At least they didn't call it "Michelle's Law"
Another pair of weepy parents have had their way with the Ohio Legislature. It always happens like this: something happens to a young person, a law is proposed "for the sake of the children", and suddenly parents are being told how to parent. 'Scuse me, Debbie and Ray, but if it's such a bad idea to let teens taxi teens, why did you let Michelle get into that car? And if she did it without your permission, what makes you think that kids will obey the law, when they don't obey their own parents?
I grew up in the sticks, and some of the most personally enriching events of my early life happened when I drove at night with teenagers. I think particularly of the trip at night to Rochester MI (a good 50 miles or so)with Tom Wright, Nancy Huiser and Sharon Fockler to hear Lyle Nordstrom's Oakland University Collegium Musicum, which opened me to early music. That would have been 1973 or 4. We were all Good Kids, so our parents were cool with it, though I'm sure they worried. Now they'd worry about their kids getting busted.
We're prolonging adolescence, and treating more adults like children. Why don't we just make adulthood a capital crime? That would be one way of dealing with Congress; can't have one if there's nobody alive old enough to serve under the Constitution.
Comments
Posted by:
Posted on: December 14, 2006 01:26 PM
I am not sure I would use an experience from the early 70's as an example of how children should be raised today. Much has changed in 30+ years.
Posted by: Jeffrey Quick
Posted on: December 14, 2006 01:45 PM
Yeah, I'm an old fogey...
But what are the concretes here? Cars are safer. Booze and drugs are no easier to get. Gas is cheaper, in inflation-adjusted terms, and there's no shortage. What, precisely, makes a car full of teens a more dangerous proposition now than in 1973? Anyway, I didn't say anything about how children should be raised, aside from implying that they should be raised, by 2 parents and not a TV. It's the Sanderbecks who are going around telling people how to raise their children, and enlisting the guns of the State to give their opinion the force of law.
Posted by: James
Posted on: December 14, 2006 02:30 PM
Very hard to enforce
Posted by:
Posted on: December 14, 2006 02:45 PM
Are the speed limits and driving ages the same in both time periods?
Posted by:
Posted on: December 14, 2006 02:47 PM
I would say the roads are a lot more crowded now, and there are more distractions with phones, GPS, MP3s, etc.
Posted by: Jeffrey Quick
Posted on: December 14, 2006 03:41 PM
Driving ages same. As for speed limits, this was just before the lowering to 55 excused by the oil embargo, so speeds were comparable. I haven't yet found stats on youth driving (except that traffic accidents are the leading cause of death in humans age 16-20), but the general traffic fatality rate in the US per 100M vehicle miles traveled in 1995 was exactly half of what it was in 1975,(1.7 vs 3.4) suggesting that this may be a solution without a problem.
Posted by:
Posted on: January 30, 2007 03:42 PM
After reading this artical i dont think i have ever been more disturbed. First off you did not even know michelle. Dont you dare go around writting stuff like that untill you actually know the story and know what you are talking about. If that were to be your daughter your niece or your best friend you would have done the same exact thing. Been devistated and tryed to make it so no other family would have to go through the same thing. Michelle touched so many lives. So many of us will never be the same because of her. Michelle was a good friend of mine. The most loving caring girl. No one could ever forget her. And just because this law may not be what you want you have NO reason to say that kind of stuff you just stated.
Posted by: Jeffrey Quick
Posted on: January 30, 2007 04:10 PM
Well, anonymous from Armstrong Utilities WEXFORDSEVENFIELDS, I'm disturbed by your lack of literacy and reading comprehension. Whether I knew Michelle or not is totally irrelevant to whether private laws should be made because of one person's tragedy. And nowhere did a disrespect the girl in any way. I'm sure she was a wonderful friend and a great human being, and I'm sorry for your loss. But no, your loss does not give you the right to impose your laws on me and mine. Grief does not confer moral superiority.
Posted by: Jim Quick
Posted on: April 4, 2007 08:03 PM
Naturally we worried about you but less then your sister who was a good kid too, but more prone to associate with kids that were not.
