|
General » rec.autos.driving » You have the Right to Drive
| You have the Right to Drive [message #797264] |
Thu, 06 March 2008 20:01 |
|
Read about it at:
http://proffsl.110mb.com/driving.php
and
http://proffsl.110mb.com/driver_licensing.php
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797312 ] |
Fri, 07 March 2008 05:30 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797328 ] |
Fri, 07 March 2008 14:21 |
|
In article <05h1t3t4nk82g7ea0qkeprqukv5ttkpnv2 [at] 4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal wrote:
> I agree - you DO have the right to drive. As long as your vehicle
> remains entirely on your own private property, you can drive it as
> much as you want and nobody can stop you, nobody can make you license
> it, nothing.
Scott, you do understand that DL's were not initially about competency on
the road nor are they today. Sure there is the appearance of that which
has been added over the decades, but it's more of an illusion than the TSA
is security. Licensing, like the TSA is about the power of government,
not our safety.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797349 ] |
Fri, 07 March 2008 18:00 |
|
On Mar 7, 5:21=A0am, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> Licensing, like the TSA is about the power of government,
> not our safety.
Graduated licensing for teenagers is not about power, but directly
about safety. Overall, you may be headed in the right direction with
current standards, but not all drivers' licensing is about gov. power.
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797362 ] |
Fri, 07 March 2008 19:53 |
|
Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
> On Mar 7, 5:21 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> > Licensing, like the TSA is about the power of government,
> > not our safety.
>
> Graduated licensing for teenagers is not about power, but directly
> about safety. Overall, you may be headed in the right direction with
> current standards, but not all drivers' licensing is about gov. power.
In a perfect world, licensing is about safety. But until teenagers get
the equivalent of the AARP lobbying on their behalf, or the auto
industry pressuring lawmakers to maximize their customer base, its about
gov't officials kissing political contributors' posteriors.
--
Paul Hovnanian paul [at] hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------ -----------
Procrastinators: The leaders for tomorrow.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797364 ] |
Fri, 07 March 2008 20:01 |
|
On Mar 6, 11:01=A0am, proffsl <prof... [at] my-deja.com> wrote:
> Read about it at:
>
> http://proffsl.110mb.com/driving.php
>
> and
>
> http://proffsl.110mb.com/driver_licensing.php
So turn in your license and refuse to get another one.
Harry K
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797371 ] |
Fri, 07 March 2008 20:30 |
|
On Mar 7, 10:53=A0am, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <pa... [at] seanet.com> wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
> > On Mar 7, 5:21 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> > > =A0Licensing, like the TSA is about the power of government,
> > > not our safety.
>
> > Graduated licensing for teenagers is not about power, but directly
> > about safety. =A0Overall, you may be headed in the right direction with
> > current standards, but not all drivers' licensing is about gov. power.
>
> In a perfect world, licensing is about safety. But until teenagers get
> the equivalent of the AARP lobbying on their behalf, or the auto
> industry pressuring lawmakers to maximize their customer base, its about
> gov't officials kissing political contributors' posteriors.
Except for the inconvenient fact that teens seem to live longer in
graduated-licensing states.
It really does make some sense. Driving, like a great number of
tasks, gets better with experience. So, you limit the inexperienced
to times of day when they will have the least adverse conditions. And
limit the passengers to limit the carnage. It makes logical sense on
it's face, and it seem to work statistically as well. Now, if teens
*did* have an AARP-alike, the roads would be slightly less safe. If
we could only get rid of AARP to keep some of those older folks off
the roads, we'd be slightly more safe again.
Then, bring on the real testing!
Yeah, I *am* dreaming.
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797379 ] |
Fri, 07 March 2008 22:06 |
|
In article <c2adcdc8-d2b2-4d84-8f18-b04a12886ad8 [at] i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Mar 7, 5:21 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> Licensing, like the TSA is about the power of government,
>> not our safety.
>
> Graduated licensing for teenagers is not about power, but directly
> about safety. Overall, you may be headed in the right direction with
> current standards, but not all drivers' licensing is about gov. power.
Graduated licensing of teenagers is more so in line with the power
principle than a safety one if viewed as a parenting issue. Although people
believe its about safety it's passing on the duty of raising of children
to the government. Where the government sets the rules and the child's
limitations and not the parents. Is graduated licensing really any
different than other areas where the government has taken over parental
duties?
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797380 ] |
Fri, 07 March 2008 22:12 |
|
In article <c2309571-5d34-4b4c-86a4-14127daafcf7 [at] e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> It really does make some sense. Driving, like a great number of
> tasks, gets better with experience. So, you limit the inexperienced
> to times of day when they will have the least adverse conditions.
Alternative solution: Start driving years earlier with a parent. By the time
they go out by themselves driving they are already experienced.
The age based prohibitions are really unfair to responsible teenagers
IMO. Of course this is a nation that thinks it's ok for a teenager to die
or get maimed in some foreign war for some old man's quest in global
politics but won't let him drink a beer. So I guess driving is one of the
smaller injustices.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797381 ] |
Fri, 07 March 2008 23:17 |
|
On Mar 7, 1:12=A0pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> In article <c2309571-5d34-4b4c-86a4-14127daaf... [at] e10g2000prf.googlegroups.=
com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > It really does make some sense. =A0Driving, like a great number of
> > tasks, gets better with experience. =A0So, you limit the inexperienced
> > to times of day when they will have the least adverse conditions.
>
> Alternative solution: Start driving years earlier with a parent. By the ti=
me
> they go out by themselves driving they are already experienced.
Except that responsible parents are quite few. As long as we have
some sort of LCD licensing system, then nibbling at the margins is
about the best we can hope for. The enemy really isn't the gov. -
it's all of us, for accepting the system as it stands.
If it were up to me, we'd have a system like the Germans have.
> The age based prohibitions are really unfair to responsible teenagers
> IMO.
No matter WHAT the thing is being restricted, some folks on the
prohibited side of the line get screwed. I started my road-going when
I was 7. On a bicycle. At 10, I was moving tractors and implements
along county roads from field to field. At 14, I was driving dual-
axle no-synchro grain trucks from the fields to the elevators.
Turning 16 and getting my driver's license was nothing at the time -
I'll already been responsible for literally $100k+ of farm equipment
on the highways, and the beater Volvo wagon my dad gave me to get back
and forth was nothing in comparison.
