You have the Right to Drive

On Mar 31, 10:31 pm, proffsl > wrote:
> 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?

Spurious conclusion; assumes virtually everyone has a safe driver to
emulate.

> > 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.

Those who possess or teach the most simple of physical skills know you
do not absorb them by merely reading or watching.

Virtually everything takes practice to develop any proficiency.

> > > 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.

They can "learn" to drive safely.

And compulsory driver training is much younger than the driving
instruction industry. What would you suppose supported that industry
in the interim?

People too stupid to know they could drive safely without instruction?

> > > 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?

Yes, you said that. Repeating it doesn't make it the primary
qualification.

> > > 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.

And is still absent an answer, which support of your premise obviously
requires.

People do make honest mistakes, and those sometimes lead to crashes.
Driving safely is not as simple as you think it is, and no driver is
perfect, no matter how much training or experience they have.

Driving "safely" must include not just physical protection of others
from one's driving errors, but protecting those who might be
catastrophically affected by those errors. The premise of considering
anyone "error or accident proof" is as stupid as you are.

So, how are insurers to determine insurability? By height and reach?

> > > > 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-and-safety-guideline/what-causes...
>
> "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/personal_injury/car/statistics.html

The conclusions of your sources conflict. And they refute your
premise that every prospective driver has a competent driver from
which to learn to drive safely.

> > > > > > 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."

You don't even know your own ****ing premise, dumbass. It is:
"You have the right to drive safely because you already know how to
drive safely because you have had an excellent and safe example to
observe and from which to learn, and you have learned, without
exception".

It goes on to include: "There is no benefit to driving performance
standards beyond the prospective driver's height and reach, and the
state should not set them, nor examine or certify them".

It goes on, but it doesn't get any better.

> > > 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.

And...?

> > > > 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?

What I would do is irrelevant. The unanswered question was: if anyone
can drive safely, why does that not extend to flying an airplane?
Which you have answered, sort of, by stating people can learn to drive
safely by observation alone.

Congratulations on finally providing one answer, wrong though it may
be.

> > > 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".

I think "You have the Right to Drive" indicates "each and every
person" who can read what you have written, doesn't it, Sparky?

> > 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.

Spurious conclusion; circular reasoning around false premise.
Proficiency and/or competence can't be measured by the moment.*

> > 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.

*Yeah, you said that. You seem convinced repeating spurious
conclusions adds them weight. And you're not afraid to combine them
either.

> 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.

You're a moron, consider it a service.

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

Snipping doesn't support your argument.

> 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.

So, what's up with your license? It sounds mostly like Mumsy won't
let you drive because you don't have one because you're not old
enough.
-----

- 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:
> > > On Mar 25, 1:08 pm, Ed Pirrero > wrote:

Man, don't you guys know that arguing with this particular
intentionally obtuse anonymous troll is about as productive as
flinging **** back at the chimpanzees at the zoo? That, and it isn't
quite as much fun ...
--
C.R. Krieger

On Apr 1, 2:18 am, gpsman > wrote:
> On Mar 31, 10:31 pm, proffsl > wrote:
> > 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?
>
> Spurious conclusion; assumes virtually everyone has a safe driver
> to emulate.

Most parents are probably among the safer drivers. And, even for
those who aren't, children can learn from negative examples as well.


> > > 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.
>
> Those who possess or teach the most simple of physical skills
> know you do not absorb them by merely reading or watching.

State sanctioned teachers ARE NOT the only qualified teachers of
skills, and parents are actually in the best position to judge
attitude. To argue otherwise is merely the authoritarian
argumentation.


> Virtually everything takes practice to develop any proficiency.

Driving safely isn't that difficult a task, and is one more of
attitude rather than a skill. Sometimes, "proficiency" actually gives
rise to a bad attitude, where those who use to drive safely develop a
bad attitude upon developing "proficiency" and begin to drive
unsafely. I've personally ridden with a number of just such people.
And, even if you subjected them to a state sanctioned test, their test
results would be MAGNIFICANT, yet as soon as they return to the
highway, back comes that cocky bad attitude. They simply WILL NOT
drive safely. Again, Driver Licensing does nothing for highway safety
that laws against Endangerment didn't already serve. Stiff prosecution
for Endangerment will prompt them to develope a GOOD attitude, or land
them in Jail.


> > > > 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.
>
> They can "learn" to drive safely.

As I point out above, safe driving is more of an attitude than of a
skill. For those who do not already have the good attitude, the best
method of learning to drive safely for them is to be stiffly
prosecuted for exhibiting the BAD Attitudes on the highways.


> And compulsory driver training is much younger than the driving
> instruction industry. What would you suppose supported that industry
> in the interim?

