Overkill or reasonable?

My knee-jerk is to say it's way overkill - well, because it is overkill. If the judge truly has a policy of suspending licenses for all violations made by someone under 18, though, it softens the blow. Two weeks isn't going to make or break him and it'll likely be a reminder from here on out to get familiar with the controls before hitting the highway. Having had family out the wazoo lose their licenses for dangerous driving practices, I like the idea of instilling early on that driving is a privilege not a right.

ETA: His valedictorian status wouldn't sway me. The fact that he didn't have a record prior makes it seem unfortunate that he would have a suspension on his record over something as minute as not cutting his high beams off. BUT that said, I drive a car that sits low to the ground and am in a dangerous situation when folks leave their high beams on, especially trucks or SUV's, because they shine right into my eye level and I've come close to running off the road from it because our roads here are very curvy and winding. So, it seems like a small infraction, but can also turn dangerous easily.

mommy2elijah wrote:
ETA: BUT that said, I drive a car that sits low to the ground and am in a dangerous situation when folks leave their high beams on, especially trucks or SUV's, because they shine right into my eye level and I've come close to running off the road from it because our roads here are very curvy and winding. So, it seems like a small infraction, but can also turn dangerous easily.

I drive a mini-van & have that same problem on these roads. People come around turns in the roads with their high-beams on & I have issues. I've had to pull over to let the spots subside so that I can drive safely.

It seems pretty extreme, but as has been said, if that's standard procedure for drivers under 18, it makes sense. Is that legally required, or is it just a personal policy that this judge adheres to? Either way, I think the policy should be examined to make sure there is a rational justification behind it, rather than a knee-jerk reaction about teenage drivers. Whether or not the driver is a good student shouldn't matter, as it is not relevant to whether or not he is a good driver. I'm inclined to think, though, that his previous driving record should be taken into account (unless this standard penalty is actually legally required, in which case it doesn't matter). In the grand scheme of things, however, two weeks is not the end of the world, and will probably ensure that he never makes this mistake again, which is not a bad thing.

As an aside, it surprises me that there are places where that law is enforced so strictly. I have been in plenty of situations with a car behind me that is shining its bright lights directly into my rearview mirror, which is extremely distracting and dangerous- but never have I seen anyone pulled over for this.

ilviolin wrote:It seems pretty extreme, but as has been said, if that's standard procedure for drivers under 18, it makes sense. Is that legally required, or is it just a personal policy that this judge adheres to? Either way, I think the policy should be examined to make sure there is a rational justification behind it, rather than a knee-jerk reaction about teenage drivers. Whether or not the driver is a good student shouldn't matter, as it is not relevant to whether or not he is a good driver. I'm inclined to think, though, that his previous driving record should be taken into account (unless this standard penalty is actually legally required, in which case it doesn't matter). In the grand scheme of things, however, two weeks is not the end of the world, and will probably ensure that he never makes this mistake again, which is not a bad thing.

As an aside, it surprises me that there are places where that law is enforced so strictly. I have been in plenty of situations with a car behind me that is shining its bright lights directly into my rearview mirror, which is extremely distracting and dangerous- but never have I seen anyone pulled over for this.

That is the judges personal choice. It has led to teens losing jobs because we have no public transit to speak of here.

The driver in question had no record.

This is never so strictly enforced. It is an odd thing to have happen here. There was high enforcement that weekend because of graduations at both high schools as well as a weekend long event occurring nearby.

Overkill and a waste of taxpayer money to have him show up to court for something that he didn't purposefully do and was not violating any other laws in the process.

And no, his record or valedictorian status wouldn't affect my answer. Overkill is overkill.

mum2one wrote:

ilviolin wrote:It seems pretty extreme, but as has been said, if that's standard procedure for drivers under 18, it makes sense. Is that legally required, or is it just a personal policy that this judge adheres to? Either way, I think the policy should be examined to make sure there is a rational justification behind it, rather than a knee-jerk reaction about teenage drivers. Whether or not the driver is a good student shouldn't matter, as it is not relevant to whether or not he is a good driver. I'm inclined to think, though, that his previous driving record should be taken into account (unless this standard penalty is actually legally required, in which case it doesn't matter). In the grand scheme of things, however, two weeks is not the end of the world, and will probably ensure that he never makes this mistake again, which is not a bad thing.

