do you understand why licenses exist?

2/6/2011 2:58:46 PM

Quote :

"i think that WAAAAY more proficiency should be required before getting a license."

Quote :

"i think that WAAAAY more proficiency should be required before getting a license."

Quote :

"i think that WAAAAY more proficiency should be required before getting a license."

Quote :

"i think that WAAAAY more proficiency should be required before getting a license."

Quote :

"i think that WAAAAY more proficiency should be required before getting a license."

Quote :

"i think that WAAAAY more proficiency should be required before getting a license."

QFT


would not break my heart in the slightest if that 17yo whore that almost murdered me while texting through an intersection had to actually demonstrate proficiency in handling a 2-ton vehicle

[Edited on February 6, 2011 at 5:07 PM. Reason : i'm a free man but i don't at all think driving a vehicle is an inalienable right]

2/6/2011 5:05:22 PM

Quote :

"i think that WAAAAY more proficiency should be required before getting a license."

2/6/2011 5:07:58 PM

1337 b4k4:

Are you aware that a moving automobile is a huge public danger? A car is capable of a great amount of destruction. No one should be allowed to wield that kind of power without some kind of certification. Said certification should be physically with the driver at all times, readily available to law enforcement. The fact that a person can technically drive without a license and licenses are not impossible to forge, doesn't mean that licenses are not worthwhile. Nor do they dismiss the fact that driving an automobile is an activity that needs to be stiffly regulated.

Other activities like riding a 50cc scooter or walking down a sidewalk do not create a comparable public hazard. Thus, they do not to be regulated.

2/6/2011 8:22:16 PM

Quote :

"Are you aware that a moving automobile is a huge public danger?"

Really? Seems to me we have them rather well sectioned off, to well defined areas. They are a danger to be sure, but it seems that they are a danger mostly to other drivers rather than to the public at large. Per here (http://www.walkinginfo.org/pedsafe/crashstats.cfm) Pedestrian deaths account for 11% of motor vehicle deaths.

Quote :

"A car is capable of a great amount of destruction. No one should be allowed to wield that kind of power without some kind of certification."

Why? I can wield a rifle, no certification at all. Same with a shot gun. I can vote and influence the entire course of government, no certification at all. I can stand on a street corner and wield considerable power as a speaker, and need no certification. I can buy matches and fuels that can burn whole buildings down without an ounce of certification. Hell, I don't even need certification to buy the vehicle, yet for some reason we seem to think that if we didn't require people to learn the laws, that they would all just blindly get in their vehicles and start slaughtering millions. Perhaps I have far too high an opinion of my fellow man, but I certainly think that most people would learn the minimal crap that we call a "certification" on their own, since its pretty much the basic skills you need to operate the vehicle without killing yourself.

Quote :

" Said certification should be physically with the driver at all times, readily available to law enforcement."

Why? What does having the certification physically with the driver do? The driver still has to be stopped in order to verify the certification, which means they had to be driving first. And further, to be stopped (short of checkpoints) we still require that our police actually have cause and therefore the driver must have (in theory) been doing something wrong in the first place, negating the idea that the certification proves they are a safe driver.

Quote :

"The fact that a person can technically drive without a license and licenses are not impossible to forge, doesn't mean that licenses are not worthwhile."

No they don't. However, that combined with the fact that our licensing scheme is poor and doesn't actually accomplish anything does suggest that our driver licenses are not worthwhile.

Quote :

"Nor do they dismiss the fact that driving an automobile is an activity that needs to be stiffly regulated. "

Why?

2/6/2011 9:33:12 PM

i wouldn't mind making the size of vehicle one can operate based on driving proficiency they've shown. So then there would be an entire spectrum, and everyone would still be able to drive a smart car.

BEST IDEA EVAR

2/6/2011 10:02:22 PM

Quote :

"Really? Seems to me we have them rather well sectioned off, to well defined areas. They are a danger to be sure, but it seems that they are a danger mostly to other drivers rather than to the public at large. Per here (http://www.walkinginfo.org/pedsafe/crashstats.cfm) Pedestrian deaths account for 11% of motor vehicle deaths. "

Cars stay on roads because drivers are trained and certified to keep them there.