The same thing that gives rise to any useless state promoted industry.
People looking to make a buck, and don't care that they are performing
a useless task. Often, those are the very people who most strongly
support their useless task.


> > > > 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?
>
> Yes, you said that. Repeating it doesn't make it the primary
> qualification.

And, repeatedly ignoring my questions doesn't provide an answer. Why
do those "tested" to be capable of operating an automobile safely
still not do so? Could it be that driving safely is more of an
attitude than of a skill, and that those being tested often leave
their attitudes outside on the steps of the state sanctioned testing
facility? I do not believe I can repeat this enough: Driver Licensing
does nothing for highway safety that laws against Endangerment didn't
already serve. Stiff prosecution for Endangerment will best prompt
them to develope a GOOD attitude, or land them in Jail.


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

Your question had nothing to do with highway safety. It more reminded
me of a lyric in the song "Another Brick in the Wall" by Pink Floyd:
"If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding! How can you
have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?!".


> People do make honest mistakes, and those sometimes lead to
> crashes. Driving safely is not as simple as you think it is,

The ability to drive safely is simple enough that it consists far more
of an attitude than it does of any motor or textbook skills. And, NO
state sanctioned testing facility is able to assure those being tested
didn't just leave their attitudes outside on the steps. For those who
did, there is really only one way to judge and teach. Stiff
prosecution or exhibiting BAD driving attitudes. Driver Licensing
does nothing for highway safety that laws against Endangerment didn't
already serve.


> and no driver is perfect, no matter how much training or experience
> they have.

Well, that's easy enough to say, considering that NOBODY IS PERFECT.
But, it still does not refute the core of my argument.


> Driving "safely" must include not just physical protection of others
> from one's driving errors, but protecting those who might be
> catastrophically affected by those errors.

Driving safely includes ONLY the physical avoidance of causing harm.
Causing Harm, regardless if compensated, IS NOT Safe Driving.


> The premise of considering anyone "error or accident proof"
> is as stupid as you are.

Strawmen followed by personal attacks do not prove your point.


> So, how are insurers to determine insurability? By height and reach?

We are debating Safe Driving, NOT the functions and procedures of
Insurance companies.


> > > > > 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-and-safety-guideline/what-causes...
>
> > "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/personal_injury/car/statistics.html
>
> The conclusions of your sources conflict.

Not really. As I have pointed out above, Driving Safely is more of an
attitude than of a skill. Allowing one's self to become Agressive or
Destracted is a matter of attitude. Both of these sources, even though
worded differently, are placing the fault more on driver BEHAVIOR (bad
attitude) rather than any testable skill.


> And they refute your premise that every prospective driver has a competent
> driver from which to learn to drive safely.

Yet another strawman. I said children learn from parents. I didn't
say if those parents taught by positive or negative examples. My
mother, for example, had a bad habit of looking at the scenery while
driving, and when she'd look left, she'd drift left, and when she'd
look right, she'd drift right. I observed this from a very young age,
and even though she never had an accident in doing so, I still learned
from it to keep my eyes on the road.


> > > > > > > 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."
>
> You don't even know your own ****ing premise, dumbass.

Might I suggest you give yourself a cleansing 12 gauge enema,
dumb****? I have a number of premises, and one of them most
definately is that "You have the Right to Drive Safely".


> It is:"You have the right to drive safely because you already know
> how to drive safely because you have had an excellent and safe
> example to observe and from which to learn, and you have learned,
> without exception".
>
> It goes on to include: "There is no benefit to driving performance
> standards beyond the prospective driver's height and reach, and the
> state should not set them, nor examine or certify them".

You have the gaul to call me a "dumb****", when you're so damn ****ing
stupid you can't even distinguish between your own strawman
fabrications and what I have NEVER said (regardless that you placed
your strawman fabrications in quotes as if I had).



> It goes on, but it doesn't get any better.

I'm sure there is no end to the number of strawman you're willing to
prop up and put quotation marks around. I'm sure of that.


> > > > 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.
>
> And...?

Is it not obvious to your limited powers of comprehension? Driver
Licensing does nothing for highway safety that laws against
Endangerment didn't already serve. It is the stiff prosecution of
those who exhibit Bad Attitudes (such as "I WILL Drive, regardless
that I WILL NOT Drive Safely") that best promotes Good Attitudes, or
lands one in jail.

On Apr 1, 1:18*pm, Motorhead Lawyer > wrote:
> 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:
> > > > On Mar 25, 1:08 pm, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>
> Man, don't you guys know that arguing with this particular
> intentionally obtuse anonymous troll is about as productive as
> flinging **** back at the chimpanzees at the zoo? *That, and it isn't
> quite as much fun ...

