Judge Dismisses Suit over New Jersey Teen Driver Decals

March 10, 2010

  • March 10, 2010 at 1:19 am
    Baffled says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I don’t understand… could someone please enlighten me on the purpose of this law. What difference does it make. If a vehicle is being driven recklessly down the road, isn’t it the officers duty to stop them regardless of whether they have a Sticker on their plate. If they arive on the scene of an accident, are they going to treat the victim any differently because they have a sticker on their plate.

    What if the car is titled to the parents, but the kid drives occasionally, does that mean the parents need a teen driver sticker. What if the Teen borrows a vehicle while theirs is repaired… do they need to sticker that borrowed car.

    I see absolutely no benefit to this law… I have to say, I’m siding with the lawyer on this one.

  • March 10, 2010 at 1:20 am
    Rp says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I whole heartily disagree. This is our right to drive and not a privilege. Our judges and legislators need to start thinking like they did when they were teenagers and growing up.

  • March 10, 2010 at 1:22 am
    Kristen says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Are we going to label drivers that are over 65 next?

  • March 10, 2010 at 1:24 am
    Hmmmm says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Rp — I think the question is what is the purpose of the sticker — what is the intended purpose, because with the story and your explanation, I don’t get the point either.

  • March 10, 2010 at 1:47 am
    Big Mike In CALI says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Making this observation as a “sidebar” if you will: any personal activity one engages in that requires regulation of some sort is considered a privilege; that which does not is a right. To wit:
    Driving, construction contracting, hunting and fishing all require licensing;
    voting, expressing one’s personal opinion-written or verbal, legal consumption of alcohol do NOT.

    I agree, however, that this doesn’t seem to be a well-thought out proposal…

  • March 10, 2010 at 2:05 am
    Mongoose says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    NJ is setting up a system of getting fuly lic’d in steps. When you first get lic’d you can not drive alone or at night.

    The sticker would make it easy to spot a newly lic’d driver who is not to be driving alone.

    It all has to do with the new system of getting full driving privledges over a period of time and not immedietly upon passing a raod test.

    The story lacks full explanation

  • March 10, 2010 at 2:23 am
    Baffled says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Mongoose, thanks for the explaination. That makes a little more sense. However, I still question what happens when Mom has to sticker her car because she has a teenage driver. Now, mom’s going to get pulled over for driving alone between X hours. Seems like Officers time and taxpayers money would be better spent stopping real threats rather than lone drivers with a sticker on their plate.

  • March 10, 2010 at 2:32 am
    wudchuck says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    ok, here’s my problem:

    if mom or dad own the veh, would that not put us in danger of being flagged? afterall, it’s not my son or daughter primary vehicle. like someone else put, what if he borrowed my neighbor’s car to take out their daughter? does that mean he’s got to have a sign for that vehicle? it law has so many issues that it does not address. what they should do, is the teenager, would need to carry a removable sign to be placed on the back inside of the back window. i think someone just wanted to scare kids and parents, when in fact it does not matter who is on the road. afterall, are you going to require a habitual drunk to have a sign on his car?

  • March 10, 2010 at 2:37 am
    DS says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I believe everything I’ve read about this says it’s an “identifying decal”, not a sticker.

    You can take a decal on and off, no? Then you don’t have the issue of the parent vs teen driving the vehicle.

  • March 10, 2010 at 3:55 am
    Big Mike In CALI says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Decals are not made to be easily removable, just ask any kid who’s ever put together a plastic model kit!!

  • March 11, 2010 at 4:13 am
    Decman says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Has anybody seen a full copy of the law? Maybe it addresses the issue of borrowed cars etc.

  • March 11, 2010 at 7:13 am
    Reagan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Don’t you people know by now that any feel good law that Democrats pass is useless and only causes more money to be stolen from you. What’s the new cost for this decal? Are we subsidizing inner city teen drivers who allegedly cant’afford the decal? Are we paying, based on a civil serice test, an employee with full benefits to process these decals at the DMV?
    Crazy liberals and there unbeneficial pricesy laws are killing us.

  • March 11, 2010 at 7:18 am
    argraycat says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Perhaps in the UK the provisional designation served to allow other drivers to “cut them some slack”, but here it will simply allow targeting by the police. I want the police to be aware of ANYONE driving erratically, not just those under the age of 21. Just curious; will military personnel under 21 need the decals too? I came of age in the 70’s when it was understood that if you were old enough to give your life for your country, you were old enough for priviliges as well.

  • March 11, 2010 at 9:45 am
    smartypants says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Mr. Reagan, why not shut up about those evil Democrats and liberals who you blame for this and get the facts first before shooting off your mouth…I do not live in NJ but I do know that the two primary sponsors of this bill are from the american republican party; and the reason for the decal is to let police officers know that the driver is not to have a car load of passengers because they are under 21; the thrust of the bill is to stop carloads of teens partying all over the road at night. PERIOD.

