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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
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?
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
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.
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.
Are we going to label drivers that are over 65 next?
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.
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…
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
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.
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?
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.
Decals are not made to be easily removable, just ask any kid who’s ever put together a plastic model kit!!