Tags: print
March 8, 2005
Driving restrictions would benefit teen drivers
Since early Sept. 2004, automobile accidents have claimed the lives of at least 17 teenagers in the Washington region alone. One teenager was driving drunk. Another was speeding. Another lost control with three other passengers in the car. A large number of these accidents were caused by driving inexperience and driver immaturity, which could have been prevented.
On Jan. 13, Governor Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr. proposed bills that would increase the learner's permit period from four to six months, add a 90-day license suspension for provisional drivers who violate seatbelt or curfew laws and revoke the licenses of minors who are convicted of driving under the influence until they turn 21.
Two weeks later, on Jan. 28, Delegate William A. Bronrott (D-Montgomery) proposed allowing minors in the first six months of their provisional period to drive only passengers who are family members, prohibiting minors from using cell phones while driving during their provisional period and increasing the required number of supervised driving hours from 40 to 60, ten of which must be at night.
The measures described in the bills are not farfetched; rather, they are practical solutions to growing problems of driver inexperience and driving distractions that result in accidents. Car crashes are the leading cause of death among 15- to 20- year-old drivers, according to an article by the American Automobile Association. This is no coincidence; the article also mentioned that 75 percent of the fatal crashes involving drivers in this age bracket are caused by driver error or other factors related to the driver's behavior. A large number of these driver errors are due to a lack of behind-the-wheel experience.
One way to solve the problem of inexperience is to stop it where it starts – with new drivers. The current Rookie Driver graduated licensing system in Maryland allows teenagers to obtain a provisional license after holding a learner's permit for four months and driving for 40 hours under adult supervision. Requiring more experience would, at best, increase the new driver's familiarity with various driving situations, allowing them to competently handle the same situations independently. If teenagers aren't given enough experience on the road, they won't be able to drive with responsibility.
In 2003, over 5,600 teenagers were killed in drunk driving accidents. The statistics alone speak for themselves – drunk driving is a serious problem. Ehrlich's drunk driving bill would finally express the gravity of the situation to license holders under the age of 21, for whom drinking in itself is illegal. Driving while drunk is a completely irresponsible act that violates two laws so offenders should receive twice the punishment. With the threat of having their licenses revoked, teenagers would think twice before drinking, let alone driving drunk.
The chances of a crash by a 16- or 17-year-old driver are doubled with two peers in the vehicle and quadrupled with three or more, according to a recent study by the National Institute of Health. Bronrott's first two bills respond to this risk and even go further to eliminate the deadly distraction of cell phones. Operating an automobile with one hand and holding a cell phone in the other has claimed the lives of many and has forced some districts, including D.C., to ban handheld talking on cell phones while driving. If teenagers are able to learn the risks of distractions by the threat of law, everyone will be better off. Though Bronrott's bills will not entirely eliminate the risks and distractions, they will at least forge a path of distraction-free driving for teenagers.
Teenagers are four times as likely as older, more experienced drivers to be involved in a crash, according to the Institute for Highway Safety. With the bills proposed by Ehrlich, Bronrott and other supporters, teens will gain the maturity and experience they need to prevent these crashes and drive more safely.
On Jan. 13, Governor Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr. proposed bills that would increase the learner's permit period from four to six months, add a 90-day license suspension for provisional drivers who violate seatbelt or curfew laws and revoke the licenses of minors who are convicted of driving under the influence until they turn 21.
Two weeks later, on Jan. 28, Delegate William A. Bronrott (D-Montgomery) proposed allowing minors in the first six months of their provisional period to drive only passengers who are family members, prohibiting minors from using cell phones while driving during their provisional period and increasing the required number of supervised driving hours from 40 to 60, ten of which must be at night.
Congressman Pete Visclosky of District 1 Indiana (left) and Delegate William Bronrott of District 16 Montgomery County (right) talk to students in National, State and Local Government classes.
The measures described in the bills are not farfetched; rather, they are practical solutions to growing problems of driver inexperience and driving distractions that result in accidents. Car crashes are the leading cause of death among 15- to 20- year-old drivers, according to an article by the American Automobile Association. This is no coincidence; the article also mentioned that 75 percent of the fatal crashes involving drivers in this age bracket are caused by driver error or other factors related to the driver's behavior. A large number of these driver errors are due to a lack of behind-the-wheel experience.
