Driving Means Freedom
Rising expenses and regulatory hurdles limit Americans' mobility.

When I started driving, my folks planted me behind the wheel of a nearly unbreakable late-'70s Jeep Wagoneer. "The tank" got me to work, rock concerts, and parties. It got me through snowstorms that stranded lesser vehicles on the roadside. In a pinch, it could fit me, 10 of my friends, and a keg of beer in relative comfort (at least for the keg).
I miss the tank. Unlike our newer SUV, it would have barely suffered a scratch when my 16-year-old son hit a signpost. But I'm glad my kid, even without the tank to learn in, has taken to life behind the wheel and the freedom that comes with driving.
His experience, to say nothing of my own, is becoming less common. In 1981, the year I turned 16, 1.7 million Americans my age were licensed to drive. In 2019, the latest year for which the Federal Highway Administration has data, just over 1 million 16-year-olds had licenses. During the same period, the country's population rose by roughly 100 million. Justin Fox described the situation succinctly in a 2020 Bloomberg News column: In 1984, nearly half of America's 16-year-olds could drive legally; as of 2018, a quarter could.
The cause of the decline in teen driving is a matter of debate. In 2013, National Geographic's Marianne Lavelle noted the rise of virtual engagement as a substitute for face-to-face meetings and the increasing hassle and cost of driving. Another factor: Youth employment had declined, which meant fewer teens could afford the costs of owning a vehicle. "Paying for their own cars, gas, and insurance is hard if they can't find a job," a representative of the insurance industry's Highway Loss Data Institute told Lavelle.
Meanwhile, cars have become more expensive due to new technology. "The new extras also make cars more expensive to repair," which "drive[s] up car-insurance costs, another deterrent for many teens and 20-somethings," Wall Street Journal reporter Adrienne Roberts noted in 2019.
At the same time, graduated driver licensing laws have spread across the country. Many of these laws require teenagers to spend a certain number of supervised hours behind the wheel and restrict the number of minors who can ride with them for a period after they get their licenses. These laws seem to have reduced highway risks, but they also make mobility less attractive. Why drive across town to visit friends if you can save money and trouble by chatting with them online?
Two years of pandemic restrictions could accelerate the drop in teen driving. Zoom gatherings have been normalized, and supply chain disruptions have driven up car prices. "Some used cars," Business Insider's Tim Levin observed in February 2021, are "now worth thousands more than their new, hard-to-find -counterparts."
That's a shame, because the drop in adult work force participation restored employment opportunities for young people—at least, for those able to show up. The Biden administration even launched a pilot program that allows 18-year-olds to work as long-distance truckers to fill demand. Teenagers who can drive obviously have a head start in taking advantage of this situation.
My son is one of those teenagers, enjoying opportunities much like those my friends and I had at his age. He drives to his job at a supermarket, motors over to his classes at the community college, and hits the road to hang out with his buddies in ways recognizable to an older generation but less common in 2022. He and his friends will enter the world of adults with an important skill and an awareness of the freedom it allows. They will be able to travel, take jobs, and set up housing beyond the reach of mass transit and ride-share services.
I just wish I still had that old Wagoneer to see him through the next couple of years. But whatever he drives in the future, I hope it will be resistant to signposts.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Nobody needs to drive if you live in the Metaverse.
Nobody needs to vote, when ALL votes NOT for Der TrumpfenFuhrer are written off as having been falsified by the Lizard People and-or the Demon-Craps!
Fuck off sarc.
I give up my job and now. I make $120 an hour operating from home doing those easy chores on line. I make $30,000 a month operating on line three hours a day. (hju20) I recommended you to strive. You may not lose anything, simply attempt it on the subsequent internet site and earn each day...
.
For extra details:>>>>> https://brilliantfuture01.blogspot.com/
Maybe you and SQRLSY should get together.
In countries with no LP, voting is mandatory--the looters see to that!
Too true! You must either vote for the commies... Or the commies!
A few years ago, our betters were getting very excited about the lack of interest in driving among teens, thinking they would all want to live in huge cities and get around using mass transit or bike shares. Haven’t heard much about this lately, but where I live in the DC metro area, the teens I know all drive.
