This story is closed for comments. Comments on WRAL.com news stories are accepted and moderated between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Monday through Friday.

Oldest First
  • tgiv Jun 4, 3:48 p.m.

    Another stupid idea out of the Legislature. My daughter just had yet another frustrating and incompetent DMV experience. Now they are forcing parents to pay $300 for a proven safety measure. Which lobbyist is getting the money that was going to driver's ed?

    We're paying more in taxes and getting less in services. That's not what was advertised.

  • lazydawg58 Jun 4, 3:04 p.m.

    Maybe the school districts can use the money they save on providing Drivers Ed and give it to... View More

    — Posted by doser

    Classroom teachers are the driver education teachers. In many poor rural counties the second job of teaching driver's education is the only thing that keeps us above water financially. Unlike counties like Wake and Orange we get little or no supplement. If the program is no longer state funded these counties will be unable to fund it locally. Fewer families will be able to pay for instruction. Most of the instructors will loose important income for their families. Young people will be ill prepared for the road. The general public will be less safe on the highway.

  • lazydawg58 Jun 4, 2:34 p.m.

    State funding for the program has been drastically slashed in the last two years. Now it appears that they intend to eliminate it completely. When young people no longer go through the graduated licensing process in large numbers you can count on two major consequences. There will be an increase in the number of unlicensed, uninsured drivers traveling our roads and there will be a significant increase in the number of people getting their license for the first time with no preparation, experience, or driving restrictions. Expect accident rates to go up and as a result your auto insurance. Young inexperienced drivers need an organized, regulated process in order to insure their safety as well as our own. The driver's education program in concert with parents and the DMV allow for that process to take place. The General Assembly continues to illustrate with their actions just how short sighted and misguided they really are.

  • doser Jun 4, 1:19 p.m.

    Maybe the school districts can use the money they save on providing Drivers Ed and give it to the classroom teachers as a raise!

  • Homeward Jun 4, 10:17 a.m.

    My younger daughter's high school admitted she "fell through the cracks" in getting driver's ed - their mistake not ours. So we juggled our budget and paid $300 for the private lessons. It was worth every penny vs the public school "course" her sister took (all *her* driving time was shared over 2 days w/ 2 or 3 other teens). I wish both girls had gotten the benefit of the private version.

  • WralCensorsAreBias Jun 4, 9:13 a.m.

    Sounds like most of you would support making parents/kids/families pay for those free bus rides they get every day as well.

    That is something that should have taken place years ago.

    Maybe it will get traction now that the public seems so willing to make parents pay for all the "extras" that come with public schooling.

  • rynmich92 Jun 4, 9:05 a.m.

    My daughter just went through drivers ed where we had to pay. It has it's pros and cons. One, it is not $300. It costs $35. Furthermore my frustration with paying is the fact each county is compensated for a student to take drivers ed through taxes, yet I still had to pay. Everyone will be paying double eventually because you pay taxes and pay the fee for the class. They should eliminate one or the other. Another thing I don't care for much is the fact we have to pay for the class and permit test even though the same test they take in class is identical to the one they take at the DMV. Accordingly it is supposedly in the works to not have to go to the DMV to get your learner's permit after completing the class because it is redundant and it is paying more. Students can not retake the class like they used to if failing or missing classes.

  • jcpmoore Jun 4, 8:46 a.m.

    The challenge this poses is to those poor families that are struggling to get enough food on the table as it is. They don't have $300 to get that kid driving instruction. They don't have extra time to take the child to private lessons, either. They were hoping to get a license for that child so he can work and cover the insurance himself while bringing in additional money for food. What scares me is the higher number of traffic accidents that will occur from those kids waiting until they are eighteen to get a license with almost no instruction.

  • sisu Jun 3, 7:59 p.m.

    I'm totally okay with this. For a few years we moved out of state. That state required families to pay. It was about $105 in the early 80's. It should be the family's responsibility, not the state's.

