Say Anything Blog

The Bismarck Tribune says we shouldn’t, and that there are better solutions for the problem of traffic accidents among teenagers:

North Dakota has a larger population of older citizens than most states and, therefore, a larger percentage of the population of senior citizens that drive. Likewise, the state allows drivers to have licenses at a younger age than most states, as young as 14 years of age, because of the rural nature of North Dakota.

Although mass transit has improved in North Dakota in the past decade, it does not come close to taking care of the needs of the state’s younger and older citizens. And until it does, the state should hold off on raising the age required for licensed drivers.

However, the Legislature appears to be on the verge of increasing restrictions on teen-aged drivers in the state. The motivation for raising the driving age from 14 to 16 is to counter very real statistics - 16-year-olds have a higher crash rate than drivers of any other age and are three times more likely to die in any crash than the average of all drivers.

There are proposals to raise the age for driving in the state from the North Dakota Insurance Department and from Rep. Ed Gruchalla of Fargo.

The concerns behind proposed laws restricting young drivers are laudable, but there are better solutions than pushing up the age for licensed driving. As we have stated before on this page, a better solution is to have a continuation, even enhancement, of graduated driver’s license programs - a three-stage process including supervised learning, intermediate license and full-privilege license.

I’m inclined to agree with the Tribune, which also makes a point about legislative efforts to ban the use of electronics in the car too:

There’s also talk about banning cell phones, texting and late-night driving by young drivers. Being distracted by cell phones and other electronic devices while driving is just as much a problem with adult drivers as it is for the state’s youngest drivers, and restricting it by age misses the point. If lawmakers are going to ban people using cell phones in their cars, it needs to be for all drivers and not just one age group.

Government can’t protect everyone, all the time, from everything.

Truer were were never written.  I think a ban on cell phone use in the car would do little to make the roads more safe, but would do a lot to jack up traffic law enforcement costs to the taxpayers.  I think that bad drivers tend to be bad drivers whether they have cell phones or MP3 players available to them in the car or not.  Even if you take the electronics out of the car they’re still going to make bad decisions.

What I find interesting is how often we talk about problems with teenage drivers, but ignore problems with senior drivers.  Teens may be three times more likely to dry in an auto accident than any other age group, but I wonder which age group hurts or kills other drivers more?  I’d be willing to bet its seniors, yet that’s a policy issue few politicians want to tackle.

Why?  Because the elderly vote.  Teens, on the other hand, are an easy target because they cannot.  Or in the case of those over eighteen, mostly do not.

I’d like to see a law that requires drivers over a certain age (say 65) have to re-take the eye exam and driving test every year to maintain their licenses.  Often it’s too hard for friends and family to realize how poorly and elderly friend or relative has begun to drive, and even if they do realize it few have the courage to step in and do something about it.  I think mandatory annual testing is the solution.