As an aside, it surprises me that there are places where that law is enforced so strictly. I have been in plenty of situations with a car behind me that is shining its bright lights directly into my rearview mirror, which is extremely distracting and dangerous- but never have I seen anyone pulled over for this.

That is the judges personal choice. It has led to teens losing jobs because we have no public transit to speak of here.

The driver in question had no record.

This is never so strictly enforced. It is an odd thing to have happen here. There was high enforcement that weekend because of graduations at both high schools as well as a weekend long event occurring nearby.

It definitely sounds like overkill, then.

Two weeks? Who cares? Turn your high beams off next time kid.

mommy2elijah wrote:My knee-jerk is to say it's way overkill - well, because it is overkill. If the judge truly has a policy of suspending licenses for all violations made by someone under 18, though, it softens the blow. Two weeks isn't going to make or break him and it'll likely be a reminder from here on out to get familiar with the controls before hitting the highway. Having had family out the wazoo lose their licenses for dangerous driving practices, I like the idea of instilling early on that driving is a privilege not a right.

ETA: His valedictorian status wouldn't sway me. The fact that he didn't have a record prior makes it seem unfortunate that he would have a suspension on his record over something as minute as not cutting his high beams off. BUT that said, I drive a car that sits low to the ground and am in a dangerous situation when folks leave their high beams on, especially trucks or SUV's, because they shine right into my eye level and I've come close to running off the road from it because our roads here are very curvy and winding. So, it seems like a small infraction, but can also turn dangerous easily.

I agree with everything but I bolded above because you make a very valid point. If he didn't know how to use the controls on the vehicle, he should not have been driving.

mum2one wrote:That is the judges personal choice. It has led to teens losing jobs because we have no public transit to speak of here.

The driver in question had no record.

This is never so strictly enforced. It is an odd thing to have happen here. There was high enforcement that weekend because of graduations at both high schools as well as a weekend long event occurring nearby.

I'm sorry, someone's employment status is of no concern to me in regards to this rule. 2 weeks isn't going to kill anyone and as happens when you have a car break down or break a law and lose your license, you bum a ride, your parents take you, you walk, you bike, you skateboard (as my Significant other does the 7 miles to work every day because we only have one car and I cannot drive him to work). Driving is a privilege and not a right.

MasterNinjaKitty wrote:

mum2one wrote:That is the judges personal choice. It has led to teens losing jobs because we have no public transit to speak of here.

The driver in question had no record.

This is never so strictly enforced. It is an odd thing to have happen here. There was high enforcement that weekend because of graduations at both high schools as well as a weekend long event occurring nearby.

I'm sorry, someone's employment status is of no concern to me in regards to this rule. 2 weeks isn't going to kill anyone and as happens when you have a car break down or break a law and lose your license, you bum a ride, your parents take you, you walk, you bike, you skateboard (as my Significant other does the 7 miles to work every day because we only have one car and I cannot drive him to work). Driving is a privilege and not a right.

I don't disagree with you about it being a privilege and not a right. However, as has been the case with other kids who have received tickets (some for things that most of the time you wouldn't be sited for), 7 city miles & 7 miles here are different. We're two lane roads, winding roads, no sidewalks in most places, some places with little to no shoulder, certainly most places not enough to have a car pass someone on a bike. There is a vast difference.

I also find it absurd that the judge does this 2 week thing no matter what the violation is for, which is not standard for the law. That is the judges choice to do. He does it 100% of the time, whether it is someone's first offense or their 50th offense. That I have a problem with.

mum2one wrote:

MasterNinjaKitty wrote:

mum2one wrote:That is the judges personal choice. It has led to teens losing jobs because we have no public transit to speak of here.

The driver in question had no record.

This is never so strictly enforced. It is an odd thing to have happen here. There was high enforcement that weekend because of graduations at both high schools as well as a weekend long event occurring nearby.

I'm sorry, someone's employment status is of no concern to me in regards to this rule. 2 weeks isn't going to kill anyone and as happens when you have a car break down or break a law and lose your license, you bum a ride, your parents take you, you walk, you bike, you skateboard (as my Significant other does the 7 miles to work every day because we only have one car and I cannot drive him to work). Driving is a privilege and not a right.

