Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Driver's Licenses

InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2011 7:40:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
This is a topic I have been thinking about for awhile now. Are driver's licenses really needed in order to determine whether somebody is fit to be on the road? Despite having licenses I know there's many people who still can't drive and shouldn't be on the road. Perhaps another alternative could be retesting people every five years or so in order to renew their license although that may be inefficient. Lastly, should driving lessons with a qualified instructor be mandatory if licensing is abolished?
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2011 9:07:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/7/2011 7:40:18 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
This is a topic I have been thinking about for awhile now. Are driver's licenses really needed in order to determine whether somebody is fit to be on the road? Despite having licenses I know there's many people who still can't drive and shouldn't be on the road. Perhaps another alternative could be retesting people every five years or so in order to renew their license although that may be inefficient. Lastly, should driving lessons with a qualified instructor be mandatory if licensing is abolished?

Governmental licensing should be abolished. The government should also sell all of the roads.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2011 9:17:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/7/2011 7:40:18 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
This is a topic I have been thinking about for awhile now. Are driver's licenses really needed in order to determine whether somebody is fit to be on the road? Despite having licenses I know there's many people who still can't drive and shouldn't be on the road. Perhaps another alternative could be retesting people every five years or so in order to renew their license although that may be inefficient. Lastly, should driving lessons with a qualified instructor be mandatory if licensing is abolished?

What would be the sense in replacing a system that requires drivers to be competent with a system that requires drivers to try to be competent? It might be inefficient to retest all drivers, but it wouldn't be inefficient to retest those at risk for deteriorated skills, such as the elderly. Presumably, the only reason they aren't already retested is that they, reliable voters, would oppose retesting more than its (other?) more numerous benefacieries would support it. If a Republican came out in favor of retesting, it wouldn't be enough to make me support him, but it would probably be enough to make many elderly Republicans oppose him. Just one example of the inadequacy of voting booth democracy.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2011 9:18:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
^He's saying that the private owners of roads would have an incentive to make their roads safe, and thus impose the optimal level of testing/certification.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
juvanya
Posts: 613
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2011 10:16:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/7/2011 9:07:06 PM, mongoose wrote:
Governmental licensing should be abolished. The government should also sell all of the roads.
This.
Insurance companies, liability for accidents, and road owners will keep roads safe thru enforcement and incentive. If you dont practice driving or take tests, you could be banned from travelling or have to pay high premiums. If you do get in an accident, youll want to have insurance so you dont have to pay the liability out of pocket.
juvanya
Posts: 613
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2011 10:27:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/7/2011 9:17:10 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
What would be the sense in replacing a system that requires drivers to be competent with a system that requires drivers to try to be competent? It might be inefficient to retest all drivers, but it wouldn't be inefficient to retest those at risk for deteriorated skills, such as the elderly. Presumably, the only reason they aren't already retested is that they, reliable voters, would oppose retesting more than its (other?) more numerous benefacieries would support it. If a Republican came out in favor of retesting, it wouldn't be enough to make me support him, but it would probably be enough to make many elderly Republicans oppose him. Just one example of the inadequacy of voting booth democracy.
State licensure requirements are arbitrary, binary, and completely ineffective. There is also the concerns about how they are used for identification far more than to determine if someone is "capable" of driving.

Statists need to realize that crime and accidents are inevitable. We cant just lock the door to the road, having allowed and not allowed. People need to be able to drive, so the standard will be set ridiculously low. So why even have licenure?

Accidents are always going to happen. We just need to make things right for those who are injured. The incentives provided by insurance companies will ensure most people learn to drive well.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2011 10:40:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
EXCELLENT TOPIC. Now I can rant...

The answer is NO!
I will get my full licence on the 16th (I was slack and didn't get my P's until I was 20) and in the 3 years I've been driving, I've come to one conclusion:
Everyone is a fvcking idiot, no exceptions.
This is mind set you must have to survive on the road.
Clearly people who cannot drive slip through the cracks of the system (they must be huge cracks too) and they present a massive hazard.

As soon as you leave your driveway, your life is at risk.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2011 11:02:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/7/2011 10:27:50 PM, juvanya wrote:
Statists need to realize that crime and accidents are inevitable. We cant just lock the door to the road, having allowed and not allowed. People need to be able to drive, so the standard will be set ridiculously low. So why even have licenure?

Because low standards are better than none. The class "accidents" inevitably has real examples, but that doesn't mean every accident is inevitable or that accidents cannot be reduced. That people need to be able to drive is absurd, both in the absolute sense and in the more relevant sense of need relative to the need to not to be in an accident.

Accidents are always going to happen. We just need to make things right for those who are injured. The incentives provided by insurance companies will ensure most people learn to drive well.

