Kyleigh's Law and New Graduated License Provisions go into effect May 1

I just heard about this on the radio! The mentioned that 17 year old girl was pulled over in Mt Olive this weekend on Rt 80 going 104mph, had 6 people in the car for a 5 passenger car and open bottle of booze! They said the cop gave her a ticket but let her drive home with all the people in the car

Mommyof2
Mar '10

link · flag

The girl was from Newton - http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/201003...-mph-on-Rt.-80. I can't believe the cops let her drive home with the other kids in the car. There must be something else to this story which will come out.

BLD
Mar '10

link · flag

Calico, she must have taken that "special" breathalizer test...

Hmm...no result...BLOW again....again...I dunno...try one more time....

Lori...since '73
Mar '10

link · flag

I think the law is stupid. How is a sticker going to save a life?

Also, I know if I had a daughter I would not want my daughter driving around with a sticker for sexual predators to know she is young and not only young she can't have people in the car so she is alone or maybe one other person. Same with males too now that I think of it because with this sticker this tells people that there should only be one person in the car or two so its an easy target to rob.

Nosila
Mar '10

link · flag

no subtlety here!

On a more serious note, I just read the article...One of the passengers was taken into custody, resulting in the proper number of people in the car for the ride home. Because I'm sure the number of passengers was much more pressing than the speed at which she was driving.

Minor or not I think her name should have been in the paper...Her passengers' parents ought to know what goes on in the car they are riding in. JMO. They can't always know, but in a case in which the police were involved I think it's their right.

Lori...since '73
Mar '10

link · flag

There has been a lot of discussion about this on the dailyrecord.com website. There seems to be alot of opposition to it. It is an awful thing to lose your child under any circumstances, but the sad truth is that there WERE laws already in place when this accident happened that should have prevented it, but didnt. The 4 teenagers in that car chose to ignore them. The basis of the protests are that it is the responsibility of the PARENTS to make sure their kids follow rules. A sticker of any color is NOT going to make anyone choose a different action. There is alot of concern too for this sticker attracting pedophiles as well as presenting an opportunity for profiling. This law seems more like a knee jerk reaction to an awful tragedy, unfortunately.

LVMomOfBoys
Mar '10

link · flag

Lori - If she was 17 then she was driving under a provisional license in which case she couldn't have had more than one passenger who wasn't a relative living at her address unless she had a parent or guardian in the car. Also, she was picked up at 2 A.M. and under a provisional license she isn't allowed to drive from 12:01 A.M. - 5 P.M., (although there are some exceptions to this but I don't think any of them pertain to this situation). So I am curious as to how they allowed her to drive the other passengers home. I know in our town they all would have been taken into custody and the car would have been impounded because if there was an accident after they were stopped the cops would have been held liable.

BLD
Mar '10

link · flag

When i said"proper number of people" I wasn't referring to the laws, I was only referring to as may passengers as there were seats & seatbelts...

Lori...since '73
Mar '10

link · flag

So let me see if I get this......I the parent have to pay for decals on all our cars. *there are 4 of them in this house) all because my 18 yr old drives them all. I also have tghe risk of being pulled over at anytime since the decals are on all our cars. My husband and my 23 yr old DS also have this risk? GREAT LAW!!!

BLD = No argument YOU WIN!!

Christine
Mar '10

link · flag

I believe the decals are attached by velcour so the "teen" is supposed to be able to use it on any car they drive and so the parents can remove it. I still think it is not going to prevent things from happening.

Mommyof2
Mar '10

link · flag

This is one of the stupidest laws I have ever heard of. I'm very sorry for the family that lost a daughter, I could never imagine how bad that must hurt. But this law will not change a thing, first of all what stupid kid is going to put the sticker on if they are doing something they shouldn't be. Second what about the poor inocent young woman coming home from work late at night and some scum (not a police officer) follows her and pulls here over and rapes and kills her. It gonna happen people and when it does I hope the family sues the living crap out of this state.Third how many parents are going to be pulled over because the kids forgot to take the sticker off. And last where will all this money from the sticker go? a sticker costs 25 cents to make they are going to sell them for 4 bucks.

earnhardt
Mar '10

link · flag

@justintime

Hey that kinda thing's been around for a while now

MCR
Mar '10

link · flag

Mommyof2 - Do all the cousins live at the same address? All of the relatives in the car have to live at the same address.

Christine - Does your 18 year old still have a provisional license? If he has fulfilled the requirements of the GDL he can go to the DMV and upgrade his provisional license to a regular license. The new license will still be potrait style so that it is easier to spot for underage drinking purposes. But he won't be required to get the decals for any cars he drives.

Also, why does everyone think that an older driver operating the car is going to be pulled over?

BLD
Mar '10

link · flag

shoebie said, "the stickers will help law enforcement to identify these drivers if they are breaking the law ie driving after curfew or with to many people in the car"

If those kids decide to bypass the law about curfew or number of people in the car, then why would they obey the law telling them to put on a sticker? The answer is obvious.