Why does it disturb you that others choose to (sort of) debate this
issue with me? If your authortarian position were so strong, debate
of it wouldn't be so disturbing to you.

proffsl wrote:

> Most parents are probably among the safer drivers. And, even for
> those who aren't, children can learn from negative examples as well.

They learn negative behaviors from that. That is not good.

> State sanctioned teachers ARE NOT the only qualified teachers of
> skills, and parents are actually in the best position to judge
> attitude. To argue otherwise is merely the authoritarian
> argumentation.

No one would argue against parents teaching children any driving
skills; what's being argued against is the passive sort of
observational learning you're advocating. Before we as a society can
allow these children to actually drive, we deem it appropriate to test
them and measure them.

> And, repeatedly ignoring my questions doesn't provide an answer. Why
> do those "tested" to be capable of operating an automobile safely
> still not do so?

Many reasons. Different reasons on different occasions. That's why we
have licensing and a system of laws under which one can lose that
license in response to unsafe driving.

> I do not believe I can repeat this enough:

Believe it.

> Driver Licensing
> does nothing for highway safety that laws against Endangerment didn't
> already serve.

Immaterial to the constitutionality of licensing. And incorrect as
well, as we showed last year.

> Stiff prosecution for Endangerment will best prompt
> them to develope a GOOD attitude, or land them in Jail.

That's worked so well, after all, in all other areas, hasn't it. I
mean, burglary, rape, murder, those are all a thing of the past.

> > > > How is a driver to be insured with no demonstration of their
> > > > insurability?
> >
> > > Yet another question an authortarian moron would ask.
> >
> > And is still absent an answer,
>
> Your question had nothing to do with highway safety. It more reminded
> me of a lyric in the song "Another Brick in the Wall" by Pink Floyd:
> "If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding! How can you
> have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?!".

Again you argue for the financial ruin of millions with no recourse.
This is unacceptable and unconstitutional as we have empowered
ourselves through our government to provide for our general welfare
and public safety.

> Well, that's easy enough to say, considering that NOBODY IS PERFECT.
> But, it still does not refute the core of my argument.

Actually the core of your argument is self-refuting and is based on
illogic, false premises and incorrect readings of citations.

There is no core of your argument that stands.

> > The premise of considering anyone "error or accident proof"
> > is as stupid as you are.
>
> Strawmen followed by personal attacks do not prove your point.

You finally learned that, he?

> > So, how are insurers to determine insurability? By height and reach?
>
> We are debating Safe Driving, NOT the functions and procedures of
> Insurance companies.

All part and parcel of the whole. Cannot be excluded.

> I said children learn from parents. I didn't
> say if those parents taught by positive or negative examples. My
> mother, for example, had a bad habit of looking at the scenery while
> driving, and when she'd look left, she'd drift left, and when she'd
> look right, she'd drift right. I observed this from a very young age,
> and even though she never had an accident in doing so, I still learned
> from it to keep my eyes on the road.

And others might learn from it that it's not unsafe to do so since she
never had a problem. Bad example.

> Might I suggest you give yourself a cleansing 12 gauge enema,
> dumb****? I have a number of premises, and one of them most
> definately is that "You have the Right to Drive Safely".

More personal abuse. By the way, that premise is false. You do not
have a right to drive safely. You have a duty to dive safely. You have
a right to drive if you have a license.

> > > > > 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.
> >
> > And...?
>
> Is it not obvious to your limited powers of comprehension? Driver
> Licensing does nothing for highway safety that laws against
> Endangerment didn't already serve.

Wrong. Laws against endangerment cannot determine before you cause the
harm whether to are capable of driving. License testing can. This is
why your argument fails. Your position is that everyone has the right
to drive up to and until the point where they run over my child.
That's incorrect, illegal and unconstitutional. Your position has been
fully tested and found invalid by every court that's considered it.

On Apr 2, 9:28*am, proffsl > wrote:
> On Apr 1, 1:18*pm, Motorhead Lawyer > wrote:
>
> > 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:
> > > > > On Mar 25, 1:08 pm, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>
> > Man, don't you guys know that arguing with this particular
> > intentionally obtuse anonymous troll is about as productive as
> > flinging **** back at the chimpanzees at the zoo? *That, and it isn't
> > quite as much fun ...
>
> Why does it disturb you that others choose to (sort of) debate this
> issue with me? *If your authortarian position were so strong, debate
> of it wouldn't be so disturbing to you.

You need to look up the definition of the word "debate".

Then look up the definition of the word "ridicule".

LOL.

E.P.

On Apr 2, 9:26*am, proffsl > wrote:
>
>
> As I point out above, safe driving is more of an attitude than of a
> skill. *

You have no ****ing clue what you are talking about.

But we knew that already.

E.P.