But if I had never driven on the roads before, I could see how there
might have been trouble.
Still, in today's world, in urban areas, I see mostly benefits, and
few downsides, to graduated licensing. Hell, they do it for adults
and motorcycles in this state, so teens and cars is no big deal, IMO.
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797382 ] |
Fri, 07 March 2008 23:19 |
|
On Mar 7, 1:06=A0pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> In article <c2adcdc8-d2b2-4d84-8f18-b04a12886... [at] i12g2000prf.googlegroups.=
com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > On Mar 7, 5:21=A0am, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:=
> >> =A0Licensing, like the TSA is about the power of government,
> >> not our safety.
>
> > Graduated licensing for teenagers is not about power, but directly
> > about safety. =A0Overall, you may be headed in the right direction with
> > current standards, but not all drivers' licensing is about gov. power.
>
> Graduated licensing of teenagers is more so in line with the power
> principle than a safety one if viewed as a parenting issue. Although peopl=
e
> believe its about safety it's passing on the duty of raising of children
> to the government. Where the government sets the rules and the child's
> limitations and not the parents. Is graduated licensing really any
> different than other areas where the government has taken over parental
> duties?
Yes. *My* safety is on the line. And hours of experience is a good
predictor of skill level. Don't let your blind hatred of the gov.
make you miss the benefits here - the public good is at stake.
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797384 ] |
Sat, 08 March 2008 01:15 |
|
In article <887ca395-cf30-4cfc-b529-bdc556fe16ea [at] d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>On Mar 7, 1:06 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> In article <c2adcdc8-d2b2-4d84-8f18-b04a12886... [at] i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> > On Mar 7, 5:21 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> >> Licensing, like the TSA is about the power of government,
>> >> not our safety.
>>
>> > Graduated licensing for teenagers is not about power, but directly
>> > about safety. Overall, you may be headed in the right direction with
>> > current standards, but not all drivers' licensing is about gov. power.
>>
>> Graduated licensing of teenagers is more so in line with the power
>> principle than a safety one if viewed as a parenting issue. Although people
>> believe its about safety it's passing on the duty of raising of children
>> to the government. Where the government sets the rules and the child's
>> limitations and not the parents. Is graduated licensing really any
>> different than other areas where the government has taken over parental
>> duties?
>Yes. *My* safety is on the line. And hours of experience is a good
>predictor of skill level. Don't let your blind hatred of the gov.
>make you miss the benefits here - the public good is at stake.
I've been hit two teenagers, one guy who was ~20, and my mother was
hit by a teenager who fled the sceen just a couple months ago. If
anyone should be anti-teenage driving it *should* be me. Illinois
has graduated licensing and it hasn't made me feel safer at all.
Government doesn't care about our safety, it cares about itself and
like everything it takes over from the people it does a worse
job of it. There is no reason to suspect that irresponsible parents have
their kids follow these new laws of the state any more they have their kids
follow their rules. So the responsibility is passed on to the government's
police. Do you really think the police bother except when they are on
a fishing expedition or for sport anyway? Sure it might be some extra charges
if they catch the kid speeding or something.
I would also suspect that some boardline parents out of laziness just let
the state set the boundries for their children and police them when such
laws come into effect.
Experience can come many ways and government hasn't chosen an effective
method for that. Instead it has chosen a method that best allows it to insert
itself into the people's business. The idea of teaching kids to drive
starting at 14 seems a lot more effective to me than graduated licensing.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797385 ] |
Sat, 08 March 2008 01:26 |
|
In article <ab421092-baac-4cc2-9d9f-4481a2df15eb [at] s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>On Mar 7, 1:12 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> In article <c2309571-5d34-4b4c-86a4-14127daaf... [at] e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> > It really does make some sense. Driving, like a great number of
>> > tasks, gets better with experience. So, you limit the inexperienced
>> > to times of day when they will have the least adverse conditions.
>>
>> Alternative solution: Start driving years earlier with a parent. By the time
>> they go out by themselves driving they are already experienced.
>
>Except that responsible parents are quite few. As long as we have
>some sort of LCD licensing system, then nibbling at the margins is
>about the best we can hope for. The enemy really isn't the gov. -
>it's all of us, for accepting the system as it stands.
Nibbling at the margins in such a way that it goes after the
politically most vunerable, the teenagers. That is because of the
government and how it functions.
>If it were up to me, we'd have a system like the Germans have.
I would to, except I would allow self-study or at the very least a
free market driving schools. I don't like the built in business for
the driving schools in the German system. People should be free to
gain the competence as they choose within reason.
>> The age based prohibitions are really unfair to responsible teenagers
>> IMO.
>No matter WHAT the thing is being restricted, some folks on the
>prohibited side of the line get screwed.
So long as the measure being used is something like age or political
connections.
> I started my road-going when
>I was 7. On a bicycle. At 10, I was moving tractors and implements
>along county roads from field to field. At 14, I was driving dual-
>axle no-synchro grain trucks from the fields to the elevators.
>Turning 16 and getting my driver's license was nothing at the time -
>I'll already been responsible for literally $100k+ of farm equipment
>on the highways, and the beater Volvo wagon my dad gave me to get back
>and forth was nothing in comparison.
>But if I had never driven on the roads before, I could see how there
>might have been trouble.
And my experience was being placed in a car without much clue what to
do beyond my basic rules of the road knowledge I picked up on my own from
bicycling. Drivers ed consisted of the wrestling coach not telling at all
what to do and when I decide to do something he didn't want (such as taking
the left fork of an expressway split instead of the right), screaming at me
and blood on the highway films.
I didn't feel like I knew enough to drive and took a long ass time
getting into it. I put myself on a graduated system.
>Still, in today's world, in urban areas, I see mostly benefits, and
>few downsides, to graduated licensing. Hell, they do it for adults
>and motorcycles in this state, so teens and cars is no big deal, IMO.
If I had it my way kids would get rules of the road training on bicycles
starting in about the second or third grade. The problem is the sheltering
and the prohibitions, it won't be solved with more sheltering and more
prohibitions.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797386 ] |
Sat, 08 March 2008 02:20 |
|
On Mar 7, 4:15 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
> Experience can come many ways and government hasn't chosen an effective
> method for that.
Stats argue otherwise.
