Legislation Concerning Traffic Safety
For many years, NHTSA has been encouraging the States to strengthen their laws and programs dealing with youth traffic safety. Despite these efforts, progress toward major changes in State laws has been relatively slow. Only about five States have implemented the comprehensive mix of laws and programs that appear to be necessary to effectively deal with traffic safety problems of youth and to reduce the youth traffic fatality rate substantially below its current level.
Legislation should be properly structured and implemented, as the resulting Federal/State partnership would promote a comprehensive and vigorous national program that could substantially reduce traffic fatalities involving youth. This could be funded out of general revenues or out of the Federal Highway Trust Fund. Either way, the cost would be roughly $20 million a year. If funded out of the Trust Fund, this program would slightly increase competition for funds from the Fund, which is currently tapped for about $20 billion annually. There are, however, unused contract authorities and funds in the 1991 Highway Act and in other laws that could be redirected to pay for this new program.
Does this expenditure make sense? The CRS report on the younger driver issue, which you have before you, projected that the benefits in reducing the medical and societal costs oi losing and injuring thousands of yoimg people each year in traffic crashes would outweigh likely program costs by at least a factor of 10.
In its current form, the legislation does not have as one of its eligibility criteria for the grant program a provision that would reward a State for enacting a nighttime curfew for young, inexperienced drivers under the age of 18. Such a restriction would require the provisional licensee to have an adult present in the front seat during specified hours. Some might argue that such a restriction would be cumbersome. State licensing agencies, however, have successfully implemented curfew programs for specified drivers, whilech grant limited exceptions for very specific conditions on a case-by-case basis. Although concerns regarding civil liberties of youth may be raised, experience shows that such curfews saves lives and surveys show that such curfews are appreciated by many.
If we are going to simultaneously promote traffic safety and provide for the mobility of older Americans, we need to learn a great deal more about how declining physical and mental abilities affect driving and how to relate this information to licensing decisions.
Over the next 10 years, the proposed older driver program could provide much of this knowledge. This information would help State agencies make more informed licensing decisions, lead to improved guidelines to be used by concerned families and physicians, and assist older drivers in making better decisions about their own driving practices and future license.
Legislation should be properly structured and implemented, as the resulting Federal/State partnership would promote a comprehensive and vigorous national program that could substantially reduce traffic fatalities involving youth. This could be funded out of general revenues or out of the Federal Highway Trust Fund. Either way, the cost would be roughly $20 million a year. If funded out of the Trust Fund, this program would slightly increase competition for funds from the Fund, which is currently tapped for about $20 billion annually. There are, however, unused contract authorities and funds in the 1991 Highway Act and in other laws that could be redirected to pay for this new program.
Does this expenditure make sense? The CRS report on the younger driver issue, which you have before you, projected that the benefits in reducing the medical and societal costs oi losing and injuring thousands of yoimg people each year in traffic crashes would outweigh likely program costs by at least a factor of 10.
In its current form, the legislation does not have as one of its eligibility criteria for the grant program a provision that would reward a State for enacting a nighttime curfew for young, inexperienced drivers under the age of 18. Such a restriction would require the provisional licensee to have an adult present in the front seat during specified hours. Some might argue that such a restriction would be cumbersome. State licensing agencies, however, have successfully implemented curfew programs for specified drivers, whilech grant limited exceptions for very specific conditions on a case-by-case basis. Although concerns regarding civil liberties of youth may be raised, experience shows that such curfews saves lives and surveys show that such curfews are appreciated by many.
If we are going to simultaneously promote traffic safety and provide for the mobility of older Americans, we need to learn a great deal more about how declining physical and mental abilities affect driving and how to relate this information to licensing decisions.
Over the next 10 years, the proposed older driver program could provide much of this knowledge. This information would help State agencies make more informed licensing decisions, lead to improved guidelines to be used by concerned families and physicians, and assist older drivers in making better decisions about their own driving practices and future license.
Source...