Congress Seeks National Standards for Teen Drivers

Following New Jersey’s move to force teenage drivers to display a special decal on their license plates, three Democratic U.S. senators are seeking a national graduated driver licensing law (GDL) to replace the varying state-to-state systems.

Currently, every state but North Dakota has a three-phase GDL program that allows teenagers to get their driver’s licenses in steps that are supposed to make them safer drivers. The evidence overwhelmingly shows that a good GDL program can improve highway safety. States that have imposed tough restrictions on licensing have had crash reductions ranging from 10% to 30%, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

Massachusetts beefed up its rules three years ago and has seen the fatalities for drivers younger than 18 plummet 75% and injury crashes fall 38%. Those are truly impressive reductions.

Strong programs that limit nighttime driving and the number of passengers allowed in a car as well as set a minimum age of 16 for getting a learner’s permit serve as the model for the U.S. Senate’s legislation. Although 42 states allow teens to get learner’s permits before age 16, the legislation would tie federal highway funds to raising the minimum age to 16.

This is controversial. As opponents point out, there are rural states where children learn to drive as young as ages 12 and 13 in the course of living on a farm. Like many top-down federal standards, many state officials don’t like the idea of being told when they can issue driver’s licenses to their citizens.

IIHS estimates that raising the minimum age for a learner’s permit would reduce crash fatalities of 15- to 17-year-olds by roughly 13%.

In addition, the Safe Teen and Novice Driver Uniform Protection bill (aka “Stand Up”) would establish a three-phase process that includes a learner’s permit and an intermediate stage before the driver receives an unrestricted license. It also would prohibit non-emergency cell phone use and unsupervised nighttime driving in the first two stages.

National Standards Sought for Teen Drivers (USA Today)

Comments

You have to take all of these statistics with a grain of salt. For instance: "raising the minimum age for a learner’s permit would reduce crash fatalities of 15- to 17-year-olds by roughly 13%." Of course it would. Half of those surveyed would no longer be able to drive.

If Congress banned driving before age 20, the reduction would be close to 100%. Banning things and punishing people is easy. The challenging and necessary thing is to improve oversight of Driver's Ed to make sure that kids know what they're doing when they take to the roads.

This legislation is a good thing if it is intended to even out restrictions and lop off the outliers on both ends (New Jersey's discriminatory legislation as well as North Dakota's apathy) to make things fair and safe for everyone. This legislation is a disaster if it blindly applies the most restrictive policies to everyone.

Like many other things (drinking, voting, drafting) this conversation would be very different if the people in question could vote.

Can you prove those numbers will occur simply based on restricting licensing by age?

What if the issue has more to do with experience behind the wheel than the age of the drive?

The numbers would just move up the age time line.

Maybe the answer is more comprehensive driver training.

I learned to drive at a very early age, but that was before the rural population migrated to the Urban Centers. With the increase in population and lack of employment, I believe the age requirement should be increased to 18 and drivers education be a public school requirement before any State approval for licensing. This may sound a little harsh for the teen who expects his/her parents to purchase that extra family car for two years of extra added expense to the family budget. Public transportation is provided thru the senior years of high school. Teens, "Take advantage of a public chauffeur while you can!"

Well the feds already force 49 states to enact mandatory seat belt usage what is another law for saving the public from themselves.

If they really want to do this it should apply to NEW drivers not just teens.

Scientific fact that teenagers' brains not fully developed and they are therefore easily distracted. That doesn't vary from state to state, so why shouldn't we have a national standard that takes that fact into account and increases both the driving age and makes improvements in education?

My question is, for pilots licenses they have flight-simulators, why not driving simulators for teens?

The flight simulators can be programmed to simulate poor weather and aircraft conditions. How about simulating a tire-blowout or loss of brakes? Driving on slick roads, responding to idiot drivers, etc?

It would not just bring down accident rates, but the number of traffic-tickets, and a lot of different people dont want that!

I'm behind this as long as it's based on statistics, and thus they will enact similar standard for drivers over 85 years old, which have the same rate of fatal crashes per mile as teenagers (see http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/05/hyundais-very-undude-car-ads.html).

Somehow, I doubt this will happen.

Anything with a screen is bad for your safety. Many of us who love our cute baby geo metros also enjoy OBDE adapters.

I almost don't want to tell anyone about them just because they are like crack cocaine for people who are trying to maximize the performance of their cars.

On Board Diagnostic Equipment is no longer the sole domain of large computers at the dealership. On ebay you can get ODBE systems that can help you monitor EVERYTHING your car is doing while you drive it.

And, they also have USB connections so that you can hook up your laptop and use software that can give the fantasy dashboard that could be at home on StarTrek(tm)

These software packages, some of which are freeware, enable you to watch ANY aspect of your car in REAL TIME while you are driving.

This has also upset my view of StarTrek(tm). I don't believe anybody could drive a car safely, much less fly a starship, with so much stuff you could watch at the same time.

i started driving around the age of 10!! i was pulling 40foot trailers by the age of 11!!! I HAVE NEVER HAD A WRECK! i think this is stupid! during the time i was getting my licence the only time people from the government rode with me was once around the block! no highway training nothing!!! how are kids these days supposed to know what to do if there is no-one to teach them!! and i know for a fact that over 75% of the people i know just put down times on the sheet of paper according to the DMV of NM you must have 100 hours logged. nobody does that... its all faked!!! there needs to be a person employed by gov. to take these kids around and explain why the rules and regulations are there!!! otherwise, you going to keep having these problems.

Richard Out.

@Dave Erickson:
"My question is, for pilots licenses they have flight-simulators, why not driving simulators for teens?

The flight simulators can be programmed to simulate poor weather and aircraft conditions. How about simulating a tire-blowout or loss of brakes? Driving on slick roads, responding to idiot drivers, etc?"

I'd agree, but only if the same rules are applied to elderly drivers, not only teens! Use a simulator to prove that you are still capable of quickly reacting to emergency situations and performing emergency maneuvers (e.g. simulate a suburban neighborhood and child running in front of the car). If you can't do that, then no more driving for you. But somehow, I'm sure that will never pass. As someone else mentioned, these type of laws can only be applied to subjects that are not allowed to vote...