> Instead it has chosen a method that best allows it to insert
> itself into the people's business. The idea of teaching kids to drive
> starting at 14 seems a lot more effective to me than graduated licensing.
That's the same sort of graduated system, just starting at a different
age.
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797387 ] |
Sat, 08 March 2008 02:29 |
|
On Mar 7, 4:26 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> In article <ab421092-baac-4cc2-9d9f-4481a2df1... [at] s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >On Mar 7, 1:12 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> >> In article <c2309571-5d34-4b4c-86a4-14127daaf... [at] e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >> > It really does make some sense. Driving, like a great number of
> >> > tasks, gets better with experience. So, you limit the inexperienced
> >> > to times of day when they will have the least adverse conditions.
>
> >> Alternative solution: Start driving years earlier with a parent. By the time
> >> they go out by themselves driving they are already experienced.
>
> >Except that responsible parents are quite few. As long as we have
> >some sort of LCD licensing system, then nibbling at the margins is
> >about the best we can hope for. The enemy really isn't the gov. -
> >it's all of us, for accepting the system as it stands.
>
> Nibbling at the margins in such a way that it goes after the
> politically most vunerable, the teenagers.
I guess it's just a coincidence that they are also the very most
likely to have a collision.
> That is because of the
> government and how it functions.
Your conclusion doesn't follow. The reason it doesn't follow is
because stats show that
1.) Inexperienced drivers are the ones most likely to be in a
collision.
2.) In places that graduated licensing has been implemented, teen
crashes have been reduced.
Would you like to guess what the biggest killer of teens happens to
be?
> >If it were up to me, we'd have a system like the Germans have.
>
> I would to, except I would allow self-study or at the very least a
> free market driving schools. I don't like the built in business for
> the driving schools in the German system. People should be free to
> gain the competence as they choose within reason.
Agreed. You pass the written and the driving, and you get the
license. Doesn't matter where you came by the knowledge.
> >> The age based prohibitions are really unfair to responsible teenagers
> >> IMO.
> >No matter WHAT the thing is being restricted, some folks on the
> >prohibited side of the line get screwed.
>
> So long as the measure being used is something like age or political
> connections.
In this case, age happens to be very nearly correlated to experience.
And since a person may not legally enter into a contract until they
are 18, restrictions on driving under that age isn't discrimination,
per se. No more than truancy laws are infringements upon freedom of
movement.
> And my experience was being placed in a car without much clue what to
> do beyond my basic rules of the road knowledge I picked up on my own from
> bicycling. Drivers ed consisted of the wrestling coach not telling at all
> what to do and when I decide to do something he didn't want (such as taking
> the left fork of an expressway split instead of the right), screaming at me
> and blood on the highway films.
So, already, under the current scheme, I would have been screwed, with
all my driving experience, while you would have been allowed to get
your experience in a manner which would have allowed that under the
best range of conditions.
Doesn't change my viewpoint in the least.
> If I had it my way kids would get rules of the road training on bicycles
> starting in about the second or third grade. The problem is the sheltering
> and the prohibitions, it won't be solved with more sheltering and more
> prohibitions.
I don't know what you mean. Once folks become legal adults, the
graduated scheme is no longer in play.
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797388 ] |
Sat, 08 March 2008 02:31 |
|
Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Mar 7, 4:15 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>Experience can come many ways and government hasn't chosen an effective
>>method for that.
>
>
> Stats argue otherwise.
>
>
>>Instead it has chosen a method that best allows it to insert
>>itself into the people's business. The idea of teaching kids to drive
>>starting at 14 seems a lot more effective to me than graduated licensing.
>
>
> That's the same sort of graduated system, just starting at a different
> age.
>
> E.P.
>
Right, makes more sense to get young drivers up to speed, so to speak,
before they find that they *need* to drive to function in society,
rather than making them wait until they're out on their own.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797389 ] |
Sat, 08 March 2008 02:42 |
|
In article <eb01342b-0641-4cc3-8678-39eebbdcfb87 [at] n36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>On Mar 7, 4:15 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>
>> Experience can come many ways and government hasn't chosen an effective
>> method for that.
>
>Stats argue otherwise.
Reduce teen driving reduce teen collisions. Reduce driving because of a
lack of gasoline and the 55mph speed limit looks like it saved lives
too.
>> Instead it has chosen a method that best allows it to insert
>> itself into the people's business. The idea of teaching kids to drive
>> starting at 14 seems a lot more effective to me than graduated licensing.
>That's the same sort of graduated system, just starting at a different
>age.
Everyone learns at some rate, that's a given with *any* system. I just
favor systems that allow for more independence and more freedom over
ones that keep one more controled for longer.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797392 ] |
Sat, 08 March 2008 03:03 |
|
In article <311e7928-e4c6-454d-bcb5-ac198c90e755 [at] m34g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> Nibbling at the margins in such a way that it goes after the
>> politically most vunerable, the teenagers.
>I guess it's just a coincidence that they are also the very most
>likely to have a collision.
Didn't say otherwise. I argue it isn't a function of age.
>> That is because of the
>> government and how it functions.
>Your conclusion doesn't follow. The reason it doesn't follow is
>because stats show that
>1.) Inexperienced drivers are the ones most likely to be in a
>collision.
Which matters not if they are 12 or 22. Where's the graduated licensing
for the immigrant who comes to this contry never having driven before at
age 25?
>2.) In places that graduated licensing has been implemented, teen
>crashes have been reduced.
Not per mile driven I'll wager.
>Would you like to guess what the biggest killer of teens happens to
>be?
They are bit young for heart disease and cancer to get them, a bit too
old for infant mortality. It's going to be the biggest killer because
its the most common activity that can have fatal accidents in the group.
>> >No matter WHAT the thing is being restricted, some folks on the
>> >prohibited side of the line get screwed.
>> So long as the measure being used is something like age or political
>> connections.
>In this case, age happens to be very nearly correlated to experience.
Of course it is, the government *MADATES* that it is. Let's say the
government made a law that says children under the age of 15 can't touch
a computer. Do you think that will make teens more or less experienced
with a computer at age 16?
>And since a person may not legally enter into a contract until they
>are 18, restrictions on driving under that age isn't discrimination,
>per se. No more than truancy laws are infringements upon freedom of
>movement.
So you are using an age restriction to validate an age restriction.