The biggist and hardest part of parenting is to
help children mature, safely. As Reagan whould have said, trust but verify. Baby birds would never learn to fly or feed themselves if the papa and momma bird didn't kick them out of the nest when they were ready.
Posted by: Megan Coyne
Posted on: October 24, 2007 11:19 AM
Growing up with the GREAT parents I was blessed with, I was not allowed in a car with another teen driver until I was 17 years old, which is the same age that I got my license. At the time I didnt understand what the big deal was, but now I realize. Even though I'm only 19 years old, I have seen many cases of teen drivers not being mature enough to handle distractions of other teens in the car, Michelles situation being the most devastating. Ray and Debbie are great parents, and for them to stand up and fight for what they believe in is amazing, especially after dealing with this horrible tradgedy. So I will leave you with this: When you watch your son/daughter get ready for the prom, or receive their highschool diploma, go on to college, and walk down the aisle some day to get married, just remember that Michelle never got to do those things. But this law was put in place to help prevent this from happening to others.
Posted by: Jeffrey Quick
Posted on: October 24, 2007 01:52 PM
Megan,
Since you're only 19 and not 51, I'll cut you a little slack on this. Just as you see patterns now that you didn't see when you were 17, you'll see even more as you get older. I've seen adults who were not mature enough to handle other adults in the car; perhaps we should ban carpooling, environment be damned. Yes, there's a problem with some teens behind the wheel. To what extent is it the State's job to solve the problem? Why don't we just not let minors drive at all? Why don't we prevent our children from doing anything that might be the slightest bit dangerous? I was hit by a car when getting off the school bus in 2nd grade; maybe I should have been kept from school.
I don't know if you know the Sanderbecks personally, to know if they really are great parents or not. The point is, they aren't MY parents, my children's parents, or any other family's parents. If they really want to do that, they should consider mass adoptions. But they should leave me alone.
Posted by: Tim
Posted on: October 25, 2007 05:34 PM
I have to disagree with you . Times have changed not all parents are going to give there children the supervision that is needed with the lifestyle that is common nowadays. It is sad that that modern day parents are not held more accountable for their childrens actions. We do have so many more restrictions or laws than years ago ( seat belts,some cities cell phone use and loud music restraints ). I think this is driven by the times. Most kids are trying to be responsible even without the guidance or examples of caring involved parents. If this law can save some of those who don't have that guidance it is worth it. Remember driving is not a right it is a privlige . Remember not all chidren have parents who care to take an active role like you and your parents did.
Posted by: Jeffrey Quick
Posted on: October 26, 2007 09:17 AM
OK, Tim --
What makes "the times" a moral actor? You're anthropomorphizing an abstraction here. You say that because parents aren't being responsible, we need laws. Isn't it just as reasonable to say that, because there's a law to do the job, parents feel they don't have to be responsible?
Travel is a right. Driving is a right; you can do it in your own car on your own property all you want without a license, at any age. Driving on the government's roads is not a right, no more than you have a right to drive on my property. But if I opened a toll road and said that 4 teens could ride together on my toll road, do you think the government would object?
Posted by: dan the man
Posted on: November 18, 2007 12:05 AM
Why dont you get off your lazy ass and voice your opinions to a congressman. Or better yet run for congress. I bet no one would vote for you though since from what I see the majority here and in congress doesnt share your view points. If you do have kids I hope they dont turn into douche bags like you!!!!! so for since march this year the amount of teen driving fatalities in ohio are less than last years. Thats probally because of the law. Or maybe global warming or what not. So did you and your hippy 1970s friend smoke any of the gonge while at the concert? If you did your dumb ass dad probably contributed to you being a douche bag.
Posted by:
Posted on: November 18, 2007 12:24 AM
Ok Jeffrey--
Lets go back for a second here to when you said you got hit by a car getting off the school bus... Now-a-days, they have a law for school buses, and when they are stopped, and say letting children off or on, it is required that all drivers approaching or behind the bus STOP so as not to endanger the children. With out that law, say back in your day, children were getting hit right and left. Thankfully the government stepped in and saved lives or heartache from this type of incident.