Quote :

"Why? I can wield a rifle, no certification at all. Same with a shot gun."

Operating a vehicle safely requires much more education and brain power than firing a gun. You don't need to be "certified" to fire a gun because the likelihood of accidentally killing several people or causing massive property damage is far lower.

Certification is merely proof of expertise. Its not about keeping people from acting maliciously.

Quote :

"And further, to be stopped (short of checkpoints) we still require that our police actually have cause and therefore the driver must have (in theory) been doing something wrong in the first place, negating the idea that the certification proves they are a safe driver."

That's assuming a driver will should always be punished when caught doing something wrong. Certification provides good faith that the mistake was indeed a mistake and not simply ignorance. Also, what makes you think you can dismiss checkpoints?

Quote :

"However, that combined with the fact that our licensing scheme is poor and doesn't actually accomplish anything does suggest that our driver licenses are not worthwhile."

How is that a "fact"?

2/6/2011 10:56:17 PM

Quote :

"They are a danger to be sure, but it seems that they are a danger mostly to other drivers rather than to the public at large. Per here (http://www.walkinginfo.org/pedsafe/crashstats.cfm) Pedestrian deaths account for 11% of motor vehicle deaths."

What a stupid interpretation of that data. Clearly a car is more likely to hit another car simply because there are generally more cars on the road than pedestrians. That doesn't mean it is any less dangerous to pedestrians, per capita, jesus.

2/7/2011 12:18:54 AM

Quote :

"What a stupid interpretation of that data. Clearly a car is more likely to hit another car simply because there are generally more cars on the road than pedestrians. That doesn't mean it is any less dangerous to pedestrians, per capita, jesus."

2/7/2011 10:48:20 AM

Quote :

"You are intruding on the liberties of everyone who does not drive, and would intrude on those who your system would find not sufficiently proficient, by the massive network of roads. Did you know it's often illegal to walk along the shoulder of the road? Driving is a right in a society where you take away people's ability to use their legs to accomplish the same task."

How about...no? Driving is a privledge not a right.

2/7/2011 12:08:32 PM

^ That is a better way of putting it. Your presence on any government owned property is a privilege, not a right. The only place on earth you have a Right to be is on your own property, even there restrictions apply.

2/7/2011 12:26:35 PM

Quote :

"Cars stay on roads because drivers are trained and certified to keep them there. "

So if tomorrow, the state decided to do away with the drivers license and merely had a law which stated that a motor vehicle may only be operated on private property and public road ways, your contention is that people would suddenly stop driving on the roads and start driving on sidewalks and public parks. And that from that point forward, new drivers would not be taught that you drive on the roads, not on the sidewalk?

Quote :

"Certification is merely proof of expertise. Its not about keeping people from acting maliciously. "

And your argument is that if you have an NC Drivers License, you are an expert? What if you have a Texas license like Nerdchick's friend, who is perfectly legal to drive in NC?

Quote :

" Also, what makes you think you can dismiss checkpoints?"

Aside from their controversial nature, they are a considerable departure from our previous belief in this country that cops should not be able to harass you for doing something perfectly legal. That they should have reason to stop you from going about your business.

Quote :

"How is that a "fact"?"

Have you looked at a drivers exam recently? They're not exactly grueling tests of skill or knowledge.

Quote :

"How about...no? Driving is a privledge not a right."

Indeed. I've even argued as such in the past. The question is, at what point does an activity become so common, and so necessary that it should pass into status as a right?

Quote :

"Your presence on any government owned property is a privilege, not a right."

As I said before, this appears to vary depending on the property.

2/7/2011 12:58:50 PM

Quote :

"So if tomorrow, the state decided to do away with the drivers license and merely had a law which stated that a motor vehicle may only be operated on private property and public road ways, your contention is that people would suddenly stop driving on the roads and start driving on sidewalks and public parks."

If drivers are not required to demonstrate a certain level of driving proficiency and physical capability, then there will likely be more incapable drivers on the roads. Thus, more accidents.

