Continuing with Tom Vanderbilt’s 2009 book Traffic: he observes (p. 160) that “House prices decline measurably as traffic rates and speeds increase,” and “when traffic-calming projects are installed, house prices often rise.”

(I may be unusually attuned to this topic because my wife and I are about to downsize, moving from a home to a condominium. And perhaps this topic is a bit of a stretch, so if you regard it as such, please take it as a spoonful of lighter fare on this very serious blog.)

It stands to reason that property values are higher on lightly traveled, quieter streets, such as cul-de-sacs and streets with other forms of speed reduction and traffic calming. Mostly likely, even city dwellers, those who don’t mind the bustle, like living on side streets.

So the question arises: if your teen driver is prone to either speeding, in the formal over-the-posted-speed-limit sense, or just driving too fast for conditions in your neighborhood — racing down a street where little kids are present and use the street for a playground — might that hurt your property value? It is not too far fetched to consider a realtor or neighbor talking about a street as “less then desirable” because of “teens that live here and drive too fast.” We have all seen those lawn signs that say “Drive like your kids live here.”

Teen driving as a pocketbook issue for parents. Food for thought!

Today’s post continues my series drawing upon the book Traffic (2009) by Tom Vanderbilt. One of his many right-on observations is that drivers “measure themselves in tickets and crashes” (p. 64).

In driving as in life, we respond to criticism in part by pointing out success, or at least the absence of catastrophe: “Well. I didn’t hurt anyone, so how bad could it have been?” If our driving manages not to draw the attention of law enforcement or not result in injury to others or damage to a car or property, we not only count ourselves lucky but also competent.

Vanderbilt’s point, of course, is that this thinking is wrong. Simply because bad driving — following too closely, speeding, not wearing a seat belt, continually running yellow/red lights, etc. — has not earned a ticket or caused a crash does not mean our driving is acceptable, much less safe. My friend and auto expert Jim MacPherson tells the story of a elderly person who drove accident-free for 45 years and then got into a serious crash, all because she had been doing what when had been doing for all of those years without consequence: following the car ahead closely.

Two pointers for parents of teen drivers arise from Vanderbilt’s observation. First, because parents are role models for their teen drivers, it is doubly important that we not measure our role modeling by tickets and crashes. Avoiding law enforcement and getting away with what we know are unwise if not dangerous practices, especially if followed by a new driver, does not constitute being a role model. Those setting the example need to follow the rules of the road and best driving practices at all times. Teaching teen drivers where they can cut corners, literally or figuratively, or push the safety envelope is not responsible parenting.

Second we cannot measure teen drivers by whether they have earned tickets or have crashed, because if the posts on this blog demonstrate anything, it is that a teen driver who has never had a crash and never received a ticket is still a beginner and high risk driver. A teen driver who has escaped tickets and avoided crashes is on a good path, but still should be counted as little more than lucky.

Measuring ourselves or our teens by tickets and crashes is a trap for the unwary. Try to steer clear of it.