proffsl wrote:


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?

"some 98 percent of the accidents reported involved a single
distracted driver" - http://www.mercola.com/2003/mar/26/car_accidents.htm

"Over 95% of motor vehicle accidents involve some degree of driver
behavior" - http://www.smartmotorist.com/acc/acc.htm

As for negligence being, by far and away, the leading cause of
automobile accidents, a simple Google search will most surely affirm
that fact.

But you said "WILFULL acts of negligence". Your first cite led to a page
that doesn't even open without signing up for something, and the second is
an incomplete quotation that goes on to say that it is combined with
something else. Fer crissakes, your cites do not support what you claimed
and you don't even quote them accurately.



To the contrary, negligence is always committed willfully. It's not as
if some force of nature, out of somebody's control, reaches out and
causes them to neglect their duties. They neglect their duties because
they WILL not apply themselves to their duties.

Then they are negligent, not wilful.


If someone is driving down the highway, and becomes destracted by the
volume control of their radio, they WILLFULLY choose to look toward
their volume control instead of the highway. If someone is driving
down the highway, and becomes destracted by a crying baby in the back
seat, they WILLFULLY choose to look toward the crying baby instead of
the highway. If someone is driving down the highway, and they begin to
rubber neck at an accident, they WILLFULLY choose to look toward the
accident instead of the highway.

No. They negligently allow themselves to be distracted.

Imagine what it would be like if they did not have to
get a licence.

I'd prefer to stick with reason instead of imagination.

In that case, it is about time that you started to use some.


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.

Here you seem to presume that the absence of a license, in and of
itself, somehow prevents someone from driving. Without the threat of
prosecution, there is nothing in the mere absense of a license that
prevents someone from driving. One doesn't have to have even acquired
a driver license for it to be later become suspended in order to keep
them off the highways,

Indeed. One can have a suspended driver licence without being license. Thus
it would appear that some people are going to drive without a licence no
matter what.


any more than one has to have a License to
Liberty issued and later suspended in order to keep them from
venturing to places they've been ordered by law not to go (restraining
orders). It's the threat of sure prosecution if they do those things
that keeps them from doing them.


It works for most people. Most people will go through the process of
learning to driving, getting a licence and showing some degree of
compliance with traffic laws. A small minority disregard those
requirements.


As I have said, and demonstrated numerous times: Driver Licensing does
nothing for highway safety that laws against endangerment didn't
already serve.

You have said it many times. What you have not done is demonstrated it.


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.

Now you're just being absurd. I can only assume you are being so as a
sort of knee jerk reaction to a truth you wish to willfully neglect.

think of it more as a knee jerk to your absurdity.

I've told you what I think instils safe driving habits. The
enforcement of rules against behavior that endangers others instils
safe driving habits, along with safe habits in the exercise of all our
other Rights.


And you have been told that driving is not a right.

And as I said, you can repeat your silly mantra all you want
but it doesn't make it so.

And, you can ignore the facts before your eyes all you want, but that
doesn't make them false or go away.

I would suggest that we differ on who is ignoring the facts.



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.

From my research on this issue, the primary cause for any reduction in
the number of accidents is safer automobiles, automobiles which handle
highway conditions better, and ABS systems being at the top of that
list.

Do you call those bull**** cites "research"?



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.

Do you presume that you can somehow punish people for driving without
a license BEFORE they actually drive without a license? No, you sitll
have to wait until they actually commit the act before you can punish
them. I don't know if you're doing this deliberately, or merely due to
brainwash programming, but you are attempting to employ baffling
bull****.


Have you misled yourself into thinking this is the type of question
rational human asks?


Perhaps you can find the section of the Constitution that delegates to
government the authority to deny people of their Right of Locomotion
ordinarily used for personal travel on our public highways?


Perhaps you missed the part about locomotion not meaning driving a car.