Subscribe to this Blog
Today's Blogs
    The Checkup:

Teen Driving Age Revisited

In November, we had a spirited (as always) discussion about teen drivers and whether the licensing age should rise. The talk followed the deaths of seven teens on Maryland roads.

Well, this week, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has weighed in saying that states should raise the legal licensing age to 17 or 18. In a review of teen crashes, Allan F. Williams, the Insurance Institute’s former chief scientist, points to New Jersey as an example of a state that's ahead of the curve. New Jersey has the oldest legal driving age at 17 in the United States. Elsewhere the age ranges from 14 to 16. Two studies looking at the driving age in New Jersey as compared with two neighboring states shows that the older driving age resulted in fewer teen fatalities, even when researchers factored in whether the life-saver was age or driver inexperience, Williams says in the report.

Over the past two decades, many states have successfully implemented gradual driver's license programs, though Williams writes that studies haven't been done to assess whether these programs are saving lives. Although these programs differ, they generally result in the granting of licenses later. Drivers first get a learner's permit and must hold that for a minimum amount of time. In many states, they must record having driven a certain number of hours to obtain a full license. Even after getting the license, some states restrict teens from certain "dangerous" driving such as being at the wheel at night.

While some states have looked at -- but not implemented -- raising the legal driving age, general public opinion is that parents and teens would oppose it.

"Getting a driver’s license at a young age is clearly important to many teenagers. It is a milestone life event, which carries prestige, and gives young people the opportunity to achieve some independence from their parents, traveling without them present," Williams writes. However, two older studies of New Jersey teens shows that the 17-year-old driving age doesn't impact teens' involvement in activities. It did, however, lessen the time 16-year-olds spent doing family errands and made them more reliant on parents for transportation than their counterparts in states where the driving age is 16.

Surveys of adults have shown differing views on the best driving age. In a USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll in 2004, 60 percent of adults favored a driving age of 17 or older. Meanwhile, surveys of parents in Minnesota, North Carolina, Rhode Island showed that 33 percent to 50 percent of parents favored the older driving age.

“Parents may know that putting off licensure is good from a safety standpoint, but at the same time, they’re impatient to get out of the business of chauffeuring their kids from one activity to another. They often believe their own children will be safe drivers, and they may be disinclined to disappoint their kids, many of whom want to get their licenses as soon as possible. For these and whatever other reasons, parents haven’t made a big push to change the licensing laws,” said Anne McCartt, the Insurance institute's senior vice president for research.

Should we, as parents, be encouraging our states to raise the driving age? How would that impact your family?

By Stacey Garfinkle |  September 11, 2008; 7:00 AM ET  | Category:  Safety , Teens
Previous: A Lesson in Behavior | Next: The Five Best Films to Watch With the Kids

Comments


This topic has been playing on the WSJ's Juggle since Tuesday...

http://blogs.wsj.com/juggle/2008/09/09/when-should-teens-be-allowed-to-drive/

Posted by: Copycat | September 11, 2008 7:33 AM | Report abuse

I am completely in favor of increasing the driving age. It makes so much sense. Young people will be safer.

I know many parents who want their kids to drive when they are younger, for all the reasons mentioned above. This is why it is that much more critical to be funding more mass transit, so kids can get around, without having them die.

If kids can get around easier, by using some form of transit, their need to for driving decreases. Of course, all (or pretty much all) teens want to drive as early as possible because of the freedom it allows. But if they were able to get around by themselves, then it would be less of an issue.

Unfortunately, our elected officials are less than happy about this idea. They would prefer to subsidize roads rather than mass transit, which gets us in the mess we are in now.

Posted by: atlmom | September 11, 2008 7:35 AM | Report abuse

I'm opposed to raising the driving age.

I do think that the graduated licensing system that Maryland now uses is a good thing, and the even tougher system my nieces deal with in North Carolina is probably better. The key point is that newly-licensed drivers are not allowed to drive around their friends unless an adult is in the car, which helps to prevent the kind of stupidity that happens when teenagers try to impress their peers.

Driving late at night seems to me to be less of an issue, but I could be wrong about that.

Copycat - Stacey may be copying ideas from WSJ, but not all of us read WSJ online, so cribbing ideas doesn't really bother me.

Posted by: ArmyBrat | September 11, 2008 7:54 AM | Report abuse

18? Horsefeathers! The driving age should be raised to 45 or maybe 55. Keep those young whippersnappers off my road!

Posted by: Get off my lawn! | September 11, 2008 7:56 AM | Report abuse

Copycat - Stacey may be copying ideas from WSJ, but not all of us read WSJ online, so cribbing ideas doesn't really bother me.

Posted by: ArmyBrat | September 11, 2008 7:54 AM

Since you're the OP "Wiki King", it's obvious that cribbing ideas doesn't bother you..

Posted by: Copycat | September 11, 2008 7:57 AM | Report abuse

This topic has been playing on the WSJ's Juggle since Tuesday...


Does this make the topic any less worthy of discussion on this website?

And, yes, we are SO impressed that you look at the WSJ website, you certainly like to tell us that every other day!

Posted by: to copycat | September 11, 2008 8:06 AM | Report abuse

While the jury is still out on whether raising the driving age would reduce teenage accidents and deaths, it is important to understand a couple of things. First, studies have shown that experience driving is as important as maturity in making a driver safe. And second, the studies that show a reduced number of teen deaths where the driving age has been raised do not factor in that the total number of teen drivers is reduced, skewing those numbers. In studies of drivers aged 16-19 and those aged 17-20, the death numbers are similar.

I think we would be better off addressing factors that more clearly lead to risk - cellphone use, teenage passengers, time of day restrictions, etc. Graduated licenses, that allow increased "freedom" to drive as teenagers gain more experience are very effective.

And before we get caught up again in the arguments about those 7 teenage deaths last year, remember that only 2 of those drivers were 16 (one was 15, the rest were older).

