proffsl wrote:

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.

I already stated that driver licence testing ensures that people can
demonstrate knowledge of traffic law and the ability to drive safely.

Virtually everybody over the age of 12 CAN drive safely.

You might be surprised at the number of people who cannot drive safely.
That is cannot, as opposed to do not or will not.


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.

Is that 90% a figure that you can provide a source for or just one that you
pulled out of the air? I will assume the later because I doubt that you
will find a reliable source that deals with an oxymoron like wilful
negligence. Something can be done wilfully or out of negligence, but the
two are mutually exclusive.

Sometimes it takes two to tangle, but sometimes good drivers are just in
the wrong place at the wrong time, and other times the carelessness or
inattention of a driver has made it impossible to avoid being crashed into
by a worse driver. Imagine what it would be like if they did not have to
get a licence.


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.

I also said that enforcement of traffic laws is a second means of dealing
with traffic safety. You may be surprised to see the number of people with
clean driving records. Then there are those with horrible records. Licence
suspensions allows the government to (try to) keep those people off the
road.


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.

OTOH... we could have weekly, monthly or annual driver tests if you think
that may be a better way to instil safe driving habits in people.

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.


And as I said, you can repeat your silly mantra all you want but it doesn't
make it so. Driver licensing has improved road safety. Graduated licensing
has reduced accidents i new drivers. Motorcycle licences have reduced
motorcycle accidents and classified licences has reduced commercial vehicle
accidents.

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.

The courts are retroactive. It doesn't help much if an unlicensed driver
kills someone and goes to jail or pays a fine. It is too late. Better to
have that person demonstrate ahead of time that they can drive.... and to
have them know that their *privilege* to drive can be suspended or revoked.

"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


If you can't beat them baffle them with bull**** eh. That article says
nothing about driver licences.

"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

Nor does this one.

A good rule of thumb is that if you are going to provide a cite to prove
your point, there should be something in the cite that proves your point,
or at least mentions it.


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.

Perhaps you can find the section of the Constitution that provides for the
right to drive a car.