Of course, as you know the current issue of the government is this driving law, which states that kids under the age of 17 cannot drive with more that one unrelated passenger in the car without the supervision of a parent/guardian. hmmmmmmm.. that means that 16 year olds are the only ones it involves here. ONE YEAR of their driving privelages is affected. Did you know that 16 year olds are 3 times more likely to be involved in a crash than any other age group? Or that 2 teens in a car increase their chance of getting into an accident by 86% and 3 teens increase it by 183 percent? Thank God you survived your memorable trip that unforgettable night in the 70's. Also, the number one cause of death for teens is in automobile accidents. So the government has a right, considering they are working for us, to step in and change the statistics. Do you have a better idea than this law? Or are you just here to put the efforts of hardworking people down?
What it comes down to Jeffrey is that when somethings broken it needs to be fixed, and obviously parents like you arent fixing it since you think its ok for kids to "taxi" kids because of the inconvenience it is for you to "taxi" your own. No, the government cant control and stop people from breaking the law, but at least by putting it in place they are trying to save lives.
Posted by: Jeffrey Quick
Posted on: November 18, 2007 07:48 AM
I believe they had those bus laws in Michigan in the 1960s. The old man who hit me claimed that he didn't see the school bus. So a law is going to improve his eyesight?
I'm amused by the notion that a corporate body like government has "rights" generated by one person being killed. And even more amused by the notion that I must be opposing this law because I am lazy, when really this does not affect me at all, as a childless 51 year old. Ends don't justify means, ever.
Posted by: bethany richard
Posted on: March 2, 2008 07:23 PM
maybe if you had a heart, you could find better things to do with your time than to write a blog on a topic like this. your words were so incredibly insensitive. michelle was my friend. i hope to God you never have to experience a loss like we had.
In loving memory Michelle Lee Sanderbeck
Add to My Profile | More Videos
Posted by: Jeffrey Quick
Posted on: March 2, 2008 09:20 PM
Listen, whiner:
Maybe we need a law saying that 50 year old women shouldn't drive 80 year old women around, because they might get hit head-on by 31 year old drunk women driving in the wrong lane. (Oh duh, there are laws against that too.) I just lost my mother-in-law in just that scenario, and have a wife healing from a multiple leg fracture. Just think, if we'd had a Michelle's Law for older Americans, that wouldn't have happened. So yeah, maybe I have experienced such a loss, and I don't feel the same need to micromanage other people's parenting or driving habits.
Posted by: Britt
Posted on: March 9, 2008 05:41 PM
There is some interesting dialog going on in these comments and I am not sure where to start other than to say that there are parents who choose to monitor and guide their children and there are others who don't (many in fact). To say that the laws are doing what the parents should be doing or some variation thereof is beside the point because the reality is that the more protection there is around kids, whether it is by law or by parent, the safer they will be. So, if a law that teens are not supposed to drive in the car with teens comes to pass and it helps save lives, then it is worth it.
Personally, I believe in educating and empowering parents and kids about as many areas of responsibility as possible. If you are interested in educating yourself or if you know of any other parents that need some help, tell them about Responsible Family at http://www.responsiblefamily.com
Posted by: Ryan Brown
Posted on: August 2, 2008 04:44 AM
i always try to remain a classy person, but in this instance, an asshole like you, deserves someone to speak to them in a way that they can understand...so, fuck you.
how mortifying it is to share the same air as you..you are a disgrace to the world. compassion is a quality you obviously dont possess.
a family lost their daughter & sister. a city lost a friend and the world lost a person with the potential to make a difference.
it absolutely disgusts me that you think your filth (which you call writing) is published online..
you owe the sanderbecks an apology, regardless of your stance on MICHELLE'S LAW.
i grew up with michelle and she remained one of my best friends until her death...reading your blog has sickened me in the worst way..
if you ever have children, i hope you realize how important MICHELLE'S LAW is..the purpose is to keep children safe, not interrupt their fun and decrease their amount of life experiences, its to ensure that they have a long and full-filled life in which they will be able to do all of the above.
so, fuck you, again.