You have the Right to Drive

In article >, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>On Mar 7, 1:06*pm, (Brent P) wrote:
>> In article >, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> > On Mar 7, 5:21*am, (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.

In article >, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>On Mar 7, 1:12*pm, (Brent P) wrote:
>> In article >, 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.

On Mar 7, 4:15 pm, (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.

On Mar 7, 4:26 pm, (Brent P) wrote:
> In article >, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >On Mar 7, 1:12 pm, (Brent P) wrote:
> >> In article >, 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.

Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Mar 7, 4:15 pm, (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

In article >, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>On Mar 7, 4:15 pm, (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.

In article >, 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.

On Mar 7, 5:42 pm, (Brent P) wrote:
> In article >, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >On Mar 7, 4:15 pm, (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 @ 18. I'm still not getting what your objection is - the
current graduated systems seem fairly flexible, from what I have seen.

E.P.

In article >, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>On Mar 7, 5:42 pm, (Brent P) wrote:
>> In article >, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> >On Mar 7, 4:15 pm, (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 @ 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.

On Mar 7, 7:21*am, (Brent P) wrote:
> In article >, 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.

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.