What would you most like to see Mississippi’s elected lawmakers do during the current legislative session?
 |
| Credit: Charlotte Gazette |
Action to eliminate the reams of red tape holding our state back, maybe? Further tax cuts, perhaps? With so many other southern states moving ahead with school choice, you might wish that our lawmakers would do something similar.
I doubt that a bill to ban “squatted” trucks is your top priority. Yet, that is precisely what one bill in our state legislature aims to do.
I’m not about to invest a lot of effort into opposing this bill, but I do think we should be wary of politicians in the business of banning things.
Typically, politicians resort to banning things when they don’t have any other ideas. The impulse to ban things is driven by their search for validation and purpose.
Those in favor of a ban on “squatted” trucks are quick to tell us that action is urgent given how dangerous these trucks are. I can think of a lot of things that could be deemed dangerous.
Do conservatives really want to get into the business of banning things because they are dangerous? Once you start, where do you stop? If trucks are to be banned for being dangerous, wait ‘til you hear what progressives have to say about guns.
Under this proposed law, anyone caught driving a vehicle whose front ends are raised more than four inches above the height of the rear fender faces a $100 fine. Will police officers pull people over to measure their fenders? Should the guy with a truck raised a mere 3 inches expect to get pulled over every time?
As the parent of a teenager, I’ve discovered how adding a young person to your insurance policy can make your premiums soar. This is because the insurance system is good at assessing risk. Higher risk = higher premiums.
If squatted trucks really were the danger that the detractors claim, surely it would be reflected in raised insurance premiums to the point where they became prohibitively expensive.
In a free society, there must be an overwhelmingly good reason to use the state’s monopoly of force to restrict something. It is not enough to ban something because we disapprove of it. Or. as I fear, disapprove of the people that drive “squatted” trucks.
Once politicians form the habit of seeking out things to ban for the benefit of the rest of us, they won’t stop. Next will come a ban on certain types of vapes. Or, as in California, certain food additives and Skittles. If they can ban one type of truck, why not another?
If you want to see where relentless banning leads, take a look at my own native Britain. Despite having had notionally conservative governments, politicians across the pond have relentlessly banned things from certain breeds of dog to plastic drinking straws. From the ability to use email lists for marketing to self-defense pepper spray. From disposable cutlery and gas water heaters to the internal combustion engine (from 2035).
On their own, none of these restrictions have proved to be a catastrophe (although the ban on internal combustion cars, once it comes into force, may yet prove to be). Collectively, however, the blizzard of bans has been devastating by infantilizing British society.
Treated like children, more and more people behave like children. Denied responsibility, society grows irresponsible. Britain today feels utterly demoralized as a consequence. This is what happens when you put politicians in charge of deciding what’s best for everyone else.
Banning tilted trucks won’t be the end of the world for Mississippi. It will be the end of a little bit more liberty.
The impulse to ban things, I believe, comes from what H.L. Mencken called “the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be having a good time.” Let’s leave Mississippi truck drivers alone.
This post was authored and sponsored by Douglas Carswell, President of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy.
49 comments:
The very first thing we should ban is all od those warnings you see on everything we buy. Remove all of it. We are being over run with idiots. We have to let nature cull the herd. If they do not realize something is dangerous we do not need them in the breeding pool.
Ban all warning lables immediately.
"Once politicians form the habit of seeking out things to ban for the benefit of the rest of us, they won’t stop." That train already left the station.
They need to put some effort back in to the ballot initiative, not banning a truck. What are they so scared of ?
It shocked me to see Shanks introduce this bill. Are old cars without airbags next?
age limits - term limits - ballot initiative restored
Conservatives are the only ones that ban things?
Bringing back inspection stickers would do a lot more for vehicle safety, I think.
I isn't uncommon for me to see a car at night with headlights, but no visible taillights. That is truly dangerous.
Oh, I get it. It's like the way they wear their britches.... nice.
"The impulse to ban things is driven by their search for validation and purpose."
No words, ever expressed, have been more true. The majority of bullshit enacted by any level of government comes from someone trying to justify their position, and to feel needed.
As someone who is not tall and who drives a mid size sedan, it is impossible to see around not just these squatted things but also the trucks and vans on steroids!
The insurance actually IS higher on those oversized vehicles and would be on a squatted vehicle IF the company knew it had been modified.
Health and safety are a legitimate concern for a society (or do you want addictive drugs unregulated and smallpox in our schools again? Unsafe vehicles like the Pinto on the roads?).
