Can't do nothing no more

[Core Imposter]

That's a pretty hard line there GhostWriter16. I'm on your side about some things, but I'm not sure I can agree here. I think if someone is blind, let's say, that it's not oppressive to pull them over and force them to stop driving. A blind person ( or a blind drunk person ) driving is the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" limitation. It's obscenely, directly dangerous and not at all comparable to something like second hand smoke or hate speech.

Now, if you're saying that people should be allowed to drive by default but sometimes lose that right for X, Y, or Z reason then you might be on to something interesting. Changing it from a license based white list to a black list might make sense, but I do think there are circumstances where not letting someone drive is reasonable.

You can pretend its about public safety but you know that the traffic laws as written and practiced in the US are a money racket. Its a protection scheme just like the mob runs where they can.

Traffic laws are profit centers for government on the local level. It subsidizes the maintenance of armed forces and the system of juriprudence that exists to exert control over the public, not to serve it.

It is an institution designed to protect against insurrection by those who'd like a slice of liberty.

As global banksters are becoming more and more efficient in sucking up the life blood of the people we can see that additional measures are being put into place such as the massive purchases of arms by "Homeland Security" and the training of armed forces in minor nations such as Iraq and Afganistan to serve in the future police state.

All the elements are being put into place for the final subjection of humanity to the rule of the elite. Who are probably not lizard people from outer space but its worth noting that if aliens did come to Earth with the intent of taking over the place, they would do it in exactly the same fashion as is now playing out.

 

[Antilogic]

Now, if you're saying that people should be allowed to drive by default but sometimes lose that right for X, Y, or Z reason then you might be on to something interesting. Changing it from a license based white list to a black list might make sense, but I do think there are circumstances where not letting someone drive is reasonable.

The licensing system ensures that all drivers of massive vehicles that can kill people when used recklessly receive appropriate training for their use, whether from another licensed driver or some sort of driving instruction school.

 

[Borachio]

Now, if you're saying that people should be allowed to drive by default but sometimes lose that right for X, Y, or Z reason then you might be on to something interesting. Changing it from a license based white list to a black list might make sense, but I do think there are circumstances where not letting someone drive is reasonable.

If I understand you correctly, it doesn't make any sense at all.

Licencing people to drive makes sense. And the better the driving test the better the result. India has a notably lax attitude towards driving, and its road traffic accident statistics demonstrate why this is an appalling idea.

Passing a driving test is, or has been, also a significant rite of passage for very many people.

 

[Core Imposter]

You read about the many fine people who have served in the military and the problems they have adjusting to civilian life. Some even commit suicide.

Its understandable and of course, whatever qualms most of them would have about serving as storm troopers in the service of the Dark Lords to come will be assuaged by the purpose and stature of serving again. Beats flipping burgers.

 

[AlpsStranger]

The licensing system ensures that all drivers of massive vehicles that can kill people when used recklessly receive appropriate training for their use, whether from another licensed driver or some sort of driving instruction school.

And that's an excellent argument for the current system. I was just saying that the blacklist system might have advantages, not that it was better.

 

[Core Imposter]

And that's an excellent argument for the current system. I was just saying that the blacklist system might have advantages, not that it was better.

System works so well that over 30,000 people die in traffic accidents in the US every year! Yeah boy!

Edit: Or 40,000+, depending on sourcing.

 

[AlpsStranger]

You're smarter than that MisterCooper. That's a tiny number of people in a country this size.

 

[Antilogic]

...and it includes people who were not licensed to operate the vehicles they were driving, intoxicated drivers (which is a big no-no but people do it anyway for the lulz), etc.

 

[Borachio]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

Fatal road accidents per 100,000 per year
Denmark 3.1
RoIreland 3.51
UK 3.59
Germany 4.5
France 5.5
India 11.1
USA 12.3

Oh look, I was wrong. Again.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Wait, we have that many more road deaths?

Well, I guess we do use a lot less mass transit/walking than those countries.

