A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Travel Regions » USA & Canada
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Driver Licensing not about highway safety



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old September 22nd, 2007, 06:57 PM posted to rec.travel.usa-canada
Dave Smith[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 329
Default 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  
Old September 22nd, 2007, 07:05 PM posted to rec.travel.usa-canada
Dave Smith[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 329
Default 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  
Old September 22nd, 2007, 09:12 PM posted to rec.travel.usa-canada
proffsl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 106
Default 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  
Old September 22nd, 2007, 09:14 PM posted to rec.travel.usa-canada
proffsl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 106
Default 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  
Old September 22nd, 2007, 09:19 PM posted to rec.travel.usa-canada
proffsl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 106
Default 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  
Old September 22nd, 2007, 09:47 PM posted to rec.travel.usa-canada
proffsl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 106
Default 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  
Old September 22nd, 2007, 10:05 PM posted to rec.travel.usa-canada
proffsl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 106
Default 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  
Old September 22nd, 2007, 10:43 PM posted to rec.travel.usa-canada
proffsl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 106
Default 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  
Old September 23rd, 2007, 12:32 AM posted to rec.travel.usa-canada
Alan S[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,163
Default 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  
Old September 23rd, 2007, 02:32 AM posted to rec.travel.usa-canada
Dave Smith[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 329
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.