You have the Right to Drive

Read about it at:

http://proffsl.110mb.com/driving.php

and

http://proffsl.110mb.com/driver_licensing.php

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.

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.

E.P.

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.

In a perfect world, licensing is about safety. But until teenagers get
the equivalent of the AARP lobbying on their behalf, or the auto
industry pressuring lawmakers to maximize their customer base, its about
gov't officials kissing political contributors' posteriors.

--
Paul Hovnanian
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Procrastinators: The leaders for tomorrow.

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

On Mar 7, 10:53*am, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." > wrote:
> 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.
>
> In a perfect world, licensing is about safety. But until teenagers get
> the equivalent of the AARP lobbying on their behalf, or the auto
> industry pressuring lawmakers to maximize their customer base, its about
> gov't officials kissing political contributors' posteriors.

Except for the inconvenient fact that teens seem to live longer in
graduated-licensing states.

It really does make some sense. Driving, like a great number of
tasks, gets better with experience. So, you limit the inexperienced
to times of day when they will have the least adverse conditions. And
limit the passengers to limit the carnage. It makes logical sense on
it's face, and it seem to work statistically as well. Now, if teens
*did* have an AARP-alike, the roads would be slightly less safe. If
we could only get rid of AARP to keep some of those older folks off
the roads, we'd be slightly more safe again.

Then, bring on the real testing!

Yeah, I *am* dreaming.

E.P.

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?

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.

The age based prohibitions are really unfair to responsible teenagers
IMO. Of course this is a nation that thinks it's ok for a teenager to die
or get maimed in some foreign war for some old man's quest in global
politics but won't let him drink a beer. So I guess driving is one of the
smaller injustices.

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.

If it were up to me, we'd have a system like the Germans have.

> The age based prohibitions are really unfair to responsible teenagers
> IMO.

No matter WHAT the thing is being restricted, some folks on the
prohibited side of the line get screwed. I started my road-going when
I was 7. On a bicycle. At 10, I was moving tractors and implements
along county roads from field to field. At 14, I was driving dual-
axle no-synchro grain trucks from the fields to the elevators.
Turning 16 and getting my driver's license was nothing at the time -
I'll already been responsible for literally $100k+ of farm equipment
on the highways, and the beater Volvo wagon my dad gave me to get back
and forth was nothing in comparison.

But if I had never driven on the roads before, I could see how there
might have been trouble.

Still, in today's world, in urban areas, I see mostly benefits, and
few downsides, to graduated licensing. Hell, they do it for adults
and motorcycles in this state, so teens and cars is no big deal, IMO.

E.P.

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.

E.P.