shakran

I agree completely. But if I'm dead, they can pay all they want and it doesn't help me any. I'm still dead, and I have the right not to be worried about that happening, don't I?

But you see, stopping up the toilet is annoying, but not life threatening (um, no juvenile comments here everyone ) Screwing up with a gun is life threatening. Screwing up with a car is life threatening. At the very least they should both be licensed, and in order to get a license you should have to prove a very high level of competence in their use. As it is, neither guns nor cars are licensed well enough. Guns is for another thread, but cars -- there are far too many drivers out there who are absolutely horrible behind the wheel. That's the kind of thing that a good license and testing program should largely weed out.

But to make driving a RIGHT implies that 1) anyone can drive whether they've learned how to do it properly or not, and 2) that everyone must be given a license until they demonstrate through some screw up behind the wheel that they shouldn't have one. After all, blind people have the right to free speech. If driving were a right we'd have to give blind people licenses until they hit someone. If it were a right, you could legally drive around without insurance - it's my RIGHT to drive, therefore I shouldn't have to do anything special to drive.

By calling driving a universal PRIVILEGE, we eliminate these problems. Sure, everyone can drive provided they meet the licensing requirements. And if they at some point commit a violation heinous enough, they lose that privilege.

Given. the farmers markets are the victims of a right-to-drive mentality


So should my 8 year old be allowed to drive? Your 95 year old grandma who'd nearly blind and completely deaf?

So describe to us the driving system you would like to see -- so far it seems that you're advocating letting people, including children, drive with no training and no insurance, and we'll sit back and see what happens. And if they hit something, THEN we issue them some sort of credential that says they're not allowed to drive, and meanwhile whoever they hit is hurt, possibly dead, and has lost his car. Does that really seem fair?

That is referring to freedom from governmental tyranny, not plunking 200 million or so untrained people at the controls of 2 ton weapons that can top 100mph. At what point must we say that we must willingly give up some liberties in order to insure the safety of ourselves and others? After all, if we were to be completely and utterly free to do whatever we wanted to do, then murder would be legal. I WANT to kill you, I should therefore be ALLOWED to kill you. Seem silly? Well, perhaps, but then if you give cars to a bunch of people who don't know how to drive, you're essentially enacting government-authorized slaughter.

Yeah, what a jackass


Not in this country it doesn't. It represents that you managed to parallel park without hitting the cones.. . much. I'm frankly for stricter requirements to earn the privilege of driving.