Towson
State Government
Final paper
May 2005

Overview

Every few months, another community suffers through a familiar refrain: The shocking, heart-wrenching announcement, followed by the spontaneous school vigils. The flock of television cameras capturing the tears of relatives. The friends placing candles and teddy bears at the crash site. Then comes the standing-room-only funeral, and an empty seat in the classroom the next day. Puzzling questions inevitably come to haunt the mourners: Why did they have to speed, why did they have to drink, why did they have to swerve off the street? Friends and family members are left alone, to slowly come to grips with the loss.

It’s a pattern repeated all too often in Maryland, and across the country: Another teenager killed behind the wheel of an automobile. Between September 2004 and April 2005, at least 17 teenagers in the Washington area died in automobile accidents (Snyder). The reasons differed: Alcohol, speed, loss of control. But the deaths had one common factor: The victims were young.

The deaths helped spur lawmakers in the Maryland General Assembly to pass a series of bills increasing the penalties and restrictions for new teenage drivers.

“This year, lawmakers [seized] on teen driving as they had on drunken driving a generation earlier, seeing it as a bipartisan issue that could score political points and do some good in the process,” the Washington Post reported last month (Snyder).

The bills were the culmination of years of work by several lawmakers, especially Dels. William Bronrott (D-Montgomery) and Adrienne Mandel (D-Montgomery). Mandel had been trying, since 1997, to pass tougher teen driving laws. She became familiar with the complaints from her colleagues: “Other delegates said, ‘What are you doing? You’re going to make me drive my kid to the movies on Friday night for another six months?,’” Mandel said. “Parents are talking about inconvenience, and I’m talking about saving lives.”

This year, her colleagues listened as they hadn’t before. Pressure from safety advocacy groups was especially intense, and perhaps most importantly, the state’s executive branch decided to make it a priority: In January, Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich announced a package of three bills designed to strengthen the state’s guidelines for novice drivers.

Three months later, five bills had passed both houses of the General Assembly, and they were on the way to the governor’s desk. Ehrlich is expected to sign the bills into law soon.

The Case

On an average day, 10 American teenagers are killed in teen-driven vehicles. Every April, USA Today analyzes the rate of deaths per 100,000 drivers 19 and younger. In 2000, Maryland recorded 3 deaths per 100,000 young drivers. In 2003, the number rose to 5.49 (O’Donnell; Davis).

After examining every deadly crash involving young drivers in 2003, USA Today described the “common formula for teen deaths on the USA's roadways: Put a 16-year-old boy at the wheel of an SUV. Add two or three teens, including at least one other boy. Send them out at night. Finally, let them travel fast -- and unbelted” (O’Donnell).

“This is really a public health issue,” Bella Dinh-Zarr, director of road safety policy for the American Automobile Association, told USA Today. “Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for people 1 to 35” (Davis).

With each day behind the wheel, drivers improve. (16 year olds are far worse drivers than 17, 18, or 19 year olds, according to the statistics cited by the newspaper.) Experts, advocates and officials have searched for ways to keep young drivers alive as they learn how to handle a two-ton vehicle. But around the country, highway safety officials have complained that “many state legislators, pressured by parents, have refused to tighten laws” regulating teen driving (O’Donnell). After all, the laws would create more hassle for parents.

But the string of fatal crashes in the Washington area shined a new spotlight on the issue. The accidents led law enforcement officials and safety advocates to plead for stronger regulation at a House of Delegates panel meeting in November. “Passenger restriction is the first and foremost effective measure you can take,” Kevin Quinlan of the National Transportation Safety Board told the legislators. “Given what we’ve seen in the capital area…I would suggest that this be emergency legislation” (Wagner).

Delegates Bronrott and Mandel attempted to seize the momentum of the meeting by championing several measures to strengthen teen driving laws: Passenger restrictions, cell phone use prohibitions, and increased learner’s permit supervision. Two weeks later, the editorial page of the Washington Post said “their ideas are hardly radical -- they are merely sensible” (“Maturity…”).

As the legislative session commenced in early January, Bronrott exuded confidence. Maybe this would finally be the year. “The recent spate of fatal crashes involving teens has been a huge wake-up call to many,” he told the Post on January 9. “My confidence is growing that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will embrace these remedies” (Snyder, “Session”).

On January 28, Bronrott and Mandel submitted their three bills to the General Assembly. The bills called for prohibiting provisional drivers from using cell phones while driving except to call 911; increasing the amount of required training with an adult for drivers with learner’s permits from 40 to 50 hours, including 10 hours of nighttime driving; and prohibiting teenagers from driving teenage passengers (with an exception for relatives) during the first six months of the 18-month provisional license period.