And truancy laws? Forced attendence in school is another can of worms
you probably don't want opened. Rather than hear you whine about OT,
I'll let it go if you give up on it.
>> And my experience was being placed in a car without much clue what to
>> do beyond my basic rules of the road knowledge I picked up on my own from
>> bicycling. Drivers ed consisted of the wrestling coach not telling at all
>> what to do and when I decide to do something he didn't want (such as taking
>> the left fork of an expressway split instead of the right), screaming at me
>> and blood on the highway films.
>So, already, under the current scheme, I would have been screwed, with
>all my driving experience, while you would have been allowed to get
>your experience in a manner which would have allowed that under the
>best range of conditions.
Best conditions? I self imposed the 'best conditions' on myself, that
doesn't mean its best for everyone or it should be government mandated.
>> If I had it my way kids would get rules of the road training on bicycles
>> starting in about the second or third grade. The problem is the sheltering
>> and the prohibitions, it won't be solved with more sheltering and more
>> prohibitions.
>I don't know what you mean. Once folks become legal adults, the
>graduated scheme is no longer in play.
Inexperience behind the wheel is inexperience behind the wheel at 16 or
18. If the issue is developing responsibility, delaying it further and
further out doesn't help anything. It just pushes it out further in age,
greater dependency. If the problem is that 16 year olds are
inexperienced behind the wheel technically and haven't developed a
sense of responsibility to a certain degree, the better fix is to start
the learning process earlier, not delay it further.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797393 ] |
Sat, 08 March 2008 03:29 |
|
On Mar 7, 5:42 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> In article <eb01342b-0641-4cc3-8678-39eebbdcf... [at] n36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >On Mar 7, 4:15 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
> >> Experience can come many ways and government hasn't chosen an effective
> >> method for that.
>
> >Stats argue otherwise.
>
> Reduce teen driving reduce teen collisions.
Comparing raw numbers against rates is kinda cooking the books, don't
you think?
> >> Instead it has chosen a method that best allows it to insert
> >> itself into the people's business. The idea of teaching kids to drive
> >> starting at 14 seems a lot more effective to me than graduated licensing.
> >That's the same sort of graduated system, just starting at a different
> >age.
>
> Everyone learns at some rate, that's a given with *any* system. I just
> favor systems that allow for more independence and more freedom over
> ones that keep one more controled for longer.
You're the one advocating the longer system (start at 14.) Either
system ends [at] 18. I'm still not getting what your objection is - the
current graduated systems seem fairly flexible, from what I have seen.
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797405 ] |
Sat, 08 March 2008 08:14 |
|
In article <abf0f335-c401-4f5a-a509-9b0f1acecfff [at] h25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>On Mar 7, 5:42 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> In article <eb01342b-0641-4cc3-8678-39eebbdcf... [at] n36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> >On Mar 7, 4:15 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>
>> >> Experience can come many ways and government hasn't chosen an effective
>> >> method for that.
>>
>> >Stats argue otherwise.
>>
>> Reduce teen driving reduce teen collisions.
>
>Comparing raw numbers against rates is kinda cooking the books, don't
>you think?
I've made no such comparison. However the comparison is always per year
for such things, all one needs to do to show a benefit is reduce the
exposure. Less teen driving achieves the goal as it is measured.
>> >> Instead it has chosen a method that best allows it to insert
>> >> itself into the people's business. The idea of teaching kids to drive
>> >> starting at 14 seems a lot more effective to me than graduated licensing.
>> >That's the same sort of graduated system, just starting at a different
>> >age.
>>
>> Everyone learns at some rate, that's a given with *any* system. I just
>> favor systems that allow for more independence and more freedom over
>> ones that keep one more controled for longer.
>You're the one advocating the longer system (start at 14.) Either
>system ends [at] 18. I'm still not getting what your objection is - the
>current graduated systems seem fairly flexible, from what I have seen.
I didn't say it would end at 18 nor did I say it would be a graduated
license. I said the learning process should begin earlier and that way
by the time they are 16 there's no need for these restrictive measures.
I don't expect the graduated system to stay forever ending at 18 or
remain as flexible as it is. The genie is out of the bottle.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797413 ] |
Sun, 09 March 2008 00:24 |
|
On Mar 7, 7:21=A0am, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> In article <05h1t3t4nk82g7ea0qkeprqukv5ttkp... [at] 4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal wr=
ote:
> > I agree - you DO have the right to drive. As long as your vehicle
> > remains entirely on your own private property, you can drive it as
> > much as you want and nobody can stop you, nobody can make you license
> > it, nothing.
>
> Scott, you do understand that DL's were not initially about competency on
> the road nor are they today. Sure there is the appearance of that which
> has been added over the decades, but it's more of an illusion than the TSA=
> is security. Licensing, like the TSA is about the power of government,
> not our safety.
Very well, and accurately, stated Brent.
And, given that virtually everybody will admit that government will go
to almost any extent to obtain more power for itself, I fail to
understand why they close their eyes so tightly against this prime
example which go so deeply into our everyday's lives. In fact, I see
driver licensing as being the "axis of corruption" in our government.
Scott's responce above was little more than a knee jerk reaction,
principally taught to him by government propaganda.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797414 ] |
Sun, 09 March 2008 00:32 |
|
On Mar 7, 1:01=A0pm, Harry K <turnkey4... [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 6, 11:01=A0am, proffsl <prof... [at] my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > Read about it at:
>
> >http://proffsl.110mb.com/driving.php
>
> > and
>
> >http://proffsl.110mb.com/driver_licensing.php
>
> So turn in your license and refuse to get another one.
>
> Harry K
I am sure you feel as if you have exercised an authoritative power
beyond what you are normally use to in this police state government we
live our restricted lives in, just as I am sure that doing so gives
you a false sense of achievement beyond what you are normally use to,
but I am not here to take directives.
I am here to debate the validity of my claims.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797418 ] |
Sun, 09 March 2008 01:05 |
|
On Mar 7, 7:29=A0pm, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 7, 4:26 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> > In article <ab421092-baac-4cc2-9d9f-4481a2df1... [at] s13g2000prd.googlegroup=
s.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > >On Mar 7, 1:12 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> > >> In article <c2309571-5d34-4b4c-86a4-14127daaf... [at] e10g2000prf.googlegr=
oups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > >> > It really does make some sense. =A0Driving, like a great number of
> > >> > tasks, gets better with experience. =A0So, you limit the inexperien=
ced
> > >> > to times of day when they will have the least adverse conditions.