When? Neither licensure nor any other "statist" policy in any way prevents such incentives. In fact, driving record is an inadequate predictor of accidents, which is why many factors of the variability of premiums have neither the intent nor the effect of incentivization.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2011 11:43:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/7/2011 10:40:51 PM, tvellalott wrote:
EXCELLENT TOPIC. Now I can rant...

The answer is NO!
I will get my full licence on the 16th (I was slack and didn't get my P's until I was 20) and in the 3 years I've been driving, I've come to one conclusion:
Everyone is a fvcking idiot, no exceptions.
This is mind set you must have to survive on the road.
Clearly people who cannot drive slip through the cracks of the system (they must be huge cracks too) and they present a massive hazard.

As soon as you leave your driveway, your life is at risk.

I don't even drive, but I know there's so much truth in this statement. lmao.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 1:25:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/7/2011 7:40:18 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
This is a topic I have been thinking about for awhile now. Are driver's licenses really needed in order to determine whether somebody is fit to be on the road? Despite having licenses I know there's many people who still can't drive and shouldn't be on the road. Perhaps another alternative could be retesting people every five years or so in order to renew their license although that may be inefficient. Lastly, should driving lessons with a qualified instructor be mandatory if licensing is abolished?

i'm confused.. how is retesting people every 5 years for their license an alternative to licensing?
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 1:30:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 1:25:11 AM, belle wrote:
At 2/7/2011 7:40:18 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
This is a topic I have been thinking about for awhile now. Are driver's licenses really needed in order to determine whether somebody is fit to be on the road? Despite having licenses I know there's many people who still can't drive and shouldn't be on the road. Perhaps another alternative could be retesting people every five years or so in order to renew their license although that may be inefficient. Lastly, should driving lessons with a qualified instructor be mandatory if licensing is abolished?

i'm confused.. how is retesting people every 5 years for their license an alternative to licensing?

No, the retesting thing is assuming licensing doesn't get abolished to keep dangerous drivers off the road...
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 1:51:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/7/2011 10:40:51 PM, tvellalott wrote:
EXCELLENT TOPIC. Now I can rant...

The answer is NO!
I will get my full licence on the 16th (I was slack and didn't get my P's until I was 20) and in the 3 years I've been driving, I've come to one conclusion:
Everyone is a fvcking idiot, no exceptions.
This is mind set you must have to survive on the road.
Clearly people who cannot drive slip through the cracks of the system (they must be huge cracks too) and they present a massive hazard.

As soon as you leave your driveway, your life is at risk.

I apologize for being one of those idiots. I can't help it.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 1:55:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/7/2011 9:07:06 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 2/7/2011 7:40:18 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
This is a topic I have been thinking about for awhile now. Are driver's licenses really needed in order to determine whether somebody is fit to be on the road? Despite having licenses I know there's many people who still can't drive and shouldn't be on the road. Perhaps another alternative could be retesting people every five years or so in order to renew their license although that may be inefficient. Lastly, should driving lessons with a qualified instructor be mandatory if licensing is abolished?

Governmental licensing should be abolished. The government should also sell all of the roads.
No, it shouldn't. Perhaps your libertarian ideology looks simply at things, but I'll gladly inform you that things aren't as simple as just selling them and then: problem solved. Also, two wrongs don't make a right.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 2:13:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 1:51:12 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
I apologize for being one of those idiots. I can't help it.

It's alright. I like to think I'm a good driver, but I'm not flawless. I destroyed my first car trying to drift it around the corner, which shattered me (I was unhurt, but my first car :(~~~). I certainly learnt my lesson.

Two things that I think make a good driver:
Courtesy.
Awareness.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 2:41:34 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 2:13:29 AM, tvellalott wrote:
At 2/8/2011 1:51:12 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
I apologize for being one of those idiots. I can't help it.

It's alright. I like to think I'm a good driver, but I'm not flawless. I destroyed my first car trying to drift it around the corner, which shattered me (I was unhurt, but my first car :(~~~). I certainly learnt my lesson.

Two things that I think make a good driver:
Courtesy.
Awareness.

I have mild ADD, I have no awareness. Also, speed limits are gay. I tend to ignore them.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 2:49:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 2:41:34 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 2/8/2011 2:13:29 AM, tvellalott wrote:
At 2/8/2011 1:51:12 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
I apologize for being one of those idiots. I can't help it.

It's alright. I like to think I'm a good driver, but I'm not flawless. I destroyed my first car trying to drift it around the corner, which shattered me (I was unhurt, but my first car :(~~~). I certainly learnt my lesson.

Two things that I think make a good driver:
Courtesy.
Awareness.

I have mild ADD, I have no awareness. Also, speed limits are gay. I tend to ignore them.

Oh, in that case...

FFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
juvanya
Posts: 613
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 2:59:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/7/2011 11:02:31 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
Because low standards are better than none.
uh...no. Low standards are pointless. They defeat the whole purpose .Why make people suffer thru some bullsh!t and pay a bunch of fees when 90% will pass anyway?

The class "accidents" inevitably has real examples, but that doesn't mean every accident is inevitable or that accidents cannot be reduced.
Accidents are inevitable unless you ban cars.

That people need to be able to drive is absurd, both in the absolute sense and in the more relevant sense of need relative to the need to not to be in an accident.
Live without a car and see where you get. I can speak from experience. Its doable in a city, but difficult in a suburb.

When? Neither licensure nor any other "statist" policy in any way prevents such incentives.
Sure it does. Why bother with incentives when the state is supposed to magically keep roads safe with its magical license policy.

In fact, driving record is an inadequate predictor of accidents, which is why many factors of the variability of premiums have neither the intent nor the effect of incentivization.
What the hell are you talking about not a predictor? Of course its a predictor. Someone who has never had an accident is clearly a good driver. The longer that continues, the better they are proven to be. Insurance companies can take this into account, along with classes taken and use it to adjust premiums so the best and safest drivers get lower premiums.

Perhaps I need to clarify that I mean accidents the driver in question caused. If some yipyap slams into you, thats only about 5% your fault for not being more defensive. The insurance company would probably not charge you much, if any, more after the accident. The causer on the other hand... This creates an incentive for everyone to drive safely. You dont want your premiums being jacked up.
Heathen
Posts: 183
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 11:25:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
People drive differently when they are being tested, you take a kid and put him in a car with someone that will be watchig his every move and scoring him, the kid is bound to drive differently. Take that same kid and put him behind the wheel with his friends in the car, the music blaring, and conversation going on (as is most likely to happen) and the same kid that passed his drivers test with 100% is now swerving down the road at 80 mph. We need a test that tests how people really drive. Dont let them know they are being tested.
"Once an object has been seen, it is impossible to put the mind back to the same condition it was in before it saw it." - Thomas Paine
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 1:42:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 11:25:44 AM, Heathen wrote:
People drive differently when they are being tested, you take a kid and put him in a car with someone that will be watchig his every move and scoring him, the kid is bound to drive differently. Take that same kid and put him behind the wheel with some cute girl in the car, the music blaring, and conversation going on (as is most likely to happen) and the same kid that passed his drivers test with 100% is now swerving down the road at 107 mph. We need a test that tests how people really drive. Dont let them know they are being tested.

I don't swerve, brah, I'm good at being a terrible driver.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 1:44:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 11:25:44 AM, Heathen wrote:
People drive differently when they are being tested, you take a kid and put him in a car with someone that will be watchig his every move and scoring him, the kid is bound to drive differently. Take that same kid and put him behind the wheel with his friends in the car, the music blaring, and conversation going on (as is most likely to happen) and the same kid that passed his drivers test with 100% is now swerving down the road at 80 mph. We need a test that tests how people really drive. Dont let them know they are being tested.

I'd say put in tracking equipment in their cars, like some car insurance companies already do. They just measure the speed of the car (and compare to the speed limit based on GPS location) as well as centripital force from turning.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 1:45:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 1:44:33 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/8/2011 11:25:44 AM, Heathen wrote:
People drive differently when they are being tested, you take a kid and put him in a car with someone that will be watchig his every move and scoring him, the kid is bound to drive differently. Take that same kid and put him behind the wheel with his friends in the car, the music blaring, and conversation going on (as is most likely to happen) and the same kid that passed his drivers test with 100% is now swerving down the road at 80 mph. We need a test that tests how people really drive. Dont let them know they are being tested.

I'd say put in tracking equipment in their cars, like some car insurance companies already do. They just measure the speed of the car (and compare to the speed limit based on GPS location) as well as centripital force from turning.

Wait, this poses an issue, in that many young kids don't have their own cars, they use their parents, and so the results can be skewed.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 2:25:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 1:45:28 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/8/2011 1:44:33 PM, OreEle wrote:
I'd say put in tracking equipment in their cars, like some car insurance companies already do. They just measure the speed of the car (and compare to the speed limit based on GPS location) as well as centripital force from turning.

Wait, this poses an issue, in that many young kids don't have their own cars, they use their parents, and so the results can be skewed.

Yeah, plus most of us aren't fascists.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 3:06:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 2:25:14 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 2/8/2011 1:45:28 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/8/2011 1:44:33 PM, OreEle wrote:
I'd say put in tracking equipment in their cars, like some car insurance companies already do. They just measure the speed of the car (and compare to the speed limit based on GPS location) as well as centripital force from turning.

Wait, this poses an issue, in that many young kids don't have their own cars, they use their parents, and so the results can be skewed.

