DUIC
Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, I would like to propose a bill.
I know Senator Burdick's recent attempt to ban cell phone use and other distracting activities while driving failed. But I have something else in mind. Burdick's bill listed several potential distractions to ban: "reading, writing, performing personal grooming, interacting with pets."
In my opinion, those aren't the real dangers. It's kids.
I mean, interacting with pets? Get real. I know some people take their animals with them in the car, and I know some people have conversations with their pets. But does a dog drop its pacifier and start screaming, causing the driver to reach as far backwards as her arms can go, fishing around blindly for said pacifier among the sippy cups and picture books and other debris that litter the back seat?
Does a cat suddenly yell, "The sun is in my eyes!" wailing as though the world is coming to an end, as though sun has never shone upon any human before, causing the driver to yell, "Then put your sunglasses on!" and mentally start trying to list just how many pairs of tiny pink plastic sunglasses this particular child has either broken, lost, or just refused to wear despite the whining caused by every appearance of the sun's rays?
Personal grooming is not nearly as distracting as keeping your eyes fixed on the grassy fields around the car, rather than the road, in hopes that the driver will be able to spot some sheep, or a school bus, or some other item that ties in with a hit song ike "Baa Baa Black Sheep" or "The Wheels on the Bus," which will allow driver to entertain children with her musical skills.
And speaking of kids' songs, punching numbers on a cell phone can't be as bad as doing the motions to "The Itsy-Bitsy Spider" while driving.
And while the number of people who read or write in the car might be higher than it ought to be, I am certain that for every Toyota Camry with a bored commuter glancing at the paper, there are at least five minivans or SUVs stuffed full of noisy children and one frazzled mother.
Now, I realize that the state cannot ban driving with children. Instead, I propose that the state provide a personal chauffeur for each family. While mom chats and sings with the kids and fishes out dropped cups, pacifiers and toys as needed, the driver can be watching the road. Or, if mom prefers to drive, she can listen to the music she prefers and peacefully pilot the vehicle while the chauffeur sits in the back and tends to the children. Either way would be fine.
People who do not comply will be charged with DUIC--Driving Under the Influence of Children. We will pay for this program with all the money the state will save by not having to dispatch troopers to accident scenes caused by distracted parents. People who want to upgrade to the DriverPlus program--a chauffeur who also runs errands and fills the tank up with gas--can do so voluntarily for a small fee. This should fill the state's coffers immensely.
All in favor? Say, "Aye!"
P.S. All child-distraction scenarios in this proposal are purely fictitious and have never actually happened to the author. You believe me, right?
I know Senator Burdick's recent attempt to ban cell phone use and other distracting activities while driving failed. But I have something else in mind. Burdick's bill listed several potential distractions to ban: "reading, writing, performing personal grooming, interacting with pets."
In my opinion, those aren't the real dangers. It's kids.
I mean, interacting with pets? Get real. I know some people take their animals with them in the car, and I know some people have conversations with their pets. But does a dog drop its pacifier and start screaming, causing the driver to reach as far backwards as her arms can go, fishing around blindly for said pacifier among the sippy cups and picture books and other debris that litter the back seat?
Does a cat suddenly yell, "The sun is in my eyes!" wailing as though the world is coming to an end, as though sun has never shone upon any human before, causing the driver to yell, "Then put your sunglasses on!" and mentally start trying to list just how many pairs of tiny pink plastic sunglasses this particular child has either broken, lost, or just refused to wear despite the whining caused by every appearance of the sun's rays?
Personal grooming is not nearly as distracting as keeping your eyes fixed on the grassy fields around the car, rather than the road, in hopes that the driver will be able to spot some sheep, or a school bus, or some other item that ties in with a hit song ike "Baa Baa Black Sheep" or "The Wheels on the Bus," which will allow driver to entertain children with her musical skills.
And speaking of kids' songs, punching numbers on a cell phone can't be as bad as doing the motions to "The Itsy-Bitsy Spider" while driving.
And while the number of people who read or write in the car might be higher than it ought to be, I am certain that for every Toyota Camry with a bored commuter glancing at the paper, there are at least five minivans or SUVs stuffed full of noisy children and one frazzled mother.
Now, I realize that the state cannot ban driving with children. Instead, I propose that the state provide a personal chauffeur for each family. While mom chats and sings with the kids and fishes out dropped cups, pacifiers and toys as needed, the driver can be watching the road. Or, if mom prefers to drive, she can listen to the music she prefers and peacefully pilot the vehicle while the chauffeur sits in the back and tends to the children. Either way would be fine.
People who do not comply will be charged with DUIC--Driving Under the Influence of Children. We will pay for this program with all the money the state will save by not having to dispatch troopers to accident scenes caused by distracted parents. People who want to upgrade to the DriverPlus program--a chauffeur who also runs errands and fills the tank up with gas--can do so voluntarily for a small fee. This should fill the state's coffers immensely.
All in favor? Say, "Aye!"
P.S. All child-distraction scenarios in this proposal are purely fictitious and have never actually happened to the author. You believe me, right?
4 comments:
This makes perfect sense! My favorite request is "I dropped my [car, book, stuffed animal]! Can you pick it up! Please? Mom! I need it!" while I am on a highway with no traffic lights...
Oh man, I thought I was the only one who had the kid that was near obsessive about the sun being in his eyes! Sunglasses, hats, and window shades have all failed miserably. Glad to know I'm not the only one.
Dave Barry is right there with you. He once wrote about his 2-year-old insisting "Daddy do it! Daddy do it!" every time the kid tape in the car played "I'm a Little Teapot." He said he's since learned to steer with his forehead.
My favorite such event was the time I ended up having to explain the birds and the bees to Rebecca, then 3, as we were flying down Highway 34 at about 62 mph. She had this utter breakdown and began sobbing, just out of nowhere - "I don't want to have a BABY when I grow up!"
Me: "You don't! You don't ever have to have a baby!"
Rebecca (still sobbing): "But I want to get ma-ha-ha-ried!"
Me: "But you don't have to have a baby just because you get married!"
Rebecca: "Do you just ask God not to give you one?"
Me: "Um, well..."
Remember, this is on the highway. Can't wait till your bill passes.
Great post! It is true, children are distracting. They drop items, shriek, complain about the sun in their eyes (even while riding in a vehicle that has tinted windows).
Just today I slammed on the brakes and stopped in the middle of the road so we could watch 3 (as in t-h-r-e-e) bald eagles in a field. I know that really isn't safe, but anything to keep them entertained. Plus 3 bald eagles-that is impressive.
I have even found myself pointing out trains, tractors, various animals...while in the car either alone or with another adult. "Look honey, there's a train!" The 32 year old next to me is not as impressed as my 3 year old.
Post a Comment