Rich
Mar '10

link · flag

shoebie- Not if it's dark out especially around here when there are no street lights. I just know I wouldn't want my daughter to have that stick on her car. I don't have a daughter but just saying. I know I wouldn't want a sticker on my car at that age I would be too scared and I'm not normally like that

Nosila
Mar '10

link · flag

Christine said: "Parents need to parent their children."

You're absolutely right. Unfortunately, it's easier said than done. And it's becoming more and more uncommon these days.

Tracy
Mar '10

link · flag

Another useless law on the books of new jersey to bog down the courts, make fines . its not like liveing in the city were they could jump on a bus to get around
I do think it puts teens a risk more so the girls
I just read the laws requirment its nuts

CagedAnimal
Mar '10

link · flag

"complete responsibility" is a scary phrase. I, for one, would take that to be 100% responsible for one's self & others. Some kids aren't responsible enough to cook their own meals and wash their own clothes which are basically harmless activities. Yet we think they are ready to be put behind the wheel of something that weighs thousands of pounds and can travel at outrageous speeds? I think each kid is READY to drive at their own pace. AGE shouldn't be the only indicator. And passing a driving test does not mean that they are ready for true driving...Anyone can answer a few questions and park between 2 cones a football field apart.
My son is a great kid, and his permit is 5 yrs away, but IMO he has a lot of growing up to do in those 5 yrs. He has a friend who has been driving a golf cart around his family's property for several years. That kid handles that cart better than some adult drivers I see on the road. I realize it's not the same, but I can see already that this kid will be ready long before my son will. I guess what I'm trying to say is that maturity, not age, is what should matter.

Lori...since '73
Mar '10

link · flag

CA,

A red sticker...Like a Scarlet Letter?

Lori...since '73
Mar '10

link · flag

The smoking age is 19, not 18.

ianimal
Mar '10

link · flag

On another note this is just the state trying to fix a problem that has nothing to do with them. Maybe instead of stickers there should be a parental boot camp. Here's a good question. What happens to the first young person who is targeted because of the sticker, and is robbed, raped, injured, etc. Who will the parents blame then? They will blame the state of course for this ridiculous law. And how will the state deal with that? What will be the solution to that problem. It's a cycle that will just continue. Parents need to start doing their jobs, maybe they should make a law that you need a license to have kids, because some people just shouldn't be parents!!

Maxdout2596
Mar '10

link · flag

Got it BLD...thank you so much for clearing that up!! Still a silly law if you ask me!! Very scary because these decals will definitely cause problems because young people will definitely be targeted by sick people.

Anom
Mar '10

link · flag

Here's the deal. Its age discrimination. Cops now have an easy target to aim for; its seems that you "adults" think its required for teens to be ticketed but piss and moan when you get one. Also, I really don't want some creepy pervert knowing that my friends who are girls under age. Like really this could cause so many more unlawful stops of teenagers and even rapes or cases of stalking. I personally will not follow this law and be civilly disobedient. This is one time when I truly believe the government has gone to far with its power.

HHS Student
Mar '10

link · flag

Not only do I agree that it's age discrimination, but it's also an excellent opportunity for sex offenders unfortunately. While I understand that the parents involved in the creation of this want to make driving for teens safer, what's a sticker doing to do? How about more driver's ed safety instead?!

Someone
Mar '10

link · flag

Someone, I agree with you. In our school we only get just over 30 hours of drivers ed. and we have to skip the last three chapters in detail. If the government wants to improve teen driving they could invest money into in car driving lessons for every student. That could greatly improve and make the roads safer. Adding a sticker will not make anyone drive safer or follow the rules.

HHS Student
Mar '10

link · flag

LOL, even the most ardent of liberals have a moment of Libertarianism when big government actually comes after THEM; it's not long before their mind conjures up a bigger governmental solution to the problem, however. Gimme back my Rage albums, Hillary, and shut up and put the sticker on your car like a good little government stooge.

ianimal
Mar '10

link · flag

Poetic: BRAVO. Well said. Hard to believe that you are just 19 - you are so articulate and level headed-sounding. Your parents must be quite proud of you.

LVMomOfBoys
Mar '10

link · flag

@LVMomOfBoys: Thank you for your kind words, they are greatly appreciated. I surprised myself when typing it all up; I've currently been awake for 48+ hours for no reason other than a difficulty of getting to sleep, and forming coherent thoughts is rather difficult for me at the moment, despite being a self-taught Philosophy Major and reading various works from Ayn Rand to Karl Marx extensively. And as for my parents being proud...That's a topic I won't get into, but suffice to say, they aren't.

@ianimal: You do have a valid point. I have not actually ever had to pay taxes myself, so it wasn't something that immediately came to mind, but I'm sure there's a way of going about doing the whole thing...perhaps just raising the amount of necessary hours of experience a person needs driving with an instructor?

Currently you need 6 hours of instructional driving in order to get your permit, and I honestly don't remember how long you need to wait and how much experience you need to advance beyond that, even though it was rather recent for me.

