You have the Right to Drive

On Mar 27, 11:02 am, proffsl > wrote:
> On Mar 27, 7:17 am, gpsman > wrote:
>
> > On Mar 27, 8:01 am, proffsl > wrote:
>
> > > Courts don't give or take our Rights, which are Inherently Endowed
> > > by our Creation. Courts only decide which of our Rights they will
> > > either recognize, deny or violate.
>
> > Something is seriously wrong with your Shift or Caps Lock key,
> > maybe both.
>
> mY sHIFt aNd cAPs lOcK KEyS wORk QuITe WeLL

My mistake. I assumed you knew how to use them.

> > A "right" is, AFAIK, something that applies to "everyone",
> > regardless of any physical limitations.
>
> True, but not regardless of how one presumes to exercise such
> "Right". Nobody may exercise a "Right" in any way that endangers the
> Rights of others. One may only exercise their Rights in a safe manner.

So... how do you propose it be determined that one is capable of
exercising the right to drive in a manner which is safe?

It seems to me your premise would allow one to operate a motor vehicle
until they demonstrate they are unsafe, which seems a little unsmart.

> > According to your premise, the blind have the right to drive,
> > nyctalops have the right to drive at night, and likewise, guys
> > who have no arms, and those diagnosed as too retarded.
>
> Only if they can drive safely, or without violating others.

Again, how is that to be determined? When, by whom, and under what
circumstances?

> > Why does "the right to drive" not extend to operating airplanes?
> > They're pretty much the "normal" and "ordinary" way we travel the
> > sky, no?
>
> Who said it didn't?

Me. And the FAA in the US.

Do you really advocate untrained, untried and untested persons be
allowed to fly over your treehouse, or wherever you call home?

> We have the Right to use our Public Right of Ways
> for Personal Travel in the Ordinary Way. Right of Ways also exist in
> the air. The Ordinary Way of Personal Travel on those Right of Ways is
> by Airplanes.

So, does that cover traveling for business purposes, and/or carrying
passengers?

> > Why was your license to drive suspended or revoked?
>
> Apparently you DO presume that one is entitled to the Right of Speech,
> regardless if they find it physically or mentally impossible to do
> without Libeling othes?
>
> Wish to put your money where your libelous mouth is?

Sure. All indications suggest you have no license, and are
exceptionally stupid.

Sue away.
-----

- gpsman

proffsl wrote:
> On Mar 27, 7:17�am, gpsman > wrote:
> > On Mar 27, 8:01 am, proffsl > wrote:
> > >
> > > Courts don't give or take our Rights, which are Inherently Endowed
> > > by our Creation. Courts only decide which of our Rights they will
> > > either recognize, deny or violate.
> >
> > A "right" is, AFAIK, something that applies to "everyone",
> > regardless of any physical limitations.
>
> True, but not regardless of how one presumes to exercise such
> "Right". Nobody may exercise a "Right" in any way that endangers the
> Rights of others. One may only exercise their Rights in a safe manner.

And that is the legal and constitutional basis for our system of
licensing and registration.

> > According to your premise, the blind have the right to drive,
> > nyctalops have the right to drive at night, and likewise, guys
> > who have no arms, and those diagnosed as too retarded.
>
> Only if they can drive safely, or without violating others.

Correct, and licensing weeds that out. Otherwise, under your proposed
system, we must let the blind or infants or amoebae or dogs drive
right up until the time they cause harm to others. That is not
acceptable to the common good and public safety.

> > Why does "the right to drive" not extend to operating airplanes?
> > They're pretty much the "normal" and "ordinary" way we travel the
> > sky, no?
>
> Who said it didn't?

The courts.

> We have the Right to use our Public Right of Ways
> for Personal Travel in the Ordinary Way.

Yes, and that Ordinary Way necessarily includes our system of
licensing and registration. That has been proven to you repeatedly.
Your own court case cites contradicted you on this point. Well, not
including the one you fabricated.

> Right of Ways also exist in
> the air. The Ordinary Way of Personal Travel on those Right of Ways is
> by Airplanes.

By licensed pilots.

Just like the roads are for use by licensed drivers in autos.