I still feel that I want my sons to learn to drive, and gain experience, in the years they are under my control, before they leave home for college. My son, who turned 17 in June, started college in August. How would his driving be improved if he only received his license this summer?

Posted by: jen | September 11, 2008 8:11 AM | Report abuse

I moseyed on over to the WSJ's Juggle, which is less PC, and much more unintentionally amusing than the OP. Here are some gems, including one comment with the requisite link to a NYT article. LOL!

"any stupid teen boy who kills himself in a car crash from speeding is doing the world a favor. any parent who “gifts” their kid a hot rod at age 16 (i knew of at least two when i was in high school) is completely irresponsible and is not impressing anyone. my dad was driving semis at age 12 for his farmer father. driving is not difficult to learn or difficult to do. a kid who doesn’t understand the physics behind the power and force of a vehicle deserves whatever comes to them. it may be unfortunate but life is not a cute game to play where flash and speed and swagger count for much in the long run. i agree that further delaying adulthood is not a good idea in our country. we already have too many 18-22 year olds who are completely helpless when it comes to real life (and not video games and text messaging).

Comment by anonymous - September 9, 2008 at 10:13 am


Germany - 7.4 fatalities per billion vehicle kilometers.

USA - 9 fatalities per billion kilometers.

I think there are many reasons for this. First, you need to be 18 to get your license. Second, driver training is a very involed and expesive process.

As an example - how many s**ty drivers are in charge of teaching their children to be s**ty drivers? I would guess that many bad driving habits are passed down from generation to generation.

There needs to be an involved profession training program. People need to know that you don’t drive in the passing lane, how to properly merge onto the highway, how to signal before changing lanes. And they also need track time to learn how to drive on ice and snow, how to handle a skid, etc.

Comment by A son - September 9, 2008 at 10:20 am

There is a lot of information about driver age and accidents because both the Feds and the insurance companies gather and analyze traffic statistics. First, age makes a huge difference. The most dangerous drivers on the road, in terms of both accident totals and serious injuries/fatalities, are teens. The second most dangerous group is people over 75. The latter are typically more dangerous to themselves than to others, but they are overwhelmingly the ones responsible for a particularly horrible kind of accident: mistaking the accelerator for the brake and plowing into crowds of pedestrians. In Florida, ER doctors have a name for this gruesome phenomenon: SEA, which stands for “sudden elder acceleration.”

Postponing the driver’s license from 16 to 17 has been proven to save lives. The kids are still inexperienced, and they still make inexperienced mistakes, but their judgement is much, much better. A lot of brain development takes place between 16 and 17, and a 17 year old is less likely to take the idiotic chances that a 16 year old won’t even recognize as risky.

Comment by kaleberg - September 9, 2008 at 1:45 pm


Our family is several years away from this issue yet, but here’s a link to a NYTimes article on a type of program I’d love to have my kids go through as older teens. In fact, I would love to see something like this become a requirement for new teen drivers all across the country.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/automobiles/13TEEN.html?ex=1216526400&en=ed28a3549f6e0535&ei=5070&emc=eta1

Comment by firefly - September 9, 2008 at 2:32 pm

Posted by: Tee hee | September 11, 2008 8:16 AM | Report abuse

jen: "And before we get caught up again in the arguments about those 7 teenage deaths last year, remember that only 2 of those drivers were 16 (one was 15, the rest were older)."

And in only one of those accidents was the teen driver driving legally. All other cases involved illegal drivers - under age; out too late; driving without a license; driving with other teens in the car.

Looking at the IIHS report, it's not clear how they accounted for crashes resulting from teens driving illegally. They may have ignored them completely; it's just not clear.

(Aside to copycat: "Wiki king?" Maybe. But there's a difference between citing a reference/bringing in a quote to support a relevant discussion, and cross-posting an off-topic rant from another blog.)

Posted by: ArmyBrat | September 11, 2008 8:18 AM | Report abuse

I see both sides of the issue. It's difficult to get your kids everywhere they need to be if there's no public transportation. I want my kids in after school sports, but if they can't drive, how will they get home?

What about letting 16-year-olds drive, but putting limitations on them? To/from school, work? Or not out past 10pm?

When are these accidents happening? Are they alcohol related? I mean I think some in-depth studies would need to be done, rather than saying NJ has fewer teen deaths.

Posted by: Andrea | September 11, 2008 8:45 AM | Report abuse

I see both sides of the issue. It's difficult to get your kids everywhere they need to be if there's no public transportation. I want my kids in after school sports, but if they can't drive, how will they get home?

Posted by: Andrea | September 11, 2008 8:45 AM

How do they get home when they are 14 or 15? Or do they not participate in any activties until they can drive?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 9:03 AM | Report abuse

Uh, I was driving at 15. Legally.

Posted by: Uh? | September 11, 2008 9:10 AM | Report abuse

I'm opposed to raising the driving age.

I do think that the graduated licensing system that Maryland now uses is a good thing, and the even tougher system my nieces deal with in North Carolina is probably better. The key point is that newly-licensed drivers are not allowed to drive around their friends unless an adult is in the car, which helps to prevent the kind of stupidity that happens when teenagers try to impress their peers.

Driving late at night seems to me to be less of an issue, but I could be wrong about that.

Copycat - Stacey may be copying ideas from WSJ, but not all of us read WSJ online, so cribbing ideas doesn't really bother me.

Posted by: ArmyBrat | September 11, 2008 7:54 AM


AB, you made it back. How are you feeling? Are you able to sit down yet?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 9:18 AM | Report abuse

"I am completely in favor of increasing the driving age. It makes so much sense. Young people will be safer."

When does it stop? You can gradually increase the driving age to 21, .., 26 and still the youngest, most inexperienced, immature drivers will still be at risk.