What if you were to potentially change it from 6 hours to 12 hours or more, adding in a requirement for early morning driving, late night driving, and driving in other various conditions? Yes, this would cost more on the parents, but not only would it give the students much more experience with driving in various conditions, but it would stretch the fact that driving is in fact a *priviledge*.

I asked my mom how much it cost for me to go through the 6 hours, and she said it was around $400. Well, how many parents will want to spend between $800 and $1200 just for the instructions for their kids to get their permit? Not many, I would think. As unfair and slightly unethical as it may be, this would decrease the number of younger drivers on the road, because I believe (not really sure if this would happen) that parents will hold off on letting individuals get their permits, telling them that they're going to have to pay for the hours with their own money, rather than spending the money that the parents made.

It's just a rough idea, I'm not sure if there are any parents out there who would be willing to spend $1200 on their teenager's driving permit alone, not including the insurance and everything else. I might be wrong though, in which case the entire idea would have to be scrapped. Again, not thinking too clearly, unfortunately.

~PoeticMadnesss

PoeticMadnesss
Mar '10

link · flag

@CagedAnimal: You may say that "we" are the government, however, I do not recall ever voting upon this law myself. And even if I voted against this law and it passed, that doesn't mean I would agree with it, nor does it mean that I would even follow it.

The government is set into place to keep individuals safe from foreign enemies, to keep individuals safe from criminals, and to protect individual rights. I believe that the government extending any further than that could definitely be considered an abuse of power if it is viewed as such.

I do not believe in collectivism; I think entirely for myself, and I encourage other people to do the same. If I do not believe a law is just, then I simply will not follow it, such as the drinking age. I am not part of the government, I do not hold a position of power; we are in a Republic, where our voices are "heard", yet our votes don't entirely matter. And even if our votes did matter, people would still complain that the majority is wrong if their stance was not passed.

Furthermore, and as heartless as this will sound, it has to be said, but why should I care about the families who have lost someone because of these accidents? Yes, I am viewing this situation through the eyes of a teenager who still has that whole "I think I'm invincible" thing down and believes that I cannot be hurt, but I'd rather live my life, right now, to the fullest without the fear of death than to be confined by rules and regulations that I don't feel apply to myself. Would placing stickers on cars prevent deaths? Absolutely not. It's ridiculous to think otherwise. It may enable cops to pull teens over and ticket them for breaking the law, but who says that the teens will head straight home after being ticketed? Who's to say that they simply won't just continue driving around?

I may be viewed as heartless or naive, but I'm also trying to view this as objectively as possible: Having your views clouded by the fear of a loved one dying is not the way to get things done, it is exactly what hinders progress as a whole.

That being said, I see we are on the same side of the argument; we both believe that this law should be changed and will only have negative consequences in the longrun, so why not think of a way to possibly change what we've been given from the terrified individuals in our community who are blinded by fear into something that will actually push our society forward, and help give teens more experience with driving?

My apologies if I came off as sort of a jackass there or slightly offensive, it was my intent at all, I just couldn't think of another way of wording it. So if you were offended, my sincerest apologies.

~PoeticMadnesss

PoeticMadnesss
Mar '10

link · flag

Sorry to say but I'm not that impressed with PoeticMadness. But that's just my opinion. It's your responsibility as a adult to know the current laws. We currently have a graduated driver's license program in effect in NJ which I think is effective. All high school students are required to take driver ed during their sophmore year at taxpayer's expense. When they turn 16 they can get a learner's permit and pay a licensed driver's school for 6 hours of lessons and take a written exam of the rules and regulations regarding driving in NJ. They are then eligible to drive under the supervision of a licensed driver over the age of 21. Parents should be taking the time during this period to drive with their children and give them the experience they need to be a safe driver. Parents should also be setting a good example when they drive with their children so their kids know what safe driving is. When they turn 17 they are eligible to take a road test. If they pass they are given a provisional license that allows them to drive unsupervised but with restrictions, including the number of occupants in the car and the hours they can drive. They must drive under the provisional license for 12 months. If at any time they commit an infraction the provisional timeframe can be extended. If however, they complete the provisional phase with no infractions they can obtain a regular license. http://www.state.nj.us/mvc/Licenses/EarlyBird.htm

"I do not believe in collectivism; I think entirely for myself, and I encourage other people to do the same. If I do not believe a law is just, then I simply will not follow it, such as the drinking age."

What an idiotic statement. Okay - I don't believe the government is entitled to my hard earned money so therefore I shouldn't have to pay my taxes.

BLD
Mar '10

link · flag

PoeticMadness - And how about the innocent person who gets hurt because you don't follow laws that you don't feel to be right. You've already admitted that you break the drinking laws. You're just another person who believes the world revolves around you.

And furthermore - just because your parents were too lazy or busy to properly parent you doesn't mean there aren't other parents out there who know how to parent and do it responsibly.

