In 2008, Connecticut overhauled its teen driver laws, transforming them from one of the most lenient in the nation to one of the strictest. One of the thoroughly debated provisions was newly-licensed drivers carrying passengers. Before 2008, licensed teens could transport siblings after being licensed for three months, and anyone after six months. In 2008, our state increased these restrictions to no passengers for six months and then “immediate family members,” which includes siblings, for the next six months — thus, no non-family passengers for the first year of licensing.
Two years ago, a state legislator proposed to roll back the passenger restrictions, and members of the Task Force from 2007-08 convinced the Transportation Committee of the legislature to not endorse the bill, which was voted down. Now, State Senator Kevin Witkos has proposed another roll back, as described below. The Transportation Committee hearing is Wednesday February 20, 2013 at 10:30 AM. Those here in Connecticut who join in opposing this bill should testify or submit comments to the Committee. For those outside Connecticut who may be debating similar legislation, below is an excerpt from the opposition testimony that I and several other former Task Force members will be filing next week. I think the quote from veteran traffic safety researcher David Preusser says it all, but supporting information follows.
—————————————————————————————————————————————-
STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED SENATE BILL 104:
“An Act Allowing Newly Licensed Motor Vehicle Operators to Transport Immediate Family Members to and From School”
“Do you want to trust your most precious cargo to your least experienced driver?”
— Dave Preusser, Preusser Research Group
We strongly oppose S.B. 104, which would allow newly-licensed 16- and 17-year-old drivers to “transport immediate family members to and from school,” for these reasons:
1. Study after study during the past decade has documented beyond argument that crash rates of newly-licensed teen drivers increase significantly when they have one or more passengers other than a supervising adult driver. These recent, national, well-documented studies by the nation’s leading traffic safety organizations show S.B. 104 as directly contrary to existing evidence regarding teen driver safety.
2. S.B. 104 reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the dangers of teen driving. The bill appears to assume that a teenager who is duly-licensed by the State of Connecticut is a safe driver. This is simply not the case, for at least three reasons: (a) the brains of teenagers suffer from a chemical imbalance that encourages risk-taking and discourages caution, and this condition does not dissipate until ages 22 to 25; (b) it takes three to five years of experience to create a safe driver, which is far more than the mere 40 hours that Connecticut requires for a license; and (c) we train new drivers on streets in their hometowns, but then they routinely drive in places they have never been before, so they are learning to handle a vehicle and navigate at the same time – a daunting challenge even for experienced drivers. Our age-of-licensing laws, unfortunately, are based more on tradition than science or traffic safety facts. Allowing siblings as passengers of newly-licensed teen drivers is guaranteed to increase crash rates and put both teen drivers and their siblings at risk.
3. S.B. 104 proposes to repeal the thoroughly considered recommendation on this exact subject of the 2007-08 Task Force, which relied on national experts and NHTSA. The Task Force’s recommendation to lengthen passenger restrictions by prohibiting siblings as passengers for the first six months of licensure was a modest amendment that should not be changed without compelling evidence; as noted, the current evidence warrants, if anything, even longer restrictions on passengers and siblings than were adopted in 2008. Rolling back these provisions is simply unwarranted.
4. It appears that the underlying rationale of S.B. 104 is convenience for parents, a desire to help busy mothers and fathers with transporting their kids to school. It may be that Committee members have received calls from parents who would like to change our teen driving laws to accommodate their schedules. We can acknowledge the realities that parents are busy and much of our society is automobile-dependent, but our teen driving laws should not put convenience ahead of safety. Driving remains the leading cause of death of people under age 20 in the United States. S.B. 104 does not reflect an accurate understanding of the dangers of teen driving, and we encourage the Transportation Committee to reject it. Thank you.
5. Although the text of the bill is not available as of the date of this comment, the bill description raises a difficult interpretation issue – what is “to and from school?” – which will put parents, school officials, and law enforcement in the difficult position of understanding the scope of these words.
