But when HB67 went to the Senate for approval, it was gutted of nearly everything that made it such a good bill in the first place.
The amended document has now bounced back to the House for approval.
There are enough House members who will want to vote "yes" on this bill because it does contain a few good things.
"The amended bill is better than no bill," they'll say.
Except it actually is worse than no bill, because it gives only the illusion of truly applying to law all that we know about the realities of teen driving.
Just the way that searching on the wrong side of the street gives that hapless man only the illusion that he might find his keys.
In its original version, HB67 limited teen drivers to carrying just one nonfamily passenger younger than age 18.
That's because studies have shown, indisputably, that a teen driver's risk of a fatal crash increases fivefold when two or more teen passengers are in the car with him.
In the amended version, teen drivers who've gone the first six months without causing an accident would be allowed to transport up to three nonfamily passengers younger than 18.
On the face of it, it seems like a reasonable change, one that rewards safe teen drivers by expanding their privileges.
The problem is, what if the teens went without an accident precisely because they weren't distracted by other teens in the car? Wouldn't adding other teens into the mix be counterproductive?
The original bill also expanded from 50 to 65 the number of behind-the-wheel driving hours that teens must have before they can get a license. At least 10 must occur at night, and at least five in inclement weather.
Seems like a no-brainer, yes?
The Senate kicked all of it to the curb. So the first time that a new teen driver encounters, say, ice, he could be on his own, without the benefit of an experienced driver to guide him.
Do you want this kid behind you on I-95?
