Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Teenagers Are Driving Much Less: 4 Theories About Why
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?
Before, teens needed to have a car to impress the girls ...
Now, they just need an internet connection and some hand-cream.
Celebrating how America is more energy efficient because its people can no longer afford to drive.
Yes I drive a lot less than I used to 10 years ago, but it less to do with the Internet and more to do with the price of gas....
http://money.cnn.com/2004/03/23/news/economy/gas_aaa/
Don't got a job because I don't have a car.
Don't have a car cause I don't have a job.
Don't have a girl cause I don't have a car.
So I'm looking for a girl with a job and a car.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I check a store's inventory and maybe make a call before I drive off. Olden days I would need to travel around to different stores to find a special item. More often than not I also mail order supplies I would have bought locally. Sorry Radio Shack. Well, not really.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
At least in CT, the age at which you can practically operate a vehicle on your own keeps creeping up, and there are always new rules restricting the privilege (only during the day, no passengers, etc). Assuming that the rest of the nation passes similar policies (given that we never repeal such things it has to be a purely additive effect anyway), I would think it obvious that teens drive less on average, as teens can't drive as much.
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
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.
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.
Amazon is like public transportation for "incidentals" In my household and those of my peers, there is no more "run to the store for these few items," it has been replaced with "is it prime?"
In 1970, gasoline cost 35Â/gallon($1.65 in 2011 dollars). The OPEC crisis caused prices to more than double by 1980, but accelerated inflation meant that the cost rose to $2.03 in 2011 dollars. By 1990, gasoline hit $1 ($1.57 in 2011 dollars). Fast forward to today, and the average US price is $3.27. In other words, after adjusting for inflation gasoline is roughly twice as expensive as it has been historically. When you factor in the increased cost of high-tech cars and a sluggish economy, it's not surprising to see reduced demand.
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.
The whole shift in thinking about burning fuel and the problems that it leads to, however small my contribution, has certainly impacted my lifestyle.
My decision to live in a place where I can depend on public transportation was influenced by that knowledge.
The lack of attachment to a physical place, knowing that I can continue to nurture my friendships from a distance, through the internet, also played a big part.
Now, this is over 15 years, not 10.
Internet
Sure, let's get that out of the way. I don't have to go out as much to buy things, so I'd say that lowered my annual driving average by about 5%-10%
Gasoline/Petrol prices
Absolutely. When the price of gasoline went over $2.50/gal (that was 2005-ish) my leisure driving went to almost none. That was easily 25%-30% of my annual driving.
More environmentally conscious
Over the last 15 years I have definitely become more environmentally conscious and tried to drive less as well as use less electricity, etc.
Moved closer to work
I live in a medium-sized rural university town (about 50,000 without students, about 80,000 with them). I work for the university and moved to my present location in 1999. Before that I was living about three miles away and would drive to work daily. Now, I have a 15 minute walk apartment door to office door (my office, not the outer door). That cut my driving down by more than a third.
So my driving habits over the last 15 years have dropped by roughly 65%-75%. I only drive when I need to run errands or I am going to visit friends farther than I can comfortably walk. I might spend $120-$130 on gas in a "busy" month (about 1,000 miles worth), but on average I spend about $60-$65 (about 500 miles worth). I used to average between 2,000 - 3,000 miles per month when gas was under $2.50/gal. I did a lot more road trips for fun and drove back and forth to work (often multiple times a day), as well as shopping trips and other errands. People around where I live have also gotten worse driving habits over that time, so that's another reason I stay off the roads. Where I live half the population of drivers has less than eight years of driving experience, and it seems they never really learned the rules of the road, anyway. Hell, it's bad enough as a pedestrian!
When I was just out of highschool we'd drive around looking for a party. Spent half the night doing that... stopping by this house or that house... We couldn't call from the car as there were no cellphones and even if we did land line phones were often not picked up at a loud party. With modern texting/tweeting etc, teens know where the party's immediately. If it changes venue they know right away. It's just one more activity computers have made more efficient.
Exactly. It's the first 1000 hours that are the most dangerous. That's as true for 40 year olds learning to fly as it is for teenagers learning to drive.
That only tells part of the story. Actuarially, drivers who do not start driving until age 25 are half as likely to suffer a major accident in their first three years of driving. The number drops even more if they wait until 29. After that it basically levels off.
The numbers are a bit skewed for other variables like gender and economic status, but age is the biggest factor.
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
When I was in high school, society looked at drinking and driving very differently than today. The drinking age was 18. We would often drive around with several friends drinking. Be it driving or parked somewhere, just sitting, talking , whatever. When the cops would come, if you weren’t a complete mess, all they would do is take your beer and tell you to go home. Additionally, many activities for teens centered around driving. We would go ‘cruising’. A local area where teens would all drive an congregate. Many cities have outlawed it. In addition to social and legal change in drinking attitudes, there are now automated speeding tickets, the cost of insurance, being harassed by law enforcement if just a few teens hangout somewhere. The change is more than the automobile. It’s a social political change that generally looks at young people congregating in public with negativity.
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?
Driver education was a standard part of the (summer) high school curriculum when I was coming up so very long ago. I don't think that's the case anymore, and and as a result it's not as accessible as it once was. It's much less a thing you do automatically when you hit 16.
That, and kids are living more of their lives virtually now. More "tactile" skills like driving and fixing mechanical things aren't as cool as the ones involved in manipulating what you see on your screen.
Your problem is that promiscuity rates are not usually measured in average partners; they are measured in modes or quartiles or something like that. From the article you link to:
"A 1994 study in the United States, which looked at the number of sexual partners in a lifetime, found that 20% of heterosexual men had only one partner, 55% had two to twenty partners, and 25% had more than twenty partners."
See? No average partner numbers. Instead, proportions in a defined class.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
If we're going to discuss this properly then I think we need more info on any possible threesomes.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park