Driver Licensing not about highway safety

(Carole Allen) wrote:
proffsl wrote:

I know full well what Locomotion means. Locomotion is the act
of removing one's self from one place to another according to
their own inclination.

The court case in Williams vs. Fears defines the act of Locomotion
as "to remove from one place to another according to inclination".

Meriam-Websters defines Locomotion as: "an act or the power of
moving from place to place"

That's what feet are for.

Along with numerous other methods of Locomotion, including the
Automobile.

And, what are highways for?

Packard v. Banton says: "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 these days?

On Sep 23, 5:03 pm, proffsl wrote:
(Carole Allen) wrote:
proffsl wrote:

I know full well what Locomotion means. Locomotion is the act
of removing one's self from one place to another according to
their own inclination.

The court case in Williams vs. Fears defines the act of Locomotion
as "to remove from one place to another according to inclination".

Meriam-Websters defines Locomotion as: "an act or the power of
moving from place to place"

That's what feet are for.

Along with numerous other methods of Locomotion, including the
Automobile.

And, what are highways for?

Packard v. Banton says: "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 these days?

Why, that would be by automobile driven by a properly and legally
licensed operator, as courts have repeatedly determined.

If anyone cares about proffsl's repeated egregious errors in fact and
reasoning... and how he continually misuses the case he just cited
despite having been properly informed of its content and meaning,
which had nothing to do with licensing, but about a requirement for
commercial automotive liability insurance on the part of a Manhattan
taxi cab company in the 1920s, and how he completely fabricated a
court case out of thin air and tried to pass it off as supporting him,
and how all of the cases he has cited actually *uphold* the right of
the people to require licensing, and how one case he cited as
supporting a right to drive with no license actually held *the exact
opposite* -- it upheld licensing law -- then you can read through the
1,700-plus post thread in which he was completely demolished
logically, factually and truthfully.

http://tinyurl.com/3bvqsr

Otherwise, nothing to see here.

On Sep 22, 7:32 pm, 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.



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.

Your instinct is correct; proffsl pulled it out of thin air. He
misused the same statistic in spring 2006 in a mega-thread
regurgitating the same lies, mistakes, faulty logic and in one case,
his outright complete fabrication of a phony court case.

In this case, he completely misread a statistical study on driver
distraction and accidents. The study was not of *all* accidents but
only of those caused by driver distraction, which was a small subset
of the whole.

It was pointed out to him, but he is apparently intent on spamming
usenet with proven lies.

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 17:32:18 -0700, wrote:

If anyone cares about proffsl's repeated egregious errors in fact and
reasoning...

Why are you all responding to the twit? I admit the diatribe
was hilarious first time 'round but as a running gag it's
worn a bit thin.

He has to be either a troll or a weirdo with a cause.
Neither is capable of reasoned debate.


Cheers, Alan, Australia
--
http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
latest: Slovenia
http://loraltraveloz.blogspot.com/
latest: Mossman Gorge in the Daintree Rainforest

On Sep 23, 7:21 pm, Alan S wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 17:32:18 -0700, wrote:
If anyone cares about proffsl's repeated egregious errors in fact and
reasoning...

Why are you all responding to the twit? I admit the diatribe
was hilarious first time 'round but as a running gag it's
worn a bit thin.

For the same reason one goes to a Three Stooges festival. It's fun to
watch the fool when we have idle time.

And, and then come the professional disrupters, who will do anything
to destroy the message they dare not hear, or allow to be heard. It is
their task to heckle, lie, personally attack, and generally cause such
a disruption in the thread, that the message of the thread becomes
obscured in the racket they make.

They want you to ignore me, but is it they who should be ignored, as
they are the one's who are completely off topic.

wrote:
proffsl wrote:
(Carole Allen) wrote:
proffsl wrote:

I know full well what Locomotion means. Locomotion is the act
of removing one's self from one place to another according to
their own inclination.

The court case in Williams vs. Fears defines the act of Locomotion
as "to remove from one place to another according to inclination".

Meriam-Websters defines Locomotion as: "an act or the power of
moving from place to place"

That's what feet are for.

Along with numerous other methods of Locomotion, including the
Automobile.

And, what are highways for?

Packard v. Banton says: "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 these days?

Why, that would be by automobile driven by a properly and legally
licensed operator, as courts have repeatedly determined.

Once again, as he has done in many other threads, k_flynn introduces
his often repeated combination of circular reasoning in support of an
oxymoron. The circular reasoning in his argument is that: "It should
be the law because it is the law", and the oxymoron his circular
reasoning is supposed to support is: "A Right is only a Right when one
is given permission."

This same sort of intellectual dishonesty and trickery might be used
to support any other conversion of our Rights into permissions by the
state. If the state began to License Liberty, or Speech for example,
presuming to convert them into not Rights, but permissions, k_flynn
would be there with the same circular reasoning combined with an
oxymoron in their support. He must resort to this form of intellectual
dishonesty and trickery, because he is confronted with a truth and
subsequent question he dare not answer honestly.

The truth is: We have the Right of Locomotion ordinarily used for
personal travel on our public highways.

The question is: What is the Locomotion ordinarily used for personal
travel on our public highways these days?

proffsl wrote:


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?

You're avoiding the question with a question.

Do you presume that you can showhow punish people for driving without
a license BEFORE they actually drive without a license?


Get a clue. It was a [polite way of saying that you are too stupid to waste
my time on.

On Sep 24, 3:54 am, proffsl wrote:
wrote:
proffsl wrote:
(Carole Allen) wrote:
proffsl wrote:

I know full well what Locomotion means. Locomotion is the act
of removing one's self from one place to another according to
their own inclination.

The court case in Williams vs. Fears defines the act of Locomotion
as "to remove from one place to another according to inclination".

Meriam-Websters defines Locomotion as: "an act or the power of
moving from place to place"

That's what feet are for.

Along with numerous other methods of Locomotion, including the
Automobile.

And, what are highways for?

Packard v. Banton says: "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 these days?

Why, that would be by automobile driven by a properly and legally
licensed operator, as courts have repeatedly determined.

Once again, as he has done in many other threads, k_flynn introduces
his often repeated combination of completely factual and logical evidence that
completely proves me wrong. I must apologize for trying to resurrect my
completely baseless and utterly disproven positions.

I fixed your post.

On Sep 24, 3:17 am, proffsl wrote:
And, and then come the highly informed and educated responders, who
will do anything to correct my knowingly repeated erros of fact and logic and
expose me for the fabrications I havre tried to pass by you all in the past.
Even though I try to pretend that he is not allowing me to be heard, despite
the obvious fact that I am still posting my utter bull****, the message of the
thread could not be any more clear: My positions are baseless and k_flynn
has completely dismantled them several times over the past year; he has
exposed my fabrication of a court case, which I tried to foist on the usenet
community.

They want you to ignore me, and tha is good advice, for my positions have
all been proven to be wrong factually and logically. I have utterly failed to
read my own cites, which actually supported k_flynn's resounding proof
of my wrongness.

I should be ignored.

There, I fixed your post again so that it is accurate.