Jan 08
HB82, 16 Year Old Drivers & Unintended Consequences
2007 at 9:32 am | posted by Rep. Craig Frank 5 comments
Unintended Consequences
At times, with the best of intentions, the Legislature makes laws peppered with unintended consequences. Outcomes, the likes of which, we could not possibly have anticipated during debate and passage of a bill. Things we’d like to take back if we could. Historically, some faulty choices we’ve been able to repair (e.g. The Cable TV Tax of 2003) and some that are still broken.
HB82, Driving By Minors Amendments
There seems to be a bit of a ruffle out there regarding a bill (HB82) I’ve opened to explore the possibility of repealing Section 41-8-2, Operation of vehicle by persons under 17 during night hours prohibited – Exceptions AND Section 41-8-3, Operation of vehicle by persons under 16 and six months – Passenger limitations – Exceptions – Penalties.
A Short, Recent History
When I joined the Legislature in May of 2003, one of my committee assignments was as a member of the House Transportation Committee. During my time on the Transportation Committee, the Legislature adjusted the driver permitting age from 15 years 9 months to 15 years 6 months. Since that time, the Legislature has revised the permitting age to 15 years of age. The reasoning and debate on the latest bill brought forward was based on the need for young people to get behind the wheel of a car for a longer period of time under parental watchcare and through four seasons of driving conditions to better prepare them for driving responsibly—as a licensed 16 year old independent driver. The law passed with very little resistance. With this bill, the Legislature made adjustments to certain criteria on the front side of the issue, but potentially overlooked making related modifications on another side.
Post 2006 General Session Questions
Out of all the questions pertaining to what the Legislature did during the 2006 General Session, the question most frequently asked by my constituency was “how does this new driving law affect my son (or daughter)?” “What does this new law do?” After making a series of phone calls to local law enforcement, and personally reviewing the code, nobody seemed to definitively be able to answer those questions—including myself.
Current Code—Night Driving For 16 Year Olds
So here it is…for Good or Evil…A young person who is between 16 and 17 in this state cannot drive between the hours of 12 midnight and 5 am unless: 1) there’s someone 21 or older with a current driver’s license sitting directly next to the driver while the vehicle is being operated, or, 2) the driver is going to work from their home OR coming from work to their home, or,
The new section [SB 118 (Sen. K. Hale, 2006) as signed into law]:
3) the driver is coming home from their own school-sponsored activity where the transportation to and from the activity is provided by the school or the district and begins at and returns to the school property where the student is enrolled, or,
Back to the existing code:
4) the driver is on assignment from a farmer in a farm related activity, or, 5) in an emergency.
IMPORTANT TO NOTE: The original statute that included an exception for driving to and from a driver’s religion-sponsored activity WAS DELEATED from the law.
What that means: Heaven forbid we mix “church and state” even though the good portion of the laws me make effect a large group of church-going folks. If your 16 year old is at a dance down to the church and the dance ends at midnight, parents, you’d better be ready to roll off the couch and go down to pick him/her up. And, if that dance is in Salem and you’re in Lehi…
Now, The Unintended Part
One mother explained that her 16 year old daughter, although “legal” driving age was not able to legally drive herself to her 4:30 a.m. swimming practice (before school during the school year) each morning for an entire year without a 21 year old accompanying her. Although an Olympic class athlete, this young woman will be “breaking the law” for nearly a year to pursue her dream–to represent Utah and the Nation at the next Olympic games.
Another mom, expressed her concern to me about the recent Saddie Hawkins Dance her daughter attended. The daughter, who recently turned 16, was at the school-sponsored dance until a few minutes past midnight. The daughter’s date, a 16 year old young man, wasn’t able to use his parents car that evening and so the young lady drove to and from the school-sponsored activity. I had to explain that not only did her daughter break the Night-time Driving Law but also she had broken the 16 years 6 months law for Passenger limitations. You see, her daughter had not reached the ripe old age of 16 years 6 months and was subject to the law that states that until you’re 16/6 you cannot drive anyone in your vehicle except family members. (Exceptions: accompanied by 21 or older driver sitting in seat next to driver, or, on farm business, or in a emergency.) This also applies to drivers who haven’t accumulated 6 months of licensed driving and have not yet turned 18.
