Should a highschool diploma be required to get a Driver's License

[phbrown]

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/06/09/should-governments-be-allowed-to-ban-drop-outs-from-getting-lice/

Passing your high school courses and passing your driver's license test are two very different things. Though they're independent of each other now, lawmakers in some states are trying to tie the two together. Certain states are examining legislation that would bar high school drop-outs from getting a driver's license.

I personally say no, just because something as simple as teen age pregnancy at the age of 17 would make some people drop out of school.

[nessalynn77]

No.  I understand we want people to graduate, but I'm not for punishing them by not letting them get licensed to drive.  If they drop out/don't get that diploma, they are probably just going to enter the work force, in which case a license will be helpful.  Choosing not to finish school is not the wisest choice, but the gov't doesn't have the right to punish you for it.

[LaylaMonroe]

@Ness, technically, that's not a form of punishment since a driver's license is a privilege, not a right.

But anyway, I don't think it's a bad idea. I'm opposed to excessive legislation, and I think that's exactly what this is. But, I can see its merit at the same time. Maybe they should require a more extensive application procedure - like including reference letters from guidance counselors, teachers, principals, etc.

[csedwards2]

No

[nessalynn77]

It may not be technically a punishment, but the stipulation of a high school diploma has nothing to do with one's ability to operate a motor vehicle.  That's like saying only college graduates can marry... it's very arbitrary, and yes, punitive to those who don't meet the totally unrelated requirement.

[LaylaMonroe]

It may not be technically a punishment, but the stipulation of a high school diploma has nothing to do with one's ability to operate a motor vehicle.  That's like saying only college graduates can marry... it's very arbitrary, and yes, punitive to those who don't meet the totally unrelated requirement.

Hmmm. I like that idea.

*thinking*

















  j/k (well, I do think there should be some sort of license required to reproduce, but that's another thread... lol)

[nessalynn77]

Of course, you know you don't have to be married to reproduce?

[Hasmonean1]

Hmmm. I like that idea.

*thinking*

















  j/k (well, I do think there should be some sort of license required to reproduce, but that's another thread... lol)

 

Like a licensed sinner.   "Excuse me sir, are you a LICENSED sinner or just RANK sinner? 

[LaylaMonroe]

Of course, you know you don't have to be married to reproduce?

I know, that's why I said that's a whole other thread. LOL

 

Like a licensed sinner.   "Excuse me sir, are you a LICENSED sinner or just RANK sinner? 

[phbrown]

ROFL!!!!!!!!

[lordluvr]

No

[T-Block]

N-to-the-O!!!

[funkStrat_97]

@Ness, technically, that's not a form of punishment since a driver's license is a privilege, not a right.

But anyway, I don't think it's a bad idea. I'm opposed to excessive legislation, and I think that's exactly what this is. But, I can see its merit at the same time. Maybe they should require a more extensive application procedure - like including reference letters from guidance counselors, teachers, principals, etc.

Girl...you are all that and a bag of chips.  I feel the same way especially since, as you have noted, driving is not a right.  I'm not sure how I feel about making it a mandatory requirement, but the idea certainly has merit.

[nessalynn77]

And what would be the goal of this legislation, other than to stop an arbitrary group from driving? 

Also, since kids are licensed before they graduate, would their licenses be revoked, or would the license not even be available until after graduation?

[LaylaMonroe]

And what would be the goal of this legislation, other than to stop an arbitrary group from driving? 

Also, since kids are licensed before they graduate, would their licenses be revoked, or would the license not even be available until after graduation?

1. It's not arbitrary at all. But I guess the goal would be to keep kids from driving until they graduate HS for several reasons probably outlined in the article that I haven't read (yet). I guess I'd better go read it now. I'm thinking for one that (at least in GA) there are wayyyyyyy too many teen accidents because many of them just aren't responsible enough. They may also have an argument for keeping kids from ditching school? Not a good argument, but it's one they might use. *shrug*

2. I don't understand your second question. Can you rephrase it for the slow one? LOL

I wouldn't vote for this legislation because I'm for LESS govt, not more. But I don't think this is any worse an idea than putting age restrictions on voting, smoking, drinking, getting a credit card, entering a contract, and renting a car.

