Nobody wants kids to die.
But the fact that a 13-year-old girl was killed more than two years ago in a tragic all-terrain vehicle accident doesn’t necessarily mean that state legislators should feel a moral obligation to pass a law that would greatly restrict all children from riding ATVs.
State senators are weighing a bill, SB 49, which would prohibit children under 12 from operating any ATV and restrict riders ages 12 to 15 years to vehicles with engines no larger than 90 cc. The bill is sponsored by Sens. Alan Bates, D-Ashland, and Richard Devlin, D-Tualatin. Violators would face a $90 fine.
In his argument for more safeguards, Bates, a doctor, has cited statistics showing that between 1999 and 2005, 62 Oregonians died from riding ATVs, 17 of them children 16 and under. The top cause of ATV-related deaths to children under 16 was being crushed by rollovers, commonly caused by children riding adult-sized ATVs.
However, he said, an outright ban on children riding ATVs would be going too far, hence the thrust of this bill.
SB 49 is only one of several bills that would, among the issue already mentioned, mandate helmets for ATV riders and outlaw passengers riding on vehicles designed for a single rider.
We don’t support this bill any more than we support many of the other efforts by government to fix people’s lives. Though many laws are, no doubt, well-meaning, government tends to grow excessively when it attempts to protect people from themselves.
It is true that, thanks to many well-meaning government programs, the public can bear the cost of the stupidity of a few. That’s why motorcyclists now are forced to wear helmets – the argument was that when an un- or under-insured motorcyclist injures him- or herself, the public often has to pay a financial price for their foolishness.
Well-meaning or not, government can become excessive far too quickly, particularly when city folks try to dictate how life should pursued in the country. Hence, we have stiff restrictions on hunting of predators such as cougars (at the expense of local deer and elk populations). Cougars are beautiful creatures, but they don’t mix well with humans – or deer or elk for that matter. While we support restrictions for a time to allow these animals to regain a foothold in the wilderness, where they belong, when they become so numerous that they begin posing a threat to humans, it’s time to re-think the rules –sooner, rather than later.
(In Wyoming, a similar problem is occuring with wolf management. State officials want to reduce the numbers of wolves to protect Wyoming’s elk herds, but federal officials are refusing to even think of culling the populations. Good-bye, elk.)
The basic role of government, as understood by the founders of this nation, is to provide security from enemies and protection against those who would harm us, at home or abroad. But the function of government in our society has changed drastically since the days of the Great Depression. Our government, both state and federal, has expanded into far more than just a provider of public safety and military readiness. It gives us drugs when we’re sick, money when we’re old, housing when we lose ours, mandatory school, and all manner of divisions and departments dedicated to keeping us from evil. It does all these things for us citizens – and for non-citizens as well. And we pay for it.
Here in Oregon, we have no financial reserves (yet) and politicians who can’t stop figuring out how to further extend the state’s influence into new areas of our lives. Our state Legislature, in particular, needs to mind the birds in its own chicken coop and not run after every errant fowl that flies its way.