NJ Drivers under 21

[DisneyBamaFan]

There are restrictions on a 21 year olds license in new jersey, really? I think thats insane. That driver has 5 years driving experience. I don't understand why their license would STILL have restrictions on it.

It wouldn't - only for those with provisional licenses.

 

[LiLIrishChick63]

There are restrictions on a 21 year olds license in new jersey, really? I think thats insane. That driver has 5 years driving experience. I don't understand why their license would STILL have restrictions on it.

i agree. like i said, i feel bad for kids now...they've got all of these people breathing down their necks, WAITING for something to go wrong.

And there are plenty of people that can drive drunk without getting into an accident. The point - even if you think that you can drive safely, you are not giving driving your full attention. That fact, in and of itself, increases the likelihood of your being in an accident if something that you do not expect happens.

and the same can be said about listening to/turning the radio on. yet no one ever says "oh he/she must have been fooling with the radio, otherwise they wouldn't have gotten into an accident." it's always "the phones"

and drinking and driving is NOT the same thing as talking on the phone. not even close.

 

[kaytieeldr]

There are restrictions on a 21 year olds license in new jersey, really? I think thats insane. That driver has 5 years driving experience. I don't understand why their license would STILL have restrictions on it

Nope, not on the license of someone who's been driving for five years - new drivers under 21. Anyone under 21 who passes the driving test in New Jersey apparently gets a provisional license (with two restrictions being the number of passengers allowed and the hours during which they can drive) for ONE YEAR - not five.
To more easily identify these drivers - and, possibly, to reduce the number of unnecessary police checks on young-looking drivers, because the police really DO have better things to do than enforce driving laws - these provisional license holders need to have an indication on their license plates while driving.

 

[Sparx]

It wouldn't - only for those with provisional licenses.

What constitutes a provisional license? Who has them/why do they have them?

In Tennessee, licenses are completely unrestricted at 18.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

and the same can be said about listening to/turning the radio on. yet no one ever says "oh he/she must have been fooling with the radio, otherwise they wouldn't have gotten into an accident." it's always "the phones"

Agreed - and many accidents are caused by people messing with the radio, or lighting up a cigarette, or other seemingly "safe" things.

and drinking and driving is NOT the same thing as talking on the phone. not even close.

A few months ago, someone posted a link to a study that showed that driving while talking on the phone was as dangerous as driving under the influence of alcohol. Not drunk, but under the influence...

 

[kaytieeldr]

and the same can be said about listening to/turning the radio on. yet no one ever says "oh he/she must have been fooling with the radio, otherwise they wouldn't have gotten into an accident." it's always "the phones"

Um, it's been a number of years - but this is EXACTLY how the brother of one of my classmate's died. Yeah, really.

 

[Sparx]

Nope, not on the license of someone who's been driving for five years - new drivers under 21. Anyone under 21 who passes the driving test in New Jersey apparently gets a provisional license (with two restrictions being the number of passengers allowed and the hours during which they can drive) for ONE YEAR - not five.
To more easily identify these drivers - and, possibly, to reduce the number of unnecessary police checks on young-looking drivers, because the police really DO have better things to do than enforce driving laws - these provisional license holders need to have an indication on their license plates while driving.

Okay, thank you. That makes much more sense. I misunderstood and thought that the license was restricted UNTIL age 21.

I have mixed feelings about the sticker. When I was in high school our parking passes were bright red window clings. If a police officer saw one of these after 10 or 11, they would most likely pull the driver over (even though all ages had the same sticker, even 18 year old seniors) so the natural reaction for students was to pull out the window cling. I don't see what will stop kids with license restrictions doing this too.

 

[LiLIrishChick63]

Agreed - and many accidents are caused by people messing with the radio, or lighting up a cigarette, or other seemingly "safe" things.

A few months ago, someone posted a link to a study that showed that driving while talking on the phone was as dangerous as driving under the influence of alcohol. Not drunk, but under the influence...

yeah it was probably one study, not a slew of them. i can't believe that "driving under the influence" is the same as talking on the phone. otherwise there would be a lot less road rage!

