Michael got a letter in the mail this week from the Secretary of State. It outlined the new law for new drivers which took effect Wednesday. The biggest change – Michael can no longer drive more than one non-immediate-family member without a parent/guardian/adult in the car. The exception is he can drive more than one friend if he’s driving them to or from school or school-related activities.
That absolutely stinks to high heaven. And stinks isn’t exactly the word I want to use, but I’m trying to keep this family-friendly.
Why in the world does anyone think this is a good idea?
Here’s what this law meant for my family last night: Sean had to drive Michael and Amy and their cousins to youth group and I had to pick them up. Because even though we have a 16 year old who is fully capable of driving his sister and cousins to youth group, something he has done in the past, now, because of this law, Sean or I have to do the driving.
Maybe we can say youth group is school – religious training.
But what about today? Michael and his cousins were hoping to go bowling. Now, I’ll have to drive them. And I if I don’t stay at the bowling alley (with two 16 year olds and a 14 year old who want some cousin time away from the mom/aunt, I certainly wasn’t planning on it), I’m going to have to use more gas, not to mention time because some busybodies in Lansing thought they were more capable than parents of deciding when and who their kids can drive around.
I am not pleased.
Thankfully, my representative voted against the bill. At least my rep has a brain.
I try not to get too political on my blog, but this boils my libertarian blood. Why should the government decide something that should be left to parents? When are we going to have enough? When will we say, “No thank you. It’s my child and I should be making those decisions.”
And more importantly, why did we let this happen? I realize on the second count I’m to blame; while I consider myself well-versed in political goings-on, I completely missed this.
I’m already thinking of ways to work around this ridiculous law. You know we homeschoolers say everything’s a learning opportunity… I think I may just work each and every driving trip into some sort of lesson plan. At least then Michael can honestly say he’s on his way to school.
We're homeschoolers - Absolutely everything our kids do can be considered a school-related activity. I refuse to be bound by such inane silliness; Nor will I be... Can you say "Field Trip"?!
ReplyDeleteMG
There you go: field trip, physical ed. I used photos of some kids bowling (which was their PE credits) as a sports photo for my photog class. Not only are you smart, but you've got smart friends! (Or is "wily" the more appropriate words?) ;-)
ReplyDeleteWhy the exceptions? Presumably, the new law was passed in the context of safety and not to prevent kids from hanging out together (although maybe not). I would like to see the data that proves that teenage drivers are safer on the way to school/school related activities than anywhere else. You should send this to Stossel.
ReplyDeleteMG - I'm always up for a field trip!
ReplyDeleteTina - definitely sending Michael and the cousins to the bowling alley for PE. I would love to see someone pull him over... And wily is probably more appropriate! You'd love MG! And she'd love you!
Chef - good call on Stossel. I know he'd think it inane, too.
Chef has a good point. A gaggle of teens going to school is safer than a gaggle of teens going to youth group? Har. And bowling - definitely PE! I think my college even offered it as a PE class.
ReplyDeleteIf they make any exceptions, then why don't they make one for parental override? Parents could specify - or be required to specify - who can be on this trip, as in:
"Michael Duffy has parental permission to drive the following to __ on __.
April Patterson,
Archie Andrews,
Cookie Bumstead.
- Signed by parent."
So if the law worries about him picking up 3 more kids and all going off to the strip, that prevents it because the extra names are not on your list, and neither is some nefarious destination. Again, responsible parents are overridden by edict, because of the neglectful ones. Just like your physician situation.
Fight on! 8~)
I was very glad that this didn't effect me. (By two months. Im barely old enough) I often drive a group of those my age, mostly in effort to save gas. I can see how it COULD be dangerous, but I think if its not cross country..... Its still pretty dumb that the government is trying to regulate it anyways...
ReplyDeleteBowling is part of a PE lesson plan, right?
ReplyDeleteWait... this doesn't affect 17-year-olds, right?!
ReplyDeleteDumb. I think it does say something about the state of the family, though, because of course parents like you guys are responsible and on top of things... but not all parents. (So the government feels like they can be the parent.)
Oh.. just saw the comment..
"responsible parents are overridden by edict, because of the neglectful ones." - took the words right out of my mouth :)
When we got Erin's letter last week, my first main irritation about it was that during Show Week, I now have to drive her and Andrew there so that I can pick them up at night because they might not be done by 10 PM. They should've at least grandfathered the kids who've already been driving. She's had her license for 6 months but suddenly she's not capable of driving after 10?? Argh!!
ReplyDelete