Many provinces have adopted rules for new drivers that are intended to reduce the incidence of crashes and the often tragic consequences. As the father of a teenager new to the wheel, I applaud such initiatives, but this weekend illustrated a flaw in the logic.
The particular rule I reference is the ‘single passenger’ restriction in British Columbia that only allows a new driver to carry one passenger unless they are relatives of the driver. I understand the logic: a car full of teens is a car full of distractions for the driver. Bad things follow.
This weekend, my son and three school colleagues were working diligently on a school project, which required them to attend several different locations to film and conduct research. A great learning initiative no doubt.
Now I’m no statistician but it seems to me that the ‘one passenger’ rule in these circumstances actually doubled the possibility of a crash by requiring the use of two cars – driven by new drivers – to transport the group of four.
So as I watched the quartet climb into a pair of cars and head into city traffic, I wondered about the effectiveness of the rule. In my mind, two cars driven by inexperienced drivers equates to twice the risk. So where’s the safety in that? And where’s the eco-logic?
Rescinding the rule may be a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water, so I’m not advocating its rescission. It’s not the intent of the rule that I question; it’s the efficacy.
The particular rule I reference is the ‘single passenger’ restriction in British Columbia that only allows a new driver to carry one passenger unless they are relatives of the driver. I understand the logic: a car full of teens is a car full of distractions for the driver. Bad things follow.
 |
This weekend, my son and three school colleagues were working diligently on a school project, which required them to attend several different locations to film and conduct research. A great learning initiative no doubt.
Now I’m no statistician but it seems to me that the ‘one passenger’ rule in these circumstances actually doubled the possibility of a crash by requiring the use of two cars – driven by new drivers – to transport the group of four.
So as I watched the quartet climb into a pair of cars and head into city traffic, I wondered about the effectiveness of the rule. In my mind, two cars driven by inexperienced drivers equates to twice the risk. So where’s the safety in that? And where’s the eco-logic?
Rescinding the rule may be a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water, so I’m not advocating its rescission. It’s not the intent of the rule that I question; it’s the efficacy.