DATE: Saturday, October 18, 1997            TAG: 9710160030

SECTION: LOCAL                   PAGE: B8   EDITION: FINAL 

TYPE: Editorial 

                                            LENGTH:   48 lines

TEEN DRIVERS A LIFESAVING IDEA? A PROPOSAL TO RESTRICT LICENSES FOR THOSE WHO BREAK TRAFFIC LAWS IS WORTH CONSIDERING.

A ``graduated'' driver's license, one that imposes strict penalties on 16- and 17-year-old drivers who break traffic laws, may prove to be a way of reducing highway deaths among youths.

Skeptics, including Commissioner of Motor Vehicles Richard Holcomb, are concerned that the idea borders on nannyism. But any plan that shows promises of saving young lives cannot be summarily dismissed.

For that reason, if no other, this plan deserves serious consideration.

The idea, endorsed by the American Automobile Association and touted by John Hager, the GOP candidate for lieutenant governor, would make holding a full-fledged driver's license conditional upon having a clean driving record.

Sixteen- and 17-year-olds convicted of a traffic violation such as speeding, reckless driving or being the cause of an accident, would see their licenses revert to a learner's permit for a defined period, probably six months.

The rationale for the proposal is that traffic deaths are disproportionately weighted toward those 20 and younger. The greener the driver, the greater the risk of faulty judgment. When immaturity combines with driving, the consequences can be lethal.

Holcomb counters that Virginia already has some of the toughest teen driving laws in the nation. Recently enacted changes include requiring parents to give approval before a 16- or 17-year-old can get a license, revoking such a license at a parent's request, requiring that young drivers have a learner's permit for at least six months and steering youths into safety programs more rapidly than adults if a traffic infraction occurs.

Those are admirable changes. Perhaps they deserve to be tested before additional changes are made. But if there is compelling statistical evidence of the value of provisional driver's licenses in the six states that have already adopted them, then Virginia should not hesitate.

The idea should become law.

No one wants to punish a whole class of youth because of the actions of a few. And, particularly in rural areas, depriving teen-agers of full-fledged driver's licenses could complicate life for families and employers.

But in numerous ways, government already plays ``nanny'' to 16- and 17-year-olds. That's because they're not yet adults. There is a compelling public interest in seeing that as many as possible reach adulthood safely.

Send Suggestions or Comments to webmaster@scholar.lib.vt.edu