If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing not about highway safety
proffsl wrote:
and let others know that the people with the licenses had to provide some proof that they were somewhat competent to drive motor vehicles. We do not OWE it to the public to prove we are unlikely to endanger others before being allowed to exercise something that is our Right. There is no right to drive a motor vehicle on a public road. It is a privilege. Driver licensing does nothing for highway safety that laws against endangerment didn't already serve. You can repeat that mantra until the cows come home, but it won't make it true. The fact is that licensing does make the roads safer. Virtually everybody who tries, successfully gets a driver license. Most of those who fail eventually get one, sometimes after a number of road tests. They learn from their mistakes and improve their driving skills to the point where they can pass. The requirements for a licence vary from one place to another. Most people who pass a driver licence road test in North America would likely not meet the strict standards of some European countries. Those who end up taking it twice, usually falied their first attempt not because of an inability to drive safely, but rather due to confusing questions. Oh yeah... trick questions..... At the next intersection turn left. At the next intersection turn right. At the next intersection follow the signs. Virtually everybody over the age of 12 CAN drive a car safely. The question is WILL they drive safely, and driver licensing CAN NOT answer that question. Demonstrating ability and compliance for a test is obviously not a guarantee that they will drive safely later on. Most of the scariest road tests I took out were the senior drivers who had acquired 50 years or more of bad habits. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing not about highway safety
Doug McDonald wrote:
Driving is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT....get used to it...and while you're at it, learn the different between its and it's. Maybe spend less time driving and more time reading. No, its a RIGHT that has been taken away by the government. Feel free to provide a cite to some credible source that supports the idea that driving is a right rather than a privilege. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing not about highway safety
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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing not about highway safety
On Sep 22, 12:15 pm, (Carole Allen) wrote:
proffsl wrote: With an attitude like that, it's sure to prolong it's life. BUT, nothing is here to stay. We live in a world where everthing comes to an end. Get use to it. And, in the mean time, get use to the idea of standing up for your Rights. We are not obligated to sacrifice our Rights in order to make the police's job easire. Fact it, the job of the police is to secure our Rights. We do not OWE it to the public to prove we are unlikely to endanger others before being allowed to exercise something that is our Right. Driving is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT....get used to it... I'm not here to take directives from beligerant assholes. Get use to it. and while you're at it, learn the different between its and it's. Ooooo! A SPELLERN NAZI. Typical behavior combination you show here. Maybe spend less time driving and more time reading. More beligerance. More typical behavior combination. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing not about highway safety
On Sep 22, 1:05 pm, Dave Smith wrote:
Doug McDonald wrote: Driving is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT....get used to it...and while you're at it, learn the different between its and it's. Maybe spend less time driving and more time reading. No, its a RIGHT that has been taken away by the government. Feel free to provide a cite to some credible source that supports the idea that driving is a right rather than a privilege. Although, I do not base my arguments on court arguments, and I do not consider any of today's courts as a credible source of anything except bull****, there are always these two court rulings. "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 "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 What is the Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel on our public highways today? DRIVING THE AUTOMOBILE. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing not about highway safety
Dave Smith wrote:
proffsl wrote: and let others know that the people with the licenses had to provide some proof that they were somewhat competent to drive motor vehicles. We do not OWE it to the public to prove we are unlikely to endanger others before being allowed to exercise something that is our Right. There is no right to drive a motor vehicle on a public road. It is a privilege. I've heard that LIE many times. I use to believe it myself. I have seen though the LIE. I will be deceived by this LIE no longer. We have the Right of Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel on our public highways. Our public highways were built on OUR property using OUR money for the purupose of enhancing and increasing the exercise of OUR Right of Locomotion. But, the more our public highways are being made unusable by anything but the automobile, the more this LIE makes us ALL Prisoners of Privilege behind bars of blacktop. Driver licensing does nothing for highway safety that laws against endangerment didn't already serve. You can repeat that mantra until the cows come home, And, you can not refute it. but it won't make it true. It's true because it's true, not because I say so. I say so, because it's true. The fact is that licensing does make the roads safer. You can repeat that mantra until the cows come home, but it won't make it true. Virtually everybody who tries, successfully gets a driver license. Most of those who fail eventually get one, sometimes after a number of road tests. They learn from their mistakes and improve their driving skills to the point where they can pass. They learn to do what is expected of them in order to pass the test. That doesn't change one bit their ability to drive safely. 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 caused by WILLFUL acts of negligence. Driver licensing CAN NOT test if someone WILL drive safely. Those who end up taking it twice, usually falied their first attempt not because of an inability to drive safely, but rather due to confusing questions. Oh yeah... trick questions..... At the next intersection turn left. At the next intersection turn right. At the next intersection follow the signs. Questions, as I saw on one test, such as "When passing another vehicle, should you pull back into the right hand lane after seeing one or two of their headlights in your rear view mirror?" If you answer TWO, BZZZZT Wrong! I'm sure there are numerous other examples of just such questions. The reason their questions are vauge and confusing, is so that it makes it appear as if driver licensing tests actually serve a purpose, by ensuring that people who CAN dive safely will fail the test anyway. You could run 1000 proven safe drivers through the test, and I would dare say about the same percentage of them would fail the test as do the newbies. Not due to their inability to drive safely, but due to confusing