TEEN DRIVING: Area's legislators respond to AJC teen driving survey
Staff
Thursday, December 14, 2000

1. Do you support making driver education mandatory in Georgia public schools?

2. Do you support requiring driver education before a teen can receive a driver's license?

3. Do you support raising the minimum age for a driver's license to 17?

4. Do you support limiting teen drivers to one non-family passenger?

5. Do you support more restrictive curfews for teen drivers?

6. Please tell us about any other suggestions or comments you have on this issue.

Rep. James Mills (R-Gainesville), 21st District:

1. Yes. Not mandatory for every student, but schools should offer it with funding help from the state.

2. Yes.

3. Unsure. I am unsure at this point what my district desires, but I am personally leaning toward supporting it.

4. No.

5. No.

6. We must hold parents more responsible in some common-sense way.

Rep. Scott Dix (R-Stone Mountain), 76th District:

1. No.

2. Yes.

3. No.

4. Yes, but the question is for how long. There has to be some time requirement. I would say maybe for the first six months.

5. No.

6. We just have to be careful that whenever there's a problem out there, not just with teen driving, everybody seems to want to look to the government to solve it. I am concerned about that. The other thing we need to look at is possibly making the test for somebody to get a license more stringent. That's not just for teens.

Rep. Charles Bannister (R-Lilburn) 77th District:

1. Yes. Have previously introduced legislation to do so.

2. Yes.

3. Yes, conditionally.

4. Not particularly.

5. Yes.

6. Parents and guardians should be equally responsible.

Rep. Mary Squires (D-Norcross), 78th District:

1. Yes. But going further, there should be mandatory driver ed for each new driver. It should be paid for by the individual, the parent or guardian of a minor.

2. Yes. All new drivers should have driver ed.

3. No. I do support a more difficult driver licensing test. I also support another level of restricted license for urban driving.

4. No. I'm not sure of the value of this.

5. No. The current curfews are currently difficult to enforce. Again, I'm not sure of the value of this.

6. Accidents and poor driving are not restricted to the young. It is too easy for anyone, adult or child, to get a driver's license in Georgia. The difficulty of driving in urban settings is a major contributor to our traffic problems. Urban driving has special requirements, and I would like to see another level of restricted licensing for urban areas --- until 21 years of age and/or 2 years for new drivers. Some of the restrictions for this restricted driving are not just the aforementioned, but driving allowed between hours of 4 a.m. and 10 p.m. and restricted driving on interstates during peak hours.

Rep. Tom Rice (R-Norcross), 79th District:

1. Yes, with qualifications: 1) Through technical colleges. 2) At least partially paid for by student (parent). 3) Required for 16-year-old driver's license.

2. Yes.

3. Yes. A population-based requirement.

4. No.

5. No.

Rep. Brooks Coleman (R-Duluth), 80th District:

1. No. Never. Schools need to deal with the 3 R's.

2. Yes.

3. Unsure

4. Yes.

5. Yes.

Rep. Gene Callaway (R-Lilburn), 81st District:

1. Unsure. I'd rather see a tax credit go to the parents. Let the parents make the decision where they want their child to take driver's education.

2. Yes. I'm strongly in favor of this.

3. Yes, with the provision that a 16-year-old who completed driver's education could get a license.

4. Unsure.

5. No. Curfews should be implemented by parents.

6. I will introduce a $250 tax credit for parents who send their children to driver's education. The credit will be given after the child completes the course satisfactorily.

Rep. Mike Coan (R-Lawrenceville), 82nd District:

1. No. We need to keep schools focusing on their primary jobs. We should let the private enterprise handle this offering.

2. Yes. We need to focus on "good driving" rather than books. Experience is a must.

3. Unsure.

4. No.

5. No. We have a hard time enforcing the current statutes. More laws aren't the answer.

6. It mainly boils down to personal responsibility. Parents who wish to give their child an opportunity to "drive alive" will spend valuable time to teach their children the proper way. Experience behind the wheel cannot be more important in today's fast-paced society.

Rep. Jeff Williams (R-Snellville), 83rd District:

1. No.

2. Yes.

3. No.

4. Yes, except in emergency situations.

5. Yes, with exceptions for work and church and school.

6. The challenging aspect right now is there are not enough of the trained driver's education instructors in the Southeast to meet the demand. If we make it mandatory, I do think the market will respond if we put that requirement there. Second, I don't think the state should have to pay for it. Any young person, when given the choice, will raise the $250. If you look across the state at the designer clothes and the CDs and the Nintendo games, a kid, if it was up to him, could raise the $250.