  • miseem Jun 3, 7:48 p.m.

    GREAT NEWS... taxpayers should not be responsible for teaching kids to drive. Driving is a... View More

    — Posted by mep

    Lots of thing in school are privileges - art, music, sports. Let's make parents pay for those too. Some people consider subjects like history, English, social studies and other "liberal arts" type subjects unnecessary intrusions into a proper education. And despite some comments to the contrary, some people will have trouble paying for both the training fee and insurance. On a limited income, the extra $300 may be a problem. That comes out before the kid gets a license. Afterward, they may be working to cover their insurance. But not too many kids can get a job without a license.

  • scubagirl2 Jun 3, 7:19 p.m.

    great idea!.

  • westernwake1 Jun 3, 7:17 p.m.

    This is long overdue. It is time that the families of teen drivers started to pay the full cost of driver's ed. If you can't afford $300 for training then you should obviously not be on the road because you can not afford insurance, etc.

  • RockMan Jun 3, 7:10 p.m.

    i think this is long overdue. driving is a privilege, not a right.

  • sinenomine Jun 3, 6:52 p.m.

    "Plus you practiced driving with your parents"; aye, there's the rub. All of us, even the best drivers, have areas which could stand improvement. Driving with a parent is often just a good way of having the teen perpetuate the parents' errors. I was very glad to have my kids, both of whom are well past their teen years, learn from a professional rather than from me.

  • sbr1963 Jun 3, 6:46 p.m.

    I'm sorry, but six hours of behind the wheel instruction is a joke! If families are going to have to foot the bill I hope the instruction is better than what is available now! When I took driver's ed it was a whole semester course. Half of the semester in class and half the semester behind the wheel and there was also a simulator class.Plus you practiced driving with your parents.

  • Rebelyell55 Jun 3, 6:41 p.m.

    There should of been some cost, but this is out rageous. Private class for those who can afford it, and then the cost? Someone is getting ripped off. I agree, if ya can't afford the insurance you certainly shouldn't have driving previlages, that the problem now, those gettting temp. insurance, to get them, and then cancelling or letting it laps and then igorning the DMV to turn in them in. Drive while they can until they get caught, and then the fine ain't nothing. This does nothing but drive up insurance cost for the rest of us. Ya know it won't that long ago you didn't have to pay extra for underinsurance drivers.

  • sinenomine Jun 3, 6:39 p.m.

    If the state no longer pays the cost of driver ed I'm going to guess that competition among private driving schools may bring down the cost which could wind up benefiting a lot of people. There's nothing magical, after all, about state provided driving instruction. In the place and at the time I grew up drivers ed was not mandatory in the public schools and only a few of my friends took it. I took drivers ed from the American Automobile Association and I think the quality of my instruction was as good or better than I could have obtained elsewhere.

  • tracmister Jun 3, 6:14 p.m.

    I have no problem with this; but, this is another chunk of money that will come out of the pockets of the middle class as usual.

  • mep Jun 3, 5:52 p.m.

    GREAT NEWS... taxpayers should not be responsible for teaching kids to drive. Driving is a privilege... an expensive one at that. Driving is not a skill necessary for college so taxpayers should not be paying for it. There are PLENTY of privately operated driving schools available.

  • itsnotmeiswear Jun 3, 5:49 p.m.

    Glad my children have gone through before this change, but the current program is woefully inadequate.

  • 50s Child Jun 3, 5:46 p.m.

    I have no problem with this at all. If "the families" can't afford $300-400, then "the families" can't afford auto insurance for the new driver.

    So the kid has to wait a couple of years. I'm thoroughly tired of "the families" bellyaching about the costs of "the families"!

    How can Destiny say with a straight face she "can't afford not to have a license" when she doesn't have a license, and yet, her life goes on? Oh, and there's this thing others pay for so your sisters can ride it. It's called a school bus.

  • PowderedToastMan Jun 3, 5:40 p.m.

    Good. They should.

Oldest First