Gov. George E. Pataki is trying to reduce the number of automobile accidents in New York State. Legislation signed this week mandates that 16 and 17-year-olds log 20 hours of driving experience with a driving instructor or a licensed driver over the age of 21 over the course of six months after receiving a learner's permit. After that, a junior license with "limited-class" driving privileges can be obtained. They would not be eligible for a full license until 18 years of age.
If motor safety is being brought to the forefront, then Pataki must go the distance and expand his recent limitations to include other demographics that endanger others on the road; namely, the elderly.
Pataki cites teenagers as being four times more likely to get into an auto accident than all other age groups combined, and he says a 16-year-old is five times more likely than an 18-year-old to be involved in one. However, the governor is ignoring the entirety of the issue. While this initiative has the right idea, directing driving reform at solely teenagers is inappropriate.
New drivers are, by definition, less experienced than those who have been driving for years. If the driving age were to be changed to 20, people in their twenties would be more likely to be in an accident than other age groups. Inexperience is more important than age in this instance, and teenagers hardly hold the monopoly on irresponsible or inept driving. Any motion to make the roads safer for citizens is laudable, but this legislation fails to take into account the whole of the problem.
The elderly, while not statistically higher than teenagers in terms of accidents, are more likely to be involved in an accident. According to the 2000 Census, citizens over the age of 65 comprise 12.7 percent of the general population, and according to a May 9, 2000, Christian Science Monitor article, 18 percent of automobile accidents are caused by members of the over-65 age group.
Pataki is ignoring a huge part of the problem when he concentrates only on 16 and 17-year-olds. Perhaps the elderly voting demographic has swayed the governor's judgment. After all, senior citizens are among the highest voting participants in the country, while people under 18 cannot vote at all. Since parents are also likely to support this plan, it seems that Pataki is killing two birds with one stone, first by lobbying for the elderly vote, and second by placating parents.
Gradual acclamation to driving nuances is important as it relates to teenagers; perhaps a similar program needs to be set into place for senior citizens. If 16 or 17-year-olds must have graduated tiers of driving privilege, maybe those above an arbitrary age should have to periodically prove their driving ability to the state. This is only pragmatic, since many physical and mental conditions can go unnoticed by those afflicted for years. As people get older, this becomes more prevalent.
It is easy for Pataki to be proactive in limiting teenage driving because he has no accountability to them. The restrictions are a good idea, but they only go halfway. Should Pataki honestly want to convince his constituents that he wants to tackle the problem of reckless and irresponsible driving, it is essential that he support the imposition of checks on elderly drivers. In disregarding this warning, the governor risks not only his political integrity, but also the lives of those that would be lost due to citizens who have no business operating a motor vehicle.
Photo: Courtesy of Laron Fomby
