As if our federal government does not interfere enough with matters best left to the states, here is another proposal for the feds, not the states, to determine when young people will get a driver's license.
Of course it is all about saving lives, doncha know?
That is the claim of congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and the bill's sponsor, Tim Bishop (D-NY).
Yes young people are not necessarily the best drivers. But living here in the Los Angeles metropolitan area, it is not just young people that are lousy drivers. And this is not to stereotype any one. It is not the point.
What business is it of the federal government what age each state allows people to begin the process of getting a driver's license?
Ahh, there is that issue of getting money from the federal government for highway maintenance.
Nice bit of blackmail, isn't it?
If this moronic legislation were to pass, each of the 50 states would have to get their guidelines in line with what the feds believe is correct. If not, they will lose 10% of their federal highway funds.
See, it is not all about saving lives. It is about how to get the cash from D. C.. Oh yeah, we will give you the cash for highways, but here is the blackmail for you to get it.
This has been done so much by the federal government that I could cite until my hands fall off typing the cases.
This is not necessary. Many states are doing a fine job in determining how to start the process of young people getting a driver's license. And it is what fits each state based on such things as accidents, driving habits and or trends among these young people.
It easy to blame youth for such things. However, has anyone realized that new drivers, by and large, are more likely to be good drivers? They are much more aware of the rules of the road than many older people. I think that in reality it would be safe to say that college-age drivers are more likely to be a threat on the road than high-school age drivers.
In the linked story, sociologist Mike Males, makes the point. Making people wait to drive does not mean less problems. It means delaying an inevitability. Mr. Males:
"It turns out that its worse to have inexperienced 18-year-olds on the road than inexperienced 16-year-olds."
And you know what Mr. Males suggests? Going after bad drivers. They come in all ages.
Because it would make sense.
So, for the other side there is bill supporter Ray Sanderbeck.
Sadly, his daughter, Michelle, was a passenger in a car driven by a friend, both at the time 15 years old. The car went out of control and Michelle died.
In support of the legislation, Mr Sanderbeck said this:
He says if this kind of law would have been in effect in 2006, his daughter would still be here.
"If they can nationalize this across the United States, I know it will save teen lives."
Now I know Mr. Sanderbeck is emotional, but he can not say his daughter would still be alive if she was not in the car with her friend. It is possible that she may have been hit by a car. That Mr. Sanderbeck could have been driving a car that got out of his control and she died. See, that is an overarching emotional argument. But it is not good enough to take away the state's ability to determine the correct way to start the process of giving driver's licenses.
The more that we allow these kind of proposed legislation to become law, the less ability there is for the states to determine legitimately the way to deal with such matters as who does and does not drive on the streets and highways.
The best way to save lives, young, old and all in between, is to go after bad drivers. Period. And let the local governments figure out how best to deal with it, not the feds. And certainly not by using the blackmail of not getting federal highway funds.
No comments:
Post a Comment