A commercial from one of our nation's automakers says that, "America got two things right: cars and freedom." But rather than thinking of cars and freedom as separate entities, it might be more accurate to say that for many Americans, cars equal freedom. And this may be why some drivers have trouble embracing laws against distracted driving.
American studies professor Dr. Cotten Seiler alluded to this at a conference I helped organize last year at the University of Kansas and in his book, Republic of Drivers: A Cultural History of Automobility in America. His point is a simple one: cars have, from the very beginning, represented more than just transportation to most Americans. Cars have historically represented the freedom to go places, to make choices and to pursue many paths, perhaps even those leading to the unknown or the unexplored. A look at the early history of car advertising and car clubs that lobbied for better roads and more access to the great American landscape reveals that cars were sold as machines of freedom. Every driver has the opportunity to be mobile and unrestricted, able to “hit the open road," or, if you have the means, to get off the road altogether in vehicles made for that very purpose.
This may explain, in part, the American rejection of laws that make driving less “free." One can see this, for example, in the ever-playing debate over motorcycle helmet laws, with riders decrying restrictions to their freedom to ride unadorned by safety equipment. Even before that there was the public's rejection of seat belts until tougher enforcement and public safety campaigns became ubiquitous. A similar reaction is observed whenever there is a call for greater restrictions on distracted driving. Our governing bodies are subjected to shouts of, “Lawmakers just want to take away my rights to do what I want in my car"; or, in other words, “You are trampling on my freedom!”
While I can sympathize with a motorcyclist whose choice will most likely only affect them, the issue of distracted driving is not about preserving personal freedom at all. We don’t have the freedom to place others' safety at risk with our decisions. While we have a right to free speech, as Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. noted, we are not free to falsely shout, "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Likewise, while we are free to text, we are not free to text when doing so significantly increases the likelihood of killing someone else on a public roadway. No one relishes the idea of giving up their freedoms, but on the other hand, we have demonstrated that we are willing to tolerate quite a bit of regulation in exchange for an increase in safety. Few other exchanges of “freedom” for “safety” match the benefits to be gained by ending distracted driving.
You know, I used to look at my car as freedom, until I moved to urban Pittsburgh 2 blocks from the light rail line. That's when I learned what TRUE freedom is - freedom FROM a car! I saved a bundle of money and could stop and have a beer after work with no worries. I don't live there anymore but I wish I did.
Forty or so years ago your car really did represent freedom - and that included the freedom to be temporarily unavailable as far as the rest of the world was concerned. Yeah, I know that's an alien concept for those who think they must stay 'connected' 24/7/365. But sometimes it's good to get away from everything for a while, and even the right commuting-drive conditions can provide that. // If you happen to like driving, all the more reason to shut the interruptions out. /Norm
I'm with you Norm, except I don't think the idea of car=freedom disappeared 40 years ago. I'd feel like a handicapped invalid if I didn't have a vehicle. My 90 year old father who can barely walk anymore wouldn't give up his car, either. I'll put up with a lot of restrictions on how my vehicle operates (or how I operate my vehicle), as long as I can come and go when I please wherever I please.
A horse usually wouldn't do anything stupid, as it might hurt the horse, unless its rider/driver coerced it into doing something stupid.
A motor vehicle, on the other hand, is ever eager to do something stupid unless its driver/rider keeps his/her attention on driving. Motor vehicles "want" to run off the road, crash into poles or other vehicles, anything, and must be constantly kept from committing suicide.
The main thing that has encouraged seat-belt use is that they are much easier to use than back in 1963 when I had to adjust the buckle after fishing it out from down in the cushion or from the floor. The first shoulder belts were simply abysmal. They were stowed up above the door window and had to be hooked into the seat belt tongue before clicking into the the buckle.
Now that the 3-point belt requires only a simple single movement across and in most vehicles can be clicked one-handed, belt use has gone way up. Of course belt laws also encourage use.
When a driver says he is insulted by my wearing the belt in his car, I say that it's not his driving I'm afraid of but of all the nuts on the road. "Can't always dodge 'em all!" Of COURSE I'm afraid of his driving, especially due to his attitude, but I don't have to say so.
GARGOYLE, the 96 year old up the street is STILL driving. At least he won't go out at night. He can barely walk though he pushes his lawn mower (a steadying handle to hold).