I don't disagree with you about it being a privilege and not a right. However, as has been the case with other kids who have received tickets (some for things that most of the time you wouldn't be sited for), 7 city miles & 7 miles here are different. We're two lane roads, winding roads, no sidewalks in most places, some places with little to no shoulder, certainly most places not enough to have a car pass someone on a bike. There is a vast difference.

I also find it absurd that the judge does this 2 week thing no matter what the violation is for, which is not standard for the law. That is the judges choice to do. He does it 100% of the time, whether it is someone's first offense or their 50th offense. That I have a problem with.

I don't have a problem with it. Learning to drive safely and follow laws is important. i'd rather they lose their license for 2 weeks at 17 than cause an accident at 21 because they thought high beams in someone's eyes is no big deal.

And Suzanne, I live in maine. I know rural back roads. I still had to walk in high school to my job because I couldn't afford a car. No. I have no sympathy for having to walk or find alternatives to transportation for a week.

MasterNinjaKitty wrote:

mum2one wrote:

MasterNinjaKitty wrote:

mum2one wrote:That is the judges personal choice. It has led to teens losing jobs because we have no public transit to speak of here.

The driver in question had no record.

This is never so strictly enforced. It is an odd thing to have happen here. There was high enforcement that weekend because of graduations at both high schools as well as a weekend long event occurring nearby.

I'm sorry, someone's employment status is of no concern to me in regards to this rule. 2 weeks isn't going to kill anyone and as happens when you have a car break down or break a law and lose your license, you bum a ride, your parents take you, you walk, you bike, you skateboard (as my Significant other does the 7 miles to work every day because we only have one car and I cannot drive him to work). Driving is a privilege and not a right.

I don't disagree with you about it being a privilege and not a right. However, as has been the case with other kids who have received tickets (some for things that most of the time you wouldn't be sited for), 7 city miles & 7 miles here are different. We're two lane roads, winding roads, no sidewalks in most places, some places with little to no shoulder, certainly most places not enough to have a car pass someone on a bike. There is a vast difference.

I also find it absurd that the judge does this 2 week thing no matter what the violation is for, which is not standard for the law. That is the judges choice to do. He does it 100% of the time, whether it is someone's first offense or their 50th offense. That I have a problem with.

I don't have a problem with it. Learning to drive safely and follow laws is important. i'd rather they lose their license for 2 weeks at 17 than cause an accident at 21 because they thought high beams in someone's eyes is no big deal.

And Suzanne, I live in maine. I know rural back roads. I still had to walk in high school to my job because I couldn't afford a car. No. I have no sympathy for having to walk or find alternatives to transportation for a week.

I forgot that you live in Maine.

I have a problem with it being given 100% of the time, with no exceptions. That is my issue with the 2 week thing. If special circumstances were taken into account, or record or if exemptions were given like "You can't drive just to drive but to & from work/school/sports". I don't like across the board punishments for things like this. Especially for something that most of the time people aren't sited for.

mum2one wrote:

MasterNinjaKitty wrote:

mum2one wrote:

MasterNinjaKitty wrote:

mum2one wrote:That is the judges personal choice. It has led to teens losing jobs because we have no public transit to speak of here.

The driver in question had no record.

This is never so strictly enforced. It is an odd thing to have happen here. There was high enforcement that weekend because of graduations at both high schools as well as a weekend long event occurring nearby.

I'm sorry, someone's employment status is of no concern to me in regards to this rule. 2 weeks isn't going to kill anyone and as happens when you have a car break down or break a law and lose your license, you bum a ride, your parents take you, you walk, you bike, you skateboard (as my Significant other does the 7 miles to work every day because we only have one car and I cannot drive him to work). Driving is a privilege and not a right.

I don't disagree with you about it being a privilege and not a right. However, as has been the case with other kids who have received tickets (some for things that most of the time you wouldn't be sited for), 7 city miles & 7 miles here are different. We're two lane roads, winding roads, no sidewalks in most places, some places with little to no shoulder, certainly most places not enough to have a car pass someone on a bike. There is a vast difference.

I also find it absurd that the judge does this 2 week thing no matter what the violation is for, which is not standard for the law. That is the judges choice to do. He does it 100% of the time, whether it is someone's first offense or their 50th offense. That I have a problem with.