That will only play out with an actual drive to invest in mass transit. This admin seems more on board but it would take a sea change to really incentivize that.
That said, driving has fuck all to do with freedom. Maybe these teens use public transit or maybe on the rare occasions they need to go farther they call an uber.
Maybe their real freedom is freedom from car payments, cost of gas, maintenance, etc. etc.
And places with no public transportation or Uber?
Where I live, "public transportation" means a yellow school bus and an 18 mile ride to school.
The worst parts of flyover country. Who cares?
That said, driving has fuck all to do with freedom.
Adding to the pile of stupid shit you have said.
Left-leaning sorts are geared to be dependent on other people. This is why they cannot comprehend that driving = personal freedom, any more than they can understand being able to perform simple maintenance around the house is freedom.
“Where you come from is gone, where you thought you were going to was never there, and where you are is no good unless you can get away from it.”
― Flannery O'Connor
No, driving is extremely freeing. I've lived in cities where I had to rely on public transport. Having to get on the bus or train is a barrier to going places. Even though it's a small one, it's becomes one other reason to never leave your neighborhood.
The easy travel distance with a car is 10 miles. The easy travel distance with public transport is 10 blocks. Someone with a car will consider the ten miles surrounding them they're home turf. Easy to run quick errands in. Which gives them many more options for entertainment, food, and friends than someone who's limited to 10 blocks.
Yeah, because the billions we've already invested in mass transit have worked out so very well so far.
Mass transit works in specialized environments. Mass transit works when land is expensive and people live piled on top of each other. Mass transit works wherever the emphasis is on mass and those masses don't actually need that much transit.
In other words, mass transit works well in Europe and a few high-density parts of the US and it's a disastrous boondoggle everywhere else.
And, yes, I say this as someone who loves trains. As someone who would cheerfully trade the "freedom" of a car for the freedom to catch a nap or read a book while someone else deals with traffic. Despite my fervent wishes, mass transit does not make economic sense for the vast majority of the world.
There is a form of mass transit that could be pretty libertarian if libertarians weren't fixated on the notion that public roads are owned and controlled by drivers and car owners.
There is no reason or value for government to OPERATE transit options. Just for govt to own the road and ensure (doesn't mean pay for) a huge variety of mobility options for everyone
So how does the government "ensure" a "variety of mobility options for everyone" without direct or indirect payments (and penalties)? Right now, anyone with enough money can buy cars, buses, bikes, mules, trains, planes, and then pay for access to the necessary infrastructure (if not using public roads). What more do you want?
Again with the if you got enough money you can be free.
The process you are describing - private ownership and operation of the transport and pay to access the infrastructure could also work on public roads.
Eg a 'bus stop' could become a taxi, Uber, shuttle, different bus companies, bike parknride, etc. And with the muni NOT trying to operate transport (just lease loading/unloading access slots) they have a ton more 'bus stops' on residential roads and open up arterials for higher seed thru traffic without stops.
>>>Again with the if you got enough money you can be free.
the poor have cars too this isn't Venezuela yet
I truly have no idea what's being advocated here that couldn't already be done.
More likely their mom driving them around.
Same here. I'd be interested in knowing what the 1981/2022 numbers are for 18 year old drivers (after all the provisional driver laws no longer apply) I waited until I was 18 to get my license, but I've been driving ever since
I can pretty much guarantee that very few kids these days get their license when I did, because I don't think most places let you even get your license that early (and boy do I feel old now...) Back in the early to mid 90's in NM, one could get their learner's permit at 14 years and 8 months, and an actual driver's license at 15, and that's exactly what I did. But I think the minimum might be 16 for an actual license, now.
All those treehugging cunts who are calling for banning conventional cars don't want us to replace them with battery cars. They want all the proles to be dependent on government-owned transit so that government can shut it down at will.
The battery cars will just be for the ruling class.
-jcr
The number of teens today who can drive a stick shift is even lower.
Does anyone even make them anymore?
Subaru still makes manual transmissions for the Outbacks.