On Mar 27, 9:05*am, Harry K > wrote:
> On Mar 27, 5:01*am, proffsl > wrote:
> > On Mar 25, 1:08*pm, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>
> > > a right to drive
>
> > Even without the court's agreement, we have the Right to Drive on our
> > Public Highways in the process of Personal Travel. Where any court
> > disagrees, they merely choose to violate our Right. *Courts don't give
> > or take our Rights, which are Inherently Endowed by our Creation.
> > Courts only decide which of our Rights they will either recognize,
> > deny or violate.
>
> > Regardless though, the courts have recognized our Right to Drive as
> > being protected by the U.S. Constitution as a part of our Right of
> > Liberty. Yet, given even this recognition, they choose to circumvent
> > it by a Police Power, which can be easily proven to be quite
> > Unjustified. *Unjustified police powers are invalid.
>
> > http://proffsl.110mb.com/driver_licensing.php
>
> Are you so

Ad Hominem.


> > Yet, given even this recognition, they choose to circumvent
> > it by a Police Power, which can be easily proven to be quite
> > Unjustified.
>
> One question. *If it is so easy, why haven't you?

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make the jackass drink.

Driver Licensing does nothing for highway safety that laws against
endangerment did not already serve. Police powers circumventing our
Right to Drive are Unjustified, and therefore invalid. We have the
Right to use our Public Highways for personal travel in the ordinary
way. We have the Right to Drive Safely.

On Mar 27, 10:01 am, gpsman > wrote:
> On Mar 27, 11:02 am, proffsl > wrote:
> > On Mar 27, 7:17 am, gpsman > wrote:
> > >
> > > A "right" is, AFAIK, something that applies to "everyone",
> > > regardless of any physical limitations.
>
> > True, but not regardless of how one presumes to exercise such
> > "Right". Nobody may exercise a "Right" in any way that endangers
> > the Rights of others. One may only exercise their Rights in a safe
> > manner.
>
> So... how do you propose it be determined that one is capable of
> exercising the right to drive in a manner which is safe?

Virtually everyone able to touch the floorboard and see over the dash
of an automobile at the same time is "capable" of driving safely. As I
have explained time and time again, capability isn't the question.
The question is: "WILL they drive safely?" There really is only one
way to determine if someone WILL drive safely.

Virtually everyone who is unable to touch the floorboard and see over
the dash of an automobile at the same time will never even try to
drive to begin with, regardless if they had a driver license or not.
Most people have a strange tendency to practice self preservation.

Ask yourself, even if you had a drivers license, but had just been
temporarily blinded by some chemical spray, would you jump into a car
and drive in that blinded condition?

If the state issued you a license to blow your head off with a
shotgun, would you?

For those who do not practice self-preservation, well, if their not
concerned for their own safety, then they surely won't be concerned
over any consequences for driving without a driver license.

Do criminals let the fact they don't have a license to commit crimes
stop them from committing crimes?

Once again, Driver Licensing serves no purpose for highway safety that
laws against reckless endangerment did not already serve.


> It seems to me your premise would allow one to operate a motor
> vehicle until they demonstrate they are unsafe, which seems a
> little unsmart.

Then, you aren't thinking clearly. From all the accident statistics
I've seen, unsafe drivers are not the one's who are incapable of
driving safely, but instead unsafe drivers are almost always the one's
who are perfectly capable of driving safely, but simply WILL NOT.


> > > According to your premise, the blind have the right to drive,
> > > nyctalops have the right to drive at night, and likewise, guys
> > > who have no arms, and those diagnosed as too retarded.
>
> > Only if they can drive safely, or without violating others.
>
> Again, how is that to be determined? When, by whom, and under
> what circumstances?

I should have said: "Only if they drive safely, without violating
others."

Blind people do have the Right to Drive Safely. Do you presume they
will?


> > > Why does "the right to drive" not extend to operating airplanes?
> > > They're pretty much the "normal" and "ordinary" way we travel
> > > the sky, no?
> >
> > Who said it didn't? We have the Right to use our Public Right of
> > Ways for Personal Travel in the Ordinary Way. Right of Ways also
> > exist in the air. The Ordinary Way of Personal Travel on those Right
> > of Ways is by Airplanes.
>
> Do you really advocate untrained, untried and untested persons be
> allowed to fly.

