Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

U.S. Teenagers Are Driving Much Less: 4 Theories About Why

Posted by timothy on from the time-and-place-restrictions dept.

Paul Fernhout writes "U.S. teenagers just aren't as into driving as they used to be, U.S. government forecasters acknowledged in dramatically altered projections for transportation energy use over the next 25 years." Online presence is one of the reasons mentioned, which makes a lot of sense to me as a factor, no matter the age of the drivers involved. Whatever your age, do you drive less than you did 10 years ago?

10 of 635 comments (clear)

  1. Murica Fuck yea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Celebrating how America is more energy efficient because its people can no longer afford to drive.

    1. Re:Murica Fuck yea! by beltsbear · · Score: 5, Insightful

      True! The cost of driving has risen. Mandatory insurance plus the price of gas and harder to repair old cars all contribute. I am not saying a teen cannot learn to fix cars, but more tools are needed then ever. I could have changed most wearing parts of my Delta-88 (teenage car) with tools my dad had lying around.

    2. Re:Murica Fuck yea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Then there's a long way to go. Petrol in Europe is still 6 times more expensive. No, really. 6 times.

      Yes, gas is much more expensive in Europe BUT :

      - most of our cities are tailored for people and not cars
      - we have very good public transportation that you americans can't even begin to comprehend
      - taking the car to the grocery store that's 100 meters from your place is just stupid.
      - so you only take the car when absolutely necessary.
      - Just imagine people living up to 100 km from Paris or London and commuting every day to the city on a train. No need to take the car. Saves you a freakton of money.
      - in the US because of your hyper developed suburbia without cars you die.

    3. Re:Murica Fuck yea! by plover · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are a ton of historical reasons American cities are built the way they are. First, because almost all of your cities were built long before the existence of cars, American cities were created after the existence of cars. What you don't seen to understand is all the empty space we had 100 years ago. By comparison, the rest of the world is incredibly crowded and land is extremely expensive. Because American land was cheap, and cars were cheap, and gas was cheap, it was easy to live an extra mile away from the city and buy an acre or hectare to give yourself room. Honestly, if it was easily affordable, would you choose to continue to live cheek-to-cheek with your next door neighbor, sharing a wall with him and his noisy children and his smelly cooking, or would you like a garden of your own?

      As American cities grew, people found it very easy and affordable to move 10, 15, or 20 miles away from the city center, and do the same thing. (I know people now who commute 60 miles each way or more in order to live on 5 hectares of their own, or on a lakeshore.) Thus begat suburbs.

      Of course, living 20 miles from the city means you don't want to drive 15 miles to the grocery store, so people built grocery stores out near the houses. But they're still a mile or five away from most people.

      Because the suburban population density is so low compared to the rest of the world, infrastructure is much more expensive. Cities can't afford to run a bus down every suburban street, and the buses can't afford to go every market or shop. So bus stops are often a mile or more from many suburban residents, and they only take you to the main city, never to neighboring suburbs or even to local shops.

      We were built on cheap gas, and now we have to make some serious urban changes to fix it. And those are very expensive.

      --
      John
    4. Re:Murica Fuck yea! by excelsior_gr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wow, what a ton of bullshit.

      Not only is household taxation in the US less than in the EU (and don't even get me started about VAT) you get to sell your military produce to European countries as well! You do not pay the most for gasoline, either directly or indirectly. You don't have "all the social programs of Europe" because they don't fit in your mentality/way of living, and that's fine by me, but don't give us the crap that you can't afford them because you have to ensure cheap oil for the rest of the world!

  2. Re:Gas price probably has more to do with it. by oic0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    More than just the price of gas, I also costs a lot more to do whatever you are going to do when you get where you are going! 10 years ago an outing might have cost me ~30 bucks gas included. 5 in gas, 15 for food, 10 for movie tickets. Now it costs ~60 with 8 for gas, 30 for food, 20 for movie tickets. I am however NOT making twice as much as I was 10 years ago.

  3. Better things to do by weave · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When I was a teenager in the late 70s, there was nothing to do except jump in the car and drive down Main Street and yell out the window to friends loitering in front of the bars, get to the end, come back and do it again, over and over. ("Cruising") or just go on a lot of joyrides.

    If I had an xbox or ps4 back then, I'd have probably been on that instead.

  4. They don't go outside by Lije+Baley · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If my son is any gauge, the reason they don't drive is because it would require them to leave the house. Whenever we go anywhere, he is always concerned with how far he will be from his computer. The iPad and 3DS will only hold off the DTs for so long...

    --
    Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
  5. Driving isn't fun anymore by Ly4 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Another factor - most driving is no longer 'fun' - It's fighting traffic. it's a job.

    The only place you don't see traffic these days is car commercials.

  6. Re:Not sure that's what they need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Your conclusion doesn't follow, you know. You're assuming that not just promiscuity rates have to be the same, but individual promiscuity has to be. Picture this scenario. Ten guys and ten girls live together. All ten of the guys have slept with five of the girls in the house within the first ten days. That makes them promiscuous. However, five of the girls engaged in no sexual activity whatsoever. That gives us a 100% male promiscuity rate, and a 50% female promiscuity rate.

    But how can that be! Because "statistically", according to "Sique" on /., the rates have to be equal!

    No, wait, the other five girls simply had more sex. Now it makes sense!

    Please avoid throwing words like "statistical" around until you understand it, for fuck's sake. It doesn't make you look smart, it makes you look like a total idiot.

    Then again, I'm arguing with a total idiot on /. so what does that make me?