You can still get sticks on Honda Civic and Acura Integra, and Europe most rental cars are stick unless you get a big expensive one. I don’t see them being around much longer though with the push to EVs.
I forgot about that. I do like their CVT. Smooth ride. No jumps in RPMs.
Sports cars too, although automatics are becoming more common there too
i made my kids learn on a stick
Spare the stick spoil the child.
With modern lock up torque converters, CVTs, & dual clutch hybrid transmissions there really isn't an advantage to buying a stick. It used to be a stick would always beat an automatic infuel economy by a wide margin, today the gap is so close there's no real reason for buying a stick since the cost isn't that much higher when you consider base prices are close to $25k if not more for most models.
Of course we all typically learn to drive the clunker in the driveway. Today that might mean a 2007 Camry no doubt with an automatic, when I grew up in the middle of the woods of NH it meant an early '50s Willys-Overland 4x4 pickup with an unsynchronized 3 speed and a top speed of about 47 mph in high range.
The Wall Street Journal recently had an opinion-piece about driving a stick-shift car. Easier to repair, still a bit more efficient than automatic, theft proof and you can rent cars in Europe, maybe Japan. This was followed by several rounds of letters to the editor.
My 10 speed Schwinn World Sport was freedom for me.
I know for me. I didn't get a driver's license until I was 18, because if I wanted to go anywhere my mother would drive me there. If I had to walk or bike to get anywhere, like my mother had at my age (she was a latch key kid), then I would have probably gotten my license as soon as I was legally able.
Sheee-it.
So, they deliberately make the entire front in of the car crumple and deform, in order to protect pedestrians who are killed/injured in less than one percent (0.11%) of all crashes. Let me tell you how much that is appreciated in deer country.
Diamond plate after-market bumpers for the win, baby.
In order for a vehicle to be sold in Europe it needs to be able to hit a pedestrian at 20mph and not hurt them. So rather than make different European models, we all get stuck with a common denominator of standards.
Yeesh. It has little to do with arbitrary 'standards'. It has a lot to do with the fatality and serious injury rate when a car hits a human at different speeds. And the bigger the car, the higher the fatality/injury rate. This is about physics and a society that chooses to favor a flesh-and-blood individual - or a two ton metal cage travelling at whatever speed it wants.
It has everything to do with arbitrary standards.
California dictates many arbitrary standards across the nation because it's a huge market, and rather than make two products many just go with California compliant.
Substitute Europe for California and world for nation.
So what about the flesh and blood in the car when the car hits something else?
Yeah, those are the soft bits to give the person a soft landing without stabbing them with a wiper. It makes it more expensive to repair because hoods and fenders are largely plastic anyway. It doesn't change the frame which is what absorbs energy when hitting a bridge abutment.
That is something J.D.'s "tank" doesn't have and actually makes it less safe since it has a rigid frame that doesn't absorb energy when impacting a bridge abutment and just tosses the passenger into the rigid interior of the vehicle or just allows the ancient straps to transfer that energy into your bones and organs. Things that crush reduce the Gs that your body needs to absorb. It's why the military developed MRAPs, high Gs can severe the aorta killing the passengers even if the vehicle survives.
Some of these new cars will pace the car in front of them and even steer themselves. Pretty wild.
Having tried both, the most important difference between driving and riding a bicycle is that no cop ever stopped my bike to threaten and possibly kill me.
Good point-you can also drink a 40 while riding your bike, as I’ve seen in the hood.
You can also get a DUI on a bicycle. They can't take your license since you don't need it to use the bike, but they'll fine you and make you do all the associated bullshit that comes with getting one.
And steal your bike.
-jcr
Some states will pull your DL if you have one for DUI on a bike, boat, horse, ATV, etc. It all depends on the state.
Depends on where you live.
True story:
My first interaction with the police was while I was riding a bicycle in Oakland, CA. I was twelve. My and a friend were riding our bikes to the local school yard to shoot hoops or something (I forget exactly what).
He pulled us over and stuck us both in the backseat for what seemed an eternity and talked to us about something (I can't remember that either), and then issued a citation to both of us for not having our bicycles licensed. The funny thing is: Oakland didn't require bicycle licensing until six years later. No, I am not joking. And thus began my lifelong basic mistrust of badges.
