Comments on: HB82, 16 Year Old Drivers & Unintended Consequences

By: W 2

W 2 — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:39:24 +0000

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!

By: Rep. Craig Frank

Rep. Craig Frank — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 01:27:34 +0000

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.

By: Bruce Bilings

Bruce Bilings — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 01:13:35 +0000

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.

By: Rep. Craig Frank

Rep. Craig Frank — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 00:59:35 +0000

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.

By: Withheld

Withheld — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 16:33:04 +0000

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.