View Single Post
  #22  
Old September 23rd, 2007, 11:16 AM posted to rec.travel.usa-canada
proffsl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 106
Default Driver Licensing not about highway safety

Dave Smith wrote:
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.


Well, of course they do. Just as being required to take a test to see
if you can hild your breath for more than a minute will ensure that
you have demonstrated the ability to hold your breath for more than a
minuite. BUT, what you claim Driver Licensing test 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.


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?


"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.


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.


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.

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.

There is only a very short instant in which one's reflexes to
something unexpected overtake their willfullness, and after that
instant (the blink of an eye), their WILL then comes back into play.
If a driver is paying attention to their duty of driving safely, the
possibility that something will happen in the blink of an eye to send
the situtation out of their control is completely neglectible. How
many times have you blinked while driving? I'm sure the number of
times for just one trip to work would count in the hundreds. We have
all blinked hundreds of thousands of times while driving. After that
initial blink, if you choose to keep your eyes closed, you do so
because of your own WILL.


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.


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.


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, 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.

As I have said, and demonstrated numerous times: 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.


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.
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.


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.


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


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.

You know, if Driver Licensing had remained as it was when I first
began driving where, at that time, they only tested one's knowledge of
the rules of the road, and their ability to handle an automobile, even
though I still consider it a mostly useless act, I would never have
made this into an issue, and would have just let things go as they
were. But, today, driver licensing has become a much broader issue
that simply testing one's ability to drive, and instead has become a
means of reaching into people's wallets for money, money and more
money. Through the years, retaining one's Right to Drive their
automobile on public highways has evolved from an expense of maybe
only $12 a year, to one more around a figure of $1000 or more a year.


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.


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****.


Better to have that person demonstrate ahead of time that they
can drive....


Virtually everybody over the age of 12 CAN Drive an automobile
safely. If they CAN drive safely isn't the question, but rather the
question is if they WILL drive safely. And, driver licensing CAN NOT
determine that. As I have pointed out, some 98% of all highway
accidents are caused by WILLFUL acts of negligence. And, not even the
remaining 2% of the accidents belong mostly to any inability to drive
safely.


and to have them know that their *privilege* to drive
can be suspended or revoked.


There is no need to issue a Liberty License in order to impose
restraining orders on people, or to outright deny them of their Right
of Liberty by placing them in jail. Likewise, there is no need to
issue a Driver License in order to temporarly suspend one's Right to
Drive, or to outright deny them of their Right to Drive, by 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


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.


Nothing baffling or bull**** about it. Combined in their meaning: We
have the Right of Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel on
our public highways.

What is the Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel on our
public highways these days? Driving the Automobile, of course.

Nothing baffling about that. No bull**** either. Just a simple FACT.


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.


Perhaps you can find the section of the Constitution that provides for
the Right to "write articles about our Right to Drive safely". No?
Would you then presume I don't have this Right?

Have you ever read the 9th Amendment to the Constitution?

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

But, isn't that EXACTLY what you're are attempting to do, to construe
it to deny or disparage other Rights retained by the people? YEP!!!

The Constitution isn't intended to define the limit of Rights retained
by the people, but instead it is intended to define the limits of
Powers delegated to government.

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?