The same safety argument can be made that all passengers in a car should be required by law to wear helmuts. This law alone would decrease the death and head injury rate than by raising the legal driving age.

As it is, no matter what the minimum legal driving age is set, teenagers cannot get a license without a signature from the gardien. It's up to the parents to decide whether their kids are mature enough to drive, and I think most kids at 16 qualify.

Also, the notion that every teenager wants to go to the DMV and get their license on the first day they qualify by age is a myth. Driving (in NOVA especially) is downright scarry and many teenagers don't want to subject themselves to the stress. I've met several young adults in their 20's that don't have a driver's permit and never plan on getting one.

Posted by: DandyLion | September 11, 2008 9:19 AM | Report abuse

Andrea, that's the whole point of "graduated licensing." In Maryland you can get a provisional driver's license at 16 years 3 months. But you can't drive between midnight and 5 am (with some exceptions). And during the first five months you have a license, you can't have passengers under 18 in your car unless those passengers are your family members or there's an adult "supervising driver" in the car. (See http://www.marylandmva.com/DriverServ/ROOKIEDRIVER/bgeneral.htm for full details.)

Other states do similar things. The North Carolina law (see http://www.ncdot.org/dmv/driver_services/graduatedlicensing/requirements.html) is slightly more strict.

(The "Wiki King" strikes again. :-)

Posted by: ArmyBrat | September 11, 2008 9:22 AM | Report abuse

How do they get home when they are 14 or 15? Or do they not participate in any activties until they can drive?


Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 9:03 AM

You drive them or carpool - especially diffcult for working and single parents, which is why parents look forward to their children getting drivers licenses. Though by high school many of the sports are school sponsored, but for those of us whose child participates in other types of activities this gets difficult.
The other problem is work. By 14 they can work some and by 16 most jobs are available. The logistics of mulitple work schedules, and limited driving can discourage teens from working or participating in other special activities. And in the long run I would rather have my 16 yr-old driving to a summer course or work than sitting at home because they don't have transportation. The risk of an idle teenager strikes me as more than a driver during working hours. An argument for the graduated license.

Posted by: jbl | September 11, 2008 9:23 AM | Report abuse

anon @ 9:18 - I think you should probably see your doctor; you seem to have a serious deficiency of Vitamin Clue.

Posted by: ArmyBrat | September 11, 2008 9:24 AM | Report abuse

Should we, as parents, be encouraging our states to raise the driving age? How would that impact your family?

YES! It should be raised to 17 in all states. 16 - or a sophomore is high school is far too young to be driving a car. I grew up in NJ and got my license at 17. It's all we knew and weren't upset that we couldn't drive sooner. Our parents didn't care that we couldn't do family errands yet because it was all they knew too! I've lived in MD for 10 years and can not believe that kids can drive so young. I taught high school for 7 years and there is a HUGE difference between a sophomore and a junior. Most sophomores are still immature and act like "children". Most juniors, on the other hand, are more grown up and are starting to think about college and the future. They are slightly more responsible in general and make better drivers as a result.

And I firmly believe that drivers under the age of 18 should not be allowed to have more than 2 passengers (other than family members)in their cars- especially at night. I remember how reckless I was with my friends in the car and I didn't even have cellphones, ipods, and satellite radio to distract me - just a large collection of "mixed tapes".

Posted by: LBH219 | September 11, 2008 9:27 AM | Report abuse

Instead of approaching this as, "what system prevents the most teen deaths", why don't we ask, "what system presents the best combination of risks and benefits to ALL persons on the road?" The sooner we think of teen drivers as drivers impacting everyone's safety and less as a population to be coddled and protected in isolation, the sooner we will focus the conversation on training, hours of experience behind the wheel (think about how we make pilots qualify for a pilot's license), and what teen drivers owe the rest of us.

On a secondary note, if we REALLY think that teens should pay for their college or post-secondary education, then we should be encouraging them to work part-time as young as we, as a society, think is prudent. Public transit is not going to get your daughter to and from that job at Wendy's safely at 2 a.m. If you don't want her to drive to and from work after dark, then you aren't putting your teen where your mouth is when it comes to financing college.

Posted by: Sweet Melissa | September 11, 2008 9:28 AM | Report abuse

I think the price of gas and insuring young drivers will provide a solution for many parents on this one. My bigger concern about driving -- drivers of all ages -- is the use of mobile phones for talking and texting. I don't know how that goes away.

And to the "Darwinists" who think that a teenage boy killing himself while speeding in a "hot rod" does the world a favor (horribly cruel statement), what about the people these drivers often take with them?

Posted by: WorkingMomX | September 11, 2008 9:28 AM | Report abuse

"YES! It should be raised to 17 in all states. 16 - or a sophomore is high school is far too young to be driving a car. I grew up in NJ and got my license at 17."

So . . . let me get this right: the principled response is to move the driving age to what you had because 16 is "far too young" but 17 is just right - again, because it's what you did. There's a thoughtful analysis of the public policy issues for you. Not.

Posted by: Get Real | September 11, 2008 9:35 AM | Report abuse

"YES! It should be raised to 17 in all states. 16 - or a sophomore is high school is far too young to be driving a car. I grew up in NJ and got my license at 17."

So . . . let me get this right: the principled response is to move the driving age to what you had because 16 is "far too young" but 17 is just right - again, because it's what you did. There's a thoughtful analysis of the public policy issues for you. Not.

Posted by: Get Real | September 11, 2008 9:35 AM

LOL! Even better, the author claims to have been a TEACHER!

"I taught high school for 7 years and there is a HUGE difference between a sophomore and a junior." ....

"And I firmly believe that drivers under the age of 18 should not be allowed to have more than 2 passengers (other than family members)in their cars- especially at night."

Posted by: LBH219 | September 11, 2008 9:27 AM


"And I firmly BELIEVE blah, blah, blah" from a teacher???

