National Tansportation
Safety Board
Washington, D.C. 20594
Safety Information
GRADUATED LICENSING – OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES
REMARKS BY
STEVE BLACKISTONE
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
TO THE
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES
APRIL 20, 2007
Presiding: John Snyder, Kentucky, NCSL Transportation Committee Staff Chair
Thank you, John. It is a privilege to be with you again to discuss the important question of how do we best reduce the unacceptable level of highway crashes and deaths involving teenage drivers. Today I hope not only to talk with you, but also to ask you to think about some of the questions you face as legislators dealing with this problem.
The National Transportation Safety Board is an independent Federal agency charged by Congress to investigate transportation accidents, determine their probable cause, and make recommendations to prevent their recurrence. The recommendations that arise from our investigations and safety studies are our most important product. The Safety Board cannot mandate implementation of these recommendations. However, in our 40-year history, organizations and government bodies have adopted more than 80 percent of our recommendations.
The Safety Board made recommendations to the States about graduated driver licensing in 1993, 2002 and 2003. While not identical in every detail, our recommendations are similar to those of AAA and others. We’ve seen revolutionary changes in driver licensing standards in the past decade. We have worked closely with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, AAA and others in highway safety coalitions to promote GDL in the states. And so, I want to draw on these experiences to talk about some of the concerns that typically are raised about GDL proposals, and also to get your thoughts about them.
Policymakers and the public and generally have accepted the safety rationale of GDL. They recognize that it is effective in saving lives. There is little disagreement about its safety benefits. Instead, the opposition tends to be philosophical in nature, that it limits personal freedom, is difficult to enforce, and that it creates great inconvenience on rural families. Others fear that it will facilitate racial or age profiling. Finally, some rural legislators, from areas that are more dependent upon motor vehicles for transport raise the concern that it will create undue burdens on families. Finally, there are some who believe that a stronger driver education requirement will sufficiently address the problem.
The experiences in two states, Arkansas and Illinois provide useful case studies that illustrate the debates surrounding attempts to reduce deaths involving teenage drivers.
Arkansas
Arkansas has one of the weakest driver licensing standards for youth in the nation. Although technically it has a 3-state licensing system, it is one of only 5 states without substantive intermediate stage restrictions. Its initial learner’s permit age is only 14.
Sen. Jimmy Jeffress (D) introduced a comprehensive bill with all of the 3-stage system elements we have recommended. He had good support from a range of interested advocates, especially the medical community and AAA.
Sen. Jeffress was outstanding in presenting his bill to the Senate Transportation Committee, where it passed with almost no opposition. It then passed the Senate overwhelmingly. Two weeks later, on Thursday, March 22 the House Public Transportation Committee approved in on a voice vote, with the only concern being, “Why isn’t it stronger?”
There was, however, testimony from two teenagers who opposed the bill, and especially the passenger restriction. They felt its restrictions were unreasonable, and noted that other similar rural states didn’t have passenger restrictions. They also described weaknesses in the testing process. When they were tested they did nothing more than drive around the block.
Advocates sought to have the full House take it up on Friday, but weren’t successful. By Monday, when it was considered, the tide had turned, and the bill was defeated on a 63-27 vote.
What happened? Over the weekend, the bill apparently was the subject of talk radio and other news sources throughout the state. As one lobbyist said, legislators got an earful when they went to church on Sunday morning. The public seemed focused on the immediate tangible impact of its inconvenience, rather than the impact upon crashes, injuries, and deaths. The teens’ testimony was given widespread coverage, while Sen. Jeffress and bill proponents much less so.
Illinois
The Illinois Teen Driving Task Force is a case study that looks at what comes next for states that already have graduated licensing. Illinois has a generally strong graduated licensing system, but still too many teenage deaths – 260 in 2005. These deaths, several high visibility crashed, and a series of stories in Chicago Tribune created significant public interest.
The Task Force was created and led by Secretary of State Jesse White. It brought together participants with many different perspectives on crashes involving teen drivers. These included legislators, educators, parents, and a variety of experts. After a statewide series of hearings, it adopted almost 20 recommendations. Many were designed to tighten up the administrative and procedural practices. The most significant would extend the length of the passenger limit, increase the hours of the nighttime restriction, and tighten the on-road requirements for obtaining a license. There was much public attention given to the discovery that a student could obtain a license with as little as one hour of on-the-road practice in a driver education course. Since then, Sen. John Cullerton has introduced a bill to implement the Task Force recommendations, and it appears to be moving smoothly through the legislative process.