Let's imagine you were in an unpopulated region with an airplane. If
you were unsure of your ability to fly it without crashing, would
you? That's the question and the point which seems to elude you.

I've never once suggested anyone do anything without the knowledge of
how to do it without killing or harming themselves, much less anyone
else. I've only stated that we have the Right to Drive safely. But,
through your own mental tortures and twists to argue against what I
say, you mutate it into suggesting I'm saying we have the Right to
Drive dangerously. I have never said any such thing.


> > > Why was your license to drive suspended or revoked?
>
> > Apparently you DO presume that one is entitled to the Right of Speech,
> > regardless if they find it physically or mentally impossible to do
> > without Libeling othes?
>
> > Wish to put your money where your libelous mouth is?
>
> Sure.

Well, this only shows me what kind of fool you really are. I wouldn't
be offering to make a bet if I weren't sure I could win. And, I AM
the only one of us who CAN be sure I could win such a bet. You sure
can't be sure.

You have no intention of placing a bet where you could actually stand
to loose money. Clearly, you're only spewing bull**** that you have no
clue of for the soul purpose of creating an Ad Hominem attack.

Let me clue you in. You bet with me on this, and you will lose. So,
let's see just how big of a fool you are. Wanna make it a $250,000
bet?

I'd suggest you drop this imature and foolish means of debate, and try
to deal with my actual arguments pertaining to the issue at hand.

On Mar 31, 12:44 am, proffsl > wrote:
> On Mar 27, 10:01 am, gpsman > wrote:
>
> > On Mar 27, 11:02 am, proffsl > wrote:
> > > On Mar 27, 7:17 am, gpsman > wrote:
>
> > > > A "right" is, AFAIK, something that applies to "everyone",
> > > > regardless of any physical limitations.
>
> > > True, but not regardless of how one presumes to exercise such
> > > "Right". Nobody may exercise a "Right" in any way that endangers
> > > the Rights of others. One may only exercise their Rights in a safe
> > > manner.
>
> > So... how do you propose it be determined that one is capable of
> > exercising the right to drive in a manner which is safe?
>
> Virtually everyone able to touch the floorboard and see over the dash
> of an automobile at the same time is "capable" of driving safely.

Spurious conclusion; false premise. You assume to know that which you
have no method of learning, and your assumption that driving skills
and judgment are somehow innate is false, as everyone who has had a
first driving lesson is aware.

There are students of the 3rd grade who are 5' tall and can easily
reach the controls of a vehicle.

> As I
> have explained time and time again, capability isn't the question.

<spit take> I think you just wrote: "Virtually everyone able to touch
the floorboard and see over the dash of an automobile at the same time
is "capable" of driving safely."

If capability isn't the question, why is it in quotes?

> The question is: "WILL they drive safely?" There really is only one
> way to determine if someone WILL drive safely.

But that is the first question of an idiot. The first question is,
are they sufficiently educated to make them capable of driving
safely? After which the question of whether they will drive safely
becomes relevant.

> Most people have a strange tendency to practice self preservation.

<spit take> Then why do those capable of operating safely not do so?

> Once again, Driver Licensing serves no purpose for highway safety that
> laws against reckless endangerment did not already serve.

Uh huh. What about "financial responsibility"? How is a driver to be
insured with no demonstration of their insurability?

> > It seems to me your premise would allow one to operate a motor
> > vehicle until they demonstrate they are unsafe, which seems a
> > little unsmart.
>
> Then, you aren't thinking clearly. From all the accident statistics
> I've seen, unsafe drivers are not the one's who are incapable of
> driving safely, but instead unsafe drivers are almost always the one's
> who are perfectly capable of driving safely, but simply WILL NOT.

Spurious conclusion; you profess knowledge which you have no method of
obtaining.

"All the accident statistics you've seen" require your
interpretation. What are your qualifications to make those? Occam's
Razor goes a little further than to suggest you have none.

> > > > According to your premise, the blind have the right to drive,
> > > > nyctalops have the right to drive at night, and likewise, guys
> > > > who have no arms, and those diagnosed as too retarded.
>
> > > Only if they can drive safely, or without violating others.
>
> > Again, how is that to be determined? When, by whom, and under
> > what circumstances?
>
> I should have said: "Only if they drive safely, without violating
> others."