One way to solve the problem of inexperience is to stop it where it starts – with new drivers. The current Rookie Driver graduated licensing system in Maryland allows teenagers to obtain a provisional license after holding a learner's permit for four months and driving for 40 hours under adult supervision. Requiring more experience would, at best, increase the new driver's familiarity with various driving situations, allowing them to competently handle the same situations independently. If teenagers aren't given enough experience on the road, they won't be able to drive with responsibility.
In 2003, over 5,600 teenagers were killed in drunk driving accidents. The statistics alone speak for themselves – drunk driving is a serious problem. Ehrlich's drunk driving bill would finally express the gravity of the situation to license holders under the age of 21, for whom drinking in itself is illegal. Driving while drunk is a completely irresponsible act that violates two laws so offenders should receive twice the punishment. With the threat of having their licenses revoked, teenagers would think twice before drinking, let alone driving drunk.
The chances of a crash by a 16- or 17-year-old driver are doubled with two peers in the vehicle and quadrupled with three or more, according to a recent study by the National Institute of Health. Bronrott's first two bills respond to this risk and even go further to eliminate the deadly distraction of cell phones. Operating an automobile with one hand and holding a cell phone in the other has claimed the lives of many and has forced some districts, including D.C., to ban handheld talking on cell phones while driving. If teenagers are able to learn the risks of distractions by the threat of law, everyone will be better off. Though Bronrott's bills will not entirely eliminate the risks and distractions, they will at least forge a path of distraction-free driving for teenagers.
Teenagers are four times as likely as older, more experienced drivers to be involved in a crash, according to the Institute for Highway Safety. With the bills proposed by Ehrlich, Bronrott and other supporters, teens will gain the maturity and experience they need to prevent these crashes and drive more safely.







Discuss this Article
Thanks for your help.
Kristi Grassell
sucks for all you youngin's who were born in the 90's and later. HA.
:)
Sincerely,
carmen
thanks, kayla
If they are going to raise the driving age the cut off date should be 2000, so that children know as they grow up that they won't be able to drive untill a later age. Don't just spring this on the people born in 1990, they have been Anxious for the past couple years to begin to drive
regards
Joe
I'm sorry it's the drunken old codgers that wrote and passed the law.
but other than that.. If I was born in 1990 does that mean that I have to wait until I'm 18 to legally drive ?
Some of us need to drive at 15-16. I need to go to school and go to get things done. And I cant rely on my parents till im 18.
So when do we drive 16?? or 18. In Florida.
18 means growing up young adult next chapte of ur life so if ur were to change it to 18 wut would 16 be ntohing and it would not benefit u from anything except making 16 year olds mad angry depressed and pissed off cuz they been waiting a long time pateintly for this!!! they see there older friends born before 1990 driving and having fun and were just waiting and saying to ourselves it ok in a year we will be like them and be able to drive and then all of a sudden u guys decide to change it for a stupid reason that would not be solved just make more problems and plus we dont all drink and drive and stay up later thats only a few of the irresponsible people that dont care but listen I CARE and so do many other 16 year olds about this DONT CHANGE IT PLZ because if u do more problems will occur not be solved dont change a tradition and a happiness for future 16 year olds that wait and wait and wait for this great moment to happen just like the other 16 yeaqr olds born before 1990 that drove at 16 and i think there is no point of changing it AT ALL PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DONT CHANGE IT I BEG YOU THINK ABOUT HOW U WOULD U FEEL IF U WERE IN OUR SPOTS and plus i need to drive to get to skool and soon universty and practice and work my parents and driving me to all thoose places they cant its hectic i gotta be able to drive around and be responsible for myself!!!! WUTS THE POINT OF CHANGING IT!!! PLZ dont change all my older siblings got to drive and are driving now and im a little fustrated about that because i wanna drive too but i put in my mind that in one year i will be able to drive and i will have fun at the same time THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND FOR READING THIS!!!!! PLEASE JUST KEEP IT AT 16!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ITS ALL GOOD AT 16 THANK YOU
16 = DRIVERS LICENSE FOR MATURE 16 year olds
16 = DRIVING PRIVILLAGES FOR RESPONSIBLE
16 year olds
16 = HAVING FUN AND ENJOYING YOURSELF BEFORE U GROW UP AND WORK AND START UR LIFE
16 = HAPPINESS TO BE ABLE TO DRIVE
your homie.......Hakim Warrick Matul
For the most part unless you are really and extremely immature, it's not AGE that makes you a good driver; it's experience.
