Pennsylvania legislators are considering restrictions on the number and age of passengers allowed to ride with youthful drivers:

In recent weeks, young drivers have been involved in three fatal accidents in the area (see related story). And in each instance, the drivers were carrying passengers.

Now, the idea of a more restrictive, "graduated" driver's license program is again being looked at in Harrisburg.

Pennsylvania's program does not limit the number of passengers even a very inexperienced driver can carry. And studies show that passengers can easily distract the driver.

Now, the House Transportation Committee will revisit the issue, and plans hearings to consider what else lawmakers might do to protect young drivers and their passengers.

Neighboring states, including New Jersey and New York, limit the number of passengers a new driver can carry. Why? Because accident data show that the risk of a fatal crash increases with the distraction from each additional rider, especially among 16-year-olds.

However many young motorists comply, these states' rider rules stand as important reminders to all drivers - and their parents - that limiting passengers is a key safety strategy.

Pennsylvania's licensing rules, updated in 1999, have helped to cut teen road fatalities. Extended waiting times and greater practice-driving requirements prior to licensing are followed by late-night driving limits on new drivers.

All good steps. But Pennsylvania imposes no other restriction on young motorists, other than that they wear seatbelts. It should do so, and soon.

Even with road fatalities on the decline, more than 100 teen drivers died last year in Pennsylvania.

Legislative hearings could explore the right mix of rules: Jersey limits unrelated passengers. Massachusetts bars riders under 18 unless a licensed adult rides along with a young driver. New York requires added training before under-18s can ferry friends.

Drawbacks? Sure. Rider limits could mean more teens take to the road solo. Burns gas, boosts traffic, even crowds school lots, and puts more drivers at risk for accidents.

It's still a question of convenience versus saving lives, though. So none of those drawbacks trumps a driver-safety measure that could reduce fatal highway crashes.

The fewer people in a car, the fewer "distractions," and the fewer people killed, right?

Of course, none of this should bother the wealthier families who can afford to buy more cars.

Nor should it concern anyone who doesn't have children.

Families need more protection from the state, of course. Whether it's inconvenient or not.

And whether the laws work or not. I found it interesting to note that in one of the incidents causing the recent uproar, three of the passengers were not wearing seat belts:

"I was the first police officer on the scene," he says. "One was ejected from the car, one partially ejected." About as ugly as car accidents get. Only one of the three wore a seatbelt.

'Kids are dumb'

I ask how it happened.

"You want to know how it happened?" he says. "Kids are dumb."

The officer can be forgiven his bluntness. He is correct. When it comes to driving, kids are dumb. Put another way, they are inexperienced and immature and clueless to the unforgiving forces of physics that dictate how 3,000 pounds of steel hurtle through space. The lucky ones learn over time; the unlucky ones get wilted bouquets next to a telephone pole.

Sandt notes that Township Line Road, with its dips and rises and washboard pavement "is a hard road to speed on." He points out the narrow ditch just inches off the pavement. Earlier, I retraced the boys' path, accelerating briefly to 60 m.p.h. before feeling the car jump and yaw on the uneven asphalt. Eighty miles per hour on this stretch I cannot fathom.

"When I stop kids speeding," the officer says, "they're never alone." Always, they have friends in the car. It's an irresistible and deadly narcotic mix: a powerful automobile and a group of captive peers to impress. He thinks Pennsylvania should follow New Jersey's lead and restrict young drivers from transporting other teens.

Let's see, for starters that's 35 miles per hour over the speed limit (a reckless driving charge in PA) plus failure to wear seat belts. Would another law have saved these kids? I'm skeptical.

I think it's an excellent idea to closely supervise the behavior of a 16-year-old, newly licensed driver. Obviously, he was still in school, as students at two local schools were "excused for the day to deal with their grief."

In all honesty, at that age, I think that unless the guy was my friend I might have been more relieved at having the day off than grief-stricken, but times may have changed since the days of my heartless, misspent youth.

Enough of "when I was a kid." I recall how tedious it was to listen to adult prattle about the past.

Anyway, the accident took place on a Thursday night. A school night. Were I in the parenting business, I wouldn't allow a brand new driver to even have a car ("his" was a 1996 BMW 318 TI) much less take it out with his friends on a school night almost immediately after getting his license.

But I'm not sure about laws telling parents how to raise their kids.

(I'm already worried enough about state parenting of adult children...)