Skip to main content

Tattling on Bad Drivers


I think the current law regarding the reporting of bad drivers in Utah is just fine. Attempts to change that law in the Utah Legislature are a waste of time, and take responsibility away from families who don't want to hurt other family members' feelings.

Currently Utah law requires that your name be released if you report a bad driver. A bill that passed out of a Senate committee yesterday wants to change all that. A Deseret News article published this morning paraphrases the bill's sponsor:

The intent of the bill is to allow people to quietly tattle on a loved one without any fear of hurting a friendship or family ties.

My first reaction to the story was that perhaps there had been instances of violent reprisals by bad drivers against those who had turned them in. This does not appear to be the case.

Such a law, designed to protect family members from hurting each other's feelings would be worse than a waste of time. It is the responsibility of family members to take care of each other, even to the extent that they keep other family members off the road if they are not capable of driving safely.

Just as in a court of law, where a defendant is allowed to know who his accusers are, bad drivers should be allowed to know who reported their bad driving.

Even though those who report bad drivers will have to sign an affidavit, the fact that they can remain anonymous raises the likelihood that erroneous and harrassing reports of bad driving will significantly increase.

Families should not pass the buck to the government on such a simple issue.
Labels:

Comments

  1. Scott Hinrichs1/17/2007 10:39:00 AM

    I'm not sure that erroneous and harrassing reports will increase under this bill. Part of the bill means to severely punish those that do that. My senator, a man I personally know and admire, is sponsoring this bill. However, I fully agree with you that a bill that simply aims to let family members save face is not good legislation.

    My parents have made it clear to me that if their judgment gets so clouded that they don't realize that they are unsafe drivers, I am to take their keys and take their car. I have already given my own kids the same instruction. Within our families we should accept this kind of responsibility for each other.

    We already have too many statutes that reduce family responsibilities. These are always passed to mitigate some wrong, but they always carry the unintended side effect of weakening the institution of the family.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Frank Staheli1/17/2007 10:46:00 AM

    Scott,

    I'm glad you bring the point up that different legislation has "the unintended side effect of weakening the institution of the family".

    If legislators thought more about how important the family is to society, a lot of legislation would be different or not proposed at all.

    BTW, I hope not to have cast any aspersions at your Senator. I apologize if I have.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Tyler Farrer1/17/2007 11:57:00 AM

    I couldn't agree with you more on this.

    One other point. We need to to be careful about drawing a legal line that would categorize certain activities as impaired driving. Much of what this bill is attributing to impairement is actually the result something other than impairment--attention.

    I recently got hit from behind by an inattentive driver--distracted by an officer pulled to the side of the road. She was not impaired.

    Doing your makeup, or shaving, or having a sponge bath while driving is not impairment. It is inattention, and you can't police these kind of activities.

    It verges on policing thought.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Tyler Farrer1/17/2007 05:09:00 PM

    Correction. The bill says "careless" driving, not "impaired", but the principle is the same.

    Hard to police "careless" driving. How do you know someone wasn't paying attention if, when you pull them over, they're looking forward-wide awake.

    That is unless the 'fess up.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.

Popular posts from this blog

School Vouchers: "The Bramble Memo"

$429 million? What? Where? The legislative fiscal analyst for the State of Utah calculated the costs to the public schools over the next 13 years if school vouchers are implemented. It said the costs would be $5.5M in the first year, and $71M in the 13th year. Suddenly, the number I have started seeing thrown around was $429 million, the total costs for vouchers over 13 years. Where did that number come from? Enter the mysterious "Bramble Memo". In the past few days several of us (Jeremy, Utah Taxpayer, Craig, Sara, Urban Koda, Jesse, and me) have (sometimes?) enjoyed a lively discussion about school vouchers in Utah . Jeremy clarified to me the costs of the venture by linking to a copy of the Utah Legislative Fiscal Analyst's Impartial Analysis (LFA) of the costs of Vouchers , found on "The Senate Site". In my previous voucher article, I quoted some of Lavar Webb's article from last Sunday's Deseret News, wherein he stated that those total costs ...
66 comments
Read more

The Inhumanity of Bob Lonsberry: Waterboarding, Concentration Camps, and the the Bataan Death March

KNRS 570 radio talk show host Bob Lonsberry advocated waterboarding and other forms of torture during his show on April 21, 2009. More grotesquely, he was beaming with pride about his advocacy campaign. It's difficult to imagine then, that, by the same rationale, had Lonsberry been a German at the time of Hitler, or a Japanese during the Bataan Death March, that he would not have advocated torture of Jews in the concentration camps or the bayoneting and shooting of American soldiers on the Bataan trail. Torture, Torture, Everywhere! Nearly 80,000 American soldiers were captured by the Japanese in the To contemplate a discussion about whether or not torture is legal or whether it even works, it is first required to come to the conclusion that 'I am a child of God, but my adversary is a monkey'. Phillipines in 1942 and forced to march with no food and very little water for six days. If a man stumbled, if he didn't respond quickly to a command, or if he tried to get wat...
50 comments
Read more

What's Your Reaction to California's Decision on Same-Sex Marriage?

Yesterday a "Republican-dominated" California Supreme Court struck down state laws against same-sex marriages. The LDS Church issued a press release, calling the decision "unfortunate". I agree, but not for reasons you might think. Did the California Court make the right decision? Update 5/17/2008 : California decision does not affect prohibitions against polygamy and marriage of close relatives. Why not? Government should not sanction same-sex marriages for the same reason that it should not sanction heterosexual adultery--such activities tend to be destructive to the family as the fundamental unit of society. Before you get too far into reading into my words, let me echo and agree with something that Madeleine Albright wrote in her recent book, The Mighty & The Almighty (one of the better books that I have read in a long time): I oppose discrimination against gays and lesbians and am convinced that heterosexual adultery is a greater danger to the institu...
67 comments
Read more