>
> > >> Alternative solution: Start driving years earlier with a parent. By t=
he time
> > >> they go out by themselves driving they are already experienced.
>
> > >Except that responsible parents are quite few. =A0As long as we have
> > >some sort of LCD licensing system, then nibbling at the margins is
> > >about the best we can hope for. =A0The enemy really isn't the gov. -
> > >it's all of us, for accepting the system as it stands.
>
> > Nibbling at the margins in such a way that it goes after the
> > politically most vunerable, the teenagers.
>
> I guess it's just a coincidence that they are also the very most
> likely to have a collision.
>
> > That is because of the
> > government and how it functions.
>
> Your conclusion doesn't follow. =A0The reason it doesn't follow is
> because stats show that
>
> 1.) =A0Inexperienced drivers are the ones most likely to be in a
> collision.
>
> 2.) =A0In places that graduated licensing has been implemented, teen
> crashes have been reduced.
>
> Would you like to guess what the biggest killer of teens happens to
> be?
Irresponsible people create irresponsible laws that create
irresponsible parents who create irresponsible children. Laws that
presume to do the parent's job are irresponsible by producing parents
who believe they don't have to do their job. Driver licensing laws
make the parents believe the state is doing their job of determining
of their child is mature enough to be allowed to drive, so the parents
surrender that decision to the state, often to their own demise.
Same thing applies to alcohol sales. In truth, I believe a 10 year old
should be able to walk into a liquor store and purchase alcohol. BUT,
before any of you fly off at the handle, in saying that, I AM NOT
saying that I believe 10 year olds should be consuming alcohol.
It is not the obligation or the duty of the alcohol dealer to do a
parent's job, yet the underage alcohol sales laws presume to move that
responsibility over to the alcohol dealers instead of the parents. It
is this shifting of responsibility that makes those laws
irresponsible, and that produces irresponsible parents and then
irresponsible children. The parents believe their responsibility is
covered by the laws, and consequently do not take an active part in
those aspects of their children's lives.
As a parent, if you have a child you can not trust in society, then
who do you think you are to impose that child upon that society and
expect it to do your job for you? No. If you have a child you can
not trust in society, then do not release that child upon society.
And, as a parent, you should expect to be held entirely responsible
for the things you child does in society.
Same thing goes with driving. If you have a child you can not trust
driving, then do not release that child upon society. If you do, you
should expect to be held entirely responsible for their actions behind
the wheel of a car.
Driving today has become a passage of liberty, which is at first
completely denied, and then suddenly thrust upon a child at some age
(usually 16). If driving was more gradually introduced to children,
they would have a better chance of becoming responsible drivers. Many
children today have never been behind the wheel of a car until the day
they are released upon the highways.
In this respect, Driver Licensing actually creates the problem with
younger drivers.
> > If I had it my way kids would get rules of the road training on bicycles=
> > starting in about the second or third grade. The problem is the shelteri=
ng
> > and the prohibitions, it won't be solved with more sheltering and more
> > prohibitions.
>
> I don't know what you mean.
I think he means exactly what I discussed above.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797419 ] |
Sun, 09 March 2008 01:19 |
|
On Mar 7, 8:03=A0pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> In article <311e7928-e4c6-454d-bcb5-ac198c90e... [at] m34g2000hsc.googlegroups.=
com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >Would you like to guess what the biggest killer of teens happens to
> >be?
>
> They are bit young for heart disease and cancer to get them, a bit too
> old for infant mortality. It's going to be the biggest killer because
> its the most common activity that can have fatal accidents in the group.
Very good point! Depending on how their compiled and presented,
statistics can be very misleading, and often deliberately manipulated
to produce any desired impression. Not to completely invalidate all
statistics, but more often than not, their nothing more than garbage
numbers.
> >> >No matter WHAT the thing is being restricted, some folks on the
> >> >prohibited side of the line get screwed.
> >> So long as the measure being used is something like age or political
> >> connections.
> >In this case, age happens to be very nearly correlated to experience.
>
> Of course it is, the government *MADATES* that it is. Let's say the
> government made a law that says children under the age of 15 can't touch
> a computer. Do you think that will make teens more or less experienced
> with a computer at age 16?
I like the way you think Brent. Or, maybe I just like the fact that
you DO think.
And, as I said in a prior post, it is Driver Licensing which creates
the very condition which is turned around and used as the leading
excuse for Driver Licensing. And, once the Driver Licensing bamboozle
has been accepted, you'll notice that nobody speaks of eliminating
their need once a person has demonstrated that they are in fact
responsible drivers.
> >> If I had it my way kids would get rules of the road training on bicycle=
s
> >> starting in about the second or third grade. The problem is the shelter=
ing
> >> and the prohibitions, it won't be solved with more sheltering and more
> >> prohibitions.
> >I don't know what you mean. =A0Once folks become legal adults, the
> >graduated scheme is no longer in play.
>
> Inexperience behind the wheel is inexperience behind the wheel at 16 or
> 18. If the issue is developing responsibility, delaying it further and
> further out doesn't help anything. It just pushes it out further in age,
> greater dependency. If the problem is that 16 year olds are
> inexperienced behind the wheel technically and haven't developed a
> sense of responsibility to a certain degree, the better fix is to start
> the learning process earlier, not delay it further.
Exactly! Exactly!
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797425 ] |
Sun, 09 March 2008 04:28 |
|
On Mar 8, 3:32=A0pm, proffsl <prof... [at] my-deja.com> wrote:
> On Mar 7, 1:01=A0pm, Harry K <turnkey4... [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 6, 11:01=A0am, proffsl <prof... [at] my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > Read about it at:
>
> > >http://proffsl.110mb.com/driving.php
>
> > > and
>
> > >http://proffsl.110mb.com/driver_licensing.php
>
> > So turn in your license and refuse to get another one.
>
> > Harry K
>
> I am sure you feel as if you have exercised an authoritative power
> beyond what you are normally use to in this police state government we
> live our restricted lives in, just as I am sure that doing so gives
> you a false sense of achievement beyond what you are normally use to,
> but I am not here to take directives.
>
> I am here to debate the validity of my claims.