I don't have a problem with it. Learning to drive safely and follow laws is important. i'd rather they lose their license for 2 weeks at 17 than cause an accident at 21 because they thought high beams in someone's eyes is no big deal.

And Suzanne, I live in maine. I know rural back roads. I still had to walk in high school to my job because I couldn't afford a car. No. I have no sympathy for having to walk or find alternatives to transportation for a week.

I forgot that you live in Maine.

I have a problem with it being given 100% of the time, with no exceptions. That is my issue with the 2 week thing. If special circumstances were taken into account, or record or if exemptions were given like "You can't drive just to drive but to & from work/school/sports". I don't like across the board punishments for things like this. Especially for something that most of the time people aren't sited for.

When you are learning how to do something as a child, it is important to learn how to do it the right way. The punishment is not overly harsh to me. It is not something that cannot be overcome. It is, to me, the equivalent of grounding my children from ____ every time they commit a safety violation. I see nothing wrong with enforcing the importance of good safety habits, especially while driving. Grounding them for 2 weeks is a lesson they will not soon forget. If it's big enough to get an infraction for it, I see no reason why driving record (who has a driving record at 16?) or grade status or employment status should be a free pass.

MasterNinjaKitty wrote:

mum2one wrote:

MasterNinjaKitty wrote:

mum2one wrote:

MasterNinjaKitty wrote:

mum2one wrote:That is the judges personal choice. It has led to teens losing jobs because we have no public transit to speak of here.

The driver in question had no record.

This is never so strictly enforced. It is an odd thing to have happen here. There was high enforcement that weekend because of graduations at both high schools as well as a weekend long event occurring nearby.

I'm sorry, someone's employment status is of no concern to me in regards to this rule. 2 weeks isn't going to kill anyone and as happens when you have a car break down or break a law and lose your license, you bum a ride, your parents take you, you walk, you bike, you skateboard (as my Significant other does the 7 miles to work every day because we only have one car and I cannot drive him to work). Driving is a privilege and not a right.

I don't disagree with you about it being a privilege and not a right. However, as has been the case with other kids who have received tickets (some for things that most of the time you wouldn't be sited for), 7 city miles & 7 miles here are different. We're two lane roads, winding roads, no sidewalks in most places, some places with little to no shoulder, certainly most places not enough to have a car pass someone on a bike. There is a vast difference.

I also find it absurd that the judge does this 2 week thing no matter what the violation is for, which is not standard for the law. That is the judges choice to do. He does it 100% of the time, whether it is someone's first offense or their 50th offense. That I have a problem with.

I don't have a problem with it. Learning to drive safely and follow laws is important. i'd rather they lose their license for 2 weeks at 17 than cause an accident at 21 because they thought high beams in someone's eyes is no big deal.

And Suzanne, I live in maine. I know rural back roads. I still had to walk in high school to my job because I couldn't afford a car. No. I have no sympathy for having to walk or find alternatives to transportation for a week.

I forgot that you live in Maine.

I have a problem with it being given 100% of the time, with no exceptions. That is my issue with the 2 week thing. If special circumstances were taken into account, or record or if exemptions were given like "You can't drive just to drive but to & from work/school/sports". I don't like across the board punishments for things like this. Especially for something that most of the time people aren't sited for.

When you are learning how to do something as a child, it is important to learn how to do it the right way. The punishment is not overly harsh to me. It is not something that cannot be overcome. It is, to me, the equivalent of grounding my children from ____ every time they commit a safety violation. I see nothing wrong with enforcing the importance of good safety habits, especially while driving. Grounding them for 2 weeks is a lesson they will not soon forget. If it's big enough to get an infraction for it, I see no reason why driving record (who has a driving record at 16?) or grade status or employment status should be a free pass.

To the bolded---my sister. lol I swear, that woman has the worst driving record.

I see different than a grounding. The law dictates a punishment. This judge goes above & beyond that, which is his right. I just see a huge negative with this. You grounding your child from video games if he runs into the street is fine. Hopefully, and I know you do, you know your child well enough to know that punishment will work. For me, losing my license for 2 weeks might have encouraged me to get more citations!

mum2one wrote:

MasterNinjaKitty wrote:

mum2one wrote:

MasterNinjaKitty wrote:

mum2one wrote:

MasterNinjaKitty wrote:

mum2one wrote:That is the judges personal choice. It has led to teens losing jobs because we have no public transit to speak of here.

