Triumphrat

markbvt · 07-03-2007

So I was having a conversation with my officemate this morning about perceptions about driving. When we were in our teens, nobody could wait to turn 16 so they could get their driver's license. It was a rite of passage, and any kid who'd managed to get to 17 without getting his/her driver's license in the preceding year was considered a loser.

But these days it seems like there's an increasing number of teens and even college kids who have absolutely no interest in learning to drive. Obviously some of these have no reason to because they live in cities where cars are more trouble than they're worth, and some of them choose not to learn to drive because they feel that bicycling is a healthier/more environmentally friendly alternative -- but these groups can't account for the numbers of kids that seem to be avoiding learning to drive.

So I'll put the question out for discussion: what's the reason behind this?

--mark

Wombat · 07-03-2007

My eldest son is 27 and has only had his drivers licence for about a year.
Previously he had lived only walking distance from where he worked and caught public transport to where he needed to go.
It has saved him a fortune over the years.

Archimedes · 07-03-2007

Thank mercy somebody else speaks plain English - even if in the vernacular. How pleasant to the eyes is 'Office Mate' instead of that kerap p.c. term 'Co-Worker'.

10/10 Mark.

:razz:

tba-golfer · 07-03-2007

My daughter is 24 and has had zero interest in learning to drive. In her teens it was from a bit of a fear factor. In college and since, she has been happy using the bus or riding her bike. Now, she is kind of a "green" queen.
And yea, it has saved me (and her) big money over time.
Unfortunately her brother has more than made up for it...

doodledog · 07-03-2007

Well as usual its different here in the UK, Rural comunities are badly served by public transport, some areas are not served at all, that means that if you want to get to work you need to be mobile, in the past Motorcycles were the thing for teenagers unfortunatly due to the huge cost of insurance thats not really an option, a cheap old car insured by a parent is the way most people go. If the parents can afford it fine if not tough, parents are taxi drivers for longer than ever, I have got my kids Scooters for their 16th birthdays along with a training course, we pay the insurance too, now my 17 year old is working he has taken on the insurance payments and is now looking to upgrade to an Aprillia RS125. I am sure its different in the cities as there the public transport is good. If I could bear to live in a city I would not own a car and would encourage my kids not to as well, BUT I would never be without my bike.

decobike · 07-03-2007

I live rural, public transportation is non-existant. My son had to learn to drive. I just came back down to my office, I was up in the ER a little while ago because of a serious car crash at a dangerous intersection, I'll help out if they're busy. Middle of the day no alcohol, just a bad intersection but it would cost alot to fix it. 7 years ago when my son was seventeen he got t-boned at that same intersection. He was in a Ford Taurus which crumpled like it was supposed to, again mid-day no alcohol. He walked away, my personal physician drove by that intersection saw the car and assumed there was a fatality. My sons driving behavior after the accident completely changed, not that he was a bad or reckless driver, just young, afterward he obeys all traffic laws and takes nothing for granted. His friends say he drives like an old lady.

As a coroner I would recommend you put your kid in a Taurus, Impala, Volvo or Honda. They have the best midsize car crash ratings. If they live in a city where they do not need nor want to learn to drive, that is so good on so many levels.

Tbirdnz · 07-03-2007

some of them choose not to learn to drive because they feel that bicycling is a healthier/more environmentally friendly alternative -

All the power to them, I would like to see more of it. For every last man and his dog to have a car puts pressure on roads and parking in cities. If there is public transport that is adequate to get you to most places I can't see the reason to own a car.

When I lived in Hong Kong I had a car and a m/bike, it dawned on me I was parking further away from where I had to go and paying parking charges higher than taxi costs, in addition to good bus and MTR (tube) services. I got rid of the car and didn't miss it. Kept the bike though.

Here I have a few vehicles (but only drive one at a time :-D ) living in a rural area.

---------------------
Ride on !

S4L · 07-03-2007

Quote:

As a coroner I would recommend...

Your a coroner and your profile says your profession is healthcare? :hihi:

kit: Sorry I find that kinda funny. I mean nothing by it.

I'm actually surprised the rural areas around England have no public transportation?? Here in the states public transportation is a joke, where I am now, I wouldn't know where or how to catch a bus. It seems public transportation here is also geared more towards the "less fortunate" areas, what I mean by this is that if you live in a middle class rural area here, you'd better own a vehicle of sorts.

I would ride a bike to work if the area I lived in made it easier - I don't think the cost efficiency outways the risk of death here though. I swear they give out US driving licenses like candy

markbvt · 07-03-2007

For the record, since I started the thread, I suppose I should chime in. I live in a town of about 40,000 in a rural state. I spent the summer two years ago without a car (my old one had just been totalled and I was working through things with the insurance), but I did have my Triumph. I learned to grocery shop, etc, in sufficiently small quantities to be able to fit everything in a backpack, and overall I didn't really mind -- and I got lucky that it didn't rain much that summer. But for the most part, and especially in the winter, living here without a car would be inconvenient, and without even a motorcycle, it would be very restricting to say the least.

Having a car or a motorcycle obviously brings a great deal of freedom because it's possible to go where one wants when one wants on one's own schedule.

If I tried to take a bus across town to the movie theater, for instance, I would need to get the bus schedule timing right or wait half an hour for the next bus, I'd have to transfer downtown and then probably again at least once before reaching my destination, and by the time I got to the movie theater, it would probably have taken me as long to get there as the movie is long. And then I'd have to reverse the whole process -- which would mean I could only see matinees because the buses stop running too early to go to an evening show. But because I have my own transportation, I can be at the movie theater in 20 minutes.

And then of course there's the ability to just get in the car or on the bike and go to a bigger city or visit family/friends whenever the mood strikes me.

There are many reasons that I would go mad without my own motorized transportation. And I remember all too well how much it sucked to be 15ish and reliant on my parents to give me rides to friends' houses, the movie theater, the mall, wherever. This is part of why I find it so strange that some kids today show no interest in getting their license.

--mark

LoVel · 07-03-2007

+1 on the public transportation sucks in this country. Especially in the cities the size of Birmingham. I guess you would call it a small big city.

If you want to ride the bus around you should probably bring a gun and it helps if you live in an economically depressed area because that is where they run for the most part.

It's basically a government funded transportation system for low income individuals. It never makes a profit and they have cut services for years.