Home.

Ms. Sylvia Pagan Westphal
Los Angeles Times

Dear Ms. Westphal,

With regard to your Nov. 12 article, Metro section, page B-2, "With new law, 16 isn't so sweet," I recently received updated, more complete figures from the California Highway Patrol Information Services Unit that contradict the article's claim of "safer highways."

The law has been in effect since July 1, 1998. Complete figures are available for the year prior to the law's effective date (July 1997 through June 1998) and for the last six months of 1998, after the law took effect. The figures for the first six months of 1999 remain incomplete and will probably increase when the period is closed.

Comparing the 12 months before the law to the 12 months after, and using the same measure your article used, here are the complete totals:

Drivers at fault in fatal/injury crashes:

I'm not sure why 15 year-olds were included in your piece, since they could not legally drive without supervision before the new law took effect. Even including them, there is scant improvement in highway safety after the law took effect, and what there is will probably disappear when 1999 figures are complete.

In fact, the new law subjects 16 year-old drivers to the most restrictions, yet they show slight increases in crashes after the law took effect, making claims of the law's effects become more dubious still. Some more bad news: The CHP's tabulation also shows an 11% increase in fatal crashes caused by 15-17 year-old drivers after its adoption, no matter what time periods are compared. From July 1997-June 1998, there were 115 fatal crashes in which 15-17 year-old drivers were at fault; from July 1998- June 1998, 128. Among 17 and 15 year-olds, fatal crashes fell slightly (from 75 to 72), but this was more than offset by a 40% increase among 16 year-olds (40 before, 56 after).

I would certainly not argue that the updated figures show "the new law CAUSED 16 year-olds to suffer more than one additional serious crash every week and one additional death per month, compared to before" -- though the law's proponents seem to engage in unwarranted correlation-equals-causation when the figures appeared on their side. Causal claims require careful study.

However, the rate of 16-17 year-old California drivers at fault in fatal/injury crashes had previously been declining. Further, the rate of fatal crashes among 16-17 year-olds in 1997 was 58% lower than in 1980, 39% lower than in 1985, and 14% lower than in 1995. In 1997, the rate was 21% below its level in 1985 and 13% lower than in 1995. Thus, the flat trend after the new law was adopted in 1998 represents a slowdown in the previous decline, not evidence of enhanced highway safety.

These declines parallel those among California adult drivers and occurred during a period when teenagers were allowed to drive unsupervised, alone or with their peers. In fact, despite claims that there's something drastically different about teen and adult drivers, CHP figures show trends in teenage accident rates over the last 10 to 25 years are exactly the same as for adults.

That teenage fatal, injury, and other crash rates (both per 100,000 drivers and per 100,000 population) had been dropping steadily and strongly for 15 years before the mid-1990s tough- control era arrived is a perspective nowhere presented in the article, nor on any others I've seen on "teenage drivers." The image was one of teens who are hopelessly reckless unless constantly watched by adults.

I wonder if you would be willing to do a follow-up story dealing with these updated, longer-range issues that challenge public perceptions of teenage drivers and the new law's effects.

Thanks for your attention.

best regards,

Mike A. Males, Ph.D. (UC Irvine, Social Ecology)
Tel 831/426-7099
Email mmales@earthlink.net