I’ve written two blog articles on the
subject of Florida’s dumb law allowing “any person” to anonymously report you
or me as an “impaired drivers”. Perhaps the worst part of this dumb law is that
even if it can be proven the report was unfounded and had malicious intent, the
informer is indemnified from all civil or criminal liability. Why am I writing a third column on this
subject? It’s because the Ft. Lauderdale Sun
Sentinel published a headline article in its Sunday, 10-23-11, edition
supporting this law and the AP picked up the story, a release of which was
published in the Monday, 10-24-11 edition of the Palm Beach Post and many other newspapers nationwide. I suspect that
these articles were the result of press releases by the Florida Highway Safety
and Motor Vehicle department, FHSMV, who enforces this dumb law. You can read
the article by clicking on the link, www.FHSMVDumbLawArticle.com.
I’m asking you to sign an electronic
petition to change this law to remove the anonymity and “hold harmless”
sections. Please click on www.DumbLaw.org.
Below, I’ve addressed various omissions, misunderstandings, and distortions of
the article from the Sun Sentinel. I’m
sure that when you’ve read both the article and my comments you will agree that
this law needs to be changed.
(1)
It acknowledges that “most of the drivers lost
their privileges because they didn’t submit detailed medical information
requested by the state to show they are still able to drive.” What they
don’t do is drill down and ask the question, WHY don’t drivers submit
their medical information? Is it always because they know for certain that the
medical information would have resulted in a license suspension? Or is it often
because they are simply afraid and unsure? My personal situation is a good example.
When I first got the letter from the FHSMV, I was concerned that I might fail a
hearing test. I’m a former hunter and I have high frequency hearing loss in my
left ear. It wasn’t until I read the Florida Driver’s Handbook that I
discovered that a driver’s license cannot be revoked for being hard of hearing
or even deaf. Supposing I had been too afraid to take a hearing test and chose
not to respond to the letter with the following reasoning…If I drive carefully,
the odds are 99.9% that I will never be stopped by a policeman and asked to
show my driver’s license? I can probably keep quiet about the letter, keep on
driving, and nobody will ever be the wiser. The worst case scenario is I get
stopped sometime in the future, and they cite me for driving with a suspended
license. I claim that I never got the letter asking me to take the test which
was sent by regular mail, not certified. I’ve had the benefit of years of
driving that I would otherwise have lost and I can, even then, agree to take
the test and hope I pass it. The alternative to this is to respond immediately
and risk taking the test and losing my driver’s license. Think for a minute
about how terrifying it is to lose your right to drive a car in Florida. During
this Great Recession it was shown that many people choose to have their home
foreclosed on rather than their car repossessed. Keeping their car allows
them to get to drive to work ,the doctor, the pharmacy, the grocery store, etc.
and continue with their lives. They can sleep and live in their car which is a
hardship, but at least they can still have a life.
(2)
The article acknowledges that this is a “little-known
law”. But this front page article and other recent media attention
will soon make this a “well-known law”. Up until now only 11% of anonymous
informants have been non professionals (regular people, not doctors and
police). What will happen when every “person” which is the other category
specified in the law who can make an anonymous report learns of this law? What
happens when angry neighbors, divorce litigants, estranged spouses, political
opponents, jilted lovers, disgruntled and fired employees, business
competitors, pranksters and sociopaths (Psychologists say that 1% of the
population are born sociopaths and 10% more become so because of their
environment) learn about this perfect tool for revenge on
somebody they don’t like?
(3)
The article points out that 42% of anonymous
informants are cops. Several questions occur to me that the media has left
unanswered. Why would a policeman waste the time of filing a report to the
FHSMV instead of taking immediate action to remove an impaired driver from the
roads? Police take drunk drivers off the road immediately, why not legally
blind drivers? Why does a cop want to remain anonymous and immune from civil or
criminal liability? The answer to this question might be frightening. A
cop isn’t afraid to “look you in the eye” when he gives you a speeding ticket,
makes you take a breathalyzer or blood alcohol test, and cites you for DUI.
He’s not anonymous and he faces civil and criminal liability if he carelessly
and/or maliciously does any of these things. Unfortunately in our society,
instances of police brutality, sexual harassment, and other police abuses of
power are not uncommon. Some police forces are requiring video cameras be
placed on squad cars and even then, we’re discovering cops who take advantage
of civilians because they have the power to do so. Is it so farfetched to think
that a cop who has been “smarted off to” by a traffic offender might get even
with him by reporting him as impaired driver…especially since he remains
anonymous and is immunized from all civil or criminal liability? When a cop or
doctor makes the anonymous complaint, there is no investigation of the
complaint as there is if a non professional is the informant. The person
reported is ordered to immediately take driving, written, eye, and hearing tests.
In my personal situation, I suspect a policeman as being the anonymous
informant. Of course I can’t prove it and, if I could, I could take no action
against him. My reasons for my suspicion are that I was ticketed for speeding
while driving in the right hand (slow) lane while cars passed me on the left.
The cop was annoyed at me because I didn’t pull over right away. I didn’t pull
over immediately because there was no safe place to pull over and I was driving
with the windows up and while conversing on my cell phone and simply didn’t
notice him at first. I got the letter from the FHSMV in the mail a couple of
weeks after I was ticketed. At this time I learned that this policeman was
married to an ex employee of mine that I had fired and who subsequently sued me
for firing her. I’m not just a good driver; I’m an excellent driver with 20-20
vision, adequate hearing, fast reflexes, and a sharp mind. I’ve never had a
traffic accident but I admit that I do drive slightly over the speed limit as
do most drivers. Whoever reported me clearly did it for malicious reasons.
(4)
The AARP in the past has opposed age based
additional road testing for drivers according to this article. I have some contacts
in Tallahassee that spoke to me off the record Legislators tried to
get age based testing into the law but AARP stopped this dead in its tracks.
However, the FHSMV is proceeding to do this in spite of it not being in the
law. They have taken it upon themselves to send out letters to all of those
seniors who have reached 70 who have also not renewed their license in person
in the past 5 years. They have renewed by mail on online. In my opinion, if
this is true, it is a serious violation of the law by a state agency.
If you agree with me,
please click on www.DumbLaw.org
and sign my petition.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Earl Stewart On Cars welcomes comments from everyone - supporters and critics alike. We'd like to keep the language and content "PG Rated" so please refrain from vulgarity and inappropriate language. We will delete any comment that violates these guidelines. Oh yeah - one more thing: no commercials! Other than that, comment-away!