questions, and even due to driver intemidation during the driving tests. Virtually everybody over the age of 12 CAN drive a car safely. The question is WILL they drive safely, and driver licensing CAN NOT answer that question. Demonstrating ability and compliance for a test is obviously not a guarantee that they will drive safely later on. Most of the scariest road tests I took out were the senior drivers who had acquired 50 years or more of bad habits. I expect that people who exercise their Rights in a dangerous fashon be denied of those Rights. I support laws against endangerment. You have the Right to Drive safely. You do not have a Right to Drive, or anything else, in a fashon that endangers the Rights of others. Driver Licensing serves no purpose to highway safety that laws against endangerment didn't already serve. You want to see our highways become safer, push for stricter prosecution of those people who do drive dangerously. By Due Process of Law, deny them of their Right to Drive, and if they violate that ruling, deny them of their Right of Liberty. Put them in jail. ALL of this can be done without Driver Licensing. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing not about highway safety
Dave Smith wrote:
proffsl wrote: Virtually everybody over the age of 12 CAN drive a car safely. The question is WILL they drive safely, and driver licensing CAN NOT answer that question. Demonstrating ability and compliance for a test is obviously not a guarantee that they will drive safely later on. Most of the scariest road tests I took out were the senior drivers who had acquired 50 years or more of bad habits. Once again, you provide supporting evidence that what I claim is correct. They've been driving for 50 years, presumeably safe enough to not have their license taken away, but they 'scare' you more than the new drivers who've had no such safe driving history. I'm quite confident in my conslusion that Driver Licensing serves no purpose to highway safety that laws against endangerment didn't already serve. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing not about highway safety
Doug McDonald wrote:
Carole Allen wrote: Driving is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT....get used to it...and while you're at it, learn the different between its and it's. Maybe spend less time driving and more time reading. No, its a RIGHT that has been taken away by the government. No one ever said that riding a horse was a "privilege" not a right ... saying so would have been thought ludicrous. Exactly Doug! Exactly! As I have said, our highways were built on our property using our money for the purpose of enhancing and increasing the exercise of our Right of Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel on our public right of ways. Yet, as our public highways are being made more and more unusable by anthing but the automobile, the more this LIE that driving is a privielge makes us all Prisoners of Privilege behind bars of blacktop. Driving a car is EXACTLY like riding a horse. Except for one big thing: a horse by itself can actively kill people. A turned off car can't True again Doug! In fact, horse and buggies are considerably more dangerous than the automobile. Not only are they harder to manage and harder to stop. Numerous people were also killed by walking behind the wrong horse at the wrong time and having their skull kicked in. Indeed, originally driving WAS a right, only later was that right taken away. Same with flying an airplane ... the Wright Brothers didn't have pilots licenses. Again, you are quite correct. Driver Licensing was first imposed upon the commercial use of our public highways. Nobody has a Right to the commercial use of public highways, or right of ways. This includes commercial Trucks, Busses or Taxis. What were they called? Oh yea! TRAFFIC LAWS. What is Traffic? Think it's people moving back and forth on highways? NOPE! Traffic is any Commercial behavior. TRAFFICING in ARMS, for example. TRAFFIC is the Commercial exchange of goods and services. When you buy a coke in a store, you are taking part in the act of TRAFFICING. NOT when you get in your car and go home after buying that coke. But, we do have the Right of Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel on our public highways. "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 "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 The number one reason for the existence of government is to take away rights. They claim it makes their jobs of securing our Rights easire. Strange oxymoron they've gotten people to accept. I suppose when they've finally stripped us of all of our Rights, the task of securing the then non-existant Rights will be very easy. Job accomplished. Our States are LYING to us. You know this David, as I can see, but it's time all those wearing blinders OPEN THEIR EYES. But, they've been brainwashed to such a degree, they often, as did Carole Allen, react in a knee jerk fashon to only become beligerant and begin the personal attacks. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing not about highway safety
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 13:47:19 -0700, proffsl
wrote: I've heard that LIE many times. I use to believe it myself. I have seen though the LIE. I will be deceived by this LIE no longer. We have the Right of Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel on our public highways. The drivel index for this thread was exceeded quite a while back. I just hope that you and I never meet on a public road. If we do it will be an accidental meeting. Literally. Maybe I should copy and print your posts for my insurance company for that remote possibility - they'd never believe anyone could be quite so silly. Are you Irish? That is not a jingoistic slur; it is related to the fact that many in Eire never get their licence and drive on L-plates forever. They also have a terrible death toll on their roads. Maybe you should emigrate to Eire, it sounds like you would be very happy there. Of course, the Irish don't agree:-) http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/...tory273556.asp Cheers, Alan, Australia -- http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/ latest: Slovenia http://loraltraveloz.blogspot.com/ latest: Mossman Gorge in the Daintree Rainforest |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing not about highway safety
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Driver Licensing serves no purpose for highway safety | proffsl | USA & Canada | 0 | September 17th, 2007 09:50 AM |
Become an Activist for Better Health! Join Bio Pro's Company to promote the Safety Wireless Initiative! safety for Cell Phones & Bio Pro Technology! research Its a WIN WIN! | [email protected] | Asia | 0 | July 27th, 2007 03:41 AM |
Safety for Cell Phones-Mobile Hazards-Cell Phone Safety-Bio Pro Universal Cell Chip, Purchase from a Bio Pro Consultant, Destress EMF Radiation in Australia, South Africa, United States, New Zealand, and Canada!! | [email protected] | Europe | 0 | June 6th, 2007 03:47 AM |
Smart Card BIO PRO, Purchase products from Bio Pro Consultant,Australia,New Zealand,South Africa,Canada,A New Generation of wellness and safety, Safety for Electronics with Bio Pro | [email protected] | Europe | 0 | May 6th, 2007 06:07 PM |
Licensing tellys | [email protected] | Europe | 2 | October 12th, 2004 03:23 AM |