A Fresh Look at Teenage Drivers

A Fresh Look at Teenage Drivers
by Bud Malmsten

Mark Twain cautioned that no one should rest easy while the Legislature is in session. We are being reminded of that warning. As I write, Washington state's bunch is considering a bill that could unnecessarily complicate the process by which a young person gets a driver's license. It would not surprise me if other states have similar stuff on their legislative plates.

SB 5449 ("Issuing provisional drivers' licenses") was introduced last year by some well-meaning senators, and it has been carried over into the present session. Briefly, these are the main provisions of the bill:

The minimum age for holding a driver's license is raised to age 18. The minimum age for holding a learner's permit is raised to 16. Driver's licenses currently held by persons under the age of 18 and learner's permits held by persons under age 16 are canceled.

Regardless of age, a person must have held an instruction permit for a minimum of two years in order to qualify for a license. In order to drive under an instruction permit, a person must be accompanied by a licensed driver with at least three years driving experience and no traffic infractions or offenses on their record.

I am going to spare you the burden of including the whole thing here, but if you are really interested, you can find it on the Internet by clicking here.

The Senators have real concerns. For instance, "[d]rivers aged 16 to 19 have collision rates three times higher than those for the overall population and fatality rates that are twice as high" (SB 5449).

Insurance companies use the same statistics when the set their rates for teenage drivers. In fact, they count everyone under 25 in the same category. They contend that young people -- boys especially -- account for a disproportionate percentage of violations, collisions, and fatalities; therefore young drivers should be charged more for insurance coverage. A statistical slam dunk! End of argument. End of column. But... what if...?

How can there be any doubts here?

Well, what if someone took another look at the "why" of the statistics?

Try this. Let's say you are a boy, sixteen years old, about to get your first driver's license, and your parents have an old clunker they are going to let you drive. Let's say they have said you can use the car, but you will need to pay the insurance costs. Then let's say you discover that the cost of insurance for "your" car is going to be about twice as much as the cars your parents drive combined!

You scream, "WHY?!?!?"

And the best answer anyone can dredge up is, "[s]tatistics prove that teenagers [boys especially] account for a disproportionate percentage of violations, collisions, and fatalities; therefore teenage drivers should be charged more for insurance coverage."

So you say, "But... but... but I have never had a violation, or a collision...."

Mr. Insurance replies, "Riiiigghhht." And his body language, the tone of his voice, everything about him is shouting, "But you will!"

As it stands, everyone knows you are sixteen years old, and about to be unleashed on an unsuspecting world. It is your supposed goal to go out and break as many driving rules as you can on the way to trashing your dad's car. How do you feel, about now? Like dirt? How would you rate your incentive to drive the way you were taught in Driver's Ed? I thought so. Deep down inside you are thinking, "what difference does it make, anyway?"

Now, let's try another scenario. Let's pretend you are just fifteen years old, and your family insurance agent visits your home. He says, "We know you are getting close to being old enough to drive, and we want to help. We are prepared to advance -- as a loan -- up to $500.00 to get you enrolled in the best Driver's Education program available. After you get your license, your family can repay that loan at the rate of $50.00 every six months -- with your regular insurance payment. Also, for every six month period that you drive with no moving violations, and no collisions, we will reduce the balance owing by an additional $50.00."

Am I dreaming? Driver's Ed for half the cost to the family? Let me dream on.

The agent continues, "We also know that your age group demonstrates the very highest levels of all the skills necessary to be excellent drivers (hand/eye coordination, mental agility, etc.), so we want to challenge you with our highest expectations. We are going to consider you in our "Best Driver" category when you first get your license. As long as you demonstrate those excellent driving skills, your insurance costs will be at our lowest rate. However, one moving violation, or one collision will put you immediately into our highest risk category. It is up to you."

Am I still dreaming? Probably. But what if some insurance company had the nerve to give this idea a chance? My guess is they would need to add agents to handle the rush. And why would it work? Because both the family and the company come out ahead.

Now what does this have to do with SB 5449? It makes the legislation irrelevant by solving the problem without the interference of new laws. It puts economic reality and perhaps even peer pressure on the side of safe driving.

Maybe it's worth a try.