The California legislature passed vehicle code 12814.6, which prohibits provisional license holders within their first year from transporting passengers without a licensed adult over the age of 25 in the front seat. New drivers also now have a curfew of 11 p.m., instead of midnight.

Many Paly drivers disagree with these drastic measures–and rightly so–which not only affect drivers who receive their license in 2006, but also those who received their license in 2005.

This legislation was effective on Jan. 1, 2006, so unless you were fortunate enough to have had your license for at least a year by then, this code applies to you. Unbeknownst to many, this bill affects already-licensed drivers. To view the driving code yourself and find out more information about this new law, go to the California Department of Motor Vehicles site at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov.

The vehicle code states that "during the first 12 months after issuance of a provisional license the licensee may not… (A) drive between the hours of 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. (B) transport passengers who are under 20 years of age."

One of the most aggravating parts about this new vehicle code is that licensed drivers who have passed the sixth month mark may no longer transport passengers. While they could legally carry passengers in 2005, their privilege is revoked in 2006. The fact that the vehicle code affects already-licensed drivers does not make sense. The already-licensed drivers have either already proved themselves to be responsible under the old restrictions, or not. In either case, they acquired licenses with the old vehicle restrictions printed in bold on the back of their licenses.

"This [new driving code] is a big disappointment," said junior Molly Kagel, a licensed driver. "I was really looking forward to getting my six months, [of driving with a license] which was last Sunday. I don’t think they should penalize people who got their license in 2005, just [those who got theirs in] 2006." According to the old driving code, drivers with their license for six months may transport passengers under the age of 20 years.

Licensed driver junior Paula Yoffe agreed with Kagel. "Although I think the law has good intent, it will not only affect those drivers who are easily distracted and drive drunk, but also those who are safe drivers."

This vehicle code confusion is similar to when the drinking age in Wisconsin was changed from 18 years of age to 21 years of age in the early 1980s. Even those individuals who had already been drinking had to stop drinking and wait until they turned 21. While this frustrated the unfortunate generation caught in the middle of it, the law eventually straightened out. Perhaps a better way to change the drinking age in the beginning would have been to require only those not already drinking to obey the new age restriction and the same could be said about California’s new driving law.

Many students at Paly wonder if this code will actually help bring down the accident rate within the first year of driving, especially in regard to the new curfew. While increasing the period in which students cannot transport minors is understandable, the curfew is not. Instead of increased traffic at midnight, there will now be traffic at 11 p.m. The time of day does not make a difference. Students will wait until the last possible minute before they must drive home.

Furthermore, according to a study conducted by America’s third largest auto insurance group, (NYSE:PGR), "more car crashes happen between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. on Friday than at any other time and day of the week." The company also discovered that "Fewer crashes occur on average between 4 a.m. and 5 a.m. than at any other time period." These studies suggest a weakness assuming that driving later will cause more accidents.

Adolescents’ ire at this new restriction is therefore completely understandable.

"This [driving code] is ridiculous," said permit holder junior Hilary Brennan-Marquez. "It’s just a way for parents to think their children are safer. If they really want to prevent more accidents, then they should modify the permit laws, because the whole purpose of the permit is that by the time you get your license you are ready to take on the responsibility of driving."

Amazingly enough, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration discovered that a crash involving an older driver compared to a younger driver, is three times more likely to be fatal.

The NHTSA also recognizes that the driver age group under 25 years of age in the year 2000 was in 24 percent of fatal accidents. While this is a substantial percentage, the other 76 percent of drivers in fatal accidents are not part of the 25-years-and-under age group.

In light of this study, it is difficult to understand why minors are being restricted further.

"I realize that the majority of students need more experience driving, just because they are new drivers," said permit holder, junior Camden Kimura, "but after the limitation about driving passengers is lifted [in relation to the old code which had a six-month restriction period] they’ve been driving for at least one year, which definitely is enough time to be safe."

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety publicized statistics that contrast NHTSA’s statistics with the statement that "16- and 17-year-old drivers have the highest crash rate per mile of any age group, and are more than three times likely to crash than 18- and 19-year-old drivers."

While these statistics are respectable, once you turn 18, you may drive anyone you wish the second after you get your license. As a result, 18 year-old and older drivers have less experience than drivers who have been driving with a license for six months. The study justifies their claim, however, with the idea that 18- and 19-year-old drivers are more mature. In reality, they are just as less experienced, and less comfortable drivers, despite the age difference.

In any case, drivers who proved themselves responsible in 2005 should be able to continue abiding by the old restrictions in 2006; however, those who receive their license in 2006 should follow the new law. A longer permit time might be a better way to avoid accidents. Let us learn from the past and not repeat the frustrating transition period similar to the Wisconsin drinking age law.