The bills were based on a growing pile of scientific research. In 2003, a study found that forty percent of 16-year-old drivers involved in deadly crashed had one or more teen passengers (O’Donnell). The percentage increased even more when the passengers were male. A 2004 study by Temple University found that young people “consistently” took greater risks when their friends were watching. Mandel said she hoped the researchers would testify in support of her bills (Williamson).

Bronrott and Mandel weren’t the only proponents of teen driving legislation over the winter. Gov. Ehrlich remained “essentially silent” on the issue of teenage drivers during his first two years in office (Snyder, “Crashes”), but at a press conference in Largo on January 13, that changed. Ehrlich launched what his aides called an “ambitious young driver initiative to improve safety on Maryland’s roads by strengthening parental involvement and improving the instruction of young drivers between 15 and 20 years of age” (“Governor Ehrlich Launches…”).

“The goal of my young driver initiative is simple: put well-trained, attentive, and responsible young drivers behind the wheel,” Ehrlich announced. “I look forward to working with lawmakers this session and this work group over the coming months to ensure we don’t lose another young life to irresponsible driving.”

At the press conference, the governor introduced three pieces of legislation: One to lengthen the learner’s permit period from four to six months, another to “mandate 90-day license suspensions for violations of the seat belt and curfew restrictions during the provisional license period,” and a third to “revoke the license of a driver under the age of 21 convicted of an alcohol or drugged driving offense for three years or until the driver turns 21, whichever is longer” (“Governor Ehrlich Launches…”).

Ehrlich’s introduction of the three bills may have compelled some of the state’s GOP lawmakers to stop blocking the other pieces of teen driving legislation, which had been introduced annually in one form or another by Bronrott and Mandel. Incredibly, “measures to prohibit young drivers from carrying teenage passengers” consistently failed to pass the General Assembly for 11 years (Snyder, “Crashes”). Sen. Dyson said the bills won approval in the Senate in two of those years, but “both years, however, the measure ran into opposition in the House, primarily from rural lawmakers, who fear it would make it difficult for high school students to get around in parts of the state where public transportation is limited” (Wagner).

This year, though, the opposition was overshadowed by bi-partisan support for the bills. By early February, many lawmakers were seen wearing “Drive-Think-Live” wristbands, distributed by Comcast in support of the new teen driving bills (Synder, “Crashes”). The Ehrlich administration offered a helping hand to supporters every step of the way, by signaling that the governor would sign the teen driving bills. “The administration believes that these bills provide significant education, parental involvement and needed experience when starting out behind the wheel,” Ehrlich spokesperson Shareese N. DeLeaver told The Baltimore Sun on March 23. “The progress of these bills exemplifies the session at its best, legislators working in a bi-partisan effort to benefit all Marylanders” (Penn, Reddy).

The bi-partisan nature of the legislative package was abnormal for the bitter, divisive capital. Dying on the highways is not a partisan experience,” Bronrott became fond of saying (Snyder). Ehrlich’s package of bills passed the Environmental Matters Committee of the House of Delegates on March 9. A week later, on March 17, the House unanimously approved four of the bills. The fifth, restricting the number of passengers a teen driver may transport – passed 104 to 30. “That veto-proof majority for the passenger restrictions surprised supporters and suggests strongly, they said, that the bill will become law,” the Washington Post reported the next day (Snyder and Williamson).

Attention moved to the Senate side of the building. “I hope the State Senate will swiftly adopt these lifesaving measures and the Governor sign each into law,” Del. Bronrott said after the five votes (“Maryland House of Delegates…”). A week later, the Senate began the adopting. The first bill to pass both legislative chambers prohibited teens with provisional licenses from using a cellular phone while driving. The Senate approved the legislation on March 21. On April 7, a conference committee was appointed to clarify the differences between the House and Senate versions of the legislation. The conference committee report was received and adopted a day later.

The cell phone bill didn’t include any exceptions for hands-free devices. Recent research has demonstrated that holding the cell phone isn’t the danger: It’s the distraction caused by the conversation (Davis). The only calls provisional drivers will be allowed to make are ones to 911. “Several senators raised objections to the cellular phone measure, ranging from how it can be enforced to excessive penalties that would prevent teenagers from using a phone when they feel threatened” (Penn, Reddy). Sen. E.J. Pipkin said the bill was “out of whack.” But it received bi-partisan support from both the House and Senate, and was officially approved on April 8.