One father and I were talking about the time, a couple of months ago, when his 16 year old son was coming home from a movie that ended shortly after midnight …stop…Lawbreaker!
The stories go on…
One constituent went as far as to say the Legislature is “forcing” young licensed girls (younger than 16 years and 6 months) to drive home BY THEMSELVES, LATE AT NIGHT because of the language of our current statute. Young girls, late at night, high risk, sounds like lawsuit just waiting to happen. Why do I know this? Because I have been approached by numerous, very concerned, thoughtful, law-abiding parents AND because I’ve lived through this in my own home.
Some say, we (the Legislature) have placed normally responsible, law-biding parents in a bad position — to choose between their child’s safety and obeying the law.
Passenger Limitations Law
A father at church yesterday expressed his concern that a large group of his son’s 16 and 15 year old friends had planned an activity in Provo and would need to travel ten miles South to get to their parentally approved destination. Because the current statute prohibits new 16 year old drivers from providing transportation to non-siblings, ten separate young men ended up having to individually get themselves to their activity. Instead of allowing three 16 year old drivers to provide transportation for a total of ten properly seat-belted young men, ten parents ended up driving twice the miles (there and back and a few hours later there and back, again) for this activity. In this dad’s opinion—a big waste of time and precious natural resources. “Gas’s still expensive ya’ know?!”
IMPORTANT TO NOTE: The recently amended code RECINDED the ability for Parents of newly licensed drivers to PROVIDE WRITTEN PERMISSION for their young-person to provide others transportation to and from school, school sponsored activities, or religion-sponsored activity.
What that means: If you’re immediately related to the younger than 16 year 6 month driver you’re OK to go along for the ride, if your not in the immediate family…Sorry, Outta’ Luck. (Exceptions: accompanied by 21 or older driver sitting in seat next to driver, or, on farm business, or in a emergency.)
A “Boatload” ‘O Trouble
Some have expressed their deep concern regarding a concept among new drivers known as “boatloading.” “Boatloading” occurs when an abnormal amount of persons are crowded, usually without regard to health/safety concerns, into a small vehicular space. No one would disagree that “boatloading” is an unsafe practice. “Boatloading” would be included in the concept of distracted driving. And, we already have laws against distracted driving—at any age. So the whole “boatload” argument for new drivers doesn’t really hold water.However, specifically included in our current state Driving by Minors law at 16 years 5 months three weeks and six days, “no boatload,” but at 16 years 6 months its OK to “boatload” your buddies. What a difference a day makes.However, in a similar scenario, if everyone in the “boatload” is an immediate member of the family of a driver who is under 16 years 6 months …load ‘em up…the more the merrier! And further, the whole “boatloading” concept isn’t just restricted to new, young drivers. Not too long ago, I witnessed what appeared to be a rather large vessel packed to the gills with what looked to be college kids, headed northward on State Street traveling about 45-50 knots—full steam ahead! I’m still trying to figure out the magic between those two days!
Special Interest Groups
Now, there’ll be some who won’t like the whole idea of removing these two small sections of the Code. Heck, in fact, they might just get downright nasty and mean spirited about the whole thing. I always, like to look at why they’re “protestin’ so much!” First place I normally look is how and where this special interest group is getting’ its money, payroll, bank, etc.
Take, for example, non-profit organizations—“advocacy” groups. In the first place, they’re really not non-profits at all. All advocacy groups pay (and some pretty dog gone well) their administrators and staffers. Heck, some of these “benevolent” folks are raking in the big six figures. So what makes a non-profit advocacy group not-for-profit? Simple…what’s left at the end of the year after all those big salaries are paid. Bottom line…it’s gotta’ be zero. No profit. That’s it. Administrators make a substantial salary; however, since there’s no profit at year’s end—Non-Profit status (and a couple of other federally mandated criteria). Pretty sweet deal! Now, let’s suppose nobody cares about “the cause” the non-profits are pushing. Let’s suppose there’s no one paying the “advocacy” payroll. Bamm! Gone. For most “benevolent” groups it’s all about the $$$.
What about liberal radio stations?! Radio stations make money by advertising, and advertising revenues are based on how many listeners per thousand are tuned in. And, if your real good at entertaining the crowd then you make big bucks because you’re popular…if you don’t keep the fans around, then you’re not so popular and…well…you’re outta’ business. End of story. So entertainment EQUALS big bucks. (they’ll say it’s not big money, but I don’t see many of them leaving for a “desk” job—I guess it could be ego driven…I digress…) And, radio “personalities” are in it for the $$$. Don’t believe me?! Just stop paying one of them and see if they stick around for long. It’s the tendency of some radio “personalities” to get folks all lathered up—it’s job security.