"The world’s oldest driver is 105-year old Shelia Thomson of Broughty Ferry, Scotland.
"She has never taken a driver’s test because such tests did not exist when she started driving over 70 years ago.
"Mrs. Thomson also avoids the busy streets and mainly drives to church every Sunday and for some shopping.
"She received her first ticket at age 99 for speeding…"
"A person's home is their castle, and should be left in private." You bet, but a car is not an extension of your living room. You wouldn't want your physician babbling or texting on their cell phones while performing your open heart surgery, because it could injure or kill you. It can be at least as dangerous if someone is babbling or texting on their cell phones while they drive a two-ton vehicle in your direction.
Lawmakers are making laws for the public not for them.If you want to go by your own way with out listening to others,you are the loser.there is nothing wrong in wearing seat belts or wearing Helmets in bikes ultimately we are going to face the risks in the form of accidents or something.
Login or Register to post comments
millhunk
You know, I used to look at my car as freedom, until I moved to urban Pittsburgh 2 blocks from the light rail line. That's when I learned what TRUE freedom is - freedom FROM a car! I saved a bundle of money and could stop and have a beer after work with no worries. I don't live there anymore but I wish I did.
DreadfulDrivers
I completely agree. And I think there's a link also to the misguided concept of driving as a `right' rather than a `privilege'. @dreadfuldrivers
Norm Peterson
Forty or so years ago your car really did represent freedom - and that included the freedom to be temporarily unavailable as far as the rest of the world was concerned. Yeah, I know that's an alien concept for those who think they must stay 'connected' 24/7/365. But sometimes it's good to get away from everything for a while, and even the right commuting-drive conditions can provide that. // If you happen to like driving, all the more reason to shut the interruptions out. /Norm
GARGOYLE
I'm with you Norm, except I don't think the idea of car=freedom disappeared 40 years ago. I'd feel like a handicapped invalid if I didn't have a vehicle. My 90 year old father who can barely walk anymore wouldn't give up his car, either. I'll put up with a lot of restrictions on how my vehicle operates (or how I operate my vehicle), as long as I can come and go when I please wherever I please.
MacEarl
A horse usually wouldn't do anything stupid, as it might hurt the horse, unless its rider/driver coerced it into doing something stupid. A motor vehicle, on the other hand, is ever eager to do something stupid unless its driver/rider keeps his/her attention on driving. Motor vehicles "want" to run off the road, crash into poles or other vehicles, anything, and must be constantly kept from committing suicide. The main thing that has encouraged seat-belt use is that they are much easier to use than back in 1963 when I had to adjust the buckle after fishing it out from down in the cushion or from the floor. The first shoulder belts were simply abysmal. They were stowed up above the door window and had to be hooked into the seat belt tongue before clicking into the the buckle. Now that the 3-point belt requires only a simple single movement across and in most vehicles can be clicked one-handed, belt use has gone way up. Of course belt laws also encourage use. When a driver says he is insulted by my wearing the belt in his car, I say that it's not his driving I'm afraid of but of all the nuts on the road. "Can't always dodge 'em all!" Of COURSE I'm afraid of his driving, especially due to his attitude, but I don't have to say so. GARGOYLE, the 96 year old up the street is STILL driving. At least he won't go out at night. He can barely walk though he pushes his lawn mower (a steadying handle to hold). "The world’s oldest driver is 105-year old Shelia Thomson of Broughty Ferry, Scotland. "She has never taken a driver’s test because such tests did not exist when she started driving over 70 years ago. "Mrs. Thomson also avoids the busy streets and mainly drives to church every Sunday and for some shopping. "She received her first ticket at age 99 for speeding…"
satisficer
"A person's home is their castle, and should be left in private." You bet, but a car is not an extension of your living room. You wouldn't want your physician babbling or texting on their cell phones while performing your open heart surgery, because it could injure or kill you. It can be at least as dangerous if someone is babbling or texting on their cell phones while they drive a two-ton vehicle in your direction.
Ericstephen
Lawmakers are making laws for the public not for them.If you want to go by your own way with out listening to others,you are the loser.there is nothing wrong in wearing seat belts or wearing Helmets in bikes ultimately we are going to face the risks in the form of accidents or something.