Pfft. It's their right to try, according to your premise.

> Blind people do have the Right to Drive Safely. Do you presume they
> will?

I know some will. Persons of my acquaintance who have lost sufficient
sight to drive have continued to drive. I think it's safe to assume
these were not the only instances of that occurring.

> > Do you really advocate untrained, untried and untested persons be
> > allowed to fly.
>
> Let's imagine you were in an unpopulated region with an airplane. If
> you were unsure of your ability to fly it without crashing, would
> you? That's the question and the point which seems to elude you.

The question that seems to elude you is that, according to your
premise, if a person is innately endowed with the skills and judgment
to drive safely, why would that not extend to flying? Or riding a
motorcycle?

> I've never once suggested anyone do anything without the knowledge of
> how to do it without killing or harming themselves, much less anyone
> else. I've only stated that we have the Right to Drive safely. But,
> through your own mental tortures and twists to argue against what I
> say, you mutate it into suggesting I'm saying we have the Right to
> Drive dangerously. I have never said any such thing.

No, you've really said neither. What you have said is that any and
every person who can reach the controls is sufficiently "capable" of
driving safely, so driving is their right, whether they know how to do
so or not.

You cannot add at this point in your argument qualifications of
"knowledge".

> > > > Why was your license to drive suspended or revoked?
>
> > > Apparently you DO presume that one is entitled to the Right of Speech,
> > > regardless if they find it physically or mentally impossible to do
> > > without Libeling othes?
>
> > > Wish to put your money where your libelous mouth is?
>
> > Sure.
>
> Well, this only shows me what kind of fool you really are. I wouldn't
> be offering to make a bet if I weren't sure I could win. And, I AM
> the only one of us who CAN be sure I could win such a bet. You sure
> can't be sure.

I'm not even sure of what the bet would be.

> Let me clue you in. You bet with me on this, and you will lose. So,
> let's see just how big of a fool you are. Wanna make it a $250,000
> bet?

I am pretty sure someone as stupid as you has no cash or assets
totaling $2500, much less $250K.

> I'd suggest you drop this imature and foolish means of debate, and try
> to deal with my actual arguments pertaining to the issue at hand.

The basis of your arguments are pure foolishness; anyone, regardless
of age or physical limitations, who can reach the controls, is
"capable" of operating a vehicle in a safe and reasonable manner,
therefore we all have the right to drive.

That's stupid, and so are you.
-----

- gpsman

On Mar 30, 9:15 pm, proffsl > wrote:
> On Mar 27, 9:05 am, Harry K > wrote:
> > On Mar 27, 5:01 am, proffsl > wrote:
> > > Yet, given even this recognition, they choose to circumvent
> > > it by a Police Power, which can be easily proven to be quite
> > > Unjustified.
>
> > One question. If it is so easy, why haven't you?
>
> You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make the jackass drink.

Ad hominem personal attack noted.

> Driver Licensing does nothing for highway safety that laws against
> endangerment did not already serve.

Immaterial and incorrect.

> Police powers circumventing our
> Right to Drive are Unjustified, and therefore invalid.

False, as proven earlier. They do not circumvent, they are part of our
right to drive... with a license and registration. All of your arguments
have been adjudicated and rejected.

> We have the
> Right to use our Public Highways for personal travel in the ordinary
> way.

As proven, that ordinary way includes licensing and registration.

On Mar 30, 10:44 pm, proffsl > wrote:

> From all the accident statistics
> I've seen, unsafe drivers are not the one's who are incapable of
> driving safely, but instead unsafe drivers are almost always the one's
> who are perfectly capable of driving safely, but simply WILL NOT.

This was proven wrong last year when you misinterpreted the study.

> > Again, how is that to be determined? When, by whom, and under
> > what circumstances?
>
> I should have said: "Only if they drive safely, without violating
> others."
>
> Blind people do have the Right to Drive Safely. Do you presume they
> will?

No but you do. You also allow cats, dogs and infants to drive up until
the moment they cause harm.