What’s The Bottom Line?
If you’re lost or confused through all this, don’t feel alone. Many very intelligent people have expressed their concern about not being able to wrap their minds around what the “16 year old” driving law IS. Now that we have a good idea what the unintended consequences are…it’s a good time to fix the problem…
Kids Say The Darndest Things
I recently spent an afternoon with a group of kids from the local public secondary school (constituents) and I asked them if they’d like me to remove all the restrictions on 16 year old drivers, and ya’ know not a single one of them said “no!” Gee, that’s a Shocker! (Most of these students are registered voters in two years—the next election cycle!)
January 9th, 2007 at 10:33 am
This is a ridiculous article that skirts the issue of teen automobile safety and instead plies on emotional coding rather than logic to bolster a most questionable conclusion.
There seems to be a dearth of reference here to issues of personal responsibility, safety, and the undeniable fact that teen-aged drivers are responsible for a disproportionate number of automobile accidents that destroy and damage lives, property, and has an inherent social cost for all of us.
Instead, the author seems to be worked up about the “inconvenience” of the issue, both for children and parents. Instead of a rational discussion, the author uses rhetorical tricks such as UPPER CASE PHRASES, loaded terms (e.g. “liberal radio;” “it’s all about the $$$;’ “boatloading,” ad infinitum).
This article is a disservice to the subject, the author, and the legislature itself if this is a prevalent opinion.
January 9th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
WOW! W, tell me how you really FEEL!!!
Perhaps you could provide a few FACTS to back up your rebuttal. Also, please factor in the new permitting age of 15 and its effects on 16-17 year old drivers\’ safety records.
January 9th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
In my experience the driving restrictions for teenage drivers are reasonable and fair. If an exception for a teen to drive to practice at 4 in the morning is necessary then lets make that possible.
To change the law and remove the restrictions for teenage drivers would be very short sided and reckless. We need to do all we can to insure the safety of not only the teenage drivers but of everyone that shares the road with them.
January 9th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Again, please show me the FACTS instead of pointing out my “short sided & recklessness.” I also have “experience” related to this issue. Previous restrictions on young drivers were also considered “reasonable” BEFORE we made alterations to the recently revised statute.
Maybe to “ensure” the health and safety of all competent drivers on the road, we should remove all incompetent drivers. Competency EXAMS for EVERYONE.
PLEASE, JUST THE FACTS.
January 10th, 2007 at 11:39 am
Most laws have \”unintended consequences\”.
In this case my 16 yr old daughter is required to drive to all her after school activities ALONE! Just last week she was driving home at 11:00 p.m. from a basketball game when \”a beat up junker car with four big T—-n\’s in it\” followed her for about 15minutes. She had a cell phone (and broke the no cell phone while driving rule) and called me when it was clear they were not going to leave her alone. I instructed her to go to the police dept. that happened to be a block away, and stayed on the phone with her. They drove off when they recognized where she was. Who knows what could have happened!
I know, you\’re thinking I shouldn\’t have let her go, I should have driven her. She is a 4.0 junior in high school. I trust her to make good decisions.
In this day, no 16 yr. old (boy or girl) should be forced in to an unsafe position by the government. Parents are being forced to choose between safety and the law.
When the law changed to allow a 15yr. old to drive for a full year before they take their drivers license test (they should only pass if they are competent) their parents should be able to decide how many passengers they can have in the car with them.
I resent any inference that I am a lazy parent if I determine my child is responsible enough to drive (after having spent up to a year with her in the car) with a friend instead of alone.
NO ONE wants ANY teenager to be unsafe. But my responsible child should not be under restrictions because she is only 16 instead of 16 and six months. There is no magical difference between the two.
Last Friday a 19yr. old driver hit a 16yr. old and left the scene. It was his parents that brought him back to the scene. 19 is no magic date either. Parents, parenting is magic!
Thank you Rep. Frank for listening to your constituents and being willing to look at all sides of this issue. I am sure you have no desire to put incompetent drivers on the road at any age!