Posted by: Funny bone | September 11, 2008 9:47 AM | Report abuse

There are very different driving conditions in different parts of the country. I'm not sure where Uh? was, but growing up in Louisiana I could have also driven at 15. You could get your learner's permit at 14 years six months and your license at 15, with no further restrictions. On many roads in Louisiana, though (especially the rural north) there's just not a lot of traffic to worry about; it's mostly a matter of keeping the car between the ditches. Very different, I suspect, from the New Jersey driving that LBH219 experienced.

(Louisiana's also the state with drive-through frozen daiquiri shops, so I'm not sure that there's a fair comparison to be made.)

Posted by: ArmyBrat | September 11, 2008 9:50 AM | Report abuse

I am all for raising the legal driving age to 18, but in a graduated way. Have teens start learning to drive at 16, with comprehensive courses, and add more training and responsibility as they get older. Then only allow them to apply for a full driver's liscence at 18, if they've completed all the required coursework & practice.
I really don't buy the arguement that teens 'need' to drive so they can get to work/sports/run errands etc. Parents should be FAR more concerned with the safety of their children than with their own convienence.

Posted by: Another ATL | September 11, 2008 9:54 AM | Report abuse

I'm not sure where Uh? was, but growing up in Louisiana I could have also driven at 15.

Posted by: ArmyBrat | September 11, 2008 9:50 AM

It's 2008, not the Fred Flintstone era.

Posted by: Huh? | September 11, 2008 9:58 AM | Report abuse

anon @ 9:18 - I think you should probably see your doctor; you seem to have a serious deficiency of Vitamin Clue.

Posted by: ArmyBrat | September 11, 2008 9:24 AM


AB, i just feel bad for you. i heard you took quite a pounding.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

But you forget AB and his "farm" exemption in La.

"...and farm vehicles controlled and operated by a farmer to transport agricultural products, farm machinery, or farm supplies to and from a farm within 150 air miles of the owner's or operator's farm..."

La. R.S. 32:408 B.(2)(e) and 405.1:

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 10:07 AM | Report abuse

AB - 0
anon - 2

Posted by: anon for this | September 11, 2008 10:08 AM | Report abuse

I am all for increasing support for public transportation for a host of reasons. I guess the data for states with an older driving age (NY) versus states with a younger driving age (MD), are there a statistically significant difference in the number of accidents, fatal accidents, property damage etc...

Overall, I think everyone should be utilizing public transportation more. Also when I was in school after school activity buses were funded through property taxes. Here, in the low tax states, everyone balks at paying higher property taxes. You get what you pay for.

Am I crazy but why are 16 year olds out at 2 am in the first place? And unless your desperately poor, why does your kid need to work till 2 am in the morning. I would never permit my HS kids to be working that late. And don't the labor laws prevent that?

Posted by: foamgnome | September 11, 2008 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: foamgnome | September 11, 2008 10:09 AM

Clean up your post before the cops take it away.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 10:14 AM | Report abuse

foamgnome: I completely agree with you. I believe the laws are something like that teens can only work until 9 PM or something like that.

Posted by: atlmom | September 11, 2008 10:25 AM | Report abuse

foamgnome: I completely agree with you. I believe the laws are something like that teens can only work until 9 PM or something like that.

Posted by: atlmom | September 11, 2008 10:25 AM

Gibberish!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 10:29 AM | Report abuse

I have a teen driver at home and I'm completely opposed to raising the driving age. I want to be around to monitor her first few years of driving. She's had her license for 9 months - but I still want to be able to check in with her about driving conditions, car maintenance, etc. before she's hundreds of miles away at college.

BTW - Why would we be looking at NJ for driving advise?

Posted by: VA mom | September 11, 2008 10:31 AM | Report abuse

foamgnome: I completely agree with you. I believe the laws are something like that teens can only work until 9 PM or something like that.

Posted by: atlmom | September 11, 2008 10:25 AM

Gibberish!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 10:29 AM


that describes all of atlmom posts. i guess she doesnt get enough attention at home, so she comes on here to make sure she gets some. i think she posts about 30/40 times a day on here.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

So...Anne Hathaway read Gandhi's autobiography after her break-up with her felonious boyfriend??? Because breaking up with an idiot is somehow equal to campaigns for easing poverty or expanding women's rights, or for achieving the independence of India?

Wow - that girl is deep.

Posted by: Groovis is mightily impressed | September 11, 2008 10:12 AM
===

Perhaps she was reading it for the diet tips

Posted by: MoCoSnarky | September 11, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

BTW - Why would we be looking at NJ for driving advise?

Posted by: VA mom | September 11, 2008 10:31 AM

You should be looking for spelling advice....

Posted by: ! | September 11, 2008 10:39 AM | Report abuse

Let's see if I have this right. There was a post from Stacey at about 7 this morning. There was a reasonable, on-topic discussion for about 3 and a half hours. And now the anons are coming on, screaming "gibberish", copying off-topic posts from other blogs, and proclaiming the joys of anal sex, with the intent on ensuring that no more on-topic discussion occurs. Is that about right?

Looks like the Vitamin Clue deficiency is as widespread as ever. Shame, really.

Posted by: ArmyBrat | September 11, 2008 10:42 AM | Report abuse

I don't think there is a way to edit a previous post.

I am trying to run some programs and post at the same time. So I can't be concerned with the errors in my post. Although, I do recongize there are ton in them.

Posted by: foamgnome | September 11, 2008 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Problem is...some of our legislators would have them not driving until they are 18 but let them sign up for the military when they are 16. Somone see a little problem with that?

Posted by: HappyDad | September 11, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

AB, whats wrong? in too much pain still? is that whats making you so sensitive and irritable today?

Posted by: poor AB | September 11, 2008 10:48 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: foamgnome | September 11, 2008 10:42 AM


"I don't think there is a way to edit a previous post. "

Post corrections to a previous post.

