Teens Deride Bill to Restrict Licenses

Honestly, says 18-year-old Cody Cullen, it’s hard enough being a teenager these days, balancing yourself on the dizzying cusp of adulthood while many parents and teachers still insist on treating you like a kid.

They already make too many decisions for you: You can’t legally drink until you’re 21, or vote until you’re 18. There are curfews and restrictions and stern advice to pick the right college quickly if you know what’s good for you.

But this time the adults have gone too far. They’re messing with one of the few real freedoms a teenager has left: the right to drive a car by your lonesome, to offer a friend a ride home after school, to roll down the windows and laugh together as your hair billows in the breeze or, even more important, to stretch a hot date past the Cinderella hour of midnight.

A bill sailing through Sacramento would impose a series of new restrictions on some teenage drivers in an effort to cut down on lax driving habits and traffic accidents, which are the No. 1 killer of teenagers nationwide.

Earlier this week, the state Senate passed the driving bill by a 29-0 vote. It covers young drivers with learner’s permits and 16- and 17-year-old drivers, who are now issued provisional licenses allowing them to drive a motor vehicle alone, with certain restrictions.

Based on a similar Canadian law that legislators credit with a 55% reduction in teenage driving deaths, the Senate bill would impose limits on new drivers carrying passengers under the age of 20 or driving from midnight to 5 a.m. (Some exceptions would be made, including drivers going to work.) If passed by the Assembly and signed by Gov. Pete Wilson, it will become law July 1, 1998.

Students like Cullen call the law just another roadblock imposed by adults. He was particularly irked by comments from one legislator that the rules were being imposed on teenagers “because we love them.”

*

“It’s all bull,” he said. “Once again, adults are trying to save us from ourselves. It’s just another version of the old lie that ‘This is going to hurt me more than it does you.’ ”

For one thing, said 16-year-old Kelley Newman, the proposal is impractical.

“Parties don’t start till 10:30, and to be expected to get home before 12, I think, is ridiculous,” said Newman, a student at Estancia High School in Costa Mesa.

The law would be among the nation’s most restrictive for new drivers. For the first six months under a provisional license, for example, a teenager could not transport passengers under age 20 unless accompanied by a parent or other licensed driver at least 25 years old--with certain exceptions for family-, medical-, work- and school-related necessities.

In their first year, provisional license-holders would be barred from driving from midnight to 5 a.m. except with a parent or other licensed driver at least 25 years old. The law would also require a beginner to train behind the wheel at least 50 hours; there is no such rule now.

Also, new drivers would have to keep that learner’s permit for six months instead of the present 30 days before applying for a provisional driver’s license. Penalties for violating the new rules would involve fines and community work.

Several teenagers in Orange County called the rules a move in the wrong direction that would discourage young drivers from carpooling and, worse yet, from having designated drivers ferry drinkers home after parties.

Kristen Whitney, 16, a sophomore at Newport Harbor High in Newport Beach, said she would ignore the restrictions and serve as a designated driver, law or no law, if her friends had been drinking.

“I wouldn’t leave my friends behind even if it was against the law,” she said.

In fact, at Newport Harbor High, several students said the law would be largely ignored by teenagers--even though 10 students from that school were packed in a car that flipped on May 23, killing one and critically injuring two others.

“I don’t think it would change anything,” said Janice Perry, 14, a student at the high school. “People wouldn’t follow the rules.” Teenagers, she said, believe “it’s not going to happen to me; it’ll happen to someone else.”

Added fellow student Amy Holland, 15, “We already have too many restrictions. We don’t need any more.”

*

Some said new rules would unfairly target teenagers. Adults have accidents too, they pointed out.

Some teens said they had been involved in crashes that were an adult’s fault, and which happened at a time of day earlier than the curfew the law proposes. Newman, for example, said a woman rear-ended him on a freeway during rush hour.

“Adults do stupid things behind the wheel too,” said Edward Peterkin, 16, a student at Estancia High. “What about the 90-year-old grandmother? Is she a great driver?”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Teen Accidents

California drivers, age 15 to 17, at fault in fatal and injury accidents:

*--*

Year Fatal Injury 1992 137 9,497 1993 134 9,307 1994 142 9,793 1995 127 9,098 1996 141 9,393

*--*

Source: California Highway Patrol