Assembly Bill 552 would forbid young Nevada drivers to be on the roads after 10 p.m. except in cases of travel to work or school events, or medical emergencies or “family necessity.” Young drivers would be forbidden for a time to carry any passenger age 20 or younger, except for family members. Under the proposals, police would supposedly be banned from pulling over young drivers because their passengers look too young, though the drivers could be cited (facing a fine and eight to 16 hours of slave labor for some left-wing, do-gooder cause) if police claim to have pulled them over for a cracked taillight, and then accidentally (start ital)discover(end ital) a passenger is under 20.

Yeah, right.

Based on current practice involving youngish-looking customers for beer or cigarettes, this means cops would now be allowed to pull over and “card” at will any nighttime driver under 35, “on suspicion.” And how exactly are the officers supposed to determine whether young drivers are coming from a “school event”? Are they now responsible to read and verify “notes from mom”? First thing I would do, were I a modern young man off to consummate a midnight drug deal, would be to always don an authentic-looking letter sweater, and make sure my lady of the evening carries a set of pom-poms in appropriate school colors. Would that suffice?

Why exempt “family members,” for heaven’s sake? It’s OK for junior to kill his 12-year-old kid sister, but not his 17-year-old date? Or is this really a birth control measure, masquerading as something else entirely?

And who says kids get into more accidents after 10 p.m., anyway? What makes them so much safer at 4 in the afternoon, when there’s a lot more confusing traffic on our streets?

The mincing meddlers justify all this with statistics that show 16-year-olds are more likely to get into accidents than 18-year-olds. Sure they are. And 18-year-olds are far more likely to get into accidents than 36-year-olds. So why not place these same restrictions on all drivers under 35, “if it would save a single life”?

For that matter, drivers over 75 are involved in more accidents than the norm. Shall we also restrict the hours these geezers can be out, and the passengers they’re allowed to carry? How about diabetics, epileptics, and those who wear hearing aids? Maybe we should only let them drive golf carts that go 20 miles per hour, with big red flags on top. Soon the do-gooders will be arguing that males cause more accidents than females, and therefore all men should be driven to work — and then straight home — by their wives or moms. Shall we check the statistics?

Many drivers under 18 drive cars that belong to their parents, who are free to set restrictions on hours and activities, and often should. Otherwise, the states (justifying it as a simple certification that a driver can handle the machine safely) have already used this “licensing” scam to impose what amounts to a system of national “travel papers” on a once free nation, accustoming us to far more “papers, please” police oversight than should probably be tolerated by any free people.

(If it’s only proof that I know how to drive, why do I have to renew my “license” every couple of years, and inform them when I move across town? Do people forget how to drive when they change addresses? My high school diploma doesn’t “expire” if I fail to pay a “renewal fee.” And if it’s only about driving, why do I have to show it to board an airliner? To register to vote? To cash a check? The bank says I’m only required to show a “valid photo ID,” but when I offer them my laminated health club membership card — complete with photo — the teller blithely informs me “No, it means your driver’s license.” So I can’t get the money out of my own account if it turns out I flunked my parallel parking test?)

Enough. If lawmakers still have time to dream up and promote this kind of convoluted nanny-state nonsense, even after Nevadans went to the polls last year and limited our (blessedly) every-other-year legislative sessions to a maximum of 120 days … well, maybe next time we’ll just have to limit them to six weeks.

More Stories

• Purple hair and free expression (Update 2)
• Protest March in La Jolla
• 1997 San Diego Curfew Protests: July 12 Protest
• Drug Dealers Busted by Undercover Student
• Dress code enforcement goes too far

Since the government owns the roads, the politicians can decide who is allowed to use them. Politicians also control the sidewalks, which is why they can outlaw loitering.

When you turn 18, vote for Libertarian politicians who will sell off all the roads and sidewalks to private businesses. Since private road owners want to make money, they would let all COMPETENT drivers, regardless of their age, drive on their roads. If a 7 year old can pass the driving test, then she gets to drive.

Would it be anarchy? No, because everyone still has to pass a test. But this test would not be given by the government.

More Stories

• Anti-Curfew Campaign Protests Net of Intolerance
• School prom breath tests
• Supreme Court allows search of car passenger belongings
• Honest, officer, she’s my sister!
• Federal abortion bill attacks interstate abortions

“We want to start them that young so they will have the maximum amount of adult-supervision driving during practice before driving on their own,” says Patricia Waller, director of the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute.

Though this law has a shred of freedom, in a Libertarian society, the government would not be able to restrict the movement of peaceful teenagers. All roads would be private and CEOs, rather than politicians, would decide when people get permits.

More Stories

• Expelled because of rumors, then reinstated due to lawsuit
• Students violate intrusive alcohol policy
• Government teacher draws on eyelids
• Protesters defy curfew, found not guilty
• Suspended for armband, Jennifer Boccia fights back

At the moment, New Jersey teenagers can get a full license when they turn 17. Under the new program, 17-year-olds will receive a provisional license that forbids them from having more than one passenger in the car unless the passenger is over the age of 21 or lives with the driver. The driver also cannot drive between midnight and 5 a.m., except for religious reasons, emergencies, or employment.

The state claims that it wants to reduce accidents but the Senate’s real motivation is to control the lives of teenagers. Driving may be dangerous but many people are willing to accept the risks. And if the other people don’t want to be on the road with 15-year-old drivers, then they should build their own road.

Vote for Libertarian politicians who will sell the roads to private companies that are more likely to base their driving rules on skill rather than age.

More Stories

• Student forfeits appeal by admitting guilt
• We’re still looking for the easy answers
• Jersey politicians demand another student pledge
• The Prison of Childhood
• Student wins lawsuit over expulsion for off-campus bust

Insurance company executives and our current politicians may want to study new users of other vehicles. They would quickly realize that new users of every type of vehicle, including planes or farm equipment, have more accidents than experienced users. If the government raised the driving age to 30, then everyone above 30 would complain about the high accident rates of 30-year-olds.

Rather than increase the driving age for full driving privileges, the government could reduce the age for new restricted, daytime licenses. Then, by the time a 15 year old turns 16, he or she would have one full year of daylight driving. This would increase the driving freedom of teenagers and probably reduce the number of accidents.

If we lived in a Libertarian society, private companies, rather than our intolerant government, would own the roads. The companies would read the study and make their own decisions. Each company would decide whether or not it is necessary to change their age limits. Then we could respond to their actions by using or not using their roads. Right now, we don’t have a choice. Remember, LIbertarians are pro-choice on every issue.

More Stories

• Student pleads guilty for “hit list”
• Protesters defy curfew, found not guilty
• Casa Story: I am afraid I am going to be beat
• Michigan lets 14-year-olds drive
• Not sure if private schools are worse.

• Require teens to have held a learner’s permit for at least six months, instead of at least 30 days, before obtaining a provisional license to drive.
• During the first six months of a teen’s provisional license, generally prohibit passengers under age 20 unless the teen driver is accompanied by a licensed driver at least 25 years old.

Generally prohibit driving between midnight and 5 a.m. for teens during their first year of driving with a provisional license

More Stories

• Students forced to sign confidentiality agreement
• ACLU warns school superintendents
• Student forfeits appeal by admitting guilt
• Government Imprisons Teen for Trying to Protect Himself
• 10 rules for dealing with the police