"I am trying to run some programs and post at the same time. So I can't be concerned with the errors in my post. Although, I do recongize there are ton in them. "

I thought you were trying to pump breastmilk and post at the same time.

Posted by: Yowzah | September 11, 2008 10:48 AM | Report abuse

I learned to drive at 15 3/4. I got my license. I had one accident on ice at age 17. Got one failure to obey the sign ticket at 18. Other than that I could drive myself to work from a house that wasn't near public transportation. It was a great and wonderful thing.

I totally support kids losing their license until 18 or 21 when they're caught drinking and driving or texting and driving let's say, but for the majority that will not have accidents and not cause problems? What's the difference between 2008, 1988 and 1968?

Posted by: DCer | September 11, 2008 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Problem is...some of our legislators would have them not driving until they are 18 but let them sign up for the military when they are 16. Somone see a little problem with that?

Posted by: HappyDad | September 11, 2008 10:45 AM


No. Darwinism. Survival of the fittest.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 10:51 AM | Report abuse

Let's see if I have this right. There was a post from Stacey at about 7 this morning. There was a reasonable, on-topic discussion for about 3 and a half hours. And now the anons are coming on, screaming "gibberish", copying off-topic posts from other blogs, and proclaiming the joys of anal sex, with the intent on ensuring that no more on-topic discussion occurs. Is that about right?

Looks like the Vitamin Clue deficiency is as widespread as ever. Shame, really.

Posted by: ArmyBrat | September 11, 2008 10:42 AM

"There was a reasonable, on-topic discussion for about 3 and a half hours."

3 and a half hours, huh? Are you sure?

"Looks like the Vitamin Clue deficiency is as widespread as ever. Shame, really."

LOOK WHO'S TALKING!

Posted by: Zip | September 11, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

How do they get home when they are 14 or 15? Or do they not participate in any activties until they can drive?
--------------

Most children at 15 cannot legally get jobs they don't run themselves, most teenagers after 16 have jobs in stores and related. Do you know any teenagers who are 15 or 16? HUGE difference in activities. Such a huge difference I can't imagine how you could write the above with a straight face.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

How do they get home when they are 14 or 15? Or do they not participate in any activties until they can drive?
--------------

Most children at 15 cannot legally get jobs they don't run themselves, most teenagers after 16 have jobs in stores and related. Do you know any teenagers who are 15 or 16? HUGE difference in activities. Such a huge difference I can't imagine how you could write the above with a straight face.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 10:54 AM

***************

Actually, in VA you can have a job at age 14 so many kids start working then. Kids in band or sports never seem to be able to manage jobs because they have practice so often after school. I don't see a heck of a lot of difference between my kids' schedules between ages 14 and 16 - they've always been busy just about every day.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Most children at 15 cannot legally get jobs they don't run themselves, most teenagers after 16 have jobs in stores and related. Do you know any teenagers who are 15 or 16? HUGE difference in activities. Such a huge difference I can't imagine how you could write the above with a straight face.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 10:54 AM

Classic MM !!!

Posted by: ha, ha | September 11, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

regarding kids not having jobs at 16. Have you ever been to a movie theater or a McDonalds at 10pm? They are staffed by teenagers at those hours.

I had an office job at 14, but got a retail job at 16 and the movie theater was open until midnight and the fried chicken place where some of my friends worked was open until 1am. My friend E also delivered pizzas until I think 1:30am. As a parent this does seem strange, but at the time it felt totally normal to be working those hours.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Classic MM !!!
---------

Completely incomprehensible. What's going on inside your mind? What is an MM?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 11:02 AM | Report abuse

but let them sign up for the military when they are 16.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Nope, minimum age is 17 which is the age that some indivduals do grad from HS.

Posted by: to happy dad | September 11, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Happydad: Yes, we have huge inconsistencies regarding when someone is 'legal.' Age to drink alcohol: 21, driving: anywhere from 14-18, military service: 18. Legally allowed to sign contract 18.

Many parents I am sure will indicate that 18 is hardly an adult. Most 18 YOs think they are adults (most of us did too) but there is a huge learning curve to being an 'adult.' So I think graduating the ages at which people growing up can do certain adult things is a good thing - one at a time, so to speak.

The right ages will be discussed, ad infinitum. It's tough, since each kid is different, and probably could handle things at different ages.

Posted by: atlmom | September 11, 2008 11:17 AM | Report abuse

How do they get home when they are 14 or 15? Or do they not participate in any activties until they can drive?
--------------

Most children at 15 cannot legally get jobs they don't run themselves, most teenagers after 16 have jobs in stores and related. Do you know any teenagers who are 15 or 16? HUGE difference in activities. Such a huge difference I can't imagine how you could write the above with a straight face.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 10:54 AM

The original post was in regards to school sports, not jobs. Such a huge difference I can't believe you are really this clueless.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 11:18 AM | Report abuse

TITLE 10 Subtitle A PART II CHAPTER 31§ 505

(a) The Secretary concerned may accept original enlistments in the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, Regular Marine Corps, or Regular Coast Guard, as the case may be, of qualified, effective, and able-bodied persons who are not less than seventeen years of age nor more than forty-two years of age. However, no person under eighteen years of age may be originally enlisted without the written consent of his parent or guardian, if he has a parent or guardian entitled to his custody and control

Posted by: Chapter 505 | September 11, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

The point was if some people think kids are old enough to make the serious decision to join the military at 16 or 17....how can we say they are not old enough to take the responsibility of driving a car at 16 or 17?

Posted by: HappyDad | September 11, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

"The point was if some people think kids are old enough to make the serious decision to join the military at 16 or 17....how can we say they are not old enough to take the responsibility of driving a car at 16 or 17?"