On the other hand, maybe he did us both a favor, getting us ready for the "real" world.
Did you offer any cash?
Well, I might have had about 25 cents on me, but I doubt that would have made a difference...
If you had some weed on you he might have taken that. Maybe that's the real reason he stopped you. Did he check for it?
Cute. I was twelve years old. This was in 1965. I don't think many white, middle-class 12-year-olds were smoking or carrying weed. But yeah, had it been ten years later, perhaps.
This article is utterly stuck on stupid. Yes being old enough to drive and with enough income to afford car expenses is 'freeing'.
But what you are really saying is that the young, those who can't afford a car, the disabled, and those too old to drive shouldn't be free.
It's the Koch form of freedom - freedom for me and not for the.
I call BS-most people can afford some type of car-maybe not the newest and fanciest. The barriers to car ownership are ridiculously high taxes and insurance for the young. Older people can and do drive or have someone drive them if they can’t. Another thing public transit fans never point out is that you have to be pretty privileged to access good public transit that won’t take you two hours to get to work.
"I call BS-most people can afford some type of car-maybe not the newest and fanciest."
Totally. Get a beater for a couple grand and set aside a piece of every paycheck for maintenance. Granted that won't work for someone who lacks the ability to manage money, but that's their own fault.
I think it misses the point. Being licensed to drive doesn't necessarily mean owning a car. A license allows you to drive for almost any reason even as part of a job. The need to own a car is lessened by things like Uber or even renting one for a period that one is needed, heck Home Depot usually has a truck available to rent to get the large items home as washers & dryers generally don't fit in a hatchback or Uber.
I took it as the driver's license being the thing that grants freedom, not the car.
I probably wasn't clear, it's the OP that misses the point by conflating knowing how to drive with being able to afford a car. Knowledge is freedom, ignorance is expensive, and idiots don't know the difference.
But what you are really saying is that the young, those who can't afford a car, the disabled, and those too old to drive shouldn't be free.
I can't even...
The rhetorical fallacies are strong with JFree.
It's not even that. I honestly don't understand what he is saying. It makes no sense. Celebrating the freedom associated with driving equals hating the young, the disabled, and old people? That's almost as stupid as the stuff JesseAz sees between the lines in my comments. Almost.
Celebrating the freedom associated with driving is NOT what has been happening for 40 years now.
What has been happening is structuring all roads, zoning, development, etc around the car. And letting the car force everything else out. And celebrating THAT.
That's what happens when peoples' lives are spread out. Live here, shop there, work some other place, family over there...
And that's a good thing. Means our lives aren't confined to some small radius around our homes.
People's lives are spread out in large part because of massive government subsidies and use of eminent domain for residential/ destruction and huge swathes of single purpose zoning
You are really dumb.
I would say beyond dumb, and well into retarded (actual or pretended).
I do hate zoning laws, agreed. I think it's more complicated than that though. I think you would see different distributions of people, but I'm not clear that you'd have everyone living in tight urban communities or something.
What has been happening is structuring all roads, zoning, development, etc around the car
As P.J. O'Rourke correctly stated about the importance of the car-- "There wouldn't BE an America had it not been for the Automobile".
A brief question came up between my ex-wife and me regarding whether or not my daughter really needed to learn to drive. There was no question, the answer was not only "yes" but "hell yes". Knowing how to drive allows one to easily escape corrupt political districts that lock you into shady public transportation mafias and unions.
And, to go directly to your point above, we KNOW what it looks like when districts start designing against the car.
Y'all can fuck off with your empty bike lanes and 25mph speed limits on 45mph roads.
So America didn't exist before the late 1940's?
And Btw bike lanes are fucking abhorrent - exclusively designed for cyclists who want o pretend commuting/errands are the Tour de France - and car commuting urban transport bureacrats who want those to fail
So America didn't exist before the late 1940's?
