VIRGINIA legislators have once again responded to a legitimate social problem with imprudence and ignorance. As of July 1, the driving laws have been amended so that you must be 15 and 6 months old to obtain a learner's permit and must have had the learner's permit for nine months before you can obtain a drivers license. Another more relevant amendment that did not get as much press is a stipulation that drivers under the age of 20 convicted of a moving, seatbelt or child seat violation must attend a driver improvement course. These new restrictions on young people are not only ineffective, but also discriminatory in nature.
Everyone can point the finger at an easily blamed portion of the population without political backlash. The drivers affected who aren't voting-age adults are singled out and marginalized as the source of our horrible traffic in Virginia. Particular actions, such as talking on a cell phone while operating a motor vehicle, are even more hazardous to public safety. For the most recent legislation on cell phone use the General Assembly should be commended.
|
Using a cell phone while driving distracts attention from activity on the road. One cannot definitely say that the 16 and 3 month driver is less distracted than the 16 year old.
Inexperience may make young drivers less capable of driving safely, but they must start sometime. Three months difference in supervised practice will not make a considerable change in maturity behind the wheel. That is gained along the way on your own.
Furthermore, when rating likelihood of age to affect driving skill, the most prominent example would probably fall on the upper end of the age spectrum rather than the lower. While this may not be the appropriate forum for bashing the elderly drivers of America, the point is that legislators would never cap the maximum age for driving because of the political significance of the older population. After all, as dangerous as it might be on the roads, old people do drive out to the voting booths significantly more than their younger counterparts.
Two more negative side effects may also come from this band-aid over the sore of bad driving. The first is the loss of a sense of efficacy among more young people, thus lowering voter turnout when the 16 year olds turn 18. This will continue to limit the prominent campaign issue focus to interests of the more aged such as Medicare, social security, prescription drug benefits and the state of Florida.
The second possible residual effect is to delay the positive economic consequences of a round of 16th birthdays for three months. Parents sometimes buy their children an automobile when they become old enough to drive and this delay of money flow may only serve to weaken a possibly still slow economy when July rolls around.
This first effect should be of particular concern because the cycle of apathy cannot be changed by the few politically active young people. They face legislation that discriminates on the basis of age for activities, such as driving or drinking, that are dangerous only because of carelessness. Responsibility and maturity are lessons that have yet to be learned by many people well beyond 16 for driving, or 21 for drinking for that matter.
This new law perverts the democratic system of government. Our leaders are supposed to represent their constituents in making laws while considering the basic rights and freedoms of minority groups. An effective opposition of such bills would fail even if it ran a very tight grassroots campaign among those directly affected. For laws like the new driving age, the moving violation penalty and the underage drinking law, members of the non-voting age population along with a politically insignificant number of voting age citizens have been targeted to bear the shame of the state's problems.
This driving age law is the last of a cowardly series of legislation to find easy passage to the books for a "quick fix" to a much wider problem. Sadly, this law will stand because of the political impossibility of mobilizing enough people to take action against a law that doesn't affect them at all. At the least, our lawmakers should recognize their heightened responsibility when passing bills for those with little or no voice in the political process. Preferably, though, laws affecting a targeted age group ought to be approved by a majority of those affected, to best ensure a sense of political efficacy in everyday politics.
(Matt West is a Cavalier Daily viewpoint writer.)
Read More
PARTING SHOT: No man is an island
By Ava MacBlane | 2 days agoRetirement, as you can tell, has been treating me well. When people ask me now if I miss it, I laugh and tell them some things I definitely don't miss. But I don't always get to tell them about the things I really do miss.
PARTING SHOT: You never know unless you try
By Lexi Baker | 2 days agoMy time at the University was shaped by the people who showed me grace and kindness and by those who had confidence in me, even when I struggled to have it in myself.
PARTING SHOT: A love letter to Cav Daily and Connection
By Ava Proehl | 3 days agoMy time here taught me to look for the genuine, human connection in every moment.