The driver in question had no record.

This is never so strictly enforced. It is an odd thing to have happen here. There was high enforcement that weekend because of graduations at both high schools as well as a weekend long event occurring nearby.

I'm sorry, someone's employment status is of no concern to me in regards to this rule. 2 weeks isn't going to kill anyone and as happens when you have a car break down or break a law and lose your license, you bum a ride, your parents take you, you walk, you bike, you skateboard (as my Significant other does the 7 miles to work every day because we only have one car and I cannot drive him to work). Driving is a privilege and not a right.

I don't disagree with you about it being a privilege and not a right. However, as has been the case with other kids who have received tickets (some for things that most of the time you wouldn't be sited for), 7 city miles & 7 miles here are different. We're two lane roads, winding roads, no sidewalks in most places, some places with little to no shoulder, certainly most places not enough to have a car pass someone on a bike. There is a vast difference.

I also find it absurd that the judge does this 2 week thing no matter what the violation is for, which is not standard for the law. That is the judges choice to do. He does it 100% of the time, whether it is someone's first offense or their 50th offense. That I have a problem with.

I don't have a problem with it. Learning to drive safely and follow laws is important. i'd rather they lose their license for 2 weeks at 17 than cause an accident at 21 because they thought high beams in someone's eyes is no big deal.

And Suzanne, I live in maine. I know rural back roads. I still had to walk in high school to my job because I couldn't afford a car. No. I have no sympathy for having to walk or find alternatives to transportation for a week.

I forgot that you live in Maine.

I have a problem with it being given 100% of the time, with no exceptions. That is my issue with the 2 week thing. If special circumstances were taken into account, or record or if exemptions were given like "You can't drive just to drive but to & from work/school/sports". I don't like across the board punishments for things like this. Especially for something that most of the time people aren't sited for.

When you are learning how to do something as a child, it is important to learn how to do it the right way. The punishment is not overly harsh to me. It is not something that cannot be overcome. It is, to me, the equivalent of grounding my children from ____ every time they commit a safety violation. I see nothing wrong with enforcing the importance of good safety habits, especially while driving. Grounding them for 2 weeks is a lesson they will not soon forget. If it's big enough to get an infraction for it, I see no reason why driving record (who has a driving record at 16?) or grade status or employment status should be a free pass.

To the bolded---my sister. lol I swear, that woman has the worst driving record.

I see different than a grounding. The law dictates a punishment. This judge goes above & beyond that, which is his right. I just see a huge negative with this. You grounding your child from video games if he runs into the street is fine. Hopefully, and I know you do, you know your child well enough to know that punishment will work. For me, losing my license for 2 weeks might have encouraged me to get more citations!

I am of the mind that if one treats the rules of driving flippantly, then you don't need to be on the road. I agree with the judge. It's a two week suspension that gives you two weeks to appreciate how lucky you are to get a license before the age of 18.

MasterNinjaKitty wrote:

mum2one wrote:

MasterNinjaKitty wrote:

mum2one wrote:

MasterNinjaKitty wrote:

mum2one wrote:

MasterNinjaKitty wrote:

mum2one wrote:That is the judges personal choice. It has led to teens losing jobs because we have no public transit to speak of here.

The driver in question had no record.

This is never so strictly enforced. It is an odd thing to have happen here. There was high enforcement that weekend because of graduations at both high schools as well as a weekend long event occurring nearby.

I'm sorry, someone's employment status is of no concern to me in regards to this rule. 2 weeks isn't going to kill anyone and as happens when you have a car break down or break a law and lose your license, you bum a ride, your parents take you, you walk, you bike, you skateboard (as my Significant other does the 7 miles to work every day because we only have one car and I cannot drive him to work). Driving is a privilege and not a right.

I don't disagree with you about it being a privilege and not a right. However, as has been the case with other kids who have received tickets (some for things that most of the time you wouldn't be sited for), 7 city miles & 7 miles here are different. We're two lane roads, winding roads, no sidewalks in most places, some places with little to no shoulder, certainly most places not enough to have a car pass someone on a bike. There is a vast difference.