This effort represents the next wave of graduated licensing. As the people of Illinois have learned, many deaths involving teen drivers have been prevented, but still too many are being killed. Graduated licensing laws need to be carefully reviewed, and cleaned up in order to identify gaps and address accident trends. A law is a powerful tool, but not the complete answer. It must be effectively implemented, and periodically reviewed.
Driver Education
It is sometimes argued that graduated licensing is not necessary, but that a strong driver education program in the schools would be sufficient. However, formal evaluations of driver education have shown little or no effect in reducing crashes. A good course can teach basic vehicle control skills, but does not provide sufficient on the road experience. Extended driving experience in a relatively safe environment is critical to becoming a safe driver.
We relied on driver education during the baby boom and subsequent generations, and it didn’t work. For many years we have consistently had unacceptably high rates of crashes and deaths involving teenage drivers.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety reports that school based driver education programs have an unintended negative consequence by encouraging earlier licensure among 16-17 year olds, who are more immature. Driver education teaches how to pass a test – now how to drive safely. An effective driver education program can be a critical component of GDL, but it is not a substitute for the experience that GDL allows
Enforcement Concerns
Another claim against graduated licensing is that it can’t be enforced. It is perhaps true that a police officer on patrol will have difficulty identifying a driver as being under graduated licensing restrictions. However, parents, much more than police, enforce these restrictions. But, graduated licensing empowers parents by making it easier for them to set standards for their children. Likewise, it leads to cultural changes among teenagers, who quickly come to accept the restrictions. It is a natural form of secondary enforcement, so does not need to be specified in the law, since a secondary enforcement provision sends a strong message to parents as well as law enforcement that this isn’t important.
Others claim that GDL will lead to police harassment of teenagers. We should all recognize that harassment of drivers based on age (or race) is totally unacceptable and abhorrent and say so clearly and publicly. However, such harassment is primarily a local problem with local solutions. It should be addressed through strong law enforcement management and accountability. One legislative means of promoting this accountability is requiring law enforcement reports on the breakdown of traffic stops and/or tickets by racial background.
Similar concerns often have been raised with respect to primary enforcement of safety belt use laws. We are not aware of instances of police harassment stemming from either of these laws. A National Black Caucus of State Legislators study of primary belt laws found that there was no indication that there was a greater problem with harassment in primary seat belt States. The Meharry Medical College (a historically-Black university) recently completed a study on differential enforcement that finds a similar result.
Family/Lifestyle Concerns
We come now to an objection that raises fundamental arguments about the role of government in setting standards and providing for the public safety. That is the argument that graduated licensing interferes with parental rights. However, parents strongly support GDL. A 2000 study of California parents of young drivers who had been through GDL found parental support in excess of 90 percent for most elements. Indeed, parents look to the law for guidance, just as they do for child safety seats. GDL empowers parents. Although parents like the convenience of not having to drive children to school and activities, they also recognize the risks of turning them loose too soon
Indeed, graduated licensing does impose some limits on a parent’s discretion to allow their child to drive, just as does the current minimum driving age, and many other basic government restrictions. I am very interested in hearing your observations, and experiences with similar arguments. How does the legislature balance these concerns?
The peak times for young driver accidents and fatalities are after school and in the evening (3-5 and 9-11 p.m.). Studies indicate that 16-year-olds have similar lifestyles in terms of social, dating and work patterns, whether they live in states where many or few are licensed to drive. So, in spite of their perceptions, later licensure has no apparent effect on social life, but it does have an effect on survival.
Undoubtedly, these questions of how great an imposition on lifestyles has arisen before in a number of contexts. How do you make decisions balancing these considerations?
Rural Concerns
Rural legislators also have raised objections to graduated licensing, based on the greater need for teen drivers to assist with family transport. While rural communities are often more dependent on auto transport, they also have much higher fatality rates. Rural roads are less forgiving. To address these concerns, States often include exemptions to the nighttime driving restriction for school and work. However, recent research from Johns Hopkins University has indicated that graduated licensing laws are more effective when they have more comprehensive provisions in place. It is important to remember that the intermediate stage restrictions typically are in place for a short period of time, typically 6 or 12 months.
Increased Exposure
A key argument raised by the two Arkansas teenagers was that passenger restrictions will increase exposure. This argument, while not real, appeared to have an impact in the bill’s defeat there last month. The presence of passengers is a major contributor to the teenage death toll. In 2003 almost half of deaths involving 16-year-old drivers occurred when passengers were present. Having 3 passengers results in a 3-fold increase in the likelihood of a fatality. In no case has a state enacted a passenger restriction and seen an increase in fatalities involving the affected group of drivers
Thank you for taking time to think about this critical problem. I appreciate your thoughts and insights, and I look forward to working with you in your state.
|
