Thursday, March 17, 2011

Feds Want to Control Drivers' License Age

The Federal Government would control drivers' license standards nationwide if  the  Safe Teen and Novice Driver Uniform Protection Act or STANDUP supported by Maryland Congressman Chris Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat, would pass. The compelling issue is that auto accidents are the number one killer of teenagers. Tim Bishop, a New York democrat, sponsors the bill.

Should that sound so shocking?  I a person has grown beyond the infant illness stage and hasn't gotten old enough for the wear and tear of life and the aging process to set in, of course the highest cause of death is going to be behavior induced. Other causes of teen death are drug and substance abuse, urban violence, and engaging in jackass stunts.

The law sets standards for teen licensing including cell phone use, how many passengers a teen can transport, and other standards.

So how is it that the states are failing at this operation where the feds would set standards forcing states to comply or lose their federal highway funds?

Okay, North and South Dakota allow full drivers' licenses at age 14 after a child has driven with an adult on a learner's permit for six months. Three other states allow licensing before age 16. 43 states allow licenses at age 16.

Maryland, New York, and New Jersey have some of the toughest laws in the country. Gee, aren't these the same states that keep coming up as having some of the worst and rudest drivers?

The bottom line is if the feds take control of this process, there will be costs the be dealt with both on the Federal and State level. Then one wonders what precedence does this set for more Federal power grabs.This is another example of the nanny state on steroids.

First, if the law were enacted, the Federal government would need additional personnel, perhaps a new STANDUP or some other ridiculously named department to monitor and assess state compliance. States then would have to hire personnel to document compliance and provide the federal government with all necessary documentation.

They say they're doing it to say teen lives.  Well, it might do just that. If there are fewer teens on the road, logic says the number of deaths would too, but is that an argument that nanny needs to coddle children even longer?

Logic would say the penalties of inexperience would simply move on to older drivers. Drivers 18 and older have far more requirements making driving a necessity.

Onc cannot help but see the irony that the generation who didn't trust anyone over 30 becoming obsessed with youth while still children cannot deal with their own aging in so many affectatious ways including injecting toxins into their faces to avoid wrinkles, undergoing all kinds of plastic surgery, and other even more bizarre behaviors then turn around and attempt to keep the offspring they spawned children for as long as possible. One of the first things the baby boomers did upon gaining political influence was return the drinking age to 21. It's okay for an 18 year old to take a bullet for his country, be sued in adult court, sign legally binding contracts,and even buy a house, but cannot buy a beer. Now Nanny might find ways to creep into adulthood for driving privileges.

Meanwhile, do Bishop and Van Hollen drive or hit us up for limo drivers? Regardless, they are horribly  distracted, but given the agenda these northeastern tax, spend and pass more regulations northeast liberals follow, the more distracted and out of the way of acting upon the high priority issues, the better. Let's just hope the majority of the house wants no part of this nonsense.


No comments: