|
“Teen driver on board”
Friday, Feb 23, 2007 - Posted by Rich Miller Just how tough do we really want to get on teenagers? One legislator wants them to display the equivalent of a scarlet letter on their cars when driving.
According to the article, some other countries have similar laws. And for those of you unfamiliar with Statehouse ways, just because a bill passes a House committee doesn’t mean it will pass the full House. It’s pretty easy to get a bill out of committee in that chamber. But reporters have to do something with their time, so we get lots of stories (and blog posts) this time of year about unusual legislation like this one. Anyway, have at it.
|
 |
|
|
- Squideshi - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 9:12 am:
In some countries, you can’t drive until you’re 18. I don’t think that’s a bad idea, but you can’t crack down on teenagers unless you provide them with realistic alternatives for getting around. Let’s face it, our public transportation system is completely inadequate; and the people who suffer are teens, the elderly, the poor, and the disabled.
- Fan of the Game - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 9:17 am:
Might as well paint a bullseye on the car. Bad idea.
And public transportation in the hinterlands consists of three of you bumming a ride from your buddy and chipping in gas money.
- the Other Anonymous - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 9:19 am:
I know that they require a similar symbol — a letter “L” — in the UK.
This makes sense for a number of reasons, not the least of which it makes other drivers more cautious and respectful of the learner.
Quite frankly, I also like the idea of requiring a public display of proof of insurance. (Again, they do this in western Europe.) There is not need for any personal information on the display; they could be just like city stickers or the like. The display could easily increase compliance with mandatory insurance laws.
- Just Observing - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 9:40 am:
I think it is a stupid idea:
1. It will allow the police to target and harass underage drivers;
2. Set up teens to be potential targets from adults. I’m not a parent, but if I was I wouldn’t want my teenage driver driving around with a big red flag indicating to the whole world that you have an unsupervised kid(s) in the car.
- Garp - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 9:42 am:
They should not allow teens to drive till their 18. That solves a whole lot of problems.
- Levois - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 9:48 am:
Hmmm since people do get killed on the road by either new, inexperienced or bad drivers now this would make more sense than legislating whether a child should wash their hands or a statewide ban on smoking in public places.
- VanillaMan - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 10:12 am:
I like the idea, but how do you inforce it? As a guy who has never looked his age, I would have been harrassed until I was 35 if law enforcement had the ability to stop young looking drivers without the sign.
- Robbie - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 10:18 am:
This is yet another stupid law aimed at young drivers when the real problem is BAD drivers. And they occur at all ages. As many have noted before, if young people could and did vote, we wouldn’t even be talking about these issues.
I would only support this measure if they also labeled elderly drivers, women drivers, and drivers with several accidents/moving violations.
- Bluefish - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 10:30 am:
This would make them a target for every insurance scam artist in the state. Terrible idea.
- Robbie - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 10:31 am:
the 2nd paragraph of the above post was meant as sarcasm. I used and tags to imply that, but because I didn’t add the spaces, the database treated them as html tags. My apologies if anyone thinks I hate old people or women because of that post!
- JW - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 10:37 am:
Another stupid piece of legislation. If the Secretary of State’s Office says they qualify to drive and issue them a license then they are qualified to drive!!
- Fan of the Game - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 10:39 am:
- the Other Anonymous - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 9:19 am:
Quite frankly, I also like the idea of requiring a public display of proof of insurance. (Again, they do this in western Europe.) There is not need for any personal information on the display; they could be just like city stickers or the like. The display could easily increase compliance with mandatory insurance laws.
————————————————-
It would also easily increase the production of fake insurance stickers.
- Carl Nyberg - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 10:41 am:
Japan displays a thing-a-ma-bob on cars for the first year someone has her/his drivers license.
Just Observing’s point about the cops makes some sense. But cops shouldn’t be using any arbitrary criteria to hassle and harass citizens. So the problem is not this specific proposal, but bad habits by the cops.
