State passes law to discriminate against teen drivers
By Matt Grantz, Assistant Editor
November 9 , 2011
We often hear about teenagers driving dangerously and about teens dying in accidents. While we teens often roll our eyes and shrug our shoulders when we hear these stories and warnings, they are supported by the statistics. While we are shrugging our shoulders, adults leading our government have been examining these statistics – about 3,000 teens died in car accidents in 2009 according to the Centers for Disease Control – and are seeking a way to protect teens.
Unfortunately, the latest effort by Pennsylvania’s government could cause some problems.
Before I delve into the negatives of the plan, let me lay out the functions of the law as summarized in the Gov. Corbett’s press release. The law enforces a limit on the number of passengers a junior driver (person under 18 with a driver’s license) may carry; one for the first six months and three for the rest of the period until the driver turns 18. It also increases the number of hours a person carrying a permit must drive from 50 to 65 and requires PennDOT to compile reports on junior drivers involved in accidents with multiple passengers under the age of 18.
The above requirements are all relatively reasonable and, while annoying, are rather easy to comply with. There is, however, one section of the law that I see as an area to be concerned about. This section makes it a primary offense (an offense for which police can pull a driver over) for a teenager, whether driver or passenger, not to wear a seatbelt. The law for drivers over 18 states that if they don’t wear seatbelts, it is a secondary offense (an offense police can ticket drivers for only if they’re pulled over for something else).
I don’t have a problem with being required to wear a seatbelt. The problem I have is that this law is clearly discriminatory, singling out any driver between the ages of 16 and 18 as a target while older drivers, who can be just as reckless, get a pass as long as they aren’t breaking another law.
The counter-argument lawmakers use is that teens are less likely to wear a seatbelt and more likely to suffer injuries so it is necessary for teens’ protection. But my question is why don’t adults need this protection? I think the obvious answer is that teenagers can’t vote, so there won’t be any backlash.
Another problem with this law is its potential for easy abuse by the police. Police will now look for drivers who look as if they are 16 or 17 and pull them over, claiming they didn’t see a seatbelt, obviously causing inconvenience for drivers between 16 and 18 and over those ages who look to be 16 or 17. That’s a great many drivers. Pulling over drivers resembling 16- and 17-year-olds will also lead to a waste of valuable public resources because police will waste gas and man-hours chasing the innocent while potentially dangerous speeders or drunk drivers escape.
I see the possible abuses of this law and its inclination to encourage discrimination, or driver profiling, as very good reasons to repeal this law. While protecting teenagers is important and seatbelts are an important part of such protection, no law should discriminate because any type of discrimination is banned under Article I, Section 26 of the state constitution.
Just because there will be no political backlash does not mean that the state can violate teens’ constitutional rights. I urge all who care about this issue to write to their legislators in order to end this discrimination.
[comments] |
