Photo: paul (dex) My Michigan-dwelling grandson will be 15 soon and will start learning to drive. He can’t get a full license until he’s 17, though, as the state wants to limit times and amounts of teen driving, presumably for safety reasons. That’s sensible – teen drivers are more likely to get into accidents. Despite this, the state prevents insurance companies from requiring people to purchase additional coverage for the teenager, even though between ages 16 and 17 the boy will be driving on his own.
Why is this? It seems strange for an insurance policy not to reflect known risks. Apparently, this restriction is imposed by the State of Michigan. It is yet another way in which the state subsidizes purchases of the local product – automobiles. (The same thing is not true in Texas; once a kid obtains a limited license that allows him/her to drive without an adult, additional insurance must be purchased.) (HT: AH)
and 
. You can also watch it on 
…the state wants to limit times and amounts of teen driving, presumably for safety reasons…
I hardly find this to be sensible. Isn’t the state basically saying that they want teens -who are new at driving and are not particularly good drivers- to decrease the amount of practice time they have? It’s like telling a chef that’s not particularly good at knifework to chop less things in hopes that they’ll nick themselves less often. It’s a short-sighted, short-term solution that’ll result in larger problems down the line.
Do you think its an effective substitution? Isn’t it just transferring the additional cost of teen drivers to the rest of the population? Thereby increasing consumption of cars among teens (parents of teens), but decreasing consumption of cars among those without teens. Seems like a 0 sum gain.
The state is not doing the subsidizing. The insurance companies are passing along the cost of your teenager to all other customers….. We are doing the subsidizing like it or not….
Hey Vi,
If it’s anything like NY where I grew up the idea is to limit it to the times that the roads are safest (during the day). This may limit the amount of practice, but it lets you get that practice in a safer environment so that by the time you’re driving at night (well known to be riskier both for lighting and social reasons) you have more experience.
If the rest of the residents of the State of Michigan all had their hands on that chef’s chopping block, then yes, they might ask him to chop less.
I also don’t find it “sensible” to limit teen driving hours. Elderly drivers are responsible for as many accidents per mile driven as teenagers (if not more) — and in the case of elderly drivers, it seems indisputable that the cause is biological, not simply a lack of practice.
Why are there no such restrictions on the times and amounts of elderly driving? Because elderly drivers have the right to vote. This is about political power, not safety.
“…the state wants to limit times and amounts of teen driving, presumably for safety reasons…”
Perhaps times, but not amounts. There’s nothing that says a teenage driver can only drive X hours a day.
It’s within reason that someone new to driving should first get enough experience driving during the daytime before driving at night.
However, the question is why the state doesn’t require insurance policies to reflect teenage drivers. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I thought all drivers ages were reflected in insurance policies, teenage or not (including in Michigan).
Or … the state could feel that having a teen on your policy is an incentive toward monitoring that teen’s driving. Much of Michigan is very conservative and this sounds as much like a social measure as an incentive for car buying. It is the parents’ responsibility and a big part of Michigan thinks that is the way it should be and that making the child responsible through separate coverage is somehow morally and economically wrong because it encourages bad behavior.