Uhuh. Translated: "I don't have the balls to put my money where my
mouth is"
Harry K
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797427 ] |
Sun, 09 March 2008 04:52 |
|
On Mar 7, 2:06 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> Is graduated licensing really any
> different than other areas where the government has taken over parental
> duties?
It's not parental replacement. It's sorta common sense.
If you work to get a pilot's license, you fly with an instructor.
When he believes you are capable and safe, he signs you off to solo.
Then he monitors all your flights and sets restrictions he is
comfortable with. Eventually, if you don't run out of money, you fly
enough to convince an examiner that you won't kill yourself too
quickly. Only then do you get a pilot's certificate. Until you have
that certificate, you can't have ANY passengers; there's no one to
show off to.
Teens in groups don't pay that much attention to the driving. They
are easily challenged do to stupid things (especially the guys). Let
them get some experience alone before they have friends and nighttime
privileges.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797428 ] |
Sun, 09 March 2008 05:54 |
|
On Mar 8, 7:05 pm, proffsl <prof... [at] my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> Irresponsible people create irresponsible laws that create
> irresponsible parents who create irresponsible children. Laws that
> presume to do the parent's job are irresponsible by producing parents
> who believe they don't have to do their job. Driver licensing laws
> make the parents believe the state is doing their job of determining
> of their child is mature enough to be allowed to drive, so the parents
> surrender that decision to the state, often to their own demise.
That's about the dumbest shit ever posted to Usenet, but I'm willing
to concede it might be true in your case.
Stupid, lazy, irresponsible parents often raise stupid, lazy,
irresponsible kids, by example, and that isn't the responsibility of
the state.
-----
- gpsman
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797431 ] |
Sun, 09 March 2008 06:32 |
|
In article <10fd327c-9608-4af0-9b31-7964d3023cdc [at] d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, websurf1 [at] cox.net wrote:
>On Mar 7, 2:06 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> Is graduated licensing really any
>> different than other areas where the government has taken over parental
>> duties?
>
>It's not parental replacement. It's sorta common sense.
No, it's the government taking over more control.
>If you work to get a pilot's license, you fly with an instructor.
>When he believes you are capable and safe, he signs you off to solo.
>Then he monitors all your flights and sets restrictions he is
>comfortable with. Eventually, if you don't run out of money, you fly
>enough to convince an examiner that you won't kill yourself too
>quickly. Only then do you get a pilot's certificate. Until you have
>that certificate, you can't have ANY passengers; there's no one to
>show off to.
Except in driving the government has replaced the instructor with a time
table. It doesn't matter if they've learned a damned thing, its all
based on age. To take your flying example further, you could fail to
show any competence in flying but since you aged enough you'd be passed
to the next step.
In your flying example the instructor knows the student very well, it is
a decentralized process. In driving, the parents are supposed to know
the teenager well. Far better than the government can ever know. The
parents make a decentralized decison based on the actual abilities,
temperment, responsibility, etc of their kid. The government can never
do that anywhere close to as well.
>Teens in groups don't pay that much attention to the driving. They
>are easily challenged do to stupid things (especially the guys). Let
>them get some experience alone before they have friends and nighttime
>privileges.
Nice group think there. Not every teen is that way. Of course if you
treat people like children for longer and longer it's not surprising to
see childish behavior at older and older ages.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797439 ] |
Sun, 09 March 2008 16:47 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797441 ] |
Sun, 09 March 2008 17:20 |
|
Scott in SoCal wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 23:32:44 -0600, tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>
>>In article <10fd327c-9608-4af0-9b31-7964d3023cdc [at] d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, websurf1 [at] cox.net wrote:
>>
>>>On Mar 7, 2:06 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Is graduated licensing really any
>>>>different than other areas where the government has taken over parental
>>>>duties?
>>>
>>>It's not parental replacement. It's sorta common sense.
>>
>>No, it's the government taking over more control.
>>
>>
>>>If you work to get a pilot's license, you fly with an instructor.
>>>When he believes you are capable and safe, he signs you off to solo.
>>>Then he monitors all your flights and sets restrictions he is
>>>comfortable with. Eventually, if you don't run out of money, you fly
>>>enough to convince an examiner that you won't kill yourself too
>>>quickly. Only then do you get a pilot's certificate. Until you have
>>>that certificate, you can't have ANY passengers; there's no one to
>>>show off to.
>>
>>Except in driving the government has replaced the instructor with a time
>>table. It doesn't matter if they've learned a damned thing, its all
>>based on age. To take your flying example further, you could fail to
>>show any competence in flying but since you aged enough you'd be passed
>>to the next step.
>
>
> Sounds like the "Social Promotion" we have in public schools.
>
>
>>>Teens in groups don't pay that much attention to the driving. They
>>>are easily challenged do to stupid things (especially the guys). Let
>>>them get some experience alone before they have friends and nighttime
>>>privileges.
>>
>>Nice group think there. Not every teen is that way.
>
>
> I can't WAIT for you to have teenaged kids, Brent. :)
I that ever happens to me, I'll give them the chance to prove they're
responsible before assuming they're irresponsible.
I think that the worst thing you can possibly do to kids is to tell them
"oh, you're not old/mature enough to do that" based on nothing other
than age alone. I was helping my dad to electrical and plumbing work at
an early age, and helping my grandfather repair guns and reload both
rifle and shotgun cartridges. I imagine that that is a large part of
the reason that I'm not afraid to tackle many projects that most people
would call in a professional to do. If you treat your kids like
precious little snowflakes, they'll remain snowflakes their entire lives.
The trick, of course, is to make sure that they are aware of the
consequences if they make a mistake, and how to avoid common mistakes.
This is especially important with both firearms and driving (although
electrical, plumbing, gas, auto repair, etc. all have their own
consequences as well...) My point is if you let the conseqences petrify
you with fear, you won't ever be able to do anything. Just mitigate the
consequences up front, use proper precautions, and keep on rollin'
Now if you'll excuse me, I have a basement to finish rewiring, and a
bumper to straighten on the Ugly Truck (yeah, sometimes my DIY
prejudices create more work for me... but at least I'm not spending
lots of money on anything but tools, and good tools are forever!)