I'd like to see a version of that table adjusted for the amount of time each person spends driving/riding a privately owned vehicle.

 

[Core Imposter]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

Fatal road accidents per 100,000 per year
Denmark 3.1
RoIreland 3.51
UK 3.59
Germany 4.5
France 5.5
India 11.1
USA 12.3

Oh look, I was wrong. Again.

Obviously we are not spending enough taxpayer money to stem the tide of evil doers.

 

[AlpsStranger]

I bet it all started with Pole Position.

 

[Antilogic]

Usa #1!

EDIT: I've edited this post twice and it won't let me write USA in all caps for that first sentence. Weird.

 

[Borachio]

Wait, we have that many more road deaths?

Well, I guess we do use a lot less mass transit/walking than those countries.

I'd like to see a version of that table adjusted for the amount of time each person spends driving/riding a privately owned vehicle.

That's a good point. Which makes the Indian figure even more alarming.

On the other hand, those are figures for road traffic accidents. How many of the Indian deaths are of pedestrians being knocked down?

Once I start to think even moderately carefully about anything, it never turns out to be simple.

 

[History_Buff]

You can pretend its about public safety but you know that the traffic laws as written and practiced in the US are a money racket. Its a protection scheme just like the mob runs where they can.

In a completely serious point, this is demonstrably false. There are a series of scientific and engineering concerns that go into determining nominal speed limits, which tend to be speed limits that are actually used.

 

[AlpsStranger]

That said, speed traps are more or less a racket.

I once saw a cardboard sign that spelled out "Speed Trap Ahead" in those large, thumb sized Christmas lights. Now that's a community working together.

 

[Borachio]

Isn't there any publicly available information on the amounts of money speed traps make in the US?

There is in the UK. And everything seems to show that it isn't a racket, and actually saves lives.

 

[Core Imposter]

Isn't there any publicly available information on the amounts of money speed traps make in the US?

There is in the UK. And everything seems to show that it isn't a racket, and actually saves lives.

Try appearencescanbedeceiving.com

 

[GhostWriter16]

That's a pretty hard line there GhostWriter16. I'm on your side about some things, but I'm not sure I can agree here. I think if someone is blind, let's say, that it's not oppressive to pull them over and force them to stop driving. A blind person ( or a blind drunk person ) driving is the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" limitation. It's obscenely, directly dangerous and not at all comparable to something like second hand smoke or hate speech.

Now, if you're saying that people should be allowed to drive by default but sometimes lose that right for X, Y, or Z reason then you might be on to something interesting. Changing it from a license based white list to a black list might make sense, but I do think there are circumstances where not letting someone drive is reasonable.

Ultimately, both of these questions (Fire in a crowded theater and blind people on the road) are settled by private property rights. When the people, and not the government, own the property, people can regulate what other people are allowed to do on property they open to the public. The owner of the theater, not the government, has the right to ban people from shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. If roads were privately owned, as they should be, the road owners could similarly regulate things like this.

In the world we currently live in, yes, I think banning blind people from driving makes sense, however, that's not the same thing as saying the government should be able to arbitrarily tell someone they aren't allowed to drive. They need to be required to demonstrate why they are denying you the right to drive. Being blind is a reasonable reason why you should not be allowed to drive. That's not the same thing as saying you should need permission from Uncle Sam to drive even if you have not proven your inability to do so.

 

[Old Hippy]

If roads were privately owned, as they should be, the road owners could similarly regulate things like this.

In the world we currently live in, yes, I think banning blind people from driving makes sense, however, that's not the same thing as saying the government should be able to arbitrarily tell someone they aren't allowed to drive. They need to be required to demonstrate why they are denying you the right to drive. Being blind is a reasonable reason why you should not be allowed to drive. That's not the same thing as saying you should need permission from Uncle Sam to drive even if you have not proven your inability to do so.

So in a perfect world nothing will change.... I just ask my uncle bob who owns the roads, instead of Uncle Sam who owns the roads... maybe Bob will charge me for a bit of plastic allowing me to drive...