IS 16 TOO YOUNG TO DRIVE?

Mike Barnicle is Boston’s least passionate radio talk show host.  He freely admits that he DOESN’T like talk radio- the callers, the medium itself- he doesn’t like it.  I think Mike’s first love is his kids, his second is the Boston Red Sox, and his third is WRITING.  It’s obvious he does his 96.9 FM Talk radio program for one reason:  the buck.  This past Monday, however, Mike was as passionate as any on-air personality I’ve ever listened to.  He was thoroughly exorcised about the death of two North Shore teenagers in a gruesome crash on Route 128 over the weekend, and he was calling for the driving age to be raised.

In Massachusetts, the age at which a young person can receive a Learner’s Permit is 16.  A kid can become a licensed driver at 16 and a half IF he or she has passed an approved Driver Education course, or at 17 without Driver Ed.  Mike wants the driving age to be 18.  He really didn’t clarify if that’s a Learner’s Permit at 18 or what.  I get the feeling Mike would REALLY be happy with Learner’s Permits at 20 and Licensing at 21.   In fact, there are strong arguments in favor of raising the driving age and there are strong arguments against it.

In the “horseless carriage era” of one hundred years ago, Massachusetts had no minimum driving age.  An eleven-year-old from Brookline named Edward Esty received a Driver’s License.  (Actually THAT far back it was called a Chauffeur’s License.)  There were no Learner’s Permits in those days (the issuing of Learner’s Permits began in the mid-1960s) and there were no driving tests.  A person had to sign an affidavit that they had “driven over 100 miles” (with no license).  The procedure was very crazy, but one hundred years ago automobiles were considered crazy and a possible passing fad.  Within a few years, a minimum age of 16 was set and driving tests began to be required.

My late father, Eugene A. Baril, was a career Registry of Motor Vehicles employee.  Until the Registry was merged in with the State Police in the early 1990s, the RMV officers (called Inspectors) took care of everything from driving tests to fatal accident investigation, to various auto related Supervisory tasks.  Dad was a believer that kids SHOULD be able to get their Driver’s Licenses at 16, IF they were well trained and had evidenced maturity and responsibility in their lives.  Believe me, HIS driving tests were NOT easy. At the Quincy registry and Norwood armory, he was known as “THAT Baril”.  Nobody wanted to get “THAT Baril” as their Examiner!  Dad failed close to half of the people he examined.  He required the prospective driver to flawlessly turn around on a hill, AND I MEAN A HILL!  You had to back up perfectly “in a straight path” and I mean PERFECTLY.  You had to LOOK when driving, and yes, I mean LOOK.  To his knowledge, nobody he licensed was ever involved in a fatal accident or serious accident.   I was not allowed to get a license until 17 and a half.  It was not because I was not mature and responsible.  It was that he just didn’t consider me a very good driver.  My sister was not allowed to get a license until 21.  Today we’re each pretty good drivers, and also very nervous drivers.

I acted as the “sponsor” for one of my daughter's male friends when he went up for his license test a few years ago.  This was no Eugene A. Baril test.  This was a joke.  A quick drive around the block and the kid had his license.
Somehow, I don’t think the age is such a big deal, but it’s too bad a bunch of Eugene A. Baril driving instructors and Registry men (or today it’s State Police men AND WOMEN!) don’t descend upon our newly driving kids.  AND, it’s too bad we don’t have more Eugene A. Baril type parents.  Had I messed up behind the wheel I’d frankly have preferred to be killed than to face him.

Yes, this issue needs to be addressed seriously.  I just don’t know if Mike Barnicle’s “raise the driving age to 18” will make the slightest difference.

“To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:”  (Ecclesiastes 3:1)