BLD
Mar '10

link · flag

BLD, anyone that understands consequences and is willing to "pay the price" for them is unlikely to be undertaking activities that would be doing harm. It's the people who don't understand personal responsibility - those who think that the world owes them something - that don't give a rat's behind about how their actions affect others.

AFA underage drinking, our new poet didn't say he was drinking and driving. However, if you think drinking is, by itself, a dangerous activity to your fellow citizens then I suggest that you push for renewed prohibition of alcohol.

Poet, I sincerely hope you keep reading and questioning everything you are exposed to, building your understanding of the world free from the typical garbage that is presented in the mass media.

justintime
Mar '10

link · flag

Madness - I think you got BLD wrong. She didn't attack you, she attacked your statement. I don't think it's unwarranted if a statement that says "I can disregard anything I want because I don't think it's justified" gets challenged. Where will you be when the Buddhist that put a bullet through your head says murder laws aren't justified because you simply get reincarnated? Which is why I don't buy the argument about you not voting for a law or not being part of the government. You never vote for *any* law other than a hand full of local referendums. So you ignore all laws?? You certainly aren't saying that.

Part of your personal responsibility is to accept you *are* part of government by electing your representative who does vote for your laws. If you don't have a voice then shame on you for allowing that, not shame on the person who voting for something you don't like. The Constitution doesn't seem to have a statement anywhere that says you get to ignore something just because you feel the majority is wrong and can drink at any age you want. (which is what you accuse others of) The Constitution gives you the right to get it changed if you want - which is why JIT should also be reminding you like he did with BLD, if you don't like the drinking age law push for lowering the age instead of ignoring the law selfishly. (and sorry JIT, "mass media" is a lame excuse for "it's OK becuase *I* saw it's OK", whether it's said by the mass media or some lunatic fringe media doesn't change right or wrong either way)

We understand the drinking and driving is an entirely different issue, and it's clear you're not suggesting any irresponsibility there. That still doesn't make underage drinking OK. Whether right or wrong, some folks don't believe in giving alcohol to kids. You can argue about what the age of a kid is, but it doesn't change that an age has been set. And it's been set by the people whose job it is to do it and who think even the most well intentioned people who claim to be personally responsible don't have that ability when it comes to something that changes people's perception of reality. I don't care who you are, but 6 beers later and *anyway* is subject to irresponsibility. Not because it's intentional, but hurting others just happens when it puts your brain to sleep.

You can teach personal responsibility all you want, but if you teach it with a set of rules that says you can ignore what you don't agree with then how much responsibility is that? Teaching going out and getting involved in politics and voting and running for office when you see laws that you don't agree with, that's responsibility. Selfish disregard for the rules isn't anti-collectivism either, it's a step away from anarchy.

GC
Mar '10

link · flag

Again, we need to try to wrap our heads around the fact that the government enacts two distinct types of laws, one type prohibits an individual from violating the liberty of another, the other does nothing but serve to violate one's OWN individual liberty. I believe that Poetic Madness is quite advanced in his/her thought processes, having already come to the conclusion that the latter type of laws are worthy of being ignored if one so chooses (and understands that penalties are still attached and accepts those consequences).

GC, do you really think that a grassroots swell by individuals under 18 would lead to the drinking age being changed? No, because the majority of the population is over 18 and wouldn't support it. What if 51% of the population believed that Hispanic people shouldn't drink? Would that be acceptable, too? No, because this is NOT a democracy, it is a Constitutonal Republic where the rights of the individual are NOT supposed to be infringed upon by the whims of the majority. There is no basis for the government prohibiting a legal adult between the ages of 18 and 21 from doing something that all other adults are permitted to do.

Similarly, all other victimless laws are worthy of heeding or breaking according to one's own personal morality, not because some idiot in Washington or Trenton says it's bad.

ianimal
Mar '10

link · flag

ianimal - I never said what I thought could or couldn't be accomplished in reality. I said there was a right and a wrong way. And I happen to believe in the Constitution - not Washington, Trenton, or you. Your morals aren't mine nor are they JIT's or Madness. The Constitution doesn't separate Church and State because for religious purposes. They are separate because you can't legislate morality, because that's a matter of individualism. Therefore you legislate on a legality basis - ie based on rights, not beliefs.

PS. "victimless crime" is an impossibility. Either it's a crime or it isn't.

GC
Mar '10

link · flag

GC, as I re-read my last post I can see how you might think I was condoning Poet's statement concerning his/her ignoring laws. I wasn't specifically addressing that, and I happen to agree in principle with you that we should work toward changing laws that are inappropriate rather than blatantly ignoring them.

No, I was trying to impress my position that it is personal responsibility rather than law that creates a safe and adequate society. Governments can enact whatever laws they want, but that does not mean that those laws will be effective. And that's really the point. Most laws are actually ineffective in their intended purpose, but succeed very well in limiting the behaviors of responsible members of society - the ones who aren't likely to cause harm at all.