HappyDad, can you cite by name one or more prominent people (Representatives, Senators, Governors) who think that teens should be able to join the military at 16 but not drive a car on a public road until 18? Is there anyone who holds that view? Your original post @10:45 seemed to imply that there were people who hold both views.

The fact that "some people" think teens should be able to join the military at 16 or 17, and "some other people" think teens should not be able to drive until 18 is neither surprising nor inconsistent.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

If you are going to make a point, base it upon facts!

Don't say you can join the military at 16 because you cannot. Yes, you can join the military at 17 but only with parental permission.

But I do agree with your idea that if you are old enough to be in the military, you are old enough to drive. (and drink but not at the same time.)

Posted by: to happy dad | September 11, 2008 11:25 AM | Report abuse

The point was if some people think kids are old enough to make the serious decision to join the military at 16 or 17....how can we say they are not old enough to take the responsibility of driving a car at 16 or 17?

Posted by: HappyDad | September 11, 2008 11:20 AM

Redneck logic!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Gosh, the Founding Fathers put age requirements in the Constitution. What were they thinking??

Posted by: LOL! | September 11, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

I don't have a teenager at home but I was a teen once. I don't remember school sponsored activities for 14 and 15 year olds being that different then the ones offered for 16 and 17 year olds. So the drop off and pick up would not have been that different for the two age groups.

Or were you considering activities to mean hanging out with friends, going to the movies, or other social events? If that is what your talking about, I don't think it is that important that they drive themselves to those type of activities.

Posted by: foamgnome | September 11, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Gosh, the Founding Fathers put age requirements in the Constitution. What were they thinking??

Posted by: LOL! | September 11, 2008 11:33 AM

Actually, the founding fathers did put some age requirements in the Constitution. Article II Section 1 for instance!

Posted by: to LOL | September 11, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Oh, that was me at 11:41 am.

Posted by: B. Obama, Constitutional Lawyer | September 11, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Redneck logic!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 11:30 AM


pointless poster!

Posted by: HappyDad | September 11, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

By far the worst and most dangerous drivers on the road are drivers over the age of 70.
I say make the driving age 17 to 70 in all states. If you are over 70 you have to pass a written and driving test every year to keep your license.

Posted by: DW | September 11, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

The point has been made a few times that 16 year olds can get jobs, 15 year olds can't.

I wonder how much of the "jobs at 16" line of logic is because many people get their own reliable transportation at 16? If you raise the drivers' licensing age to 17 or 18, will this mean the jobs will raise their minimum age limits too since the 16 year olds are less likely to have reliable transportation?

Posted by: Hmm... | September 11, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Activities for 15 year olds are EXACTLY the same as for 17 year olds. When I was 15 I had a job, played on the football team, and was in the chess club. At 17 I had a job, played on the football team, and was in the chess club.
The legal age in my state is 14 years and 6 months to hold some jobs such as grocery store bagger.
The age is ok for driving, but there have to be restrictions such as no other teenagers in the car and to be used for going to and from school and work only.

Posted by: anon | September 11, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

By far the worst and most dangerous drivers on the road are drivers over the age of 70.
I say make the driving age 17 to 70 in all states. If you are over 70 you have to pass a written and driving test every year to keep your license.

Posted by: DW | September 11, 2008 12:10 PM

********************

Oh ho! So it's okay to be President at 72 but not to hold a driver's license?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Oh ho! So it's okay to be President at 72 but not to hold a driver's license?

Yup, the Prez doesn't drive himself!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

I believe for the reading impaired, I said if over 70 they can still hold a license IF they pass both a written and a driving test every year.
I think? I hope? McCain would be able to pass both?

Posted by: dw | September 11, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Oh ho! So it's okay to be President at 72 but not to hold a driver's license?

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 12:20 PM


I believe for the reading impaired

Posted by: dw | September 11, 2008 12:36 PM

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

I believe that dw is humor impaired.

Posted by: The Troll, The Troll! | September 11, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

believe for the reading impaired, I said if over 70 they can still hold a license IF they pass both a written and a driving test every year.
I think? I hope? McCain would be able to pass both?

Posted by: dw | September 11, 2008 12:36 PM

Doesn't McCain have a focked-up arm, etc., from the POW nightmare stuff? Does he need a specialized vehicle to pass the driving test? Do war vets get to "game" the driving test stuff?

Posted by: I wonder | September 11, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Hi, I'm looking for an "armybrat". I read on a bathhouse wall that this is the best way to contact him for a good time. Tell him I will see him at the usual stall. p.s tell him to bring cherry flavored lube.

Posted by: John Holmes Jr. | September 11, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

I believe that dw is humor impaired.


Posted by: The Troll, The Troll! | September 11, 2008 12:42 PM

The OP in general is PROFOUNDLY humor impaired.

Exhibit #1 - altmom is a regular.

Posted by: For the plaintiff | September 11, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Hi, I'm looking for an "armybrat". I read on a bathhouse wall that this is the best way to contact him for a good time. Tell him I will see him at the usual stall. p.s tell him to bring cherry flavored lube.

Posted by: John Holmes Jr. | September 11, 2008 12:54 PM

Let me know how your "date" works out. ArmyBrat & I have a lot in common, we both intend to vote for McCain.

Posted by: Larry Craig | September 11, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Armybrat is EOE he catches democrats and republicans, same low fee............

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Armybrat is EOE he catches democrats and republicans, same low fee............

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 1:08 PM

LOL!!!!

Posted by: Ha, ha | September 11, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

For those looking for armybrat, i believe he posts under "sasquatch" on the celeb blog.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/celebritology/2008/09/morning_mix_nicole_kidman_over.html

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

For those looking for armybrat, i believe he posts under "sasquatch" on the celeb blog.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/celebritology/2008/09/morning_mix_nicole_kidman_over.html

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 1:32 PM

Is he the same pretentious bore over there?

Posted by: Oh, no | September 11, 2008 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Anonymous: During your first forays into male locker rooms, was there any, um, anatomical awkwardness?