I also find it absurd that the judge does this 2 week thing no matter what the violation is for, which is not standard for the law. That is the judges choice to do. He does it 100% of the time, whether it is someone's first offense or their 50th offense. That I have a problem with.

I don't have a problem with it. Learning to drive safely and follow laws is important. i'd rather they lose their license for 2 weeks at 17 than cause an accident at 21 because they thought high beams in someone's eyes is no big deal.

And Suzanne, I live in maine. I know rural back roads. I still had to walk in high school to my job because I couldn't afford a car. No. I have no sympathy for having to walk or find alternatives to transportation for a week.

I forgot that you live in Maine.

I have a problem with it being given 100% of the time, with no exceptions. That is my issue with the 2 week thing. If special circumstances were taken into account, or record or if exemptions were given like "You can't drive just to drive but to & from work/school/sports". I don't like across the board punishments for things like this. Especially for something that most of the time people aren't sited for.

When you are learning how to do something as a child, it is important to learn how to do it the right way. The punishment is not overly harsh to me. It is not something that cannot be overcome. It is, to me, the equivalent of grounding my children from ____ every time they commit a safety violation. I see nothing wrong with enforcing the importance of good safety habits, especially while driving. Grounding them for 2 weeks is a lesson they will not soon forget. If it's big enough to get an infraction for it, I see no reason why driving record (who has a driving record at 16?) or grade status or employment status should be a free pass.

To the bolded---my sister. lol I swear, that woman has the worst driving record.

I see different than a grounding. The law dictates a punishment. This judge goes above & beyond that, which is his right. I just see a huge negative with this. You grounding your child from video games if he runs into the street is fine. Hopefully, and I know you do, you know your child well enough to know that punishment will work. For me, losing my license for 2 weeks might have encouraged me to get more citations!

I am of the mind that if one treats the rules of driving flippantly, then you don't need to be on the road. I agree with the judge. It's a two week suspension that gives you two weeks to appreciate how lucky you are to get a license before the age of 18.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

What about the 4 cop cars from 3 different agencies? Normal here is if a cop has someone pulled over other cars will stop & either get back in their car or drive off. To have 3 extra cars, in an area where having 4 cops in that area at all is unusual, stay is definitely odd. (I'm guessing they were there because it was near where one of the other events for the weekend was going on.)

mum2one wrote:

MasterNinjaKitty wrote:
When you are learning how to do something as a child, it is important to learn how to do it the right way. The punishment is not overly harsh to me. It is not something that cannot be overcome. It is, to me, the equivalent of grounding my children from ____ every time they commit a safety violation. I see nothing wrong with enforcing the importance of good safety habits, especially while driving. Grounding them for 2 weeks is a lesson they will not soon forget. If it's big enough to get an infraction for it, I see no reason why driving record (who has a driving record at 16?) or grade status or employment status should be a free pass.

To the bolded---my sister. lol I swear, that woman has the worst driving record.

I see different than a grounding. The law dictates a punishment. This judge goes above & beyond that, which is his right. I just see a huge negative with this. You grounding your child from video games if he runs into the street is fine. Hopefully, and I know you do, you know your child well enough to know that punishment will work. For me, losing my license for 2 weeks might have encouraged me to get more citations!

In response to your bolded: I have a suspicion that drivers like her are exactly who this judge is trying to reach at a young age. I think he's probably sick of seeing young drivers hurt or kill themselves or others by driving in an unsafe, mindless manner. I would wager money that that is why he has an across-the-board punishment for drivers under 18. If my child received a ticket, I personally would take away driving privileges for however long (depending on what the ticket was for). I've even discussed that with my ds who has long been dreaming of the day he gets to sit behind the wheel of a car. He's got a need for speed a la Ricky Bobby. Any hint of not taking driving seriously and respecting his responsibility as a driver and his keys are mine. I've seen from experience that few parents share my attitude. I've seen someone under 18 receive speeding ticket after speeding ticket until this person had their license revoked for several months. The parent in that situation responded by helping the driver trade in a jalopy for a Mustang. That's just brain damaged. This driver is now older and still has a problem with speeding.