Quoted directly from your article: "A large number of these accidents were caused by driving inexperience"
I personally cannot rely on my parents until I'm 18. By then I will have a job and not long after I will be going to college. The impact of this bill would be enormous but not in the way you hope. Please put yourselves in our shoes. If you had been told you had to wait to drive, I think you you would have been rather angry. I will not and cannot wait until I'm 18 to drive. Mkay.
See you on the roads (-:
Thank you.
inexperienced:
Noun
1. Lack of experience. 2. Lack of the knowledge gained from experience.
experience is gained from experience...
News flash: so if you take the experience away from us...we're still inexperienced.
i was born in 1991...
do I, or do I not have to wait until I'm 18 to drive?
Maybe if u gave us more time to well maybe practice u give us 5 months thats nothing. We are young adults and need to be treated like them. We have jobs and we can not rely on our mommys and daddys!
is this true? If it is the government is stupid they shouldn't of changed it i've been responsible i'm fourtenn and i've got a jod i'm not relying on my mom any longer than i have to
so just think about it we will be voters think about what were going to do when we can vote just because of this one law
because some teens graduate highschool when they are 17 what are they supposed to then?? have there parents dirve them every where? to work, to college, i just don't see why this is such a big issue!!! some teens are responsible and should not be punished for the irresponsiblity of other teens actions. well i am doing a persuasive essay on this law for english and i need to know the governments side of the argument so if you could e-mail me back it would be much appreciated.....
EVERYONE WANT TO SINGLE OUT TEENS FOR FOR DRIVING WHEN THEIR IS ALSO MANY ADULTS OUT THERE THAT HAVE DUI'S AND SO ON!!!!!!!
DRIVER'S EDUCATION IS TO EXPENSIVE;IT SHOULD BE OFFERED IN SCHOOL. SOME TEENS CAN'T AFFORD THE COST OF DRIVERS EDUCATION. MAYBE IF EVERYONE WANTED TO TEACH TEEN JUST TO PREVENT CAR CRASHES AND DEATH, THEY SHOULD DO IT OUT OF THE KINDNESS OF THEIR HEART AND NOT PUT A PRICE ON EVERYTHING. THINK OF THE LIVES YOU COULD SAVE IF DRIVERS EDUCATION WERE FREE TO ALL TEENS. THIS WOULD HELP OUT A LOT. I THINK DRIVERS EDUCATION SHOULD BE PUT BACK IN TO ALL SCHOOL SYSTEM!!!!!!
However if we don't practice at a certain age will be essecially going on the road with same experience as if we were 16 then when we are 18. I disagree but for the more meaning of this is logically correct.
With what little thought I exposed here I beleive it would further benifit others if middle aged teens didn't drive. Life will go on trust me!
P.S. thanks i was born in 2-5-91
soo i will no longer have a job because i have no ride my parents are divorced and myu mom is a single mother soo there is no way i will be able to gett a ride to and from work every day right after school.
i do not think that the driving age should be raised to 18 i personalyy think it will cause chaos with the 15 year olds that already have there permits and the other kids that already have jobs.
is there any way i might be able to get my licence early seeing as how i have a job and i am in my situation?
reply back asap please.
Also because all the rules of driveing are fresh in their mind they will be better drivers them 35 year hold who have been driving their whole lives, but forget the right rules.
Secondly, because its the day that we've been looking forward to our whole life most of us don't take it for grantit but in stead are extremly carful.
Thirdly, their are alot more adult driver who get into accidents. So why is it that for every 3 teens who get into an accident we ALL get punished. I think you should just take that ONE persons licence away. Instead of ruening every teenages dream of driving, Because we all differnt and we all deserve a chance.
Yes the age is being raised for our protection, but I don't think it's completely right.
Although many teens act irresponsibly when they first get their license, does it mean that all of us do?
No, it does not. I don't think that because some teens feel the need to act rashly and hurt themselves and others, all of us should have to suffer. I think people shouldn't get chance after chance. That's the problem. Not the fact that they're young.
gettin my licence in a year.
i take drivers ed 2ed semester this year
i think that insted of putting all these restrictions on us that once ever 1 2 or 3 months we should just have a drug test
so you know ho is driveing responsible
if we did that i be we would have fewer accidents or kids that have been intrrouble for underage drinkg should have a breath thing installed in there car and there car will not be able to start unless it shows up as 0.00