Um, it's been a number of years - but this is EXACTLY how the brother of one of my classmate's died. Yeah, really.

that's what i mean, there are plenty of distractions that can cause accidents besides just the phone. i believe it. i know sometimes i don't even touch the radio when traffic is heavy or if someone is driving kind of crazy near me. i don't even want to chance looking away for a minute.

 

[Sparx]

Agreed - and many accidents are caused by people messing with the radio, or lighting up a cigarette, or other seemingly "safe" things.

A few months ago, someone posted a link to a study that showed that driving while talking on the phone was as dangerous as driving under the influence of alcohol. Not drunk, but under the influence...

Its called perceptual blindness. Its a phenomenon where multitaskers end up paying more attention to one task, while "autopiloting" on the other task. It can happen with any sort of task. Like ignoring what your friend is saying to pay attention to whats on television, or paying attention to fiddling with the radio instead of paying attention to traffic around you, or paying attention to texting/talking on the phone instead of driving.

Drivers suffering from perceptual blindness are much much more likely to rear end another driver, speed through a stop light, or drift into another lane than drivers not experiencing the phenomenon.

I'm not sure about the influence of perceptual blindness versus the influence of alcohol, but I have read that a healthy 25 year old who is texting has reflexes equal to that of a 75 year old, while driving, so I can imagine they are very similar.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Drivers suffering from perceptual blindness are much much more likely to rear end another driver, speed through a stop light, or drift into another lane than drivers not experiencing the phenomenon.

Or drive a big black Cadillac 35 in the middle lane on a Massachusetts highway north of Boston where the speed limit is - and traffic in both the left and right lanes is moving at - 55... (no, NOT me!)

 

[Kathi OD]

They are not targeting teen drivers, they are targeting drivers with provisional licenses. This has nothing to do with age. It is about experience. Inexperienced drivers can be a real menace if they do not follow the rules set forth for them.

All drivers, regardless of experience, can be a real menace if they do not follow the rules set forth for them.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

All drivers, regardless of experience, can be a real menace if they do not follow the rules set forth for them.

We have to agree to disagree. For some reason you see these people as victims when this law is meant to save their lives.

 

[Kathi OD]

We have to agree to disagree. For some reason you see these people as victims when this law is meant to save their lives.

That might be the intent, but that's not what is going to happen. Those who are not following the restriction rules for provisional drivers now, aren't going to be putting stickers on their cars. They're the ones we're concerned about...the ones who don't follow the rules. This law doesn't do one thing to save their lives. All it does is add a layer of bureaucracy to the lives of those that are already following the rules.

 

[DVCisME]

A lot of things come to mind with this law. First, the driving test/permit education should be more than one marking period of health. Second, they should require more hours of behing the wheel driving to get permit. The driving test should be harder to pass. I also think that the laws that currently exist should be enforced. On the parkway and anywhere else for that matter there are always people speeding, changing lanes without blinkers, no lights while raining, people on cell phones, etc. They are not only the people driving but often the enforcers too. I would also be concerned singling out children under 21.
However, and having been related to a teen that died while in the car with too many teen passengers, where is the responsibility of the parents!?! How do parents not know what is going on with there kids? I know some things happen, but where are the parents instilling what is right and wrong. I couldn't imagine at any age piling in a car with too many people. And these kids seem to be able to drive quite a distance without being noticed. How is that even possible?

 

[allison443]

Do they give out provisional licenses to people over 21?

Yes, but they do not have the same restrictions as new teen drivers.

You said the decal is to label inexperienced drivers, not teen drivers. That is not true, however, since inexperienced drivers who are over 21 when they get their license do not have to display a decal. The decal is only for those under 21 who have a provisional license. That is all I'm saying.

 

[FireDancer]

and drinking and driving is NOT the same thing as talking on the phone. not even close.

