The Freedom Bulletin

Thank you Boston Globe! This great article shows that there is no reason to ban elderly people from driving or require age-discriminatory testing.

Laws should never be made based on statistics, but even statistically, old people do not deserve to lose their driving rights. Drivers age 75 or older are 7% of all drivers but are involved in only 3.6% of crashes. In 2008, they accounted for 18% fewer crashes than in 2004. And the number of car crash deaths among people 70 and up dropped by 21% between 1997 and 2006, even though the population of people in this age group increased by 10%.

So much for the media brouhaha over a few recent accidents. I really dislike how news reports (and state legislators) make a big deal of individual incidents as reasons to change the law, but they never give any statistics about the normal frequency of such incidents, so viewers have no way of knowing whether the current level is above average or not. Kudos to the Globe for providing such statistics to combat the ignorant, knee-jerk reaction of those who want to further shrink our liberty.

Health post coming tomorrow as promised!

I found two cool opinion articles today which I agree with, one in the Globe and one in the Metro:

• “Got a comment? Keep it to yourself” by Douglas Bailey, about how online comments devalue journalism
• “Leave my granny alone” by Thomas Keown, about how testing drivers based on age is “excessive and can’t be done with dignity.” That just about sums up how I feel about the issue. I am glad to see someone who agrees with me amid the hordes of people calling for increased testing.

This is one of the dumbest things I’ve read in a while. According to this letter to the editor that appeared in the Globe earlier this week…

Check out this great column by Joe Fitzgerald from the Herald criticizing the recent backlash against older drivers. I agree with him!

State legislators couldn’t come to agreement at a hearing yesterday on various proposals to take away old people’s right to drive. Here are a few of them:

• Sen Brian Joyce’s proposal to have drivers road tested every five years starting at age 85. This is blatantly discriminatory and unfairly punishes all old people for the bad driving of a few.
• Rep. Joseph Wagner’s idea to periodically road test all drivers. I oppose this, since everyone has a right to drive, and never-ending testing places an undue burden on this right, but it’s better than only testing old people since at least it’s not discriminatory.
• Rep. Kay Khan’s proposal to allow doctors to report patients who might be bad drivers to the RMV. I oppose this since it’s none of doctors’ business whether their customers are good drivers or not. Doctors are paid to provide a service to people, not to snitch on people and boss them around.
• Sen. Patricia Jehlen’s idea to require people to bring a list of their diagnosed functional impairments to the RMV. I oppose this, since it’s none of the RMV’s business what ailments you have.
• Sen. Steven Baddour’s idea that people have the responsibility to make their parents stop driving. This places an undue burden on sons and daughters and is very demeaning to old people.

As you can see, I don’t really like any of the legislators’ ideas. There is nothing wrong with driving laws today except that they are too restrictive. The government, on both the state and federal levels, has been gradually shrinking the amount of things we are allowed to do, from gun control to mandatory health insurance to mandatory chemotherapy to the greyhound racing ban to airport security. Restricting older people’s driving is just another attempt to take away liberty in the name of safety, and that is the last thing Massachusetts needs.

I know that most people seem to think of driving as a privilege, but I think it should be treated as a right. It doesn’t violate the rights of anyone else, and it isn’t immoral, so why should it be a privilege? Neither the government nor doctors nor family members have the right to decide whether people should be allowed to drive or not. Call me crazy, but I don’t think it would be a bad idea to abolish all license requirements and let people of all ages decide for themselves if they are skilled enough to drive.

The opinion that follows is probably going to be very unpopular. But I think it is right.

Despite the recent furor over a few high-profile accidents, I am opposed to increased testing requirements and restrictions for elderly drivers. People from across the political spectrum, from Michael Graham to Attorney William Kickham to Governor Deval Patrick, have been speaking out in favor of restricting older people’s right to drive. However, anyone who truly believes in freedom would oppose such restrictions.

Because of the tragic death of 4-year-old Diya Patel after she was hit by an 89-year old driver, popular opinion seems to be strongly in favor of limiting the right to drive in order to prevent similar occurrences. State Senator Brian Joyce has introduced a bill to require vision and road tests at age 85, while others support requiring frequent road tests for people of all ages, or banning elderly people from driving altogether. This little girl’s death was truly sad and horrible, and if the driver is at fault, then she should be punished. However, all of the other drivers in the state are not responsible for Diya’s death and it makes no sense to punish us for something that we didn’t do. Yet that is exactly what driving restrictions and increased testing requirements amount to.

Perhaps it’s true that statistically, elderly drivers are more likely to be bad drivers than younger ones. But that is irrelevant. Laws should never be based on statistics, and people’s legal rights should not change based on their age, gender, or other characteristics that they cannot control. 

Michael Graham (a great radio host and blogger who I usually agree with) asks why 30-year-olds and 90-year-olds are treated the same by the RMV. The answer is because it’s the right thing to do. People of all ages should always be treated the same under the law. It violates human dignity and equality to do otherwise.

Everyone has a right to drive, since driving is not immoral and does not interfere with others’ rights. Injuring innocent people or damaging their property does interfere with their rights, and that’s what should be banned and, in fact, is banned. If a person violates someone else’s rights while driving, then they should be punished for that. However, it is unjust to violate people’s rights to drive if they have done nothing wrong. Simply being in a demographic group that is statistically more likely to be dangerous is not a legitimate basis for the government to deprive people of rights or put conditions on those rights.

