Legislation Based in Emotion

By on December 14, 2006

While I understand it, and it is certainly a sad story, some of the facts from this just don’t add up. Can we please replace self-importance and melodrama with common sense when it comes to governing our state? And for the love of Pete, can we please stop this trend of people thinking they need to turn everything that happened in their lives into a life lesson for others? If I decide to take a lesson for myself based on what happened to you, then I will do it myself and incorporate it into my life. Is there any reason that it needs to be put into a law?

And if it wasn’t enough, the “reporting” in this article is just laughable.

“When teenagers tool around with carloads of friends, they OFTEN crash, and they and their passengers OFTEN die.”

What the feces-filled-fruitcake does that mean? Are you saying that the MAJORITY of teens who drive with more than one passenger crash? And then, it couldn’t possibly result in a fender bender in which nobody dies? Please provide some facts or something to back up these statements because vagueries are not the basis of good reporting and the last time I checked this was a news story not an exercise in bending a reader’s emotions.

Now, I recognize the fact that kids with multiple passengers crash on occasion, but wouldn’t that be true of any age group? I am almost 28 years old and I am never more distracted than when I have 3 other people riding in my car. I recognize that teenagers are less experienced drivers and all, but they also (presumably) have more restrictions on their driving priveleges via their parents. So what proof is there that this all happens at a higher rate in teens. More importantly, what, exactly, is the rate and is it to a point that it justifies a special law driven by the emotions of a fragile set of parents who tragically lost their daughter.

By the way, I know this comes off sounding a little bit cold and heartless. I don’t blame the parents for being emotional about the death of their daughter. Although it has never happened to me, I can’t imagine a worse kind of emotional pain than losing a child. I feel sorry for the Sanderbeck’s but I just can’t get on board with legislating this stuff.

    Sanderbeck said limiting the number of people in the car is important. “Michelle’s our inspiration,” he said. “We want her to have a legacy, too.”

That says it all, doesn’t it? It isn’t all just about this being the right law based in truth, fact and reasonability. They are trying to immortalize their daughter by forcing their lessons on everyone else. I am not saying it isn’t a lesson worth learning, just that nobody should be forced to do so.
I know I am expecting a lot, but can’t I expect Ohio State Legislators to empathize with parents like these and then move on to actual legislation?

This entry is filed under Politics.
  • http://www.ohmygodihateblogger.blogspot.com kiddicus maximus

    Out of the three kids that I knew in HS that died behind the wheel, only one of them had a carload of kids. The other two were alone, late at night, in the winter… I’d say that at such a young and inexperienced age, you’re better off having a few failsafes in the car with you. Maybe they would’ve seen the bus/telephone pole then.

  • http://www.mistercrunchy.com Chris

    There are two issues here, right? One is what laws, if any, should be put in place or changed to limit the damage done by teen drivers, who are more dangerous, as a group, than all drivers on average. The second is how we feel about various crusades by the families of victims to get laws passed.

    I don’t know the numbers, so I don’t know what limitations make sense on teen licenses. I can imagine statistics that would merit the kinds of limitations included in this law and worse. If Ohio passed a law making 18 the legal driving age, I’m sure lots of people would be agitating for just the kinds of features this law includes…basically things that let kids get to school or work on their own.

    Regarding grief-stricken families pushing laws, I’m not wild about it, but I’m sure as hell not going to tell them to stop. I agree that all the public emotion is irritating, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the law is stupid.

  • http://www.filteringcraig.com FilteringCraig

    The statistic I have seen (since writing the post) is that teen drivers represent 2% of all drivers and 9% of accidents. Even this info alone does not justify a law.

    We don’t know what the accident rate is, even though we know teens have a disproportionate number of the crashes.

    We don’t know how many of the teens cars had more than one passenger.

    We don’t know if this counts crashes that occurred as a result of drugs and alcohol, which should be excluded for the purposes of this law because they are ALREADY AGAINST THE RULES.

    I feel like this is unsubstantiated (at least from the sources that I found) and is being pushed through by a completely biased source with admitted motivations including their daughter’s legacy.

  • http://www.mistercrunchy.com Chris

    No argument on the question of bias.

    It doesn’t seem unreasonable to me that the public would want to seek a legal remedy to the increased harm caused by a particulary dangerous group of drivers. What’s your risk hurdle rate for a law to be justified? If your 2%/9% numbers are right, teens are 350% more accident prone than the average driver. That seems like a lot to me. The insurance companies certainly think that teen drivers (or their parents) should pay a sizeable risk premium. Their numbers are probably as good as anybody’s.

  • http://www.filteringcraig.com FilteringCraig

    Do we know that this law in particular is going to solve any issue of statistical importance?

    We know teen drivers are a problem, but this attacks a specific case with teens and multiple passengers. In order to go about making a law based on this specific behavior it seems to me that we would want something more than anecdotal evidence regardless of how well it appeals to common sense.

    That is why I would want more statistical breakdowns of the crashes and how many passengers were in the cars of the teen accidents. We don’t have much evidence to prove that this number will improve upon the 9% of all crashes. If this law goes on the books and creates one less crash per year, is it worth it?

    On top of all this, why not take something that seems common sense and further educate parents rather than put it in as a law. If a higher percentage of parents made it a ground rule, you could probably show just as much improvement as having cops ticketing for this.

  • http://www.mistercrunchy.com Chris

    Sorry to fisk, but it seems like the best way to organize this:

    [Do we know that this law in particular is going to solve any issue of statistical importance?]

    No clue. I guess I’d want data from other states with similar laws.

    [We know teen drivers are a problem, but this attacks a specific case with teens and multiple passengers. In order to go about making a law based on this specific behavior it seems to me that we would want something more than anecdotal evidence regardless of how well it appeals to common sense.]

    I think the occupation limits are actually a good idea, being suggested for the wrong reasons. I doubt anyone can prove that having more people in a car causes bad driving, but I doubt there’s any way to refute that when a car crashes, more people are likely to be hurt if there are more people in the car.

    [We don't have much evidence to prove that this number will improve upon the 9% of all crashes.]

    My guess is it won’t. But it will decrease the injury and fatality rates…guaranteed.

    [...why not take something that seems common sense and further educate parents rather than put it in as a law...]

    Same reason they didn’t do that for seatbelts…it doesn’t work well/fast enough.

  • http://www.nothingbutlove.net Bill

    Everyone should be aware of the fact that 100% of all motor vehicle crashes involve motor vehicles. There … I said it … it’s out in the open …

    The complaint I’ve heard voiced about the legislature in Ohio is that, whether you want to make jokes about it or not, there are fewer lawyers who have run for office in the last 15 years than in the past and fewer lawyers, therefore, sitting as lawmakers and more people who are not educated in the law or have practical experience in the law and believe that there needs to be a law to cover every situation imagineable.

    For instance, adding the killing of a foster child as a specific reason for being death penalty eligible has been proposed. This type of crime, if one is in favor of the death penalty, is already covered by existing law. Also, the driving under suspension laws recently enacted are not well understood by most judges.

    Sorry … got carried away.

«
»