What's really happening is that people who have had their license for zero years (16 year olds) have a higher rate of accidents than people who've had their license for 1 year (17 year olds).
Gee. What a shock.
In a Perez apartment revelation today, I, Senior Researcher Brendan Perez, did a study in my house and found that people who've been using Windows XP for 2 and a half years have an easier time navigating the interface, changing settings, make less mistakes etc. than people who've never used it before. People who used Windows 2000 for 2 year prior to that (me) had an even easier time using Windows XP compared to those who were using Win98/Me (my brother). More to follow.
In a few days I'm going to do another study on first time Linux users, I will compare my entry into the Linux world with my usage of Suse 9.0 for the last month and see if I have less "accidents" then my brother, who's never used it before.
California changed their system a while back to prohibit night driving and passengers until either 18 or for the 1st year (I'm not sure which). No mention whatsoever about that system.
This seems to be something that always happens, legislators pushing for more restrictions never mention the existing ones, even if they were only put in place the year before. This saves them from having to answer questions about the effectiveness of the system.
For instance, in 2001 Nevada got a "weak" version of this GDL crap. In Feb-Mar 2003, the same person who's been after teen drivers since 1995 (Barbara Cegavske-R)pushed for an even more restrictive bill all the while never mentioning the bill that was passed in April 2001 and made effective October 2001.
I couldn't attend that hearing, but watched it via webcast, someone from the National Motorists Association opposed it on several fronts and did mention that no one else had mentioned the existing law and he questioned if that had been effective or not, and if not we should ask "Why not?"
I think part of his reason for asking that wss that nearly all of the "tragedies" being used to promote this new GDL bill were already covered under (in some cases, numerous) existing laws.
One high profile crash that got more mileage in the news than all other similar adult caused tragedies put together involved an unlicensed 16 year old who was speeding and crashed, killing herself and two others, and injuring one.
Barbara Cegavske didn't wait long before using this crash to promote more restrictive licensing laws. The survivor of the crash was also quoted in several articles talking about how she thought it should be harder for teens to get a license.
The flaws in these arguments were numerous.
-The bill that was being promoted didn't actually make it harder to get a license, it should made it harder on teens after they got their license.
-Even if it did make it harder, is that really what we want to do given that this is all being promoted because of a crash by an unlicensed driver.
-A bill that places additional restrictions on teens after they get their license is touted by its supporters as one "that could saved this Las Vegas High School teens", despite the unlicensed and thus, illegal status of that driver.
What they seem to be saying is that a driver who would break the law by speeding, not wearing a seat belt and not having a license would listen to a law that requires 16 year old licenseholders to be passenger free for the first 2 months.
-The girl who survived and promotes GDL is probably doing some kind of projection of blame, guilt, and/or anger. She chose to ride in a car driven by a friend who had no license, was known to speed, and she chose not to wear her seat belt. Because of that, she thinks all future teens should be burdened by additional restrictions because she couldn't follow the existing law.
Another crash was by a 16 year old who had had his license for 9 days, had several passngers in his car and was speeding, possibly racing with another car, ran a stop sign and hit an 18 wheeler. The driver and (I believe) front seat passneger died. Barbara Cegavske and several others were quick to editorialize and make their voices heard in the news as how "this crash proves we need graduated licensing in Nevada".
Problem for them is, we did have GDL then,
this was in August 2002 nearly 10 months after GDL went into effect. The driver, Ryan Sneed, was breaking the law by having passengers in his car during the first 2 months of his licensure, not wearing his seat belt, speeding, racing, and running a stop sign.
A few of the later accidents could be looked at as possibly having been prevented by the proposed law, as they only involved speeding or loss of control. But those technically relevant accidents weren't the ones used to promote more restrictions. There were 3 in Nothern Nevada, one involved racing (against a 23 year old ), anther involved leaving the road, overcorrecting, and losing control, and another involved a 16 year old driver of two weeks who was off-roading, lost control, and crashed killing his 14 year old passenger. The last one was covered under existing law if the lands were public, or not covered at all if the land was private-no license and few traffic laws apply on private property.
The Reno-Gazette Journal was quick to jump on this last accident, while lumping it in with those from Las Vegas, claiming that GDL was needed to prevent accidents like this.
They did print my letter-I pointed out that no one was talking about improving drivers ed, only raising the age which would transfer accidents. I also pointed out that nearly all of the accidents they used to justify more GDL were covered under existing law.
Two months ago, in Henderson, a 16 year old driver of 9 weeks crashed his car into a wall, killing 3 of his 4 passengers-the 3 killed were all 15. As details emerged, we found out that he was speeding, not wearing a seat belt, possibly drunk, at 1:30 am.
The very next day, Barbara Cegavske was in the paper talking about this wreck as one that could have been prevented if the GDL bill in 2003 hadn't died in committee.
The LVRJ printed someone eles's letter instead of mine. It made nearly the same point as mine-that it's silly to think that someone who would break numerous existing laws by speeding, not wearing a seat belt, driving drunk, drinking under 21, and being out past midnight would somehow listen to a law that said no passengers.
Even though he's under 18, the police released his name because the DA "might" try him as an adult and we found out his BAC was .19.
He recently pleaded guilty in juvenile court and got a sentence that I feel was proportional to his level of rights and privileges, he'll be held in a juvenile facility until he's 18, no license until he's 21, probation 18-21 and a bunch of hours of community service.
In an LVRJ article, Sandy Heaverly of StopDUI said he should have been tried as an adult and that Nevada needs "blended sentencing". Towards the end of that article, she, surprise!, said that she supports GDL. I emailed her and asked her if it's not just a little inconsistent to want a 16 year treated as an adult for driving drunk, while all other 16 year olds are treated as children when it comes to receiving their license. I also asked how she reconciled this desire for adult treatment with the 21 drinking age.
She never responded.
The father of one of the kids killed, another surprise, also wants GDL AND he wanted the driver tried as an adult. In one of the LVRJ's forums I pointed out that this would mean his son was also essentially an adult. An adult who chose to get in the car with an obviously drunk driver who, according to news sources, was known for speeding, and chose not to wear his seat belt. This would mean his son would bear some responsibilty for his own death.
I wonder if the fathers desire for GDL is the same kind of blame/guilt/anger thing that I think drove the girl in the 2002 crash to push for GDL.
In 2005, we will see yet another push for GDL and everyone will dance on the graves of those three dead 15 year olds and some will bring up every crash since 2000 no matter how many existing laws they were breaking.
I will do everything in my power to be at that hearing so I can ask if the existing law works before we simply move on, and if it doesn't work, why doesn't it work? The answer is that it doesn't work because it's being ignored, in which case a stricter law will do no good. I'll also point out that the crashes that led to the current law were covered under the existing laws as well.
I'll end my rant here. Sorry for the lengthy post, just wanted to point how disingenuous the GDL movement is.
[This message has been edited by Brendan Perez (edited March 14, 2004).]
Login 
Register 
Forum
