than when I was 16 or 17.  Had I come under those influences while inexperienced, the results could have been worse.

So I would come down on the side of not raising the driving age, but increasing penalties for dangerous driving, and limiting passengers to some practical extent.

[J86]

for chrissakes, LOWER the age to FIFTEEN, and make for a year and a half of supervised-only driving.  

[dazzleman]

for chrissakes, LOWER the age to FIFTEEN, and make for a year and a half of supervised-only driving.

I think you have a good point with requiring a long period of supervised driving.  And I mean supervision from a parental type figure, not a friend's older brother.

[J86]

for chrissakes, LOWER the age to FIFTEEN, and make for a year and a half of supervised-only driving.

I think you have a good point with requiring a long period of supervised driving.  And I mean supervision from a parental type figure, not a friend's older brother.

Yup.  DROP the age, but make it mandatory that the parent (or legal guardian...) be there.  I don't think it is remotely practical to raise the age.  To do so is merely an inconvenience for some teenagers (such as those who frequent this board), as it would delay the fun and excitement of driving.  But for much of the populace, that would become a real problem, as people who don't go past high school still need to get to jobs, etc.  

[93JC]

for much of the populace, that would become a real problem, as people who don't go past high school still need to get to jobs, etc.

Bingo.

Raise the driving age too high ---> hellooooo fucked-up economy


Unlike the densely populated continent that is Europe, North American cities are vast, often requiring a vehicle to be used as the primary means of transportation.

This is just my crackpot idea of how things work, but I sincerely believe automobile & fuel prices are relatively low in North America out of necessity, in order to keep the economy chugging along.

[saxonyron]

for much of the populace, that would become a real problem, as people who don't go past high school still need to get to jobs, etc.

Bingo.

Raise the driving age too high ---> hellooooo fucked-up economy


Unlike the densely populated continent that is Europe, North American cities are vast, often requiring a vehicle to be used as the primary means of transportation.

This is just my crackpot idea of how things work, but I sincerely believe automobile & fuel prices are relatively low in North America out of necessity, in order to keep the economy chugging along.

Don't worry about those low-paying jobs.  GW will make sure we have illegal aliens doing them for us.  That way all the high schoolers can stay home with no licenses, playing XBox.  That will provide good high paying jobs for computer programmers.  Good for the economy!  




j/k!  I agree about the job end of things.  I used to drive my bike to McDonald's when I had that fine career at 16, before my car entered my life.  It would definitely be a hardship for some, but according to the "other side" of this argument, these same kids would be required to drive with their parents anyway - so they gain no freedom to get to work.  There is no good answer - except rigorous training, high standards for licensing, night time restrictions and stiff severe penalties for screwing up.   Maybe that's a palatable answer for everyone.

[dazzleman]

There is no good answer - except rigorous training, high standards for licensing, night time restrictions and stiff severe penalties for screwing up.   Maybe that's a palatable answer for everyone.

It is a good answer for me.

[sparkplug]

Strict reinforcement of punisment for speeding, illegal parking, and aggressive driving. People will be afraid to mistreat others.

1 ticket = 20 hours of community service. Continuous offenses means you do the service naked.

[dazzleman]

Strict reinforcement of punisment for speeding, illegal parking, and aggressive driving. People will be afraid to mistreat others.

1 ticket = 20 hours of community service. Continuous offenses means you do the service naked.

I like the community service idea.  It's just too easy to pay a fine.  As inexplicable as it is to me, many parents will pay fines for kids.  If my kid got a ticket, I'd force him to pay his own fine, even if he had to scrounge around picking up beer cans to get the money.

But be that as it may, it's just too easy for most people to pay a small fine.  It has little impact.  So I do like the community service idea for more serious offenses, or for violations by new drivers.

It won't ever happen though, and here's why -- while fines created income for the government, community service actually costs money to implement.  