The judge didn't discriminate and I see no signs of a conspiracy. He did what he would've done regardless of what underaged driver walked into his courtroom. When it all boils down, just because most people do it and get away with it doesn't mean that it becomes an acceptable thing to do. You can't really complain for getting in trouble for doing something you weren't supposed to do. As a parent, I would rather my child go before that judge and suffer a harsher punishment than to have it swept under the rug. As was stated, a young driver is still in the learning phase. Had it gone by unnoticed, then he learns that the rules of the road are subjective and some are more important than others. In practice, that may be true, but all the rules need to be respected regardless. I do seem to recall the little written exam to receive a learner's permit states that before you put a car into drive, you're supposed to adjust all mirrors and be aware of all controls. That was many, many moons ago, though.

mommy2elijah wrote:

mum2one wrote:

MasterNinjaKitty wrote:
When you are learning how to do something as a child, it is important to learn how to do it the right way. The punishment is not overly harsh to me. It is not something that cannot be overcome. It is, to me, the equivalent of grounding my children from ____ every time they commit a safety violation. I see nothing wrong with enforcing the importance of good safety habits, especially while driving. Grounding them for 2 weeks is a lesson they will not soon forget. If it's big enough to get an infraction for it, I see no reason why driving record (who has a driving record at 16?) or grade status or employment status should be a free pass.

To the bolded---my sister. lol I swear, that woman has the worst driving record.

I see different than a grounding. The law dictates a punishment. This judge goes above & beyond that, which is his right. I just see a huge negative with this. You grounding your child from video games if he runs into the street is fine. Hopefully, and I know you do, you know your child well enough to know that punishment will work. For me, losing my license for 2 weeks might have encouraged me to get more citations!

In response to your bolded: I have a suspicion that drivers like her are exactly who this judge is trying to reach at a young age. I think he's probably sick of seeing young drivers hurt or kill themselves or others by driving in an unsafe, mindless manner. I would wager money that that is why he has an across-the-board punishment for drivers under 18. If my child received a ticket, I personally would take away driving privileges for however long (depending on what the ticket was for). I've even discussed that with my ds who has long been dreaming of the day he gets to sit behind the wheel of a car. He's got a need for speed a la Ricky Bobby. Any hint of not taking driving seriously and respecting his responsibility as a driver and his keys are mine. I've seen from experience that few parents share my attitude. I've seen someone under 18 receive speeding ticket after speeding ticket until this person had their license revoked for several months. The parent in that situation responded by helping the driver trade in a jalopy for a Mustang. That's just brain damaged. This driver is now older and still has a problem with speeding.

In my sisters defense, which is rare for me to come to, most everything on her record was not her fault. Within 2 weeks of getting her license she ran a new stop sign that most people were running. We'd moved to the neighborhood 6 years earlier & they added a stop sign in a really weird place (it was later found to have been installed at the wrong corner & was moved). She also got a red light camera ticket when she was rear ended & pushed through the intersection, which witnesses to the accident attested that she was stopped when she was hit & pushed into the intersection. That was thrown out. My sister is notorious for getting in accidents. She has been in 7 that I am aware of and was at fault in 1. By choice she no longer drives.

I don't see what being valedictorian has to do with it, but the officers should have been able to tell that the vehicle hit a deer, and it was awfully nice of him to offer to drive it for her instead of just following her home. If they hadn't shooed off the owner of the vehicle, they might have seen the whole story.

Was it the end of the month? I know cops will pull you over for anything to meet their monthly quota.

lgmommawannabe wrote:I don't see what being valedictorian has to do with it, but the officers should have been able to tell that the vehicle hit a deer, and it was awfully nice of him to offer to drive it for her instead of just following her home. If they hadn't shooed off the owner of the vehicle, they might have seen the whole story.

Was it the end of the month? I know cops will pull you over for anything to meet their monthly quota.

The owner of the truck was with him. The other vehicle had the friend he had been riding with who was following him to the owners home so that he could get home.

And no, it was the first weekend of the month.

I threw the valedictorian thing in as well as the driving record part to see if people had different opinions if it were a "good kid" vs a "bad kid".

Yes it's reasonable

if he was ticketed and had his license suspended for not turning down the high beams that does seem like overkill. I would think a warning would be enough. I don't care if he was valedictorian, Jesus, or an axe murderer. we're talking about not having high beams on in the car and that should apply equally whatever other qualities you possess.