| State Representative John
“Corky” Mazurek (D-Southington, Wolcott), Transportation
Committee Co-Chairman State Rep. Antonio Guerrera (D-Newington, Rocky
Hill, Wethersfield), State Rep. Gerald Fox, III (D-Stamford), State
Rep. Frank Nicastro (D-Bristol), and State Sen. Sam Caligiuri (R-Cheshire,
Southington, Waterbury, Wolcott) announced today a new proposal aimed
at mandating personal accountability and zero tolerance of dangerous
driving by 16- and 17-year-olds.
Under
the lawmakers’ proposal, in the event of a 16- or 17-year-old
being ticketed for their first offense of either reckless driving,
DUI, refusal to take a breathalyzer, drag racing, or a passenger
restriction violation, the police officer on the scene would be
required to immediately seize the driver’s license and within
24 hours deliver it to the Chief of Police with a written explanation
of the incident. In the event of a subsequent ticketing for any
of those violations, the police officer would be required to seize
the driver’s license and within 24 hours deliver it to the
Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicle with a written explanation.
The police would also be required to secure safe transportation
for the vehicle’s occupants. These would be administrative
sanctions that would take place immediately and are in addition
to criminal penalties currently in the law.
Following the seizure of the teenager’s
license, the proposal calls for the suspension of that license by
increasing mandatory lengths of time depending on whether it is
the teen’s first, second, or third offense. Before obtaining
their license back, the teen would be required to show proof that
they have completed a driver retraining program. In addition, a
parent or guardian would be required to accompany the teenage driver
to get their license back.
“The centerpiece of this proposal is the
immediacy of it,” Rep. Mazurek said. “When you are dealing
with 16- and 17-year-old drivers, they have to realize the repercussions
of their actions, and that should not be delayed by administrative
procedures. Front-line police officers need the tools to act on-the-spot
when they know that a teenager will cause a danger on our streets.”
Rep. Fox stated, “Our most inexperienced
drivers continue to operate motor vehicles at high rates of speed
– a combination that often ends in tragedy. We need to send
the message that speeding has real consequences and will not be
tolerated.”
Rep. Guerrera said, “Teen driver safety
is one of the Transportation Committee’s top priorities this
year. We will focus on everything from speeding to drunk driving
to reckless driving. Safety on the roads is our guiding principle.”
“We have to protect our children at all
costs and sometimes it means taking a tough stand,” explained
Rep. Nicastro. “Too many children’s lives are being
lost due to reckless driving and we have to do everything in our
power to stop it. Our children think that they are invincible but
they find out too late that it’s not true – it’s
very sad. We have to do something about this.”
Senator Caligiuri added, “I am delighted
to be working with Representative Mazurek and other legislators
in a bipartisan manner as our efforts to address these serious teen
driving issues should not be political. Too often, we pick up our
newspapers or turn on the news to learn of yet another horrendous
accident involving teen drivers. And, sadly, these accidents are
too often the result of recklessness and dangerous behavior. We
have a responsibility to pass the best laws we can to try to prevent
more of these tragedies.”
The group of legislators held a town hall meeting
in Wolcott last December at which they heard comments from parents
and concerned citizens about ways to toughen laws to prevent teenage
reckless driving.
Also included in the legislators’
proposal are changes to the state’s “reckless driving”
statute. Currently, a driver can be charged with “reckless
driving” if that person is driving at speeds of more than
85 miles per hour. The lawmakers want to add the phrase “or
25 miles per hour over the posted speed limit, whichever is less,”
to that statute. |