New Hampshire's Virtual Town Hall
|
A Special Thank You to |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Frightened by House decision to pass parental driver ed bill
By Chuck McKenney
New Hampshire's House of Representatives is making it easier for teens to get a driver's license. The potential law change has nothing to do with safety, rather it's one related to money.
Under HB 1440, anyone 15 1/2 years of age is required to pass an online driver education course and:
complete an additional 20 hours of supervised driving time under the supervision of a licensed parent, guardian, foster parent, stepparent, or grandparent who shall have no convictions in the past 10 years for reckless driving under RSA 265:79, driving or operating under the influence of drugs or liquor under RSA 265-A:2, or aggravated driving while intoxicated under RSA 265-A:3. The commissioner shall adopt rules relative to the method of certification. This additional supervised driving time shall replace the supervised driving time performed by the driver education course instructor as part of a driver education course.
“The purpose of HB 1440 was to keep low-income teens from falling through the cracks,” bill sponsor Rep, Kyle Jones, R-Rochester, told the Union Leader. Jones claims teens who can't afford the driver training courses wait until age 18 to take the state's licensing test when the training requirements no longer apply.
How structured is the 20 hours of supervised parental driving likely to be? Are parents more likely to pass along pointers or will they run through legitimate scenarios?
As a society, parents are already too busy to fully monitor their children's behavior in and out of school. Now we are expecting them to devote 20 hours of driver training.
Here's my biggest gripe - most people are average drivers, at best. Do we really want them passing along their bad habits?
The Legislature needs to strengthen our driver training laws, not make them easier. I'd support laws that force adults to retake the driving test every ten years. I'm convinced fewer than 20% of drivers properly adhere to Yield signs.
Why does cost and convenience trump safety with this issue? Cars are 2,000 pound weapons.
I'd rather subsidize the education courses for low-income teens than make the process easier.
Comment
-
Comment by Karen P McMahon on April 2, 2012 at 12:51am -
To All Concerned Citizens of New Hampshire, WE NEED BODIES at this hearing
If you are of the opinion that online driver education and parent only in car instruction is not a safe option for NH and will create a public safety Issue, we would like to provide you the general public with information on the Senate Transportation Public Hearing.
This will be the only public hearing held for this Driver Ed bill before voting.(They will be going into session for voting right after the hearing) The hearing will be held on THURSDAY April 5th, 2012 at 10:30 am at the Legislative Office Building 33 North State Street Concord, NH 03302 Room # 306-308. (603) 271-3321
We HOPE that many people will take this time out of their busy schedules to support the opposition of this bill. If you believe that Teens need Professional Instruction by Certified Professionals and not an Online Driver Education Class, Please show up in numbers to show your supportwe can not do this alone. Help Keep our Roads Safe for those you love.
We encourage professional attire as well as good behavior. Thank you!
-
Comment by Paul Montrone on March 30, 2012 at 12:03am -
Teens are dangerous drivers at best. Insurance rates tell the story. It's not the teen's fault, they are just being teens. We should be making it more difficult for a teen to get a license, not easier.
-
Comment by Paul Briand on March 18, 2012 at 12:17pm -
There are enough bad drivers on the road as it is -- distracted by texting, Facebooking and chatting on mobile phones. Can we really depend on parents and other guardians to be knowledgeable, independent instructors of proper on-road skills and behaviors? What of the bad habits they bring to the wheel of a car? Parents and guardians may be qualified chaperones of people learning to drive, but they are not qualified teachers, necessarily, of people learning to drive. This should not be a question of dollars and cents. It should be a question of what's best for young drivers.
-
Comment by Karen P McMahon on March 18, 2012 at 12:08am
-
This needs to be a true "pilot program" one that is limited.One of our Senators need to bring an amendment to the floor which follows the rules of a "pilot program",such as, limiting this to those choosing to be in a home school program? That way limiting this to a smaller population, to those who are already educating thier own children at home. That will greatly limit the danger to the general motorists on our New Hampshire roadways-while keeping to the guidelines of the meaning of a "pilot program".
-
Comment by Karen P McMahon on March 17, 2012 at 11:58pm
-
The general public knew nothing of this bill before it went for vote. Comments are going crazy,everyone's wondering what was in the water at the house to have passed this. Public safety has to be a priority.I have faith in our Senate-Lets hope they don't let us down!
Follow us:
Videos
Photos
Badge
© 2013 Created by LFDA Editor.
You need to be a member of Live Free or Die Alliance to add comments!
Join Live Free or Die Alliance