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797442 ] |
Sun, 09 March 2008 18:00 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797443 ] |
Sun, 09 March 2008 18:17 |
|
Scott in SoCal wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 12:20:01 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel [at] roosters.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Scott in SoCal wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 23:32:44 -0600,
>>> tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> In article
>>>> <10fd327c-9608-4af0-9b31-7964d3023cdc [at] d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> websurf1 [at] cox.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 7, 2:06 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent
>>>>> P) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Is graduated licensing really any different than other
>>>>>> areas where the government has taken over parental duties?
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not parental replacement. It's sorta common sense.
>>>>
>>>> No, it's the government taking over more control.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If you work to get a pilot's license, you fly with an
>>>>> instructor. When he believes you are capable and safe, he
>>>>> signs you off to solo. Then he monitors all your flights and
>>>>> sets restrictions he is comfortable with. Eventually, if you
>>>>> don't run out of money, you fly enough to convince an
>>>>> examiner that you won't kill yourself too quickly. Only then
>>>>> do you get a pilot's certificate. Until you have that
>>>>> certificate, you can't have ANY passengers; there's no one to
>>>>> show off to.
>>>>
>>>> Except in driving the government has replaced the instructor
>>>> with a time table. It doesn't matter if they've learned a
>>>> damned thing, its all based on age. To take your flying example
>>>> further, you could fail to show any competence in flying but
>>>> since you aged enough you'd be passed to the next step.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sounds like the "Social Promotion" we have in public schools.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Teens in groups don't pay that much attention to the driving.
>>>>> They are easily challenged do to stupid things (especially
>>>>> the guys). Let them get some experience alone before they
>>>>> have friends and nighttime privileges.
>>>>
>>>> Nice group think there. Not every teen is that way.
>>>
>>>
>>> I can't WAIT for you to have teenaged kids, Brent. :)
>>
>> I that ever happens to me, I'll give them the chance to prove
>> they're responsible before assuming they're irresponsible.
>
>
> Will you also give them the opportunity to prove that they're smart
> enough not to stick their fingers into the wall sockets before you
> plug in any of those little plastic protectors? Will you also give
> them the benefit of the doubt before locking up the drain cleaner?
>
> Bad analogy, you say?
Yes.
> Teenagers are more aware than toddlers, and never do stupid, risky
> things? They aren't susceptible to peer pressure and raging hormones?
>
We all know how well abstinence-based sex ed programs have worked.
Better to clearly explain the possible courses of action and
consequences and say "if you really *MUST* (drive, pork that hot chick,
wire the garage for 240 for that sexy new plasma cutter, whatever) then
this is what you must to to minimize your risk." That at least gives
them a fighting chance of coming out OK even if they don't do 100% of
what you'd want them to do. If you just say "don't (do X)" they won't
understand why not, and go ahead and do it anyway when you're not looking.
> OK - you're the Dad! :)
Dear God I hope not :)
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797448 ] |
Sun, 09 March 2008 18:35 |
|
In article <fg18t3hsv0k7dlbdcbqun4vie51udsndn4 [at] 4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal wrote:
>>Except in driving the government has replaced the instructor with a time
>>table. It doesn't matter if they've learned a damned thing, its all
>>based on age. To take your flying example further, you could fail to
>>show any competence in flying but since you aged enough you'd be passed
>>to the next step.
>Sounds like the "Social Promotion" we have in public schools.
Yes, it is much like the government schools.
>>>Teens in groups don't pay that much attention to the driving. They
>>>are easily challenged do to stupid things (especially the guys). Let
>>>them get some experience alone before they have friends and nighttime
>>>privileges.
>>
>>Nice group think there. Not every teen is that way.
>
>I can't WAIT for you to have teenaged kids, Brent. :)
What is that supposed to mean? People raised kids without government
guidelines for centuries.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797452 ] |
Sun, 09 March 2008 19:23 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive With a License [message #797457 ] |
Sun, 09 March 2008 20:49 |
|
On Mar 8, 5:32=A0pm, proffsl <prof... [at] my-deja.com> wrote:
> On Mar 7, 1:01=A0pm, Harry K <turnkey4... [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 6, 11:01=A0am, proffsl <prof... [at] my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > Read about it at:
>
> > > http://proffsl.110mb.com/I_Misuse_Court_Cites_That_Contradic t_Me.php
>
> > > and
>
> > >http://proffsl.110mb.com/I_Am_Always_Wrong.php
>
> > So turn in your license and refuse to get another one.
> I am here to debate the validity of my claims.
They have no validity; you lost those claims in three previous
identical threads over the last two years. All of your citations
contradicted you. You only have the right to drive with a license.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797460 ] |
Sun, 09 March 2008 22:27 |
|
On Mar 7, 7:03 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> In article <311e7928-e4c6-454d-bcb5-ac198c90e... [at] m34g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >> Nibbling at the margins in such a way that it goes after the
> >> politically most vunerable, the teenagers.
> >I guess it's just a coincidence that they are also the very most
> >likely to have a collision.
>
> Didn't say otherwise. I argue it isn't a function of age.
That's pretty nitpicky, even for you.
Sixteen is the minimum age for a DL, and not much experience accrues
before that, so *in reality* the lack of experience is a function of
age, *for the overwhelming majority of drivers*.
> >> That is because of the
> >> government and how it functions.
> >Your conclusion doesn't follow. The reason it doesn't follow is
> >because stats show that
> >1.) Inexperienced drivers are the ones most likely to be in a
> >collision.
>
> Which matters not if they are 12 or 22. Where's the graduated licensing
> for the immigrant who comes to this contry never having driven before at
> age 25?
Brain development comes mind. Look up the age of maturation of the
prefrontal cortex, and that region of the brain's function. Apply to
the skill of driving.
In this case, age makes a big difference.
> >2.) In places that graduated licensing has been implemented, teen
> >crashes have been reduced.
>
> Not per mile driven I'll wager.
That's the way I've seen it.
> >Would you like to guess what the biggest killer of teens happens to
> >be?
>
> They are bit young for heart disease and cancer to get them, a bit too
> old for infant mortality. It's going to be the biggest killer because
> its the most common activity that can have fatal accidents in the group.
And yet, in the early 20s, the death rate goes way down.
Strange.
> >> >No matter WHAT the thing is being restricted, some folks on the
> >> >prohibited side of the line get screwed.
> >> So long as the measure being used is something like age or political
> >> connections.
