PA's New Teen Driving Bill

Ok, let's get the paramters straight. The odds that bad things will happen will increase as one adds teenagers to a car being driven by a teenager. So I am not speaking in favor of teenagers driving in large packs. Nor am I annoyed by the passing of a bill with good intentions. I am disappointed and a bit perturbed by the thoughtlessness that drives the issue.

Here's what will happen: about 15% of parents will communicate with their children and reinforce the idea that teens should not be in cars with large numbers of teens. Great. Consequently, the number of teen deaths ought to decrease - at least for awhile - as the culture changes and people are encouraged to use common sense. Fewer teens will be injured or killed on the highways? Also great.

What angers me is that people are now begging the government to do what they already have the power to do. Really, it's depressing. You mean to tell me that we as a community, a state, or a country need a law to tell us that we shouldn't let our children go carousing in cars in large numbers? For crying out loud, how ridiculous is that?

I am in the process of raising three children, all of whom have thankfully made it out of their teens without hurting themselves while riding or driving. My daughter, however, is the only one of the three who has experienced a close call. She and one other teen were driving off somewhere when the driver lost control on an S turn, ran off the road, and sliced a pine tree with a two feet diameter trunk in half. They flipped, sawed the tree in half, and landed on the roof of the SUV. They survived because they were wearing their seat belts, and because they were driving a five star crash rated car.

I haven't read the details of the law that PA is waiting to pass, but I don't think the law would have prevented the two girls from driving together. They would still have the chance to get into trouble. And yes, the accident was directly related to the driver's inexperience. She was not being reckless, but she was also not driving as safely as she should have been.

I don't feel, however, that luck is the only reason that my children have made it to adulthood. I am not foolish enough to think that each is above or beyond expereincing a car accident. However, I didn't buy my kids a car when they turned 16 or 17. In fact, my 20 year old has never owned a car. He drives as the opportunity or necessity presnets itself, and I was the one who put in the driving hours with them when they had their learner's permits. I had one rule. Learn to be in control of your vehicle and your driving environment. If i don't see evidence of adherence to rule no. 1 - the only rule - a parent will not be escorting or supporting their driver exam appointment. All of them are good drivers. My oldest drives too fast for my tastes, but he is always in control of his car. My daughter is less alert than I would like her to be, but she drives concervatively and with a little bit of healthy fear. My youngest thinks he has every situation under control, which worries me sometimes, but he has demonstrated a solid sense of the risks that are out there.

I suppose that my children at some point in the teens, have probably been in cars that, according to the imminent law, were overcrowded with teen passengers. On the other hand, they knew from their parents - in fact, their mother more than I - that driving was a dangerous and responsibility-laden business. I am not naive enough to think they never took chances or did a foolish thing. What I am saying is that some of our good fortune is the result of their knowing that we expected them to behave in a certain way. I don't think they always listened, but I think their risk was lowered because they had clear understanding of their responsibilites and our expectations.

My largest point is that the passage of this law flies in the face of what I know. We need parents to do a better job of establishing the rules and expectations for their children. Relying on the government to do this job is problematic. The driving law is a piece of the big picture issue. It may save some lives for awhile, but I think it undermines the ideal situation. Parents, to the best of their ability, set the rules and teach the lessons. We all know that parents will now rely on the law to curtail the overcrowding of cars with teens. Lost will be the conversations that help teens to learn how to regulate their behaviors. In fact, we seem to have admitted defeat in this area; why else would we need the government's supervision to enforce common sense.

I know that some will read this and think that I am just being a contrarian. I am often that, but this new law really bothers me. As in all cases, teens will often follow the rule for fear of fines and tickets, but riding in large crowds of teens will also become the 'cool' thing to do when teen drivers think no adult is looking. Those teens who are not parented well will still take risks, and so will some very well parented teens. Teenagers are by nature irresponsible, and often reckless. How best can they be helped to regulate behavior while they make their way to adulthood? Let's pass laws that prohibit smoking and drinking. Let's pass laws that prohibit truancy from school. Let's pass laws that set curfews. We do all of these things because parents have relinquished responsibility for raising their children. Last time I checked, teens were breaking all of these rules and some others. A new driving law will have limited effect.

We should not be reliant on the government for the enforcement of common sense expectations. Neither the government nor the parent can curtail all the recless or negative behaviors. What bothers me is that parents won't have the required constant dialogue with their kids. Many parents will rely on their being a rule. They won't talk to their kids about the big picture; they will say, don't do it or you will lose your license or be fined. They will use the existence of the law to shorten the conversation. I want the conversation to be longer and more comprehensive.