Although I oppose driving laws that discriminate against old people and teens, I think that laws restricting old people’s rights are even worse. When I passed my driving test, I was happy. The reason I was happy was because I knew I would never again have to worry about taking a driving test. Requiring me to be tested again when I am old would take that away. At least now, even though teenagers are discriminated against, people have something to look forward to as they get older: escaping from this discrimination. If old people’s rights are taken away too, then all people will have to look forward to is losing their independence, seeing their freedom shrink, and being treated in a paternalistic manner. The government should pass laws that enable people to be happy about getting older, not make them dread it.

Contrary to what Graham says, it would take no courage for politicians to go along with the emotional, knee-jerk reaction of the masses. It would take courage to make the rational decision to respect freedom. 

Our government, both on the federal and state levels, is moving in the direction of trying to increase safety at the expense of liberty, and that isn’t good. It’s horrible when an innocent person dies, but horrible things are going to happen, sometimes at the hands of bad people and sometimes as an accident. Taking away freedom in an attempt to prevent tragedies can never be fail-proof, and (more importantly) would be a bad trade-off even if it was. I’d rather live in a society with dignity, equality, freedom, and occasional danger than in a perfectly safe society without dignity, equality, or freedom.

See also:

Pressure building to test elderly drivers – Boston Globe

Pols might finally be driven to act – Margery Eagan, Boston Herald

As a result of the recent green line crash, the MBTA is planning to ban train operators from even carrying cell phones while on the job. As you probably know, trolley driver Aiden Quinn admitted that he was texting his girlfriend when he went through a yellow light and a red light, slamming into a stopped train in front of him and causing dozens of injuries and $9.6 worth of damage to the trains.

This is not a popular position to take, but I think that such a strict cell phone ban is excessive. People are responsible for their own actions, and it is paternalistic and insulting to T operators to send them the message that they cannot be trusted to carry cell phones. The job of a T operator is to drive the train safely and efficiently, and it is each operator’s responsibility to decide what they need to do in order to accomplish this. Carrying cell phones does not, in and of itself, impede a person’s ability to drive a train, and it does not hurt anyone. Yes, Quinn made a bad decision to text while driving a train, but it is unfair for all T drivers to be punished as a result.

I also think that it’s stupid that people are saying Quinn, 24,  was too young to be operating a train. I’m glad that the T does not have any immediate plans to change its policy of allowing people 18 and up to drive vehicles. “I’m not compelled by the argument that age is a factor here,” said MBTA General Manager Dan Grabauskas. I agree. I’m opposed to policies that make generalizations about people based on their age, gender, or other characteristics. An 18-year-old can be just as good or better at driving than a 45-year-old.

All this talk about texting has spilled over into automobiles as well as trains. People are also calling for bans on texting (and even talking on the phone) while driving a car. I’m opposed to such laws, and I think this is just another example of government paternalism. Drivers are obligated to drive well and avoid hitting anyone. If they can do that while talking on the phone or texting, than they are not doing anything wrong. Drivers should be punished for driving badly and hurting people, not for using their cell phones. It is people’s own responsibility, not the government’s, to decide what they need to do in order to drive safely.

Recently, it seems like every law the Massachusetts State Legislature passes restricts our liberty. Here are some examples:

• In 2006, it became illegal to ride in a car without a seat belt. Officers now have the power to stop a car just because they see someone not wearing a seat belt, and issue a fine to the “offender.”
• Since 2006, all Massachusetts residents are required to have health insurance. This is a blatant violation of people’s rights to choose how they want to spend their own money. I guess it didn’t occur to the Legislature that in a capitalist country, the economy should be based on people choosing to buy the products and services that they want, not being forced to buy what the government thinks they should.
• In June of 2007, the Legislature killed a measure to allow the people to vote on whether or not to ban gay marriage. There goes the people’s right to democracy.
• On September 1, 2007, getting a license became a lot harder for teenage drivers. Thankfully, the legislature didn’t raise the driving age to 17 1/2, as some people wanted, but they increased training requirements from 6 to 12 hours behind the wheel at drivers’ education and from 12 to 40 hours driving with a parent or other adult.
• A law went into effect on July 10, 2008, that requires all children under age 8 to sit in booster seats or car seats while in the car. Personally, I started sitting in the front seat of the car without a child seat of any kind when I was 4 or 5, and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. Forcing a 7-year-old to sit in a booster seat is ridiculous. The government has no right to tell people how they have to sit in their own cars.
• On July 31, 2008, Governor Deval Patrick signed the repeal of the 1913 law that prevents out-of-state gay couples from marrying in Massachusetts. This spreads gay marriage to the entire country and violates the rights of citizens from other states to set their own marriage laws.
• According to ban kids under 14 from riding all-terrain vehicles, and require everyone who rides an ATV to wear a helmet. The House is in the process of discussing the bill.

Perhaps these laws have made the state safer, but collectively they have made Massachusetts a lot less free. The State Legislature seems to be slowly but surely shrinking the amount of things people are allowed to do, and that is not good. Governments simply do not have the right to ban things that aren’t immoral and don’t hurt other people.

Ronald Reagan once said, “I don’t believe in a government that protects us from ourselves.” I couldn’t agree with him more.