It's true that there are many "victimless" crimes: Crimes only because there is a law on the books that say an activity is a crime. Remember, just because you disagree with an activity doesn't make it a crime.

On a final note, please remember that as a society, the current trend is to try place limits on our fellow citizens purely based on societal norms - regardless of whether an activity is truly harmful or not (like the proposed legislation in NY in which they want to ban salt in restaurants).

justintime
Mar '10

link · flag

On a final note, please remember that as a society, the current trend is to try place limits on our fellow citizens purely based on societal norms - regardless of whether an activity is truly harmful or not (like the proposed legislation in NY in which they want to ban salt in restaurants).

justintime

JIT: I googled the salt ban bill because I didn't want it to be true. I'm speechless.

cbel
Mar '10

link · flag

We should all buy the stickers and put them on our cars

CagedAnimal
Mar '10

link · flag

What a stupid law, what is a decal really going to do, why not just wait till a person turns 21 to even get a drivers license. A decal isn't going to do anything, a police officer can see who is driving a car and who is in it and use their judgement to pull them over or not. Sure teens driving around, get alittle crazy and I'm sure there are many accidents and deaths related to them being stupid driving around, but nomore then if they where hanging around drinking. Maybe they should just walk around with the decal on their heads. Also, there are more adults who have plenty of driving experience and have been driving for many many years who drink and drive and cause accidents and deaths. I don't see why their putting so much on the younger drivers when the older ones are just as bad. So if someone is over the age of 21 with a regular license no provisions, driving are they less likely to act stupid or not drink and drive or not speed as opposed to a 17-21 year old. It all depends on the person and their maturity level not on their age. Putting decals on a car that someone under 21 is driving is just ridiculous. It isn't going to change anything it will just give the cops specific cars to pull over even if they are doing nothing wrong at all. The cops in Hackettstown and Mount Olive are pretty alert to cars and tickets and who is in the vehicles. There is definetly not a lack in writing tickets and pulling cars over out here, whether your doing something wrong or not. So why the decal, and then to have to pay for them, if it's out of concern for the well being of our teens driving and others they may injure why does it come with a price tag. Also, just because they minus the amount of people a teen can have in the car, doesn't mean the person they may crash into in another car would lower the death rate or injuries in an accident, because the other car they hit may have many passengers in. The laws are really ridiculous. I wonder why cops don't sit outside the bars and see all the adults that stumble out and get in their car, thats a great decal. I don't recall voting for this on law they passed, we should all get to vote on any law they want to pass.

Riss
Mar '10

link · flag

Riss
"I don't recall voting for this on law they passed, we should all get to vote on any law they want to pass."
Your so right we should vote on laws and when a law is of no use any more we should vote to have it removed
love how the charges pile up

CagedAnimal
Mar '10

link · flag

Depending on how this next post is receiving, this may or may not be my last post here. This is going to be very long, and I am going to break down every form of existence - and perspectives of existence - to justify myself, and the reasons behind why I do what I believe is right. I may be wrong in some aspects because I'm typing this in one go without revision, so I may have to go back and edit things a little later.

To exist, you have to be conscious of something. It doesn't matter what that something is; you simply have to be conscious and aware that there is something other than your thoughts out there in order to exist. Without being conscious of something, you are nothing, you do not exist, you cannot even think (assuming you are not even conscious of the fact that you are thinking).

Now, whatever you are conscious of, you alone are responsible for deciding on what exactly that object or idea is. It is your opinion, your perspective of whatever you're focusing on which matters to yourself. The opinions and input of other individuals could help sway your opinion one way or another, but in the end, all that matters is how you view the object or idea.

How you define "long" or "tall" does not have the same definitions as other individual minds may define it. What may be "tall" to some might be "short" to another. These individual definitions are what define various objects or ideas in our world, and we apply them to our everyday lives. What else is formed with these individual definitions are our morals. We believe things are "good" and things are "bad", and we make these judgements based upon what we observe in the world and what we are taught. We are either given these morals to believe or we live through an experience which makes us form our own decisions on what is "right" and what is "wrong."

Now that I have defined morality, I can say this: "Reality is consesus."

What is the overall "truth" of reality is decided upon by however many people determine it to be real. If there are 10 people who believe the sky is red, and one who believes its green, then the general consesus is that the sky is red. That's just an example, but I hope you get the main idea I'm trying to get at.

Moving onto something a bit more advanced: The government is made up entirely of like-minded individuals who want to enforce their own views of what is right or wrong. If they convince enough people to believe that their stance is true, then the laws will be set into place, and then their form of "truth" will be accepted as the correct one.

Take for example the stance on abortion. Right now, it's legal. In the past, it has been illegal. People used to believe that it was wrong, and now there are individuals who believe that the privacy of the individual, and the decisions that the individual make, are more important the general consesus of the country, which used to believe that it was wrong.

Because the idea that the individual choice is now in control over this single topic, people are left to create their own "individual truths" on how they believe they should deal with this, if it were to ever happen. They have their own opinions, and we are entitled to them, each and every one of us. The choice is up to us on whether or not we want to follow through.