> > Do you really advocate untrained, untried and untested persons be
> > allowed to fly.
>
> Let's imagine you were in an unpopulated region with an airplane. If
> you were unsure of your ability to fly it without crashing, would
> you? That's the question and the point which seems to elude you.

No, it eludes you. The answer of course is that many people would and
do. Plane cashes are in the news constantly.

> I've never once suggested anyone do anything without the knowledge of
> how to do it without killing or harming themselves, much less anyone
> else. I've only stated that we have the Right to Drive safely.

And I've stated that you are wrong when you leave out the requirement
to have a license.

> But,
> through your own mental tortures and twists to argue against what I
> say, you mutate it into suggesting I'm saying we have the Right to
> Drive dangerously. I have never said any such thing.

No, that is the natural outcome of your proposal eliminating any
testing and licensing. It has been shown to be an unconstitutional
attack on our right to public safety and general welfare.

> I'd suggest you drop this imature and foolish means of debate, and try
> to deal with my actual arguments pertaining to the issue at hand.

Your arguments are based on false premises, fabricated court quotes
and incorrect reasoning. They have failed.

On Mar 31, 12:46*am, gpsman > wrote:
> On Mar 31, 12:44 am, proffsl > wrote:

> > Once again, Driver Licensing serves no purpose for highway safety that
> > laws against reckless endangerment did not already serve.
>
> Uh huh. *What about "financial responsibility"? *How is a driver to be
> insured with no demonstration of their insurability?

You are about to learn, I suspect, that Proffy is against insurance.
He believes it's OK for you not to have recourse for recovering your
losses when someone else hits you.

On Mar 31, 12:46 am, gpsman > wrote:
> On Mar 31, 12:44 am, proffsl > wrote:
> > On Mar 27, 10:01 am, gpsman > wrote:
> > > On Mar 27, 11:02 am, proffsl > wrote:
> > > > On Mar 27, 7:17 am, gpsman > wrote:
>
> > > > > A "right" is, AFAIK, something that applies to "everyone",
> > > > > regardless of any physical limitations.
>
> > > > True, but not regardless of how one presumes to exercise such
> > > > "Right". Nobody may exercise a "Right" in any way that endangers
> > > > the Rights of others. One may only exercise their Rights in a safe
> > > > manner.
>
> > > So... how do you propose it be determined that one is capable of
> > > exercising the right to drive in a manner which is safe?
>
> > Virtually everyone able to touch the floorboard and see over the dash
> > of an automobile at the same time is "capable" of driving safely.
>
> Spurious conclusion; false premise. You assume to know that which
> you have no method of learning, and your assumption that driving skills
> and judgment are somehow innate is false,

You are fabricating a strawman argument, as I have never made any
claim that driving skills were "innate". Just as lion cubs learn to
hunt by watching their mother hunt, children learn driving skills by
watching their parents drive, and by the time they are able to reach
the controls and see over the dash, virtually every one of them are
capable of driving safely. Again, the primary question isn't if they
CAN drive safely, but rather: WILL they drive safely?


> as everyone who has had a first driving lesson is aware.

Now you presume to defeat your strawman fabrication by making a rather
unqualified and presumptuous conclusion that you are somehow able to
know, not just what "virtually everyone" is capable of, but instead,
what EVERYONE is aware of.


> > The question is: "WILL they drive safely?" There really is only
> > one way to determine if someone WILL drive safely.
>
> But that is the first question of an idiot. The first question is,
> are they sufficiently educated to make them capable of driving
> safely?

But, that is the first question of an authoritarian moron, considering
that virtually everyone who is capable of reaching the controls and
seeing over the dash CAN drive safely.


> > Most people have a strange tendency to practice self preservation.
>
> <spit take> Then why do those capable of operating safely not do so?

<got some on your chin> Why do those "tested" to be capable of
operating an automobile safely still not do so? Again, as I told
you. The question isn't if they CAN drive safely. The question is:
WILL They drive safely?


> > Once again, Driver Licensing serves no purpose for highway safety that
> > laws against reckless endangerment did not already serve.
>
> Uh huh. What about "financial responsibility"?