Rep. Renee Unterman (R-Loganville), 84th District:

1. Yes. Our state has a financial surplus budget in a record amount. What could be more important than educating our children and protecting the general public by helping to make our roads and highways safer?

2. Yes. Either private (with approved prequalified schools) or through public as in BOE (Board of Education).

3. Yes. I support Sen. Phil Gingrey's pre-filed Senate bill and will lobby during the 2001 session for its passage.

4. Yes. Up to graduation from high school.

5. Yes. I support our local governments (cities and counties) placing more emphasis on enforcement of existing curfews and laws. I also support heightened enforcement of alcohol sales (to minors), DUIs, teenage hangouts, prosecution of adults supporting illegal teenage activities (parties in homes serving alcohol, etc.)

6. I support a statewide education/publicity program informing the public about problems, education, etc. The problem in the General Assembly has been the rural lawmakers do not understand the problems associated with teenage drivers in urban areas. Driving on a rural highway in Perry, hardly ever passing another vehicle, is not the same as driving through Spaghetti Junction at 8 a.m. during rush hour.

Rep. Bobby Reese (R-Sugar Hill), 85th District:

1. No. I feel it would be in the best interest of most communities, however I have difficulty in mandating something to the whole state if the situation does not require it.

2. Yes. Who pays for it is always the question.

3. Unsure. Again, mandating something like this isn't the way, I think. There's a lot of good kids who drive safely at 16.

4. No. I don't think the government should tell people who they can have in their cars.

5. Unsure. Depends on what they are.

Rep. Warren Massey (R-Winder), 86th District:

1. No. Nationally, statistics show no appreciable difference in accident rates between driver's ed students and non-driver's ed students.

2. No. See above.

3. Yes. Sixteen for training license, 17 for Class C license. More maturity at 17.

4. Yes. During training period, yes. After Class C until 18, no backseat passenger.

5. No! Curfews are not enforced now. They also give police a reason to stop and search a vehicle without real probable cause.

6. I suggest that maintaining a passing grade in school be a pre-requisite to retaining a driver's license. Also, until age 18, a parent should be able to request revocation of a child's license from (the Department of Motor Vehicles).

Sen. Joe Burton (R-Atlanta), 5th District:

1. Unsure. Not sure funding available to public schools.

2. Yes.

3. Yes.

4. Yes.

5. Yes.

Sen. Don Balfour (R-Snellville), 9th District:

1. No.

2. Yes.

3. Unsure

4. No.

5. Yes.

Sen. Bart Ladd (R-Doraville), 41st District:

1. Yes --- See prefiled SB1

2. Yes --- See above.

3. No.

4. No.

5. No.

6. We should work in the area where it will improve the capacity of the teen driver to handle a vehicle well and with good judgment. Simply increasing the age won't do it. I've introduced SB1, which I believe will be a good compromise to reach that effect.

Sen. Billy Ray (R-Lawrenceville), 48th District:

1. No. I think drivers should have to go through driver's education, but I don't think it should take away from the academic day. Also, it should be paid for by parents or kids themselves, not schools.

2. Yes.

3. Yes.

4. Yes.

5. Yes. The ones we have now are totally meaningless. If we can't raise the driving age because the rural communities can't do it, that may be the way we have to go. I don't think a whole lot of good things happen outside after 11 o'clock at night.

6. I'm encouraged that the governor and the lieutenant governor are both giving support to it, but it remains to be seen whether they are willing to spend political capital to get it passed in the face of what will surely be fierce opposition from rural legislators.

Sen. Thomas Price (R-Roswell), 56th District:

1. No.

2. Yes.

3. Unsure.

4. Unsure. For certain ages, possibly.

5. No. If our current curfews are enforced, we would solve a lot of the problems. I'm not sure more restrictive curfews are needed.

6. Those of us who have been working on this issue are very pleased that others in the leadership have come to realize the importance of the problem. The need for driver's education is very clear, especially in the metropolitan area. I'm also in favor of increasing the difficulty of the driver's exam to get a license. I don't believe that exam currently demonstrates proficiency in driving.