Law requires bumper stickers advertising youth
The legislature and governor of New Jersey have lost their collective common sense, which is to say, they are politicians. The former passed and the latter signed a law set to take effect in 2010 that will require drivers age 21 and younger to put on the bumpers of their cars stickers letting fellow drivers know they are road hazards. The exact wording of said sticker has not been determined.
The research is unequivocal: Teenage drivers are a generally dangerous bunch. A few supporting facts (from a highly recommended online article at www.edmunds.com/advice/womenfamilies/articles/44908/article.html ):
• Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for American teenagers.
• When driver-fatality rates are calculated on the basis of estimated annual travel, teen drivers (ages 16 to 19) have a fatality rate that is about four times higher than the fatality rate among drivers ages 25 through 69.
• Sixty-five percent of teen passenger deaths occur when another teenager is driving.
I long have been a proponent of not letting youngsters acquire driving privileges until two conditions have been satisfied: age 18 and a high-school diploma. When I ask parents, "Would you allow your child to ingest a substance that is not inherently toxic, but for unexplained reasons proves fatal to one child in, say, ten thousand?" No parent ever has answered in the affirmative.
"So why then are you allowing your 16-year-old to drive a car?" I then ask, and the hemming and hawing begins.
Laws extending driving privileges to 16-year-olds were established when cars were far less powerful, roads were far less crowded, and 16-year-olds were far more mature (and please, 16-year-olds, don't waste your time writing me letters of protest, confirming my point).
Nonetheless, there is no public good to be had by requiring young people to advertise on the bumpers of their cars that they are young. I seriously doubt that other people, so informed, are going to give said drivers wider berth. And if they do, the Law of Unintended Consequences is very likely to kick in. The young driver, having more space around him, might increase his or her speed. Or change lanes. Or take the opportunity to take in the sunset. You get my point, I'm sure.
Then there's the predator thing. The research clearly indicates that teenage girls are at greatest risk for sexual predation. As a father, I would not want my teenage daughter driving around with a bumper sticker announcing her vulnerability. There are all sorts of ways of persuading or forcing people to pull over, and if this once happened to my wife (who realized, in the nick of time, what the individual, a male, probably had in mind), then it certainly can happen to a youngster who is considerably more naive.
And if danger to others is the issue, then why require "ageist" bumper stickers only of the younger set• Why not require them of the other age group that constitutes the second most statistical danger to other drivers -- the elderly• Or, how about requiring bumper stickers of people who are short, have been diagnosed with psychiatric or sleep disorders, have restless-leg syndrome, a child or children in the car with them, are confused as to the meaning of "Objects in Mirror Are Closer Than They Appear," are dyslexic or directionally impaired, put on makeup or use their cell phones while driving, or cannot resist looking at themselves in mirrors?
Imagine the public good of bumper stickers reading "Beware! Narcissist Driver!"
Crashproof Your Kids
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Steelers’ defense on pace for fewest sacks in 16-game season
- Consumer, core prices inch up
- Flyers continue mastery of Penguins at Consol
- Penn State defense returns to familiar spot atop Big Ten Conference
- Florida fugitive nabbed in Pittsburgh-area homeless shelter
- Canadians more fearful, aware after ‘very rare’ attack
- Pitt offense eyes healthy balance
- VA promotion for administrator stuns legislator
- Highmark seeks double-digit increase for more benefits, heavy use
- PS New Kensington men’s soccer earns playoff win
- Laurel Mountain ski plan needs more information, planners say