"Financial responsibility" doesn't make for highway safety. Highway
safety isn't being able to pay everyone you run over. Highway safety
is not running over others to begin with. Want to make sure all those
people who CAN drive safely WILL? Strongly enforce laws against
Endangerment. Driver Licensing does nothing for highway safety that
laws against Endangerment couldn't already do.


> How is a driver to be insured with no demonstration of their
> insurability?

Yet another question an authortarian moron would ask.


> > > It seems to me your premise would allow one to operate a motor
> > > vehicle until they demonstrate they are unsafe, which seems a
> > > little unsmart.
>
> > Then, you aren't thinking clearly. From all the accident statistics
> > I've seen, unsafe drivers are not the one's who are incapable of
> > driving safely, but instead unsafe drivers are almost always the one's
> > who are perfectly capable of driving safely, but simply WILL NOT.
>
> Spurious conclusion; you profess knowledge which you have no method
> of obtaining. "All the accident statistics you've seen" require your
> interpretation. What are your qualifications to make those? Occam's
> Razor goes a little further than to suggest you have none.

Ad Hominem. Accident statistics show that 95% - 98% of all reported
accidents are caused by aggressive or distracted driver behavior by
drivers who are presumably capable of driving safely.

"Over 95% of motor vehicle accidents (MVAs, in the USA, or Road
Traffic Accidents, RTAs, in Europe) involve some degree of driver
behavior combined with one of the other three factors. Drivers always
try to blame road conditions, equipment failure, or other drivers for
those accidents. When the facts are truthfully presented, however, THE
BEHAVIOR OF THE IMPLICATED DRIVER IS USUALLY THE PRIMARY CAUSE. Most
are caused by excessive speed or aggressive driver
behavior." (Emphasis added) -
http://www.smartmotorist.com/traffic...accidents.html

"Car accident statistics indicate 98 percent of reported accidents
involve a single distracted driver. Rubbernecking was the highest
percentage of single distractions, followed by driver fatigue, looking
at scenery or landmarks, passenger or child distractions, adjusting
the radio or other music form, and cell phone use." -
http://www.onlinelawyersource.com/pe...tatistics.html


> > > > > According to your premise, the blind have the right to drive,
> > > > > nyctalops have the right to drive at night, and likewise, guys
> > > > > who have no arms, and those diagnosed as too retarded.
>
> > > > Only if they can drive safely, or without violating others.
>
> > > Again, how is that to be determined? When, by whom, and under
> > > what circumstances?
>
> > I should have said: "Only if they drive safely, without violating
> > others."
>
> Pfft. It's their right to try, according to your premise.

Another strawman fabrication on your part. My premise is that "You
have the Right to Drive Safely."


> > Blind people do have the Right to Drive Safely. Do you presume they
> > will?
>
> I know some will.

Oh! Really? And, as much as you know that some will, I also know
that those who would won't let the lack of a driver license stop them.


> > > Do you really advocate untrained, untried and untested persons be
> > > allowed to fly.
>
> > Let's imagine you were in an unpopulated region with an airplane. If
> > you were unsure of your ability to fly it without crashing, would
> > you? That's the question and the point which seems to elude you.
>
> The question that seems to elude you is that, according to your
> premise, if a person is innately endowed with the skills and judgment
> to drive safely, why would that not extend to flying? Or riding a
> motorcycle?

You dodge my question by repeating your prior strawman. In the
scenario above, if you were unsure of your ability to fly without
crashing, would you try?


> > I've never once suggested anyone do anything without the knowledge of
> > how to do it without killing or harming themselves, much less anyone
> > else. I've only stated that we have the Right to Drive safely. But,
> > through your own mental tortures and twists to argue against what I
> > say, you mutate it into suggesting I'm saying we have the Right to
> > Drive dangerously. I have never said any such thing.
>
> No, you've really said neither. What you have said is that any and
> every person who can reach the controls is sufficiently "capable" of
> driving safely,

You are Lying. I never said "any and every person". I said
"virtually everyone".


> so driving is their right, whether they know how to do so or not.

You have the Right to Drive Safely. Clearly, someone who IS Driving
Safely CAN Drive Safely, otherwise they wouldn't be driving safely.


> You cannot add at this point in your argument qualifications of
> "knowledge".

