New Jersey: Where profiling is not only legal, it’s mandated
No, it’s not minorities we’re after – though there are a few towns where DWB (driving while black) will get you pulled over. Nope. We’re after minors. And it’s perfectly legal.
To make it easier for police to spot youngsters behind the wheel, the law now mandates reflective red stickers. Anyone with a provisional driver’s license or permit must affix $4 decals to their front and rear license plates.
New Jersey’s provisional – or graduated -- license law applies to new drivers under 21 and goes away after a full year of no tickets or accidents. No one is eligible for a license until age 17 so the earliest a teen can expect a “real” license is 18.
The provisional makes it illegal to drive after 11:01 p.m. and before 5 a.m. No more than one passenger is allowed, with the exception of parents, guardians or dependants. Hands-free cell phone devices are also illegal (for fully-licensed drivers, cell phone use is against the law in NJ except with a hands-free device), as are the use of hand-held video games.
When the provisional was enacted 7 or so years ago, no one balked. Studies show teen drivers are more likely to have accidents at night and/or with their cars packed with friends. But the red stickers? Oh, there’s balking.
And flip-flopping. Legislators who voted for the feel-good law, which took effect this month, are now working to overturn it. No one denies the law is steeped in good intentions, and that the story behind it is tragic. The main objection is that this law opens teen drivers – particularly females – to another risk: predators. Many people can look younger than they are behind the wheel, distance and windshields easily disguising wrinkles and other indicators of “older.” But a red sticker? It announces “I’m young, inexperienced and vulnerable.”
Kyleigh D’Alessio, 16, died in an 8:30 p.m. car crash three years ago that also claimed the life of the teen driver and injured two other teen passengers. The 17-year-old driver was violating his provisional license by having too many young people in the car. He slammed into a tree on a 25 mph street, apparently having lost control of his vehicle. Drugs and alcohol weren’t involved.
These accidents happen; inexperienced drivers, particularly teens, are more likely to crash, period. Would a red sticker have prevented Kyleigh’s death? Would a cop have noticed the sticker and the number of heads in the car and pulled them over before they crashed?
The law is well intended but utterly illogical. Forget the argument of the stickers attracting predators. The law is pointless anyway. What if teens – and this is crazy – just don’t use the stickers? The decals are made to be removable so Mom can use the car without having to worry about being pulled over because she has too many PTA friends in the backseat. What if the teen simply removes the sticker? Now he or she can drive after 11 with friends and go by unnoticed. Cops, not seeing a sticker, can assume the driver has a “real” license.
A Rockaway, NJ attorney sued to have the law overturned before it took effect. He said there was no way he’d let his teenager daughter be singled out to rapists. He lost.
Now lawmakers are on board, and some parents are simply not buying the decals, willing to risk a $100 fine rather than having their teen drivers announced as such by way of a decal. I don’t know where all these people were when the campaign to enact this law started 2+ years ago. I’m guessing no one really paid attention except to the horrific details behind the law – nice teens dead -- and a mom in tears over her loss.
My son will be eligible for a license in less than a year. I don’t want these stickers on my license plates. For his safety, my convenience and because it won’t prevent him from being killed in a car accident. The only way to prevent that is simply forbid him to drive – ever. Or be a passenger – even with me! I’m a terrible driver even with 20+ years of experience.
Profiling is profiling. This law should be repealed just on that basis alone.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
froggy
Thoth
Susie Lindau
Mimetalker
Frank Michels
Surazeus
Salon.com
Comments
Any law like this needs to balance the benefits and the risks. It's not clear this one has enough benefits to counter the downside. At 15 we could drive as long as we had a licensed drive present; at 16, we could drive alone. I had friends in Idaho who were legally driving at 14. The stickers do seem to be a form of profiling and fraught with problems; thanks for highlighting this story for us.
And the "predator" theory is just silly... young drivers aren't 5 year olds fergoshsakes. If they can't defend themselves as well as a 25 year old, they shouldn't be allowed in the malls either...
Not sure I'd call it profiling though and, like Brian, not buying the predator angle either.
But I take your point - particularly if they're easily removed.
Do not especially buy the predator argument, though.
And since my 15-year-old is now in driver's ed, I'm just trying to figure out a way to keep her from driving at ALL!
A couple of years back, Ontario tried to implement the kind of laws this sticker is supposed to support--limit passengers and driving times for new drivers. By the time they haggle out all the exceptions--for work, school, school plays, good causes, redheads, whatever-- it's completely meaningless. And our Premier gave one of his only memorable remarks: "When I saw my own kids picketing my house over this, I knew it was time to rethink it."
