Free Consultation (800) 777-4081
Menu

Lawmakers Divided over Amended Teen-Driving Bill

Pennsylvania lawmakers are divided over amendments to legislation passed by the House to rigorously regulate drivers younger than age 21.

The House version limited teen drivers to one nonfamily passenger younger than age 18 and allowed law enforcement officers to stop and cite young drivers for seat belt violations and use of cell phones while driving. The current law only allowed officers to stop drivers for other offenses before they could be cited for these violations.

The Pennsylvania Senate version essentially gutted the main House provisions of the bill by making a cell phone violation a secondary offense, meaning that officers cannot pull over teen drivers if they see them using a cell phone. It also permitted teen drivers up to three nonfamily passengers if they had no accidents after six months of driving. Legislators from rural communities where public transportation was unavailable felt that the restrictions were unreasonable as they precluded carpooling over long distances.

The original version was supported by safety advocates, law enforcement, the medical community and the insurance industry. Nearly every state has similar measures to regulate teen drivers, and supporters cite the overwhelming evidence that motor vehicle accidents are the leading cause of death for people ages 15 to 20. When the Senate proposed the amendments, the original backers of the bill found they could no longer support it.

While regulating the habits of young people rarely meets opposition, especially when safety is concerned, the amendments to the Pennsylvania teen driving bill appear to be more of a reaction to perceived governmental intrusion into private affairs. Senator Eichelberger (R-Blair) commented that while he appreciated concerns for safety, he thought the measure was a step toward government eventually stopping people for nearly anything as an excuse to increase safety and reduce motor vehicle accidents.

Another Senate spokesperson believed that enforcement of existing reckless driving laws and educating people to take more personal responsibility would be more effective. While the bill will probably not return to the House version, these and any other compromises may well doom it.

These arguments mirror the libertarian stance of many current Republican lawmakers who feel that any government involvement or regulation is insidious and an erosion of individual rights and freedom. When the rights and freedoms of others are affected by the reckless behavior of others, however, all leaders need to find a reasonable balance that addresses the practical application of these laws.

schedule a free consultation all fields required *
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
View All Locations