Dave Smith wrote:
Alohacyberian wrote:
"proffsl" wrote:

Driver Licensing serves no purpose for highway safety that laws
against endangerment did not already serve, and instead only
serves fiscal greed.

I don't agree, but, driver licensing is here to stay. Might as well get
used to it. If it were fiscal greed, it would cost a couple hundred dollars
to get a license. License information also helps solve a lot of crimes,
offer identification and let others know that the people with the licenses
had to provide some proof that they were somewhat competent to drive
motor vehicles.

That article is a crock. Driver licensing does ensure that drivers have
completed written and road tests to demonstrate that they understand
the traffic laws in their state or province and that they are capable of
handling a motor vehicle safely.

Well, of course they do. Just as being requited to take a test to see
if you can hold your breath for more than a minute will ensure that
you have demonstrated that you can hold your breath for more than a
minute. But, what you claim Driver Licensing tests do isn't what I
stated that Driver Licenses fail to do. My statement was that Driver
Licensing does NOTHING for highway safety that laws against
endangerment didn't already serve.

Virtually everybody over the age of 12 CAN drive safely. The question
isn't if they CAN drive safely, but rather if they WILL drive safely.
More than 98% of all highway accidents are due to WILFULL acts of
negligence, not due to an inability to drive safely. Not having a
driver licenses doesn't mean you're driving dangerously. And, having
a driver licenses doesn't mean you're driving safely.

What prevents people from doing things that endanger the lives of
others? Their sure prosecution for Endangerment if they do is what
prevents them from doing it to begin with. As I said, Driver
Licensing does nothing for highway safety that laws against
Endangerment didn't already serve.


Enforcement of rules of the road is a way to try to force compliance
with the law, and liability suits are yet another means of forcing
compliance. Unfortuneatley, too many people think only of themselves
and refuse to accept that they could be caught in violation or get into
an accident.

See! Even there, in the back of your mind, you recognize this fact.
It isn't driver licensing that ensures that people drive safely, but
instead the enforcement of rules against behavior that endangers
others. As I said. The question isn't if they CAN drive safely, but
rather if they WILL drive safely. And, driver licensing CAN NOT
determine that. Driver Licensing does NOTHING for highway safety that
laws against endangerment didn't already serve.


Medical suspensions for people with physical and mental problems
have improved road safety. Demerit points for driving violations have
improved road safety.

We don't need a License to Liberty in order to have that Right
suspended or denied, and neither do we need a License to Drive in
order to have that Right suspended. If someone's medical or mental
condition so determines, or if their behavior so determined, a judge
(by due process of law) can temporarily or perminately deny them of
their Right to Drive. If they persist in doing so anyway, their Right
of Liberty altogether can be denied of them.


I worked for a short time as a driver examiner and I can tell you how
bad some of those new drivers are, and how bad some of the senior
drivers are.

Again, there in the back of your mind, you are knowing, and unkowingly
affirming what I said. Driver licensing does NOTHING for highway
safety that laws against endangerment didn't already serve.


Some people should not be allowed behind the wheel of a car.

True. That's what the courts, and Due Process of Law are for. Through
this process, people are denied of all sorts of their Rights, such as
their Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and sometimes their Right of
Liberty.

But, Driver Licensing presumes to deny everybody of their Right of
Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel on our public highways
WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

"The streets belong to the public and are primarily for the use of the
public in the ordinary way." -- Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140 (1924)
- http://laws.findlaw.com/us/264/140.html#144

"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one
place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal
liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through
the territory of any state is a right secured by the 14th Amendment
and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Williams v. Fears, 179
U.S. 270 (1900) - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/179/270.html#274

Our public highways were built on our property with our money for the
purpose of enhancing and increasing the exercise of our Right of
Liberty. But, as our public highways are being made more and more
unusable by anything but the Automobile, the more this LIE that
Driving is a Privilege makes us ALL Prisoners of Privliege behind bars
of blacktop.