Your individual freedom is not a license to be irresponsible, reckless, negligent or criminal and cannot come at the expense of other citizens.
You can be as much of a jerk and idiot and you like as long as you don't put me at risk. And, don't expect me to like or admire you and do everything your way or no way.
Every legislator every year has gotta submit a bill doing something -- anything -- so he can show the folks back home how he's "fighting" for them. Politicians are always talking about fighting, but they're really a chummy club, full of backslapping and consensus, a club in which most who read this are not members.
I must disagree with the author. I saw one of those in Madison a few days ago. No way the driver has an acceptable view of the road. It’s not just dangerous to him, but is dangerous to me and my family. In addition, it appears that if the truck hit another car, it would go through the windshield rather than into the car body itself. This negates the frame from protecting the other driver. It should definitely be banned. It’s your life or the lives of your family that could be saved.
As a lifelong conservative and libertarian, I would say that this is another example of government overreach. What is the compelling interest that the state wants to protect?
What a distorted view of reality. Banning things is why laws were invented. Laws were needed to ban theft, assault, murder. And yes, laws were needed to ban the seemingly small things: shoplifting, speeding, littering, etc. Yes, the legislature has bigger issues with which to be concerned, but you can't start at the top and then work your way down - you would never get to the small things.
1:53
Just lives that all!
Ok, everyone with a brain, looking at the picture where is the driver’s field of vision?
"It isn't uncommon for me to see a car at night with headlights, but no visible taillights. That is truly dangerous."
That would be someone driving a vehicle with the once upon a time mandatory daytime running lights that forgot to actually turn their lights on that would include the tail lights.
Those need to be off the road. Can’t see anything in front of them. Common sense must prevail
Doing this to a truck is stupid, and it creates a situation for either hurting or killing other people. Another option-make every squatted truck have Bud Light stickers on all bumpers plus in the back window.
I agree with 2:20. Yes, banning things CAN become a slippery slope, but you can't stop trying to correct CLEARLY dangerous things because people should have the right to do anything they want to do.
Seriously, I love cars and trucks better than probably anyone you know. That being said, the "reasonable person' (defined in the law as "an ordinary person who exercises care while avoiding extremes of boldness and carefulness") can clearly understand a legislative body's reasoning in wanting to curtail the use of a vehicle driven in the subject configuration. Raised rear end? OK, depending on the level of lift, it may look stupid, but one can argue it's probably not inherently dangerous to operate it that way. Raised FRONT end? Um, exactly what line of sight has to be used by the operator to see Mr. Carswell's teenager in their car in front of him? One could argue that, unless said teenager is on the left side of the raised truck, the operator probably CAN'T see the teenager.
Again, I agree we should be careful when requiring the outright ban on the use of certain things, but I contend that, in the vast majority of cases, the "reasonable person" would say they understand and agree with the reasons why.
Did you intend to overlook the name of Representative Fred Shanks (whose baby this is) or was it accidental?
This is the kind of bullshit he comes up with each session in order to please his buds over at Niknar S.O. I think he's still an S.O. Deputy-Dog there.
While this state is mired in a mess of real things we could deal with, this is what he comes up with. And it's our fault for pulling his lever.
Also banned are dark, tinted windows and modifying your car to make it louder. Neither statute is enforced.
South Carolina already banned this.
Whom-Ever wrote this article is a complet moron...He is obviously not old enough to remember LEO giving us Illegal Eqipment" citations for raising our 4WD pickups with lift kits to rediculous levels when we were kids. Raising the center of gravity was / is unsafe. But to the authors reference to Firearms he should know we have this Pesky Document called The Bill Of Rights which protects our firearms, not them damn trucks that look like a dog squated taking a dump...
Libertarian is not conservative. In fact it’s closer to liberal. Yeah, we should ban things that make our society uglier, dirtier, and sicker. Common sense
It's all libertarian fun and games until one of those rednecks blinds you with his headlights.
Meh, the squat mobiles will fade off and something new will come along and sure enough the old people will be complaining how dangerous it is and we are all going to die so let’s just ban it and write tickets. I don’t care for squat trucks but can any of you scary smooth brains actually produce any numbers for accidents/fatalities caused by squat trucks vs regular cars? I’m more concerned about an idiot doing 120 on I-220 vs some kid in a squat mobile cruising down the street.
Tinted windows should be banned on all vehicles including government and law enforcement.
That truck is modified in bad taste. It’s like they are all pulling an invisible heavy trailer. These kids will look back and see how stupid this look was. Give it time, it will change.
