An Amusing Anecdote From the Halls of Academia

[AeroJonesy]

There certainly is a correlation between lower grades and poor driving. Why do insurance companies offer a good student discount?

I think in every state, until you are 18, you are on some sort of probationary license as you are not yet an adult. So the state can set all different sorts of stipulations on the license. Since education is controlled by the state as is driving, why can they not combine the two?

 

[IDupedInMyPants]

There certainly is a correlation between lower grades and poor driving. Why do insurance companies offer a good student discount?

Insurance companies offer a "being a female" discount too, despite recent studies indicating that the opposite correlation is true. They also offer a "sticking with the insurance company a long *** time" discount, despite all common sense indicating a lack of correlation between brand loyalty and safety. They also offer...

 

[Underseer]

I have no problem with this law as stated, as it only punishes stupid people and lazy people.

Driving isn't a privilege or a right. For some reason people think that the licensing process exists to weed out retards and that only the most elite and skilled testers will pass, and this is clearly false. The licensing process is to insure accountability in vehicle related crime, e.g. traffic violations, vehicular manslaughter, etc. I mean, you know, if anybody could hop into any car at any time and do any thing, these crimes would all occur much more frequently and very few would ever be caught.

If that were the case, then the law would never revoke people's liscences for offenses, would it? However we know that the law does revoke the liscenses of the worst repeat offenders of traffic law (particularly drunk drivers). So we can assume your conclusion is patently false.

Do grades alter the ability to track a driver down and hold him/her accountable for a crime if necessary? I feel pretty ridiculous even hypothetically asking that question, so I'll assume I don't need to address it.

This is a function of the competency of the state bureacracy and has nothing to do with who does and does not receive a liscence (see above). You are right in saying that it is ridiculous of you to ask that question.

Do grades reflect upon the ability to safely drive? I can say with relative certainty that there is no correlation between low grades and unsafe driving.

You may be certain about your statement, but that doesn't make the statement true. Insurance companies offer discounts to students with high grades for a reason. There is a very real and measurable correlation between grades and the likelihood of getting into an accident.

There is nothing wrong with denying driver's liscences to stupid people and lazy people, just as there is nothing wrong with denying gun liscences to convicted felons and crazy people.

 

[IDupedInMyPants]

If that were the case, then the law would never revoke people's liscences for offenses, would it? However we know that the law does revoke the liscenses of the worst repeat offenders of traffic law (particularly drunk drivers). So we can assume your conclusion is patently false.

I, uh. Let me make sure I've got this right. Licensing isn't a means of insuring driver accountability because, through licensing, drivers are held accountable for law violations? I think your argument leads to the exact opposite conclusion of the one you came up with.

You may be certain about your statement, but that doesn't make the statement true. Insurance companies offer discounts to students with high grades for a reason. There is a very real and measurable correlation between grades and the likelihood of getting into an accident.

Are there any studies whatsoever that back this up? I've never in my life heard of a correlation between the two, and I find it hard to believe that any rational person could argue that grades somehow reflect upon driving skill.

And, again, insurance companies offer lower rates based on gender, loyalty, and a host of other factors that have nothing to do with driving risks, or as in the case of gender, are based on the opposite of the true correlation. I know these are convenient to ignore, but my point in repeating them is this: Insurance companies offering a lower premium based on Quality X is not proof or even evidence that Quality X is related to safe or unsafe driving.

There is nothing wrong with denying driver's liscences to stupid people and lazy people, just as there is nothing wrong with denying gun liscences to convicted felons and crazy people.

Not a very good analogy, man. It's ok to deny a gun license to someone who's mentally incompetent or convicted of a felony, therefore it's ok to deny a driver's license to a kid who fails two or more classes? That's not to mention that you again are assuming correlation where none has ever even been implied by any research to exist. Who says having bad grades in 1/4 of your classes makes you stupid or lazy, let alone both? Who says being stupid or lazy makes you an unsafe driver?

 

[Damascus]

Shouldn't the loss of a driving privelege have something to do with driving? What if adults could lose their licenses for bouncing a cheque?

People would bounce less checks

 

[faultless wonderboy]

I have to applaud the legislative body who passed that law, now they suck even more money from unsuspecting teens and their all to willing parents. I think this law is garbage. Kids who are failing will continue to drive, get ticketed, which may eventually go on their record, putting a large blemish on their record. I would claim that, generally speaking, it is the parents job to enforce grades, not the state's. I dont want to get into a parenting argument, but it seems to me to be quite clear that this is not a legislative issue. However, they have made it so and created a win-win situation. Grades come up, more money comes in OR grades stay the same or dropout rates increase and more kids are fined for driving w/o a license. A big applause indeed. :clap:

 

[tarnok]

Kids who are failing will continue to drive, get ticketed, which may eventually go on their record, putting a large blemish on their record.

I submit that if one is foolish enough to drive without a liscense that is all the more reason _not_ to provide one with a liscense.

 

[Damascus]

If that's the case, let's not revoke them at all! People will drive anyways and it'll just cause problems.