In Britain, where I learned to drive years ago, learning drivers (with a learner's permit) had big white plastic decals with an L (Learner) on them. Embarrassing? Perhaps. But a great warning to everyone else on the road that this is a brand new driver, give him/her some space. I've often wished we had something like that here.
I guess I fall on the other side of the fence. Driving is a privilege, not a right. I was a teen driver once (and a fairly bad one), and I now have a middle schooler approaching his driving years at breakneck speed. The thought of my son behind the wheel of anything other than a pedal-car sends chills up my spine.
I'm not sure if a red tag would signal a rapist or predator. You're right, it might. I'm also not sure if this law would have the intended effect of keeping teen drivers from doing stupid things. But I applaud the effort to try something to keep teens from killing themselves (and their friends) before good judgment kicks in.
As for the rapist signaling out teens because of the stickers, rapists don't need any arrows to point their way. They have staked out a victim long before they get behind the wheel of a car. I know. My daughter was taken from her bed by a maintenance man who worked in the complex where she lived. He just used the master key to get in.
Instead of lawyers jumping on the "I'll sue" soapbox to make a name for themselves, wouldn't it be nice if, for once, someone just realized the goal is to save lives. In the end, parents have more influence than any law that can be enacted. You want to save a kid's life -- be a involved parent.
R
Indiana has probationary licenses now, though they are less strenuous than New Jersey's. On some level, they make sense. But why not just extend the time required to hold a learner's permit, or make a learner's permit a two-stage event, and make it for everyone? An inexperienced 21-year-old driver can make a fatal error just as easily as an inexperienced 19-year-old one.
Now, here's the thing--there are still states that DON'T have probationary licenses, but states honor each other's driver's licenses. What happens when a kid with one of these breaks the requirements of this license in a state where driving at 1 am in a car filled with friends is perfectly legal?
They know teens won't use the stickers, or that they'll forget to put them back on the car, or that the stickers will be lost.
Those $100 tickets make money for the state of New Jersey (and the insurance companies who charge higher rates if you get traffic tickets).
i disagree brian, cap, froggy -- no way most teens are as quick-thinking as 25-year-olds. some are, most aren't. age and experience usually makes people a bit more cautious and less impulsive. most teens, i'd argue, would easily fall for an unmarked car with a dashboard emergency light, pull over and think nothing of it. it takes time to learn that tho unmarked cop cars are everywhere, keep driving until you get to a public place. predators know a teen is less likely to think that way. a predator's only motive might be carjacking or money, not rape. but better to hit on a kid than an adult.
procopius, i disagree with any profiling. i know ins. co. get away with it all the time. my older son never got into an accident -- i resented he cost me higher insurance rates than if i had a daughter. me and my sister were much worse drivers than one of my two brothers. one bro, however ... good god. he wrecked more cars in 2 years than i've even owned.
joli, if only there could be a DWS -- driving while stupid -- law, haha. i drive at least 60 miles a day -- stupidity on the highway is rampant.
connie, i'd looove to keep my son from driving. just might if he doesn't shape-up. but re: predators. see my comment to brian. there's a concern, at least in jersey where we have a million people per square mile ...
exactly my point bill! teens never try to circumvent laws ... oh, i'm sure teens won't pull them off cars just for prank-sake -- or revenge. teens never do things like that ...
I propose a law: the No More Laws Named After People law.
It is the application of the general profile to the individual which is wrong, even when the general profile is statistically well-founded.
In the case you discuss (which is a pretty stupid law, as you convincingly show) it is more a matter of the state demanding that people publicize their identity (by age) even when they might prefer to remain silent. While forcing people to wear an armband stating their age is not as intrusive as, say, requiring a Star of David, it does open the wearer up to discriminatory actions--as with the stalkers you mention.
A very interesting post!
ICBC felt it was important to notify other drivers that some extra space and time should be given to the novices. The mistake is that your red stickers aren't big enough for other drivers to readily see them.
"Profiling? It's a fact - statistics show that new drivers are almost twice as likely to have a collision in their first two years of driving."
This comment represents a common misunderstanding. As the Supreme Court of Canada has said: "The mere statistical correlation between a group and higher risk cannot suffice to justify discrimination on prohibited grounds. Such correlation accepts the very stereotyping that is deemed unacceptable by human rights legislation: prohibited grounds of discrimination are used to ascribe the characteristics of the group to all individuals in the class. Discrimination based on statistical correlation is simply discrimination in a more invidious form. "