Quote :

"And your argument is that if you have an NC Drivers License, you are an expert? What if you have a Texas license like Nerdchick's friend, who is perfectly legal to drive in NC"

Having expertise != being an expert. Are you intentionally being obtuse?

Quote :

"Aside from their controversial nature, they are a considerable departure from our previous belief in this country that cops should not be able to harass you for doing something perfectly legal. That they should have reason to stop you from going about your business."

Its not harassment if its not targeted, and checkpoints are publicized beforehand. Also, it is perfectly legal to avoid a checkpoint by turning around. Such an act is not probable cause.

Quote :

"Have you looked at a drivers exam recently? They're not exactly grueling tests of skill or knowledge."

You haven't established any facts with this statement.

2/7/2011 3:14:07 PM

Quote :

"If drivers are not required to demonstrate a certain level of driving proficiency and physical capability, then there will likely be more incapable drivers on the roads. Thus, more accidents. "

That wasn't the argument. You said that the only reason cars stay on the road is because we license drivers and teach them to stay on the road as part of that licensing.

Quote :

"Having expertise != being an expert. Are you intentionally being obtuse? "

Actually, that's pretty much exactly what it means:

Quote :

"expertise |?eksp?r'tez; -'tes| noun expert skill or knowledge in a particular field : technical expertise."

But even ignoring that for a moment, would you describe a newly licensed driver as having expertise in driving? Would you describe them as a skilled driver? A knowledgable driver? Even a proficient driver? I know I certainly wouldn't. And neither it appears would any insurance company.

2/7/2011 6:45:02 PM

Semantics. You know what I'm driving at.

2/7/2011 8:26:04 PM

We essentially already have what he is talking about. The driving test I took when I was 16 was a complete joke. Based on that, I have been driving for years since.

And to echo what other have said, the driving test fails if it only tests for ability to drive legally. It should test for the ability to drive well. Old people drive legally, but they cause a billion problems because they drive so shittily.

The public welfare would be served my making sure these asshole old people are off the roads. Same goes for people who can't fucking merge.


[Edited on February 7, 2011 at 8:46 PM. Reason : .]

2/7/2011 8:42:00 PM

Quote :

"Semantics. You know what I'm driving at."

No it's not semantics, you don't get to choose what words mean. It's actually very vital to the point that I'm making. You claim our certification is a mark of some sort of skill or ability which means you are not a danger to the public behind the wheel. I'm arguing that to the contrary our certification is nothing other than a sign that at some point in the past, you managed to convince one DMV official that you could drive down a residential street without killing anyone. It says nothing about your actual skills as a driver, or your ability to drive safely.

Quote :

"We essentially already have what he is talking about. The driving test I took when I was 16 was a complete joke. Based on that, I have been driving for years since."

This is essentially what I'm driving at. I fully realize that a proper licensing scheme can actually have benefits, but with how we currently treat driving, our licensing scheme seems to be more of a money sink than anything else.

2/7/2011 9:42:15 PM

Quote :

"our certification is nothing other than a sign that at some point in the past, you managed to convince one DMV official that you could drive down a residential street without killing anyone. It says nothing about your actual skills as a driver, or your ability to drive safely. "

I believe that a person's ability to convince one DMV official is strongly correlated with having actual skills as a driver.

2/7/2011 11:37:47 PM

Quote :

" I'm arguing that to the contrary our certification is nothing other than a sign that at some point in the past, you managed to convince one DMV official that you could drive down a residential street without killing anyone. It says nothing about your actual skills as a driver, or your ability to drive safely. "

That's a claim you have to qualify further. Not everyone finds license exams easy. When I took the test for the first time, I would have failed if I had missed one more question. Several others failed while I there. Today, I regularly give rides to friends and family who have had their license taken away. One of my best friends lost his license for a year because he was diagnosed with epilepsy (he had occaisional seizures), and his mother lost hers because she was driving drunk. So it is my perception that DMV officials aren't just handing out licenses to anyone who waits in line.

Do you have any evidence to suggest that the DMV/license requirement doesn't provide a worthwhile benefit?

2/8/2011 9:28:12 AM

^I'm pretty sure he's referring to the driving test, not the written test. I could be wrong though.

2/8/2011 4:48:33 PM