You have the Right to Drive

On Mar 7, 1:01*pm, Harry K > wrote:
> On Mar 6, 11:01*am, proffsl > 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.

On Mar 7, 7:29*pm, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
> 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?

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 sheltering
> > 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.

On Mar 7, 8:03*pm, (Brent P) wrote:
> In article >, 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 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.

Exactly! Exactly!

On Mar 8, 3:32*pm, proffsl > wrote:
> On Mar 7, 1:01*pm, Harry K > wrote:
>
> > On Mar 6, 11:01*am, proffsl > 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

On Mar 7, 2:06 pm, (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.

On Mar 8, 7:05 pm, proffsl > 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 **** 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

In article >, wrote:
>On Mar 7, 2:06 pm, (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.

Scott in SoCal wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 23:32:44 -0600,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>
>>In article >, wrote:
>>
>>>On Mar 7, 2:06 pm, (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

Scott in SoCal wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 12:20:01 -0400, Nate Nagel >
> wrote:
>
>
>> Scott in SoCal wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 23:32:44 -0600,
>>> (Brent P) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> In article
>>>> >,
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 7, 2:06 pm, (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

In article >, 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.