The most controversial bill was SB 57 / HB 393. It created a prohibition against minors as passengers: “Prohibiting the holder of a provisional driver's license who is a minor from transporting individuals under the age of 18 years except under specified circumstances” – specifically, if the individual is a relative (Senate Bill 57).

Opponents complained that the bill would make it difficult for students to participate in after-school activities. “I think the government has much more compelling interests than me driving home someone on the debate team,” Nicholas Camp, student member of the Baltimore County Board of Education, said (Neufeld). But Sen. Brian Frosh (D-Montgomery) said the most compelling interest is safety. “I agree that it is inconvenient for kids to have to deal with this, but it is a small trade-off to keep them alive,” he said (Hodgkins).

The bill passed the House on March 17, by a vote of 105-30. It passed the Senate on April 5, by a vote of 39-8. A conference committee was appointed the next day, and approved the updated bill by the end of the night.

Bronrott proclaimed 2005 the “Year of the Teen Driver” in the General Assembly (“Maryland House of Delegates…”). By the last night of the legislative session, five bills were on the way to the governor’s desk. According to the Annapolis Capital, the bills would:

-- Ban cell phone use by teen drivers until the expiration of their provisional license, which they have for the first 18 months of driving a car alone.

-- Keep young drivers from carrying passengers under age 18 for the first five months of their probationary license.

-- Increase the number of required training hours for a license from 40 to 60 hours, including 10 driving hours at night.

-- Increase the amount of time a teen holds a learner's permit from four months to six.

-- Restart the provisional period when a young driver violates the seat-belt law or violates the midnight-to-5 a.m. curfew. ” (Valentine)

Analysis

The approval of five teenage driving bills was an all-too-uncommon example of bi-partisan efforts to improve public safety. Bronrott recognized that teens wouldn’t be thrilled by the legislation, but he saw a greater good. “If I was 16 today, I wouldn't want to be told what to do either,” he said. “What 16-year-old would? But the role of government is to set public policy in the public’s interest” (Snyder).

What a simple notion: That the government should set public policy in the public’s interest. But for years, bills aimed at strengthening teen driving laws stalled in the state legislature, because lawmakers were not convinced that action was necessary.

This year, though, the spate of accidents served as an unfortunate wake-up call. “The stark reality of what’s happened this past summer and fall, the accidents, has sharpened a lot of people’s interest in this issue,” Sen. Roy P. Dyson (D-St. Mary’s) said in February (Snyder, “Crashes”). While some students complained about the restrictions, many recognized the need for stricter rules: “A large number of these accidents were caused by driving inexperience and driver immaturity, which could have been prevented,” an opinion piece in the Silver Chips, the student newspaper of Montgomery Blair High School, said (Gulati).

The tragic teenage deaths weren’t the only factor in the surge of support for the tightening of teen driving rules. Recent brain research has strengthened the argument that the greatest risk to young drivers is distraction – and that often comes in the form of passengers or cell phones. “A constant drumbeat of media attention” also contributed to the support: Television and newspaper reports about fatal accidents forced the issue onto the radar screens of lawmakers (Snyder).

While the bills are steps in the right direction, there is more to be done. Some teens believe a “more effective reform” would involve changes to the state’s drivers education program. Future drivers currently sit for 30 hours of classroom instruction and spend six hours driving with an instructor. But some students “never [drive] on a main road” during those hours, and “they [take] their driving tests in a closed course with no other cars on the roads” (Neufeld).

In January, Ehrlich announced that a Governor’s Work Group on Young Drivers would explore issues related to teen driving. The group is expected to report back by November, and before then it should examine the state’s driver education program, as well as follow-up efforts after drivers receive a license. Perhaps drivers’ education shouldn’t end when a 16-year-old speeds away from the MVA.

School systems must also play a role in monitoring drivers and encouraging safe behavior. At a meeting of Howard County school leaders in March, “several administrators suggested a role for high schools in the region in encouraging safe driving. Some were in favor of tying the ability of a student to get a school parking lot pass to maintenance of a clean driving record. The idea is that students want to be able to drive to school, so they will have an incentive to follow the law” (Capriccioso).

Now that the bills have been passed – and will soon be signed by Ehrlich – the most important element is enforcement. The new laws are only secondary violations, “meaning that a teenager cannot be pulled over unless they have violated some other traffic law first, and they can then be charged in addition to the first violation” (Hodgkins). Frosh attributed the reason for the secondary violation to political concerns: “It was easier to pass if it was secondary,” he said. It makes the laws harder to enforce, though. If drivers don’t believe they will be caught, they will break the law.