Also, how community service is implemented is very important.  If it involves kids standing around, goofing off and having some laughs with their friends or fellow violators, then it won't have any impact.  That would remind me of some of the 'community service' assignments I used to get in high school when I got in trouble.  OTOH, when my work detail assignment was measured in terms of a strict goal of what I had to complete before it was over and I could leave, that created a built-in incentive to actually do the work, and it was much more effective.  If all I had to do was serve time, and was supposed to work while doing it, I goofed off as much as I could get away with, and it was a joke.  But if I to complete a definable assignment, and couldn't leave until it was done, I was focused on completing the task rather than fooling around and making a joke of it.

Community service would work a similar way.  I suspect in a lot of cases, it's not all that effective, or effective as it could be, for the reasons I mentioned.

Torturous classes might work well too.  Something like forcing people to go to a 'class' when they get a violation that lasts 16 hours over 2 days, or something like that.

People generally value their time over small amounts of money, especially when money is not in short supply for them.

[saxonyron]

Boy, sounds like you've spent your share of time doing community service, D-Man.  I guess I'm not surprised!  A guy like you probably has a rap sheet as big as the NYC phone book!  I'm sure your poor parents had a lawyer on retainer for you at all times.  :P

I send in my vote for community service too.  Whatever it takes to get the schmucks to pay attention.  Disclaimer - I imagine you know I'm excluding present company when I refer to these dangerous young drivers, just like Raza I'm sure is excluding present company when he says "all parents are idiots!"  B) If you're on this board, chances are you take driving seriously.    

[TBR]

for much of the populace, that would become a real problem, as people who don't go past high school still need to get to jobs, etc.

Bingo.

Raise the driving age too high ---> hellooooo fucked-up economy


Unlike the densely populated continent that is Europe, North American cities are vast, often requiring a vehicle to be used as the primary means of transportation.

This is just my crackpot idea of how things work, but I sincerely believe automobile & fuel prices are relatively low in North America out of necessity, in order to keep the economy chugging along.

Don't worry about those low-paying jobs.  GW will make sure we have illegal aliens doing them for us.  That way all the high schoolers can stay home with no licenses, playing XBox.  That will provide good high paying jobs for computer programmers.  Good for the economy!  




j/k!  I agree about the job end of things.  I used to drive my bike to McDonald's when I had that fine career at 16, before my car entered my life.  It would definitely be a hardship for some, but according to the "other side" of this argument, these same kids would be required to drive with their parents anyway - so they gain no freedom to get to work.  There is no good answer - except rigorous training, high standards for licensing, night time restrictions and stiff severe penalties for screwing up.   Maybe that's a palatable answer for everyone.

I have a 15 mile commute (soon to be 30) to my minimum wage job, a car is a necessity.  The solution isn't to increase the driving age, it is to increase the other requirements. Require that new drivers hold a learner's permit for at least 1 year and have at least 50 hours of supervised driving under their belts. Also require in-car driving tests and better written tests as well. Raza is right here, that year is going to make very little difference as far as maturity goes, I don't think there is really that much of a jump until most kids get a real job (22+ for those that go to college!) Additionally, there are also quite a few teens who are rather mature (more mature than 18+ ones), why penalize us?

And, for those of you that have mentioned it, in Texas at least your license is restricted for the first 6 months, this restriction includes carrying no more than 1 under 21 non-family member at a time and an absolute ban on cell phone use while driving. There is also a 12:00 curfew.

[dazzleman]

Boy, sounds like you've spent your share of time doing community service, D-Man.  I guess I'm not surprised!  A guy like you probably has a rap sheet as big as the NYC phone book!  I'm sure your poor parents had a lawyer on retainer for you at all times.  :P

I send in my vote for community service too.  Whatever it takes to get the schmucks to pay attention.  Disclaimer - I imagine you know I'm excluding present company when I refer to these dangerous young drivers, just like Raza I'm sure is excluding present company when he says "all parents are idiots!"  B) If you're on this board, chances are you take driving seriously.  

Hah, sorry to disappoint you Ron, but my rap sheet includes only traffic violations.  The only penalty I have ever faced from the legal system itself is fines.

That's not to say it couldn't have been otherwise.  I did a few things I probably could have been arrested for as a teenager.  I was mainly into road sign vandalism -- stealing and uprooting road signs, and once I put an M-80 into the coin return of a public phone.  Never got busted for any of that.  Therefore, any trouble I have had with the law has been caused by my right foot.