America is only 250 years old, and the automobile was introduced to the masses in 1908. Prior to that, America was a mostly rural place, and "public transportation" was very limited to a few cities. That public transport was available at a time when a person was mostly locked into their urban neighborhood. They'd live at the top of the hill and catch a tram to the bottom of the hill where they'd work. This was their entire life.
Yes, everything was close together in these urban spaces... because it had to be. When you had to carry your groceries and other necessaries, and you owned no car, let alone a horse, you were subject to the whims of the local urban structure and Tammany hall. The automobile allowed people to escape these political districts. Why do you think Democrats hate cars? They are the central feature of urban corruption. The 'climate angle' is a convenient lie to keep you from moving out of their carefully planned transportation corridors.
Before WW2 cars had an effective max speed of 30mph. So there was not much sprawl, little effect on urban grid streets, and little need for the destruction of neighborhoods to widen highways Once the effective speed of a car hits 40 60 80 100, then humans require armor outside the vehicle - or inside the cage.
Where are you getting your factoids? Top speed of a Ford model A was 65 mph. Cadillacs, Packards and Duesenbergs had four times the horsepower of the Ford. Americans were known for their powerful cars even pre WWII.
“Where are you getting your factoids?”
Me thinks all the double masking cut off too much oxygen to his brain.
Seems like cars and air conditioning were two of the biggest demographic shifters in the US of the last 100 years.
The United States is the only country ever to go to the poorhouse in an automobile.
Will Rogers
1930
Cars from the 1920s.
https://www.supercars.net/blog/cars-by-decade/1920s-cars/
There is no "force" involved. Contrary to your pipe dreams, the vast majority of Americans want to live in single family homes with some land around them. That's why US zoning looks the way it does.
Furthermore, between gas taxes, property taxes, tolls, sales taxes, licensing and registration, drivers have more than paid for the infrastructure they are using.
Yeah, I'm not really quite clear what he's arguing for either.
At core I'm saying this ain't an outcome of freedom. It's an outcome of massive govt subsidies and distortions. About which, we choose to be blind
Americans wanted cars and willingly paid the taxes for good roads. The government was doing the will of the people.
Just because government Fs it up doesn't mean cars are a bad thing. FnA, man.
Nonsense.
You act like a car costs 100M. We're not talking about a megayacht we're talking about an car. A decent used car in good working order can be found for < 10K. The majority of Americans can afford to drive. Having a car is not a luxury.
In the near-to-intermediate future self-driving cars will probably make it possible for the disabled and those to young or old to drive as well.
My current ride is a Honda Fit. I bought it for around 16 grand new. It has standard power windows and air conditioning. Those in much of the late 20th century were only found in luxury cars.
what you are really saying
No, what he's really saying is what he said. He didn't comment on the poor, the disabled, or the elderly, you guilt-peddling twat.
-jcr
Without the insane regulations government imposes on cars, cars would cost a tiny fraction of what they cost.
Yes, that damned form of freedom where you are essentially responsible for guiding and funding the life you want.
As opposed to that other "freedom" where the state/church/monarch takes your stuff and then decides who else should get it, to fund the life they want.
Fuck off.
So basically this is just like a mandatory sort of Obamacare expense. No car, insurance, gas, parking, etc - no mobility.
And that still doesn't address the too young, too old, unable. As for the too old still driving. A friend of my mom's was still driving in her 80's. Long after she was really able to. A month before she died she killed a kid on a bike. Hell of a life legacy.
Can say the same about private airplanes. What's your point?
If you don't like it, buy your own air force:
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/this-man-owns-the-world-s-most-advanced-private-air-force-after-buying-46-f-a-18-hornets?utm_source=pocket-newtab
In March 2020, The War Zone was among the first to report that his company would be purchasing multiple squadrons worth of surplus Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) F/A-18 Hornets to be used in the contractor adversary air support role here in the United States.
That's really cool. Thanks.
What's there to "address"? There are plenty of places with high walk scores in the US where they can live. Americans have a variety of preferences when it comes to transportation, and the market caters to those preferences.
Are you now, or have you ever been a communist?
Cough *bullshit* cough
Driving Means Freedom
Which is why socialist progs hate individual car ownership.