I believe that society itself, the ideal society, is a society of complete privacy; a society where the decisions of an individual are completely their own, and are not affected by anyone else who wishes to control said decisions, government included.

Now, for laws such as abortion which don't directly harm another living human (I don't consider fetuses to be humans; they cannot reason, so therefore they are not human; I place them on the same level as trees or other animals) we leave the choices and "individual truth" up to the individual who is in the situation. Now, if we leave "individual truth" up to said individuals for situations which won't directly affect others, why do we limit the "individual truth" in other areas?

Another example I saw above was a great one. Someone is sitting home along smoking a joint. Why is this illegal? How is it any different than an individual sitting at home drinking a beer, or smoking a ciggarette? The difference is that there is a choice between alcohol and tobacco, where there is no choice with marijuana. The general consesus, passed by a small number of individuals, is that marijuana is "bad" by their own definition. Because of this general idea that marijuana is bad, it has become illegal to use, and therefore, individuals do not have a choice on whether or not they should use it; the only choice they have is to accept the reprimandment, or to run from it when it comes.

I think I've made my point about that form of law, so I'll move onto something else: Where "individual truth" stops. A point that was brought up above is the murder scenario. Okay, I concede that I didn't explain fully on that point and devils advocate was being played.

In short: "Individual truth" ends where the harm of others begins. You may want to choose to drink and drive, but this puts other people at risk. When people do not have a choice in regards to being put in harms way, this is when the law should take over and force the hands of those who wish to be what is deemed as "unsafe."

If I'm hit by a drunk driver, I did not have a choice of whether or not I wanted to be hit and killed. If I'm sitting at home smoking or drinking, I choose to do so, I choose to ruin my body, and I do so in full consciousness of doing it.

If I'm murdered by an individual, it was not my choice to be murdered. I did not want to die. If I comit suicide, it is my choice. I did so knowing that I will die.

Do you see the difference? The entire point is choice. If you choose to be part of something that'll hurt yourself, then you should be allowed to do it. If you choose to do something that hurts others, there should be reprimandment.

Now let me examine the law which was broken in the circumstances of Kyleigh's death. They chose to get into the car, knowing the driver was 17, knowing they were not allowed to do so. Their choose signed their waiver, saying that they knew the possibility of what might happen. They chose to accept the consequences.

The driver chose to put others in harms way...but with their consent.

Is assissted suicide moral? The individual wishes to die, but is unable to do so. Therefore, the individual asks for help, knowing the outcome. Thus, I believe, that assisted suicide is moral and perfectly excusable, if it can be shown that the individual has full knowledge of what is happening.

The driver should be excused from putting others at risk, because the others knew that they were getting in the car, they knew that the driver wasn't as experienced as someone who has been driving for 20 years, and knew that the driver wasn't supposed to have too many people in the car at the time.

Alright, now that I've established my own personal opinion on why and how I think the way I do, let me continue on by saying this about the new law:

The stickers being put on cars will not only prevent further deaths, it will discriminate against younger drivers, and deprive them of their own "individual truths", and forcing them to follow the "Truth" set down by the state.

If individuals, in the situation stated above, choose to break the law, they should be in the full right to do so. And in doing so, they are showing that they are fully able to, and are willing, to risk suffering the consequences of their actions. If they weren't willing to accept the consequences, they wouldn't have gotten into the car.

How do I know? People don't go around killing others because they're angry or bored. They're not willing to spend the rest of their lives in jail. They're not willing to suffer the consequences, so they don't murder, or steal, or anything else.

These individuals stepped into the car willingly. They knew that they were breaking the law. They willingly went along with it.

Whether or not you believe that "individual truths" should exist or not, is not the problem. Imagine a world where you were forced to eat toast every morning, and weren't allowed to eat eggs, simply because a small group of people decided against it. You are being robbed of your "individual truth" and are being forced to accept the generalized "Truth". This is exactly whats being done with the stickers.

The reason why there are laws out there that violate these "individual truths" and will always be in place is because there are people out there who are afraid of change, and are willing to sacrifice the "Truths" of others in order to retain their own. Why should someone who is 45 care about lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18 when it doesn't affect them?

People who are not affected directly by these types of laws should not; I repeat: SHOULD NOT have any say in them. They are not 20, they do not have to wait a year until they can legally drink. They are not 16, they do not have to drive with a sticker and worry about being discriminated against. Their "individual truths" are NOT being taken away from them, so they SHOULD NOT have any say as to what laws affect these groups of people.

I feel that I've made my point, and if I haven't, then I weep for the minds of this country. I shall sit here, and I will continue to disobey any laws which inhibit me from doing what I believe is right, and will happily accept any consequences that come my way.

"Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men." -Ayn Rand

~PoeticMadnesss

PoeticMadnesss
Mar '10

link · flag

PoeticMadness even though I don't agree with everything you're saying I LOVE YOU BRAH!