Clearly, if someone IS Driving Safely, then they have the "knowledge"
to Drive Safely, otherwise they wouldn't be driving safely. You have
the Right to Drive Safely. There already existed laws against
Endangerment to prosecute those who WILL NOT Drive Safely.


> I am pretty sure someone

More Ad Hominems! Quite the immature and foolish tactics you use.


> <snip> we all have the right to drive.

Strawman!

We have the Right to Drive Safely.


> That's stupid, and so are you.

And, yet another Ad Hominem. Let me take this excuse to repeat my
statement that you are an authoritarian moron.

On Mar 31, 8:31 pm, proffsl > wrote:
> Just as lion cubs learn to
> hunt by watching their mother hunt, children learn driving skills by
> watching their parents drive, and by the time they are able to reach
> the controls and see over the dash, virtually every one of them are
> capable of driving safely. Again, the primary question isn't if they
> CAN drive safely, but rather: WILL they drive safely?

Under your system, we get to find out one toddler at a time! Next, the
family dog gets to drive! No one can say no!

> > > Once again, Driver Licensing serves no purpose for highway safety that
> > > laws against reckless endangerment did not already serve.
>
> > Uh huh. What about "financial responsibility"?
>
> "Financial responsibility" doesn't make for highway safety. Highway
> safety isn't being able to pay everyone you run over. Highway safety
> is not running over others to begin with. Want to make sure all those
> people who CAN drive safely WILL? Strongly enforce laws against
> Endangerment. Driver Licensing does nothing for highway safety that
> laws against Endangerment couldn't already do.

Yes they do. They test beforehand. Your laws against endangerment test
merely permits every person, infant on up, one fatal accident each.

> > How is a driver to be insured with no demonstration of their
> > insurability?
>
> Yet another question an authortarian moron would ask.

More personal attacks initiated by Proffy. Still, you failed to answer
the question. Since you also would do away with financial
responsibility and allow people to be irreparably harmed in your
system, maybe you could try to answer his question.

> > > > It seems to me your premise would allow one to operate a motor
> > > > vehicle until they demonstrate they are unsafe, which seems a
> > > > little unsmart.
>
> > > Then, you aren't thinking clearly. From all the accident statistics
> > > I've seen, unsafe drivers are not the one's who are incapable of
> > > driving safely, but instead unsafe drivers are almost always the one's
> > > who are perfectly capable of driving safely, but simply WILL NOT.
>
> > Spurious conclusion; you profess knowledge which you have no method
> > of obtaining. "All the accident statistics you've seen" require your
> > interpretation. What are your qualifications to make those? Occam's
> > Razor goes a little further than to suggest you have none.
>
> Ad Hominem.

You don't understand what ad hominem is.

> Accident statistics show that 95% - 98% of all reported
> accidents are caused by aggressive or distracted driver behavior by
> drivers who are presumably capable of driving safely.

False. That's from your misinterpreted study of two years ago, which
we proved incorrect.

> My premise is that "You
> have the Right to Drive Safely."

No, you have the duty to drive safely. You only have the right to
drive if you've qualified for a license.

> > > > Do you really advocate untrained, untried and untested persons be
> > > > allowed to fly.
>
> > > Let's imagine you were in an unpopulated region with an airplane. If
> > > you were unsure of your ability to fly it without crashing, would
> > > you? That's the question and the point which seems to elude you.
>
> > The question that seems to elude you is that, according to your
> > premise, if a person is innately endowed with the skills and judgment
> > to drive safely, why would that not extend to flying? Or riding a
> > motorcycle?
>
> You dodge my question by repeating your prior strawman. In the
> scenario above, if you were unsure of your ability to fly without
> crashing, would you try?

Immaterial to his question. Many do, as you should know.

> > You cannot add at this point in your argument qualifications of
> > "knowledge".
>
> Clearly, if someone IS Driving Safely, then they have the "knowledge"
> to Drive Safely, otherwise they wouldn't be driving safely.

Not necessarily. They could be driving safely only by accident and
have not yet exhibited their lack of capability until they hit the
tree.

> You have the Right to Drive Safely.

No, duty.

> There already existed laws against
> Endangerment to prosecute those who WILL NOT Drive Safely.

And licensing too! An integral part.