> >In this case, age happens to be very nearly correlated to experience.
>
> Of course it is, the government *MADATES* that it is. Let's say the
> government made a law that says children under the age of 15 can't touch
> a computer. Do you think that will make teens more or less experienced
> with a computer at age 16?
When computers come self-propelled and weighing two tons, maybe your
analogy would be apt.
> >And since a person may not legally enter into a contract until they
> >are 18, restrictions on driving under that age isn't discrimination,
> >per se. No more than truancy laws are infringements upon freedom of
> >movement.
>
> So you are using an age restriction to validate an age restriction.
You have made a very good point. Circular reasoning is never
persuasive.
So, with having been said, you claim that this is a government control
issue. I invite you to prove it with facts. Avoid circular
reasoning.
I seriously doubt you'll be able to even offer innuendo, much less
hard cites.
There are age restrictions on such things as eligibility to be POTUS,
age of consent, and minimum age for entering into contracts. Nobody
is pretending that one size fits all here, but surely some of these
age limitations exist for some reason other than government control.
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797461 ] |
Sun, 09 March 2008 22:29 |
|
On Mar 8, 12:14 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
>
>
> I don't expect the graduated system to stay forever ending at 18 or
> remain as flexible as it is. The genie is out of the bottle.
Logical fallacy - slippery slope.
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797463 ] |
Sun, 09 March 2008 22:31 |
|
On Mar 8, 5:05 pm, proffsl <prof... [at] my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> Same thing applies to alcohol sales. In truth, I believe a 10 year old
> should be able to walk into a liquor store and purchase alcohol. BUT,
> before any of you fly off at the handle, in saying that, I AM NOT
> saying that I believe 10 year olds should be consuming alcohol.
Should 10-year-olds be driving?
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797504 ] |
Mon, 10 March 2008 04:09 |
|
On Mar 8, 10:32 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
>
>
> No, it's the government taking over more control.
The government DOES control auto driver licensing. It's not taking
more, it's just changing the rules a bit.
> Except in driving the government has replaced the instructor with a time
> table. It doesn't matter if they've learned a damned thing, its all
> based on age. To take your flying example further, you could fail to
> show any competence in flying but since you aged enough you'd be passed
> to the next step.
You miswrote, or I am misinterpreting.
In flying, you MUST show competence at EVERY step, regardless of age
(You can solo a glider at 14, pilot's licenses require age 16, IIRC).
Other than that, age has nothing to do with it.
And you have to be a much better pilot to get a pilot's license than
you do car driver to get a driver's license!!!!!
> In driving, the parents are supposed to know
> the teenager well. Far better than the government can ever know. The
> parents make a decentralized decison based on the actual abilities,
> temperment, responsibility, etc of their kid. The government can never
> do that anywhere close to as well.
Yeah. Snort. Way too many parents think their kids are angels. They
buy the little brat a muscle car and turn him/her loose upon the
population. When they are with Mom and Pop, they behave. Turned
loose, they may not. And when with their not-so-angelic friends, they
tend to bend to peer pressure because it's incredibly strong. Once
they've passed the driver test, the government doesn't know a thing,
until they get to scrape the kids off the pavement.
> >Teens in groups don't pay that much attention to the driving. They
> >are easily challenged do to stupid things (especially the guys). Let
> >them get some experience alone before they have friends and nighttime
> >privileges.
>
> Nice group think there. Not every teen is that way. Of course if you
> treat people like children for longer and longer it's not surprising to
> see childish behavior at older and older ages.
You are right in both cases.
But time and again, we learn that overall kids survive longer if they
are in the car withOUT their friends for a while. Even if their
friends aren't encouraging them to do stupid stuff, a car load of pals
is extremely distracting. This is at a time when their skills are not
automatic enough for them to get away with it.
They can learn to handle situations better if it ISN'T night.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797505 ] |
Mon, 10 March 2008 04:20 |
|
On Mar 9, 9:20 am, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
> >>Nice group think there. Not every teen is that way.
>
> > I can't WAIT for you to have teenaged kids, Brent. :)
>
> I that ever happens to me, I'll give them the chance to prove they're
> responsible before assuming they're irresponsible.
I had to laugh at that one.
As a kid, I was the dependable, well-behaved, slightly nerdish, don't-
break-the-rules kinda guy.
Stop that laughing--I'm serious here!
Anyway, I also did a few dumb things with my car. Not many, but a
few. And MOST of the time it was my friends who talked me into
something. Or, now that I'm a lot older, I say that I allowed myself
to follow my friends instead of my own better instincts.
I got away with it, and no one got hurt.
With a bit more time, I might have told those guys No, instead of
going along.
When I was alone, I wasn't distracted by the wild conversations, or
arguing with them to not smoke in MY car. (I parked it on the highway
miles from home, and told them to walk. It was MY car, dammit. They
put out the cigs. Win one for me.)
> I think that the worst thing you can possibly do to kids is to tell them
> "oh, you're not old/mature enough to do that" based on nothing other
> than age alone.
No. The worst thing you can do is turn them loose when they are not.
There are better ways to set the standards than using a put-down.
>I was helping my dad to electrical and plumbing work at
> an early age, and helping my grandfather repair guns and reload both
> rifle and shotgun cartridges. I imagine that that is a large part of
> the reason that I'm not afraid to tackle many projects that most people
> would call in a professional to do. If you treat your kids like
> precious little snowflakes, they'll remain snowflakes their entire lives.
You were WITH YOUR DAD! He didn't turn you lose on customer's pipes
with only a couple solder joints under your belt.
I'm sure he ensured that you knew what you were doing WHILE HE WAS
WITH YOU before he gave you the gun and shells, too.
It's one thing to be safe with a gun in a repair shop, although I'm
sure there's dangers lurking there.
But in the field, it's much worse. Dad needs to observe, and make
sure you don't get careless and let the gun point at someone.
It's even harder to teach you to tell your friends to get lost when
they want you to do something you wouldn't dream of if you were alone.
I know because I've been there. It's the peer pressure and the
excitement.
> The trick, of course, is to make sure that they are aware of the
> consequences if they make a mistake, and how to avoid common mistakes.
In either case, you could end up dead. Problem is, as we all know,
teenagers think they are invincible.
They find out otherwise.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Tue Dec 2 09:22:45 CET 2008
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0.15400 Sekunden |
