Un-jamming the traffic
D | Tuesday, August 02, 2005

---

I love to drive. I hate stupid people. Thus, I hate stupid drivers even more.

-Who are these people who sit in the right lane with their right turn signal on for mile after mile after mile? Where do you think you're going? Do you not realize its on or are you alerting other drivers that you might veer off the road at any moment?

-Who are these people who think going 15 mph below the speed limit is acceptable? Is there a recognized phobia of speed and if so, should these folks really be getting behind the wheel? Are you really old or is your car broken in some sort of anti-speed fashion?

-Who are these people who can't understand the concept of "merging"? Is it that difficult to simply wait for your turn? Do you really think the best way to get on the highway is to a complete stop and then floor it when a spot opens?

-Who are these people who are oblivious to everything going on outside their four little walls? Does speaking on your cel entirely inhibit all proper brain function? Why is it that you cannot speak and drive simultaneously?

These are just a few of my concerns. There are many many more (feel free to list your concerns in a comment) But fear not, I am not one to complain with proposing some solutions (well, yes, I am, but just not this time). I propose the following as the first draft of the

Walden Driving Reform Bill

130th Congress
1st Session

S.85

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

February 19th, 2026

Mr. WALDEN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and passed to the appropriate committee

A BILL

To improve the quality of automotive transportation for of all Americans by amending or creating Federal automotive legislation.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled.

SECTION 1. TITLE
The Walden Driving Reform Bill

SECTION 2. RULES
To be implemented:
#1. Drivers license IQ requirements - True or False: Some people are too stupid to be permitted to drive. If you said False, we are taking away your license.

#2. Remedial Driver's Ed classes - Lawyers have CLE requirements. Teachers have CEUs. Stockbrokers have something (I'm sure they will make me do soon). Almost all licensed professions require the licensee to "re-certify" themselves on a regular basis. So I say Yes to Drivers License recertification which shall only be demonstrated by a) passing a written test AND b) passing an "in-car" test. You fail, they take away your license forever but we provide some Federal tax break for buying a bus pass.

#3. Computer controlled highways/interstates - I am not a huge fan of computers driving my car (because that removes me from the equation, and I like to drive) but I would sacrifice some autonomy for the betterment of all those people who suck at driving and ruin a perfectly good idea - the interstate. A computer in every car could regulate speed, merging, entering and exiting, and even network into a system to monitor traffic, weather, and closures - all while minimizing travel time and accidents. Other than the interstate, I would like to retain control of my vehicle.

[As a particularly in-depth side comment/complaint not to be included in the bill, but in my floor speech: My Congressional brethren, I am almost sorry to have to enact such legislation, but the situation with our highways and interstates have gotten out of control. I don't understand why a properly designed highway should EVER have stopped traffic, save an accident that blocks multiple lanes. If you see an upcoming On Ramp, you MOVE OVER one lane to let the new people get on. You are getting on the highway, you NEVER EVER slow down. Simply match speeds and merge. You are in the fast lane, NEVER EVER slow down EVER. Do not look at other crashed cars or butterflies or anything other than the road, the car ahead of you, and possibly your speedometer to determine if you are meeting my minimum speed requirements. Unless there is an accident, simple traffic or congestion should theoretically (and I say, in reality too) never slow the flow of cars on an interstate. Why are these simple rules so hard for American drivers to follow? I don't know. But I do know that this bill, once passed, will bring a renewed sense of joy and a heightened level of safety to our national roadways. Thank you.]

D | 8/02/2005 06:37:00 PM |   Post your comment

---

Comments:

Won't we have flying cars by 2026?
Alex | August 02, 2005 7:38 PM | permalink
 

---

LOL. I'm hurt that you haven't lobbied me to get this one introduced yet. I'll send your draft down to legislative counsel, and we'll see if we can get something going. Though isn't the BMV a state agency? I'm afraid your bill may constitute an "unfunded mandate..."

--JM
Anonymous | August 03, 2005 8:55 AM | permalink
 

---

Al,
Well if we don't, this bill will definitly pass.

J,
Nice to see you. I figured you would comment here. Do you think counsel will rephrase some of the parts about stupid people?

The BMV is indeed a state specific agency. Unfunded mandate? I laugh in the face of state politics. Besides, we had federal gun control laws. This is similar, if not exactly the same. No?
D | August 03, 2005 9:46 AM | permalink
 

---

Can we add this to your bill?
Brad | August 03, 2005 1:11 PM | permalink
 

---

I laugh in the face of state politics.

If you really intend to run for office someday, you should probably watch some of the things you say... you never know who's out there waiting to quote you out of context.

As for the whole "unfunded mandate" thing, it would make more sense to attach a provision to a funding bill, especially, say, highway funding. Consider for example, the case of South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987). In that case, Congress condition highway funds on States' adoption of minimum drinking age. The Court held that this use of the Spending Clause was permissible, even though Congress lacked the power to directly impose a national drinking age. Derek's present idea is even more closely tied to the nature of the funding than a minimum drinking age. While the states would not be forced to implement Derek's suggested provisions (the states could forego the federal funds), making a large chunk of the funding conditional upon the adoption of Derek's provisions would create a very strong incentive for states to comply. Even making as much as 95% of the funding conditional has been upheld by SCOTUS.
Alex | August 03, 2005 4:12 PM | permalink
 

---

For all of those waiting to mis-quote me, I laugh in the face of state politics because sometimes state politics make the biggest deals out of the most non-sense issues.

As per Alex's suggestion to avoid the unfunded mandate issue - sounds good to me. State's can recieve Federal funding by implimenting my driving bill changes. Can we also put in a provision that to recieve funding the states must do whatever else I say?
D | August 04, 2005 10:05 AM | permalink
 

---

Post your comment