ATLANTA - Young drivers may face even more restrictions in their first years behind the wheel as the state Legislature considers several new rules for teen drivers.
Among the bills introduced Wednesday by a bipartisan group of House members is a new rule allowing first-year drivers to carry only one non-family member in the car, not three.
Another law would allow parents to suspend a child's driver's license for at least 90 days. The parents could simply pay $15 to the Department of Motor Vehicle Services and have the child's license suspended, from 90 days or until the child turns 18, at the parent's discretion.
The sponsor of the bills, Republican Rep. Joe Wilkinson of Sandy Springs, said the new rules would tighten supervision of young drivers.
Wilkinson called the license suspension a discipline tool. "It is the ultimate weapon for a parent," he said. "The most important thing to a teen is that driver's license."
He called the passenger bill a safety measure. Currently a driver can carry three non-relatives after six months of having a license. Wilkinson's plan would allow just one friend in the car after six months, then more non-relatives after a year.
"These new drivers are easily distracted," he said.
It's been four years since the Legislature overhauled driving laws to supervise new drivers. The changes, made in response to news reports about teen accident fatalities, included "provisional" licenses for new drivers and license suspensions for young drivers who speed 25 mph over the limit.
The changes were largely backed by metro Atlanta lawmakers from both parties. Rural lawmakers generally resisted the changes, and succeeded in snuffing a plan to raise the driving age to 18.
But some metro lawmakers say more should be done. Rep. Roger Bruce, D-Atlanta, joined Wilkinson's measures and says he plans a revive a bill to require driver's ed classes for new drivers.
"We need to do anything and everything we can to make roads safer for teens," he said.
Rural lawmakers said they didn't know enough about Wilkinson's proposals to decide whether they'd oppose them, but at least one said he doubted the parental suspension plan would work.
"I would doubt whether parents would revoke their children's licenses," said Rep. Richard Royal, D-Camilla. "Right now we're having them calling to get them restored if they get suspended."
One of Wilkinson's proposals would affect all drivers, not just teens. He introduced a bill Wednesday raising the fine for not wearing a seat belt from $15 to $50.
The $15 fine "doesn't seem to have any bite," he said.
Akaran of Mistmoore, formerly Akaran of Veeshan I know I'm good at what I do, but I know I'm not the best.
But I guess that on the other hand, I could be like the rest.
Only a $15 fine for not wearing your seatbelt?
What a joke.
The fine up here is somewhere around $100.
Canada has an average seat belt usage rate of close to 93%.
I think the US has an average rate of around 80%... that's not very good.
I've got 99 problems and I'm not dealing with any of them - Lay-Z
None of it really bothers me, but it seems poorly thought out and unnecessary.
The part about changing passenger restrictions makes some sense, but will only make laws more complex and difficult to enforce, as officers have to wade through a set of rules regarding the age of the driver, how long he's had his drivers license, who's in his car, how they're related to him, and so on. It's an unexplained and difficult to enforce infringement on a privilege that people currently have.
The part about allowing parents to suspend their kids licenses is OK. I wonder why it's necessary. Can't the parent just take away the kids driving privileges? I know it can be hard for parents to make kids listen to them, but parents certainly have access to a whole host of instruments for behavior change.
I suppose there are situations where a childs behavior is incorrigible, and in this case I guess it might be useful to be able to legally suspend the license.
What if you run into a situation where a responsible teenager has earned a drivers license and worked to pay for a car, but his or her parents see fit to suspend his license for their own arbitrary reasons? Is that morally acceptable? Should a responsible seventeen year old have a legal privilege that he earned taken away because he called his junkie dad a smack addict?
Most importantly: Will this legislation create significant progress toward solving the problem of unsafe teenage drivers? I say no.
The number of passengers restriction when you get your licence so early in the US is a worthy idea, regardless of how difficult it is to establish (it could just be a notation on your licence when you get it, or they might have to look you up on the computer, either way a lot of this is about if there is a law they'll generally obey it)
Suspending the licence is because Americans have apparently admitted that they don't have control over their kids, and I can understand that, I saw it every day when I lived there.
May 2003 - "Mission Accomplished"
June 2005 - "The mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight"
-- G W Bush, freelance writer for The Daily Show.