The NHTSA has concluded that talking on a cell phone via a hands free kit is no safer then driving while holding the phone up to your ear. Here is their report. The report mentions that the chance for an accident with injury increases by 38% if you use a cell phone and more then doubles if you are a "heavy cell phone user".

As for drinking and driving, your reaction time is slowed more by texting and driving then drinking and driving (35% compared to 12%) according to the The Transport Research Laboratory in the UK.

Of course there are plenty of distractions is a car but the use of handheld wireless devises was associated with the highest frequency of secondary task-distraction related events (crashes and near crashes) according to the NHTSA's 100-car Naturalistic Driving Study (this study doesn't deal with drinking and driving at all, merely distraction). I would concede that there are plenty of other distractions but to say we shouldn't ban the use of the most dangerous one we can't ban them all makes no sense.

A car is literally a weapon that kills more people per year then guns do. I see no problem with restricting their use by young people who are not yet proficient at using them. Far too many people of all ages take driving far too cavalierly. Part of that restriction is indicating who falls under it. This can be done by marking their license or their car and they are just choosing the later.

For what it is worth I would also support the re-testing of drivers over a certain age to prove they still have the capacity to drive a car safely. I lived in FL for a time and that is just as big of a problem as the young driver problem.

 

[starwood]

Respectfully - especially with the failure to yield ticket, are these the explanations given by the police? Or are they the ticketees (for lack of a better word) excuses?

The police did not witness the accident. My son said he stopped at the sign and I do believe him. The accident site has very bad traffic especially when school is getting out. The kids just cross the street without even looking and if you are in the middle of the road when they decide to cross you need to stop. His mistake was trying to cross 2 lanes of traffic to go straight when he should have made the safe right hand turn. I think if you stop at the stop sign and misjudge the speed of the oncoming car that is not a failure to yield.

 

[kacaju]

That might be the intent, but that's not what is going to happen. Those who are not following the restriction rules for provisional drivers now, aren't going to be putting stickers on their cars. They're the ones we're concerned about...the ones who don't follow the rules. This law doesn't do one thing to save their lives. All it does is add a layer of bureaucracy to the lives of those that are already following the rules.

Amen to this!!

 

[kaytieeldr]

I think if you stop at the stop sign and misjudge the speed of the oncoming car that is not a failure to yield.

Respectfully, would you TRULY feel the same way if YOU were the driver with the right-of-way and you hit a driver who'd stopped at the stop sign but then proceeded when it turned out it actually wasn't safe to go and who claimed you were speeding? Remember, YOU still had the right-of-way - and the perception of an inexperienced driver of any age tends to be less accurate.

Failing to yield = not waiting until it was completely safe to proceed, no matter how long that may take.

Most of my son's friends have gotten tickets and DS had his first accident and they gave him a ticket for failure to yield even though he stopped at the stop sign and the car that hit him was definitely speeding so he misjudged the speed. One of his friends got pulled over because his GPS was too low on the windshield. I really think they are out to get the teenage drivers in our town.

 

[starwood]

Respectfully, would you TRULY feel the same way if YOU were the driver with the right-of-way and you hit a driver who'd stopped at the stop sign but then proceeded when it turned out it actually wasn't safe to go and who claimed you were speeding? Remember, YOU still had the right-of-way - and the perception of an inexperienced driver of any age tends to be less accurate.

Failing to yield = not waiting until it was completely safe to proceed, no matter how long that may take.

I'm not saying it wasn't his fault - I'm saying it was an accident and it didn't deserve a ticket. Also the other car was going faster than it should have been and she obviously wasn't paying attention or should would have been able to slow down. She hit him in the rear tire so if she had seen him (which she stated to DH that she "looked up and he was there") she would have missed him. She was the mother of another student in band with DS and she was heading up to the school to pick up her son. She was late and I'm sure she was going faster than she should have been.

DS is going to reimburse us for all of the auto costs (ours and hers). I just don't think it's fair to pile a ticket on top of it. I have been hit by a car pulling out of a stop sign and the other driver didn't get a ticket.