When sparkplug mentioned community service, I thought of high school, because that's the closest I came to doing community service as a punishment.  My school was reasonably strict, and didn't look with too much favor on lateness, unexcused absences from class, going too long without shaving, violating the dress code, or using time in the library to screw around and drive the librarian crazy rather than study.

I ran afoul of all these little rules a number of times, and when I did, the reaction was swift and predictable -- I got an offer I couldn't refuse to spend some quality time after school or, in more serious cases, Saturday morning, with the well loved dean of discipline.  For a minor infraction, he just made us sit in a room for a while, but for more serious infractions, he assigned work details around the school.  The ones I remember best include setting up hundreds of chairs in the gym for a school assembly, and having to clean writing off dozens of desks.

When I was scheduled for a tour of duty with this stuff, I just told my parents that I was staying after school to tutor a kid for the national honor society.  And with Saturdays, I just stayed over at a friend's house whose parents didn't speak English that well, and we told them we were going fishing.

I will always cherish the many hours of quality time that I spent with the school's dean.  Great guy, he was.    

[TurboDan]

Haha.  I never had to do any "hard labor," but I did have a couple Saturday detentions.  Funny thing is that I got them my senior year after never having one the previous three.  

A couple years after graduation, I met my school's "Dean of Discipline" at a diner and it turned out he was a great guy!  We sat together and talked for about an hour about everything from college to politics.  He told me his training for the Dean of Discipline gig was a couple of tours in Vietnam as a Green Beret.    

[dazzleman]

Haha.  I never had to do any "hard labor," but I did have a couple Saturday detentions.  Funny thing is that I got them my senior year after never having one the previous three.  

A couple years after graduation, I met my school's "Dean of Discipline" at a diner and it turned out he was a great guy!  We sat together and talked for about an hour about everything from college to politics.  He told me his training for the Dean of Discipline gig was a couple of tours in Vietnam as a Green Beret.  

Senior year was my worst year too.  I was hardened by that time, and was no longer afraid of the consequences of not following the rules.  It was kind of fun to blow off a class and wait to see what happened the next day.  

What did you do to earn you Saturday detentions, and what did they have you do during them, Dan?

I never met my school's dean after HS, but I didn't think he was a bad guy even when I was in school.  He was just doing his job, and he actually cut me some slack a couple of times.

[saxonyron]

I'm glad to hear your rap sheet didn't include anything too violent!  :P   In public schools, we didn't have a Dean of Disciipline - the teachers prettty much doled out punishments as they saw fit.  I got the usual detention here and there, but never labor beyond "erase the board".  Most teachers were pretty casual - this was during the roaring '70s/early 80's and looking back, I'm pretty sure a couple of my teachers were hardcore stoners, judging by their laid back attitudes.    

[dazzleman]

I'm glad to hear your rap sheet didn't include anything too violent!  :P   In public schools, we didn't have a Dean of Disciipline - the teachers prettty much doled out punishments as they saw fit.  I got the usual detention here and there, but never labor beyond "erase the board".  Most teachers were pretty casual - this was during the roaring '70s/early 80's and looking back, I'm pretty sure a couple of my teachers were hardcore stoners, judging by their laid back attitudes.  

Not all stoners are laid back.  I had one teacher who was a stoner, and he was a total hardass.  He took over in the middle of the year for a teacher who had a nervous breakdown.  I think the administration told him he had to come on strong in order to establish his authority, and that he did.  He gave me a string of detentions, and not for any really good reason.  I hated the guy at the time.

Even then, I was the type of guy who didn't mind taking my punishment if I knew I'd earned it.  Our dean was a fair guy, and though he gave me a number of detentions, there wasn't one that I didn't deserve.  But this teacher really pissed me off, giving me detention for looking the wrong way in class, or something like that.  He was a real prick at the beginning.  He did back off a little bit after a couple of months, and it got better.

[sparkplug]

I had a teacher or two that I'd like to have stoned with real stones, even if they were stoners.