Most other states already have strengthened their graduated license requirements to give young drivers more experience and limit distractions to keep them and highways safer. Pennsylvania lawmakers can do the same by supporting a bill sponsored by state Reps. Kathy Watson, R-Bucks, and Rick Geist, R-Blair, to increase to 65 from 50 the hours of supervised driving that new drivers must log before getting a license. The legislation, House Bill 9, also would limit the number of teen passengers that can be in the car with a junior driver. A third feature of the bill would make seat-belt usage a primary offense, meaning police could stop a vehicle if anyone under the age of 18 is not wearing a seat belt.

More than 40 states have already made similar changes, like limiting teen passengers, to their graduated licensing programs.

Watson’s bill has been introduced before, but lacked the support to be passed and become law. What could explain these failures to pass such common-sense laws that most states have already implemented? Answer: It’s par for the course for Pennsylvania’s Legislature.

Studies have shown that most accidents involving teenage drivers are linked to inexperience and distractions. Watson’s bill addresses both issues.

Anyone who has seen a carload of teenagers understands the logic of limiting young passengers for junior drivers. A survey of AAA members found strong support — 96 percent — for limits on teen passengers in cars driven by young drivers.

The other key feature of the bill, adding 15 hours of supervised driving before a junior driver can take the licensing exam, also makes sense. The more experience behind the wheel a young driver has, the more likely he or she will be to deal with the many different situations and conditions that drivers routinely encounter. Many would argue, however, that even 65 hours is not enough.

But as important as additional behind-the-wheel experience might be, the mandate raises the question, “How can such a requirement be verified?”

As it stands now, with either the current 50-hour requirement or the proposed 65-hour mandate, there is no way to verify that this condition has been met. Most parents are probably conscientious enough to ensure that their son or daughter not only meets, but exceeds, the minimum required hours of supervised driving before taking the exam. When they sign the form, it’s the truth.

On the other hand, some parents will not bother. Some will simply sign the form, thankful that they soon will be relieved of some “chauffeur” duties.

While it might be unpopular, the best solution to this flaw is to require completion of a certified driver’s education program before anyone is issued a license. Yes, cost would be an issue for many, but no more than gasoline and insurance.

Several decades ago, when today’s baby boomers were teenagers, drivers ed was part of the high school experience. According to a USA Today article from 2009, some states are moving to return driver’s ed to the high school curriculum or requiring that any teen seeking a driver’s license must first complete a state-approved driver’s ed course.

Mandating formal driver’s education seems intuitive as a way to make young drivers, and the roads, safer. But an alternative view comes from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, which claims driver’s ed is not a significant factor in reducing crashes because it is not a significant countermeasure to the typical teenager’s tendency toward risky behavior. The institute’s suggestion for reducing teen driving deaths: Raise the driving age from 16 to 17 or 18.

That might provoke protests from teens and parents — even if it reduces highway deaths. But support for Watson’s bill should be a political no-brainer.