Linda Cohn: I write about my early locker room experiences in my book. Some serious, some just boys being boys silly. First rule of thumb, you should leave there knowing the color of the eyes of the player you interviewed.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

For those looking for armybrat, i believe he posts under "sasquatch" on the celeb blog.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/celebritology/2008/09/morning_mix_nicole_kidman_over.html

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 1:32 PM

Is he the same pretentious bore over there?

Posted by: Oh, no | September 11, 2008 1:39 PM


once a blowhard, always a blowhard, wink wink.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

This ought to bring out the trolls and lots and lots of horrified responses. (grin)

My parents moved the family to a *really* rural place in the summer of '68 - our nearest neighbor was a half mile away across a 40-acre alfalfa field. First thing my dad did after the moving van was empty was taught all four of his kids to drive. He was making sure we weren't going to be stranded in the middle of nowhere without some way to get help if something happened to him and Mother.

I was 9, my sisters were 7 and 6 and my brother was 4. The car was a '56 VW bug - seriously underpowered - and with the seat moved as far forward as it would adjust, even my preschool brother could reach the pedals and see over the dashboard - just barely.

Once we were competent drivers by Dad's standards (which were pretty tough since he did things like have us driving into fallow, snow-covered fields and putting the car into a spin and pulling out of it again), the rule was that I and my next-younger sister could drive solo, and the younger two kids had to have one of the older two with them. We practiced our driving all over those back roads for the six years we lived there. All of this was completely illegal of course, but pretty common in the area, and the county law enforcement ignored the dirt roads completely, so we only had to stay off the paved highway over a mile from our house.

we all got our learner's permits at 15 1/2, which was CA state law, and got our licenses at 16. None of us ever had a serious accident before we were in our 20's. I fell asleep at the wheel crossing NV when I was 21, and youngest sister at 20 had a freak-out and lost control of her car when a doctor at her college put her on prescription barbituates instead of dilantin, her previous medication for controlling epileptic seizures.

I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all driving age. One of the boys I went to elementary school with was driving a tractor and flipped it over on top of himself, shattering his spine and consigning him to a wheelchair for the rest of his life.

I think states have to look at the typical driving conditions of their area, population and traffic density, availability of alternate (i.e. public) means of tranportation, and probably other factors that I'm not thinking of right now, and set the minimum driving age based on those factors. Then parents have a responsibility to *really* look at their kid's maturity, and not let the kid get a license until s/he is capable of handling the responsibility.

My 16-y-o is doing driver's ed now, and I'm pushing him, he's not that interested. I was surprised by the changes to CA law since I was a teen driver, but not at all disappointed by those changes. I think the restrictions on my son will make him much safer in Oakland's urban environment, and the lack of restrictions 30-plus years ago weren't a problem because I was driving in a much less urban environment back then.

Whee! Let the fur fly!

Posted by: Sue | September 11, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

I think the restrictions on my son will make him much safer in Oakland's urban environment, and the lack of restrictions 30-plus years ago weren't a problem because I was driving in a much less urban environment back then.

Whee! Let the fur fly!

Posted by: Sue | September 11, 2008 1:55 PM

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Posted by: Fur flying | September 11, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

My parents moved the family to a *really* rural place in the summer of '68 - our nearest neighbor was a half mile away across a 40-acre alfalfa field. First thing my dad did after the moving van was empty was taught all four of his kids to drive. He was making sure we weren't going to be stranded in the middle of nowhere without some way to get help if something happened to him and Mother.

Sue

I'm really confused. Weren't your parents cuckoo birds? Oh, and please learn how to write!

Posted by: Huh? | September 11, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Huh?: "I'm really confused. Weren't your parents cuckoo birds? Oh, and please learn how to write!"

Please learn how to read - you'll be much less confused.

Great post, Sue.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Whoa! Sue, that story has all the excitment and interest of your first kiss.

Tell us the story of who first made it to home plate and we might be interested.

Posted by: Flying Fur for Sale | September 11, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Am I crazy but why are 16 year olds out at 2 am in the first place? And unless your desperately poor, why does your kid need to work till 2 am in the morning. I would never permit my HS kids to be working that late. And don't the labor laws prevent that?

Posted by: foamgnome | September 11, 2008 10:09 AM

You're kidding, right? No, the labor laws do not bar those 16 years old and up from working at Wendy's or Applebee's.

16 year olds are out at 2 a.m. because if you work in a quick-serve or family-oriented restaurant, it generally doesn't close until 12 or 1 and there are many post-closing activities. When do you think all the cleaning gets done in order to achieve those 98 and 100 health and food regulation scores by which you judge a restaurant?

Sorry if you think only the "desperately poor" need to work in order to save up for college. At an average $25K per year price tag for undergraduate degrees alone, I'm not sure where you think the money comes from, but working 6pm - 9pm shifts at minimum wage 3 days a week won't cover it.

One week, the denizens of this blog take the position that kids should be paying for college themselves. The next week kids who are working at those jobs are degraded as desperately poor for attempting to earn enough to make a dent in that education bill. Interesting disconnect.

Posted by: OP - home of the comfortable and overindulged | September 11, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Does Sarah Palin have great legs, or what? She really rocks those red Fook-Me Pumps.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 2:03 PM


I only have eyes for her new son-in-law.

Posted by: ArmyBrat | September 11, 2008 2:19 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Is Sue related to ArmyBrat? That post was shockingly dull.

Posted by: Mini history lesson? | September 11, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

"Is Sue related to ArmyBrat? That post was shockingly dull."

No. Pay attention - this was covered yesterday!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

armybrat is not the same guy as sasquatch. You haven't been reading very closely to suggest this.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

"Is Sue related to ArmyBrat? That post was shockingly dull."