6:26---Libertarianism is a form of being conservative. It opposes unnecessary laws, rules, regulations, and spending which increase the size and scope of government.
9:52. Great point. It’s actually real conservatism. Not this fake kind that wants to ban anything that goes against some preachers interpretation of the Good Ole Book.
Let me see if I can make this simple. Laws are made in the legislature. All laws. Some laws are made to protect most of us from fucknuts that want to alter their vehicles and make them dangerous for those around us. Fucknuts have decided that they want to jack their front ends into the air so that they can't see where they're going and what they're about to run over and destroy or or potentially kill. A law was made to ban the unsafe alteration because law enforcement needs the law to curtail the activity.
This guy's article is blather.
God damn this state is full of fucking morons.
It is not a “right” for you to be able to drive on public roads. Laws and regulations exist to make traveling on public roads safe for everyone. Squatting your truck is not only just dumb, it endangers the safety of everyone using the roads.
This has nothing to do with “freedom” other than me being free to use a privilege without being endangered by someone else’s stupidity.
The squat driver has no need to see where they are going.
Between the open headers and the train horns squats got the folk should know get out the way when one of them coming!
11:55---Actually, there is a fundamental right for everyone to travel on public roads. This right can only be curtailed if the state can demonstrate a compelling interest. To be sure, the state has a the power under the Constitution's "police powers" clause to enact laws that are reasonably designed to protect the public's interest and safety.
March 30, 2024 at 2:52 PM, anything that requires an individual to have a license, is not a right, but a privilege.
2:58---There is a "right" to travel. That right may be regulated when there is a compelling state interest. To be sure, getting a driver's license is reasonable in order to make sure that all drivers on the public roads are competent and qualified.
Will there be an exception for pickups delivering firewood to the homes of legislators?
Americans do have the right to travel freely. But the government Kool-Aid drinkers and their LEO revenue & enforcement golems have Murkins believing that using roads, however, is a privilege, I.e., you have a right to travel, you can only use government roads if they deign let you.
March 30, 2024 at 9:06 PM, to DRIVE on a public road requires a license. That license to DRIVE is a privilege. The right to travel doesn't automatically mean to Drive. I thought you were a lawyer.
10:55---I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I am a retired lawyer, but I still remember Constitutional Law 101.
Coming soon...the idiots will attempt to debate about whether a person is operating on a road vs an ambassador is traveling...
This has been fun for me. I appreciate a nice clean debate. Only in America can narcissistic personalities like ours debate issues freely without fear of government retribution. Thanks KF for providing us a forum to vent!
Will the "sovereign citizen travelers" be exempt?
"Another option-make every squatted truck have Bud Light stickers on all bumpers plus in the back window."
Be sure to check out Representative Shanks' ride. You'll recognize it by the dual YETI stickers and the plate that reads NIKNAR1. Front plate displays the requisite thin-blue-line.
This is a safety issue for other drivers and pedestrians. Not being able to see the pavement in front of you for more than 30 feet or something, like a child, directly in front of your vehicle is just unsafe. (The front edge of the hood for most, new, 1/2-ton pickups is about 4.4 ft and the minimum distance in front of the truck that the driver can see the pavement is between 28 and 35 feet, depending on make/model). (note: Like many in MS, I'm average height and drive a 1/2-ton pickup, so I use it for comparison.)
I challenge anyone reading this to do their own geometry - or, for the mathematically-challenged take a string and a measuring tape. See how far out you need to pull the tape to see the top of your kid's head. You need to know your limitations. Now do it again and pretend your front bumper is several inches higher. Now imagine that your child is riding down the street on his bicycle, or your wife is driving a compact car, or some geezer is sporting his classic corvette - how far away would the driver of a squatted truck be before he could see any of these? Now imagine the squatted truck is being driven by the idiots who ruin perfectly serviceable trucks by squatting them. Still think they should be legally driven on public roads?
Instead of regulating the relative heights of the bumpers, which could be altered to beat the system, they should regulate the distance between leading edge of the hood and the point at which the driver can see the road. (draw a line between from the center of the driver-side headrest to the closest uninterrupted intersection with a level road.) This isn't so much another unnecessary law (of which we have plenty) but basic safety.
"Will the "sovereign citizen travelers" be exempt?", only in their minds.
I believe Saltwaterpappy is one of those sovereign citizens the way he be posting.
10:44---I am not a member of the "sovereign citizens". I just enjoy stirring up a good debate. Actually, 10:11 makes sense. I appreciate his input. By creating the debate, he has come forward with great information.
Post a Comment