- Utility Infielder - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 10:43 am:
Just observing. Great arguments FOR the law. The fear that the cops will be watching you will undoubtly prevent some teens from doing stupid things while in the car. The first thing I taught my kids was that you will be pulled over for no reason and they were. It made them behave. I think most people are more cautious when approaching a Drivers Ed car, again not a bad thing.
- Carl Nyberg - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 10:44 am:
I was in traffic court in Lake County about ten years ago. A disproportionate number of the people receiving traffic tickets were Latino. It’s hard to believe that the cops were giving traffic tickets solely on the basis the moving violations and not considering the condition of the vehicle or ethnicity of the driver.
- BBpolNut - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 11:33 am:
Lets label people with previous speeding tickets too. Lets label and identify everyone in every aspect of life. Lets just let government dictate and control everything. Where will it stop?
- Just Observing - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 11:34 am:
Utility Infielder:
So if Cops targe a disproportionate number of minorities by randomly pulling them over… that is ok because “it will make them behave?”
- VanillaMan - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 12:19 pm:
We have racial profiling laws on the books. As a result, it wouldn’t make much sense to believe that police will start breaking those laws in order to enforce a misdemeanor law like this one.
No one likes racial profiling. We have laws.
- Utility Infielder - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 12:51 pm:
Just Observing. I am not a minority but I understand the point you and CN make. When you have a car full of kids your going to get pulled over. They did it to me in my ‘63 impala and 30 years later to my kids. Some things never change.
- Jeff - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 1:01 pm:
If you legislate laws for 16 year olds, I say you must allow them to vote. You tax them, right? But you don’t represent them.
- Jeff - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 1:06 pm:
Looking at this in more detail, it’s just more of a worthless bill, just look at this:
However, Leitch said he purposely didn’t include any penalties in his legislation, House Bill 408.
“It’s more of a voluntary thing at this point,” he said. “But so many parents anyway will be, I think, very enthusiastic about it, that it should be pretty much self-enforced.”
- pickles!! - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 3:32 pm:
yeah, its kind of silly. How is ID’ing a driver’s car as a Teen Driver, gonna matter when it comse to safety?
As i’ve said before. It should be the parents or guardian’s job to be sure that teen is driving safely, not the state’s job.
- Huh? - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 3:50 pm:
I sure everybody has seen the signs on the back of trucks that say something to the effect “How is my driving - call 800-XXX-XXXX”
Why not make the sign “How is my driving - Call my parents at 847-xxx-xxxx”
I have called the telephone numbers on the sides of trucks or the “How is my driving” number namy times. I have even called police departments about the driving of their own officers. I have always given my name, location and time of the incident. The organization I called, whether trucking firm or police department, want to ensure that their drivers were behaving and driving within the law. Not only for their own liability, but bad driving habits of a company vehicle is also bad publicity.
- zatoichi - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 4:00 pm:
Did they take the exam and pass the test? If you feel the need to mark cars somehow, make sure you also mark the repeat DIUs, those with poor eye sight, multiple accidents, multiple speeding tickets, people with cell phones, loud mufflers, smoking oil burners, extra slow drivers, and any number of other groups that might cause an accident.
- NoGiftsPlease - Friday, Feb 23, 07 @ 9:23 pm:
So, how much time are they spending talking about solving the state’s pension crisis, developing a new capital program to maintain our valuable infrastructure, or solving the many other real problems they are actually responsible for? But they have plenty of time and energy to legislate teens into good behavior? Fire ‘em all. I, for one, am tired of this drivel. That’s not why I pay their salary.
- Rick - Sunday, Feb 25, 07 @ 9:12 pm:
This bill does nothing but flag young drivers for law enforcement.
The fact of life is young drivers learn from mistakes. Placing a placard on their vehicles will have no effect on their driving abilities.
The benefit to cost ratio does not justify this law.
- Mark - Monday, Feb 26, 07 @ 1:25 am:
Isn’t there a law about 16 year olds only being allowed to have so many pasengers. If you see the stories about these teens getting killed in car accidents it’s because they have to many kids in the car. A sign on the car or a special ……I hate to say it….license plate would help police single out the cars that have to many passengers and let them know the teen is braking the law.