Dangerous drivers

Why are legislators picking on teens?

The bills have been enormously popular: legislation that would impose a raft of new restrictions on teenage drivers, from increased penalties for reckless driving to a new, six-month probationary period before getting a full license. Versions of such a law have passed the Massachusetts House and Senate; the public has been enthusiastic, and Acting Governor Paul Cellucci has said that he will sign it as soon as it hits his desk.

The logic behind the bill seems impeccable. Statistics show that younger drivers cause proportionally more accidents, so it makes sense to ease them more carefully into driving. Granted. But the legislation -- which targets mainly those who don't vote -- stinks of political cowardice.

The government has a right to make the roads as safe as reasonably possible. Yet with that right comes an obligation to use an even hand.

So why have seniors been exempted from this discussion? Like teens, the elderly are, as a group, more dangerous drivers. According to the US Department of Transportation, people over 70 make up 9 percent of the population but account for 13 percent of traffic fatalities. Earlier this month, a 77-year old woman plowed into an apartment unit, killing another woman who was sitting at her kitchen table. By age 80, elderly drivers are just as dangerous as teenagers. In fact, physical impairments and medication can combine to make seniors the most dangerous drivers on the road.

Remember, too, that the elderly population is increasing faster than any other. In Massachusetts, the number of drivers over 80 has doubled in the last decade. Nationwide, there will be an estimated 40 million drivers over age 70 by 2020, up from 24 million now.

Unlike teens, though, seniors are a political juggernaut. They vote heavily and are represented by powerful groups like the AARP, which has been running a nationwide campaign to defeat any restrictions on elderly drivers. As a result, only three states now require their oldest drivers to take a road test to prove they are still competent to operate a motor vehicle. Massachusetts is not one of them.

What is needed here -- and, indeed, nationwide -- is a comprehensive approach. The license to drive should be restricted on the basis of risk. Seniors should be given regular road tests -- say, every two years once they reach the age of 80. Those who fail should be denied the right to drive, just as teens are if they fail the driving test on the first try. Likewise, anyone with multiple convictions for reckless driving should operate under the same kind of probationary restrictions now being proposed for teens.

Such an approach would be more honest. It would also be a much more effective way to achieve what is, after all, the stated goal: saving lives. Instead, we've had grandstanding, a quick-fix solution with the minimum possible political risk.

What do you think? Send an e-mail to letters[a]phx.com.