No. Pay attention - this was covered yesterday!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 2:23 PM

Could be they they are both "secret grandchilden of Goebbels" kinda thing. Both Sue and ArmyBrat share a "talking down" trait, as if the OPers are little kids. It's boring and annoying.

Posted by: Blah, blah, blah | September 11, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

First you must accept the fact, that as men, we are always in trouble with our women. You can do the same thing one night a week for years (bowling, poker softball, anything that doesn't involve cheating on her) and she won't have a problem with it, but there will come one night that she will have an issue (PMS, bad day at work, hormonal, kids, mother etc.)and that one escape will become the root of all problems in your relationship.

Don't take thoughts of your woman to the escape. It will kill the escape! You must train your mind to block out all thoughts of the woman you are currently sharing time with while participating in your escape activity. Talk about all the women you want to with the boys, but leave your woman at the door. The mere mention of relationship issues among at the poker table is grounds for dismissal from the poker room at my poker night. It might even result in the revocation of your guy card (depending on the degree of violation or if you cry at the table). Face it, Sh!t happens and no matter where you were and what you were doing it's gonna be your fault. Accept this paradigm and move on.

Romo can hit it with any woman he wants. Not my problem. If he's with a hot model, actress or musician, good for him. However, the b!tch should know her role is his girlfriend, not PR rep. No one needs to see Tony & Jessica show. She's the one running her mouth because without him, she'll fade faster than one of my kids chalk drawings in the driveway on a rainy day. She can go to the stadium and watch him play, but she shouldn't be waving at the nearest camera to get on TV or the Jumbotron. SIT DOWN, SHUT UP AND ENJOY THE GAME.

The Cowboys will destroy the 'skins twice this season. The team is poorly coached, has a QB with no discernable talent and a Napoleonic pr!ck for an owner. All hail Dictator Dan and the hell with the Redskins!!!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Does Sarah Palin have great legs, or what? She really rocks those red Fook-Me Pumps.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 2:03 PM


I only have eyes for her new son-in-law.

Posted by: ArmyBrat | September 11, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

"Is Sue related to ArmyBrat? That post was shockingly dull."

No. Pay attention - this was covered yesterday!

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 2:23 PM

I must have been taking a dump when this was covered. Please recap, or will I be sorry I asked?

Posted by: Gambler | September 11, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

I must have been taking a dump when this was covered. Please recap, or will I be sorry I asked?

Posted by: Gambler | September 11, 2008 2:36 PM

Posted by: Sue | September 9, 2008 5:35 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

there was no contradiction. you were just being an idiot for attacking someone for their opinion.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 1:56 PM

IS THIS MORON FOR REAL?

Posted by: Beach Bum | September 11, 2008 2:00 PM


Beach Bum, I think someone is looking for you on the OP blog. His comment to you was at 12:54 pm.


Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 2:45 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Sue

"I fell asleep at the wheel crossing NV when I was 21..."

Too bad you woke up. The needless details in this post are stunningly tedious.

Posted by: Yawn | September 11, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

"The needless details in this post are stunningly tedious.

Posted by: Yawn | September 11, 2008 2:59 PM"

You're right; they are. You, sir are truly an American Idiot.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse

"Posted by: ArmyBrat | September 11, 2008 2:35 PM"

Sad, lame. Try again when you get a clue.

Tell me, though: how exactly is it that you know so much about anal sex? Been on the receiving end of one too many?

Posted by: ArmyBrat | September 11, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

I don't think that young hot teenage girls should be permitted to drive, but I can teach them how to park.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

"Tell me, though: how exactly is it that you know so much about anal sex? Been on the receiving end of one too many?"


ARMY BRAT knows no limits to the receiving end, come one, come all.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

tsk tsk AB. You're entering into homophobic anonymous territory. Step away from the keyboard. You're better than that.

16 yos and licenses. Can't say I've thought about it. I'm mostly concerned with people of any age texting on the beltway.

Posted by: atb | September 11, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

tsk tsk AB. You're entering into homophobic anonymous territory. Step away from the keyboard. You're better than that.

atb

Nooooo, he's not. Ms. "I have a flat stomache - Don't be jealous". He's just like you. He needs the internet attention fix.

Posted by: Irony or what? | September 11, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

I don't think that young hot teenage girls should be permitted to drive, but I can teach them how to park.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 3:12 PM


Must be Liz D.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

I think increasing the age limit would be a mistake in that it would cause undue hardship on many families who NEED their kids to be of driving age by 16. Families have enough regulatary burden placed on them already, so let's not add more.
For a related take on the burden of stae and local regulations on growing families today, your readers might be interested in seeing "Child's Play" at http://writingfrontier.com/2008/09/08/childs-play/

Enjoy.

Posted by: Writing Frontier | September 11, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

For a related take on the burden of stae and local regulations on growing families today, your readers might be interested in seeing "Child's Play" at http://writingfrontier.com/2008/09/08/childs-play/

Enjoy.

Posted by: Writing Frontier | September 11, 2008 3:23 PM

And you might be interested in learning how to spell!

Posted by: Wow! | September 11, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Yes, you're need for attention with this post is indeed quite ironic. I'm ~sure~ that was intentional.

----------------------------------------

Nooooo, he's not. Ms. "I have a flat stomache - Don't be jealous". He's just like you. He needs the internet attention fix.

Posted by: Irony or what? | September 11, 2008 3:21 PM

Posted by: atb | September 11, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Yes, you're (sic) need for attention with this post is indeed quite ironic. I'm ~sure~ that was intentional.

Today's Grammar Horrid Example courtesy of ATB. Lesson follows.

"You're" is a contraction for "you are." What ATB apparently needed for a sentence to read properly is the possessive case of you which is "your."

The proper construction follows.

Yes, your need for attention with this post is indeed quite ironic. I'm ~sure~ that was intentional.


Posted by: Grammar Sheriff | September 11, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2010 The Washington Post Company