  • March 11, 2010 at 10:05 am
    wudchuck says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    here’s the problem w/that point! what if the parent is driving the vehicle and get’s pulled over, because the officer thought that? this is why that is ridiculous to have such a decal. the state is trying to put money in it’s coffers instead of truly thinking of safety! i think that if you have a teenager, and you let them use the car, parents should be responsible enough to know if that child should be driving. the state should not have to put limits. they should have a stepping stone system like they do in NC. a vehicle does not need to have another decal on it, besides, what happens after the kids leave the house? who’s going to have it paid to be removed? will the parents send the NJ Congress a bill for the removal of the tag? or will that be another bill to have it removed by a specialist where most of the money goes to the state’s congressional budget?! too many hands, too much idle thinking….

  • March 11, 2010 at 11:38 am
    Reagan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    In New Jersey, Smartypants., there is no such thing as a Republican. I am from the Phila. area, so I know. A “Republican” in NJ is like Democrat in Tx.

    Oh, and by the way, why don’t you go suck and egg in YOUR fat mouth.

  • March 11, 2010 at 12:26 pm
    DS says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    1. Not every teen driver has parents/a guardian. There are emancipated minors. Not every under 21 year old driver lives in the household/drives their parents vehicle.

    2. It’s a ‘decal’ folks. We don’t know what type of decal it is. Let’s not assume it’s some giant thing that will stick on your paint and ruin your car. Example, at a prior employer we had a paid parking lot and they gave us small DECALS which we stuck on the inside of our window. When I bought a new car etc, I simply PEELED THE DECAL OFF the inside window and stuck it in the new car. Easy! Let’s not freak out about this part of it when we don’t know the details yet.

  • March 11, 2010 at 1:07 am
    NJ Republican says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Whoa, Reagan! I may be in the minority but I am a Super-Right Republican in the State of NJ and proud of it! As for this law, it is not well thought out and I hope by the time my kids begin driving, the legislators get their acts together. As a parent with a brain, I know it is MY responsibility to determine if my kids are mature enough to get a drivers license and be unleashed on the public. They may hate me if I decide they aren’t ready when the State says they are but that is just tough.

  • March 11, 2010 at 1:46 am
    SWFL Agent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Doesn’t matter how big it is, how easy it peels off, or what it looks like. It’s a waste of money to create & enforce the law and administer the program. Serves no purpose. So it informs other drivers on the road that someone under 21 is driving? So what? What should I do, turn and take another route when I see these stickers. Ever see the driving behavior of a soccer mom with 5 screaming kids in the car? Or how about a newly licensed immigrant that can’t read road signs. I’d follow my 20 year old in traffic any day over these two.

  • March 11, 2010 at 2:58 am
    Guy with Google says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    A quick google search answers many questions. According to the website http://www.njteendriving.com,

    The NJ Motor Vehicle Commission is charged with designing and distributing the decal, which must be displayed on a vehicle’s front and rear license plate when a permit or provisional license holder under 21 years of age is driving. The decal will be:

    •Affixed with a velcro system to allow for its removal when GDL holder is not behind the wheel.
    •Reflectorized so it can be seen at night
    •Non-descript (it is intended for law enforcement purposes)
    •$4 per pair at MVC agencies (Note: MVC is developing a bulk purchase program for driving and high schools, police departments and other organizations)

    A few comments for all you naysayers –

    First, it is supposed to be “non-descript” – so we won’t tell registered sex offenders what this reflectorized, easily seen at night thing attached with velcro to our kids’ plates is. That way, we don’t have to worry about that issue – the bad guys won’t know.

    Second, it attaches with velcro, so when mom & dad are driving at night they can just take it off. When the kids illegally drive with a bunch of friends at night, they can attach it so the police know to pull them over, making our roads safer.

    Third, it’s only four bucks, so the govenrment is only taking a tiny bit of your money as a fee (it isn’t a tax) just to cover their costs (with a little extra to cover the cost of the commission that was set up to figure this whole thing out.)

    See, it’s a toally logical law that will help us all live better lives. What’s wrong with that?

  • March 11, 2010 at 3:01 am
    DS says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Thank you!!! I should’ve googled this a long time ago. Duh.

  • March 11, 2010 at 6:23 am
    Water Bug says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I spent much of my childhood in the UK where new drivers (regardless of age) had to display a large red “L” on the back of the car. The idea was that other drivers would cut them some slack due to their inexperience. Perhaps the NJ law had this in mind.

  • March 12, 2010 at 6:50 am
    wudchuck says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    this is why IJ, sometimes does not fully research a story and bring to light the many facets of an article w/o many of us going off, like it’s a bad thing.

    thanks for the research and letting us know.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*