It's why they hate knowledge and advocate for mass transit. Can't have the proles knowing where anything is or how to operate devices of potential destruction, they might be tear-wrists!
If you really want to make the streets safer, raise the driving age to 19.
the current generation are lazy pussies. this is largely caused by bad parenting.
this ^^
The left will want use "climate change emergency" powers to rip our freedoms away just like the "COVID emergency".
Emergency powers are very dangerous.
But oh-so useful.
Prelate Kaas (representing the Christian conservatives) speaking to German parliament before voting to grant dictatorial powers to Hitler:
Red. Barchetta. not just a song ...
Neither is the Trees.
Having some libertarian messages in their songs is part of the reason Rush was kept out of the Rock and Roll HOF for so long. Glad they got in while Peart was still alive.
word
Driving simply isn't sustainable, and the young generation knows that. This is a conscious choice they're making to save the planet. It's far, far better to live in a 100 square foot sleep cube and ride an e-scooter to a collaborative work-pod than use all the resources of a ranch-style home in suburbia.
Did you forget a /sarc tag on that?
Diane never uses a sarc tag. It ruins the troll factor.
Some statements are more a test of the reader's perspective than the writers, afterall.
The ones who believe (and preach) that are so punchable.
My grandfather never owned a car. He walked to the factory he worked in everyday. He and my grandmother lived in a small house with their 12 children. Kids today are conservative and going back to old time values that did not require a car and a McMansion to be happy.
Yes, we are now going backward. Civilization is deteriorating and losing everything it gained from respecting individuals and private property rights.
That's the point, isn't it.
The left is almost as excited about China's train system as they are about China's COVID prevention measures.
And their curated media, and planned economy, and dedication to equity, and one-party rule, and...
Janis Joplin would say that "Freedom means nothing left to lose". When I was in college students moved around and did what they wanted. It meant car-pooling and hitch hiking.
When my son moved out of our house, I sweetened the deal by giving him my car. I never replaced that car. My wife and I have lived with a single vehicle for over 10 years and have never felt like we lost anything. We don't have car payments as we use the money we saved to by our cars outright. Half the insurance and upkeep. Freedom is not a car its what you make of your life.
This ^^^^
- Being enslaved to car payments, insurance, fuel and maintenance costs certainly isn't freedom.
- Being enslaved to high taxes to pay for our excessive road system isn't freedom.
- Being enslaved to pay for our high healthcare costs due to too much time sitting in a car rather than walking or bicycling isn't freedom.
Europeans find it strange that Americans think 100 years is a long time. Americans find it strange that Europeans think 100 miles is a long distance.
Should've maintained and held onto that Wagoneer.
https://driving.ca/jeep/auto-news/news/why-you-should-buy-a-1980s-jeep-wagoneer-right-now
We have the most dangerous road system of all developed countries.
- A teen in the U.S. is 4x as likely to be killed while in a car than a teen in Europe.
- Drivers in the U.S. kill 11x as many people riding bicycles as drivers in The Netherlands.
- Someone walking in the U.S. is 17x as likely to be killed by a driver as someone in Scandinavia
---------
We have the highest rates of obesity, the highest rates of most preventible chronic disease and the lowest (or 2nd lowest depending on when) life expectancy of all developed nations. A key reason is that we sit too much - we don't walk or bicycle to places as people in other healthier countries do.
-------
And then there are the increased costs, for each of us personally and our share of gov't spending, for how much we drive.
------
I don't think J.D. thought through things before writing this article.
This entire publication is funded by oil money so someone's gotta shill to keep the lights on.
Being forced to pay for gas to drive to a job you hate but you have to work that job to afford the gas it takes you to get there. What glorious freedom.
I saw no mention in the article and hardly any mention in the comments of motorcycles and motor-scooters. Those were widely used back in the day when people could not afford automobiles, and wanted more than bicycles. You could see the trend in developing countries like Indonesia or South Vietnam: First the roads would be filled with bicycles, then with motor-scooters, and only then start to be filled with cheap automobiles. - After WWII one notable Italian company was Vespa, makers of a motor-scooter for people in an economy too poor to afford Fiats yet.