Why not try it? Why not see whether requiring a “New Driver” placard for motorists younger than 18 actually reduces accidents?
Those are the questions being asked by state Rep. Liz Pike, R-Camas, who introduced House Bill 1159 to help other drivers identify those who are less experienced on the road. Pike’s bill passed the House by a 53-44 vote and now goes to the Senate. In supporting the measure, the representative came up with an effective analogy: “When I see a student driver in one of those vehicles that has a big placard that says ‘Student Driver,’ if you’re like me, you give those students a wide berth,” she said. Many drivers can attest to the truism of that statement.
Oh, it’s nothing personal against student drivers or, in this case, newly licensed drivers. It’s just that most of us can remember how inexperienced we were and how unsure we felt behind the wheel at that age. And it’s just that mountains of statistical evidence indicate that teen drivers are more prone to accidents. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: “Young people ages 15-24 represent only 14 percent of the U.S. population. However, they account for 30 percent ($19 billion) of the total costs of motor vehicle injuries among males and 28 percent ($7 billion) of the total cost of motor vehicle injuries among females.” The percentages are even more disparate for the youngest among that age group.
So, why not require removable placards on cars driven by the most inexperienced drivers? Why not alert other motorists when such a driver is nearby? To answer those questions, the bill would create a pilot program in Clark County — which might be its biggest selling point. Rather than establishing a statewide law, it makes sense to begin the program on a small scale and then assess its effectiveness. If accidents decline among young drivers, then the program would be worth considering at the state level; if accidents don’t decline, then the program can be scuttled and no harm has been done.