HHS Student
Mar '10

link · flag

Great Points Liz

Just Asking
Mar '10

link · flag

They (whoever they are) should decide - is 18 years of age a legal adult or not. At 18 you have the right to join the army, be sentenced as an adult etc., no longer the responsibility of your parents and so on. But you can't smoke til your 19 (not that I advocate smoking but if you want to, I think you should be able to), drink til your 21 and now this special marker on your car. Either 18 is an adult or it's not. I really think that once you're 18 you should have all the privileges and consequences as every other adult. Or just change the age to 21 for everything. I wonder why they don't. Is it because by that time maybe some of our young men and women may have experienced a bit more and realize that they really don't want to join the army? Or do these laws and the violation of them support something?

Just my thoughts.

Hackettstown1991
Mar '10

link · flag

@Hackettstown1991: I've been saying the same thing for a while now in regards to these various laws (not here, but elsewhere). I'm hoping that someday there will be a uniform age for everything...or no age at all, and just have a height requirement :P lol

@ianimal: It's not actually pedophiles that young girls have to worry about...it's actually a lot of older, single guys, which is a much larger number than pedophiles, and are much more dangerous. I can't begin to tell how many times that my girlfriend was hit on by older guys back when she was 17, and the guys were in their 30's-40's...and she looked 16!

The truth is that there are a lot of scummy guys out there who are single, and they want to try and get as young of a girl as possible. The fear comes from the fact that some of them won't care if she's under 18, as long as she's close enough.

People won't agree with me on that one, but I firmly believe it as true. I don't really want to go into a full out explanation on that one though.

PoeticMadnesss
Mar '10

link · flag

Well if the 30/40 yr guys go after the 16/17 yr girls there pedophiles if their 18 there fare game
here you go you have a 17yr girl driveing late at night she has the tag on her plate their are 3 30 yr olds with her in the car the cops will stop her to see whos in the car . looking for teens this law just gives the cops to much freedom to stop cars with the sticker

So i will ask again how do we get it changed or removed from the book

CagedAnimal
Mar '10

link · flag

PoeticMadness, aren't you pushing YOUR "individual truth" regarding the appropriateness of 16- or 17- year old girls dating 30-something year old men? If they mutually want to do it, why is your opinion on the matter relevant?

ianimal
Mar '10

link · flag

"The age of consent in New Jersey is 16. However, minors aged 13, 14 and 15 may legally engage in sexual activities with persons up to 4 years older than them. For example, it is lawful for a 14-year-old male or female to engage in sex with a person up to 18 years of age. This also applies for 13-year-olds (up to 17), etc.[28]

2C:14-2. Sexual assault... c. An actor is guilty of sexual assault if he commits an act of sexual penetration with another person under any one of the following circumstances:... (4) The victim is at least 13 but less than 16 years old and the actor is at least four years older than the victim." - from Wikipedia

There are exceptions to the 16-year old rule. For instance, if the 24-year old in question was her boss at the mall or something, then it is statutory rape because he holds a position of power over her. If he gives her drugs or alcohol, that too would negate her ability to give consent. Perhaps one of these issues applied to your friend's boyfriend.

In most cases, however, it is perfecctly legal for a 30-year old man to have sex with a 16-year old girl. It may be offensive to your way of thinking, but again, my budding Libertarian, if the two parties are consenting, who are you to say that they shouldn't? It affects you not in the least.

ianimal
Mar '10

link · flag

It actually doesn't bother me in the least, and I wasn't fully aware of te exact law o.O I learned something today! :P

It only bothers me when older individuals try to pick up younger women, and the women feel uncomfortable by it. If the attention is wanted, however, I don't really care. xD

I care when it does bother me for the same reason that Kyleigh's Law bothers me; I'm able to voice an opinion on it, despite the fact that my opinion only matters to me.

It's a large circular way of thinking that drives me nutes. I have an opinion when my opinion doesn't matter, but it matters to me despite the fact that it's universally meaningless; but regardless of whether or not it's universally meaningless, it has value to myself.

This is how I think. It drives me insane. >.> I'm getting off topic though.

PoeticMadnesss
Mar '10

link · flag

Brian - The law is for all drivers operating in NJ under a provisional license, including drivers like yourself who got their provisional license before May 1. It also applies to those drivers who are eligible for a regular license having fulfilled the requirements of a regular license but haven't gone to DMV and obtained such a license.

BLD
Mar '10

link · flag

I am a 17 year old who has had his provisional license for nearly a year now and I am supposed to get my regular license on May 11, 2010, when I turn 18. Will this law restrict me from getting my regular license until I'm 21... in 2013?

Andy
Mar '10

link · flag

Andy - You can still get your regular license on May 11. However, until you get that regular license you still have to have a decal on any car you operate in NJ. So from May 1 to whenever you go to the DMV and get your regular license you need the decals on any car you operate in NJ. Also remember you can't operate a vehicle in NJ from 11:01 P.M. - 5 A.M. after May 1 if you are driving with a provisional license. Currently you are resticted from driving during the hours of 12:01 A.M. - 5 A.M.