[nessalynn77]

1. It's not arbitrary at all. But I guess the goal would be to keep kids from driving until they graduate HS for several reasons probably outlined in the article that I haven't read (yet). I guess I'd better go read it now. I'm thinking for one that (at least in GA) there are wayyyyyyy too many teen accidents because many of them just aren't responsible enough. They may also have an argument for keeping kids from ditching school? Not a good argument, but it's one they might use. *shrug*

2. I don't understand your second question. Can you rephrase it for the slow one? LOL

I wouldn't vote for this legislation because I'm for LESS govt, not more. But I don't think this is any worse an idea than putting age restrictions on voting, smoking, drinking, getting a credit card, entering a contract, and renting a car.

  The diploma requirement is arbitrary to age and maturity.  There are 50 year olds with no diploma, should they then have no license?  That's the premise of question 2, and my response to question 1.  It's a poor gauge of maturity or ability to operate a motor vehicle.  The Department of Motor Vehicles is specifically there to license qualified people to drive, not to make sure kids stay in school or graduate, not to restrict someone's freedom and driving "privilege" based on education.  It's simply can you perform the functions required to safely operate a motor vehicle, or at the most, have you exhibited behavior in the past that poses a risk to yourself or other drivers/pedestrians.

[LaylaMonroe]

  The diploma requirement is arbitrary to age and maturity.  There are 50 year olds with no diploma, should they then have no license?  That's the premise of question 2, and my response to question 1.  It's a poor gauge of maturity or ability to operate a motor vehicle.  The Department of Motor Vehicles is specifically there to license qualified people to drive, not to make sure kids stay in school or graduate, not to restrict someone's freedom and driving "privilege" based on education.  It's simply can you perform the functions required to safely operate a motor vehicle, or at the most, have you exhibited behavior in the past that poses a risk to yourself or other drivers/pedestrian.

I meant I didn't understand the phrasing of #2, not that I didn't get what you were getting at. I guess I'll just take it at face value and say that they wouldn't be revoked because they wouldn't have them in the first place. They wouldn't get them until they graduate.

Like every other law, there would probably be exceptions and exemptions (so I doubt they'd be snatching licenses back from 50 year olds).

IRT the part in bold, I don't think it's that simple, because there are age requirements. There are plenty of 12 year olds that can safely operate a motor vehicle. But the law says they can't be licensed until they are 16.

*shrug*

At the end of the day, I would oppose this legislation anyway, so....

[nessalynn77]

IRT the part in bold, I don't think it's that simple, because there are age requirements. There are plenty of 12 year olds that can safely operate a motor vehicle. But the law says they can't be licensed until they are 16.

Right.  So if the age requirement (which is a better blanket gauge of maturity level) already accomplishes that, shouldn't the argument be to raise the age at which people can obtain a license rather than requiring a diploma?   Earning a diploma does nothing to increase ones driving ability, while crossing over into adulthood increases their responsibility for their actions, and hopefully most gain the maturity that goes along with handling that new responsibility.  If not, there are revocations, point deductions, etc. to handle adults who can't handle it.

[LaylaMonroe]

Right.  So if the age requirement (which is a better blanket gauge of maturity level) already accomplishes that, shouldn't the argument be to raise the age at which people can obtain a license rather than requiring a diploma?   Earning a diploma does nothing to increase ones driving ability, while crossing over into adulthood increases their responsibility for their actions, and hopefully most gain the maturity that goes along with handling that new responsibility.  If not, there are revocations, point deductions, etc. to handle adults who can't handle it.

Ummm yeah, so what is the purpose of this again? LOL...

Good point. I really need to read the article because I have no idea what the point would be... I guess to serve as an incentive to keep kids in school? Kids do seem to get really excited about turning 15 so they can start driving, but maybe if they linked the driving to the graduation, fewer kids would drop out? I guess that's what they're thinking. I dunno. But you're right. Earning a diploma does nothing to increase one's driving ability...

[nessalynn77]

Shoot, I ain't read it either.  Truth is, I got my license AND my diploma so... whatever.  LOL!