Kat - see my answer to Andy. You will need to have the decals on any car you operate in NJ from May 1 to whenever you get your regular license, (if that is July in your case).

Hope this helps. :)

BLD
Apr '10

link · flag

This law is worthless. Make the steps to attaining a permit and license stricter, instead of allowing them to get them and then shove a whole bunch of rules when they already proved themselves worthy of getting behind the wheel. Sadly, I've never had a run in with a teen driver, every road raged, or clueless driver has been aged 30 or above.

SSDD
Apr '10

link · flag

So now I just purchased the sticker for my son's car. The sticker sticks out like a sore thumb and can not be used on more then one car unless you buy the velcro back that they will stick on.
I have a question what if my son works until 11:30pm does that mean I have to drive him and pick him up because it is after 11:01pm or can he get a note from work?
I am not for this law at all, but being it is the law I will put the sticker on his car. I also feel bad for the people who lost their daughter, but come on parents need to take some responsibility for what their kids do. I see it now, it will not be to long before we hear of a child being stopped and killed or raped because of the big red flag on the license plate.

Providence
Apr '10

link · flag

So crashes incolving teen drivers is at 95% which means that 95 out off every hunred teen drivers will crash there car , that tells me this law has don nothing to relive the problum . fatalities are 15% lower that what %
I dont think the new sticker thing will do much better , I do feel that the sticker will give the police the right to pull over the car after hours so moms and dads dont use the kids car to run to Quick check late at night cause the cops will be pulling you over

CagedAnimal
Apr '10

link · flag

Caged Animal - Driving is a privilege not a right.

BLD
Apr '10

link · flag

Just bumping this up to remind people this law goes into effect tomorrow. http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf...ng_license.html

BLD
Apr '10

link · flag

Christine, I have an extra set if you need it.

Hopeful in H-town
Apr '10

link · flag

If you are opposed to this law contact your legislator, don't just complain - http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf...to_introdu.html

BLD
Apr '10

link · flag

i dont see how a red sticker is going to prevent teen car accidents. how about we make teens go to driving school? that makes more sense then a damn sticker.

it sounds more like a money maker and we are discriminating against teens by making them stick out like a sore thumb.

plus if there is some crazy out there looking for teens they wouldnt have to look far....just for the red sticker.

redheaded_mama_of_3
Apr '10

link · flag

If you are opposed to this law contact your legislator Please do, I have. So let's put up a fight to get rid of Kyleigh's law

CagedAnimal
May '10

link · flag

So this STUPID law has been in effect for all of 4 days and what happens, my 17 was driving her friend home last night from the firehouse work night (OMG such bad kids) and this officer gets behind her and follows her all the way to her friends house and in the driveway and then turns the lights on. Gave her a ticket for 23 miles per hour over the speed limit. Funny thing, the damn 4 cyclinder car won;t go that fast. Guess they aren't profiling these kids!! I'll see you in court!!!

Ticked Off Mom
May '10

link · flag

Using the wisdom and good advice from another thread...the law is the law

All ComputerSharp is saying is follow the rules and every thing will be just fine . Dont follow the rules and your Screwed .

Bessie
May '10

link · flag

Just remember to bring your checkbook/credit card to court with you. If your daughter pleads her ticket down to Unsafe Driving you're looking at close to $450 in fines in exchange for not getting the points.

Tracy
May '10

link · flag

Tickedoffmom-
I was just reading up on this law, my DD gets her permit next month. I believe being a provisional driver, your daughter can not plead down a ticket. I am looking for the booklet from the DMV where I read about it and of course cannot find it. Anyone know anything about this?

Nutmeg
May '10

link · flag

Actually, Nutmeg, I believe you're right. Though depending on how close she is to her non-provisional license, you may get a Judge that will adjourn the court date until then, so she doesn't risk extending her provisional license time.

Incidentally, if ANYONE, red sticker identifier or not, was driving 23 mph over the speed limit, they will likely be pulled over. The intent to pull her over was probably made long before the officer saw the red sticker.

Tracy
May '10

link · flag

Bessie-
I had a roommate in college who was driving back to school one night, what she thought was a police car came up behind her and put his lights on. She was on a back road, and new she was doing nothing wrong. She kept driving until she came to a gas station and pulled in, (smart girl). The car sped off, she called the police and reported it. This was before we all had cell phones. I believe there is a number you can call now to see if the car pulling you over is truly a police car.

This also happened recently in Mansfield, a black Dodge charger had a bubble light and pulled over a motorist. He was brazen enough to approach the car and show a badge.

This is what I am afraid of with this law. I was reading the paper today and only a quarter of the drivers that should have the stickers have purchased them. I am going to write to the state to voice my concerns and hopefully they can change this.

Nutmeg
May '10

link · flag

This is good the red sticker could soon be gone

CagedAnimal
May '10

link · flag