Yeah, plus most of us aren't fascists.

slap it with the label "for scientific reseach."
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 3:18:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 2:59:12 AM, juvanya wrote:
At 2/7/2011 11:02:31 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
Because low standards are better than none.
uh...no. Low standards are pointless. They defeat the whole purpose .Why make people suffer thru some bullsh!t and pay a bunch of fees when 90% will pass anyway?

Because the 10% who won't pass would otherwise have a relatively high probability of making people suffer through much worse bullsh!t, like property damage, injury and death. Anyway, the important question isn't what proportion pass (indeed, the larger proportion the less of a burden the test is on public transportation and carpools). The important question is what proportion would otherwise be (greater) hazards to the road. That includes not only the proportion that fail, but also the proportion that are incentivized to learn how to drive (better) by the consequences of failing.

The class "accidents" inevitably has real examples, but that doesn't mean every accident is inevitable or that accidents cannot be reduced.
Accidents are inevitable unless you ban cars.

There's no need to qualify your original statement; I granted it. Accidents, the category, are in fact inevitable even if you do ban cars. But that's relevant only if we consider more accidents no worse than fewer accidents. It's not as if the 10% that didn't pass would otherwise substitute for the worst 10% that passed. Those who didn't pass would otherwise cause different, additional accidents, with greater frequency, and you've yet to offer a reason to assume otherwise.

That people need to be able to drive is absurd, both in the absolute sense and in the more relevant sense of need relative to the need to not to be in an accident.
Live without a car and see where you get. I can speak from experience. Its doable in a city, but difficult in a suburb.

You forgot to relate that difficulty to the difficulty of, say, recovering from dying in a car accident.

When? Neither licensure nor any other "statist" policy in any way prevents such incentives.
Sure it does. Why bother with incentives when the state is supposed to magically keep roads safe with its magical license policy.

Because such supposition is yours exclusively. The state is supposed to make roads a bit safer (the aforementioned 10%), but no one assumes roads are categorically safe as a consequence.

In fact, driving record is an inadequate predictor of accidents, which is why many factors of the variability of premiums have neither the intent nor the effect of incentivization.
What the hell are you talking about not a predictor? Of course its a predictor. Someone who has never had an accident is clearly a good driver. The longer that continues, the better they are proven to be. Insurance companies can take this into account, along with classes taken and use it to adjust premiums so the best and safest drivers get lower premiums.

I didn't say driving record isn't a predictor, I said it's not an adequate predictor. If it were an adequate predictor, it would be a confounding factor of the other predictors, some of which you mention, meaning actuaries would be fools to include them in the formulae.

Perhaps I need to clarify that I mean accidents the driver in question caused. If some yipyap slams into you, thats only about 5% your fault for not being more defensive. The insurance company would probably not charge you much, if any, more after the accident. The causer on the other hand... This creates an incentive for everyone to drive safely. You dont want your premiums being jacked up.

The threat of higher premiums is insufficient for the same reason the threat of injury or death is insufficient: it's made good on only in the unlikely event of an accident. The average person isn't an actuary, and tends to simply disregard small quantities such as the difference between the probability of an accident if he drives safely and that if he drives dangerously in a given instance (it's of course more dangerous to drive dangerously in some instances than in others, not to mention more beneficial, such as when one's late for work). Even if he were an actuary, he could scarcely relate the relevant apples and oranges (health, wealth, leisure, life...). A related problem is that of injury and death to those who aren't at fault. How is that to be quantified? Do you conceive the value of life and health, for example, as nothing more than the associated earning potential? If not, you must either admit that the "incentives" would be insufficient or admit that you are a statist, who wants courts or legislatures to make arbitrary judgments about the indebtedness of those who cause the human costs of accidents. Given that we are both "statists", the choice is rather between prevention and cure, and we all know their relative values. But in fact my position isn't statist at all; I would prefer roads to be owned by their users. If they're owned instead by a bourgeois democracy as they happen to be, that's unfortunate; if they're owned instead by a private dictatorship as most on this site would prefer, that's even less fortunate. But my position is quite simply that whoever owns the roads should institute licensure and, if the closest private sector analogies to roads are any indication, would in any case.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
juvanya
Posts: 613
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 5:32:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 11:25:44 AM, Heathen wrote:
We need a test that tests how people really drive. Dont let them know they are being tested.
No we dont.

At 2/8/2011 1:44:33 PM, OreEle wrote:
I'd say put in tracking equipment in their cars, like some car insurance companies already do. They just measure the speed of the car (and compare to the speed limit based on GPS location) as well as centripital force from turning.
GOGO SURVEILLANCE STATE!
juvanya
Posts: 613
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2011 9:53:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 3:18:54 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
Because the 10% who won't pass would otherwise have a relatively high probability of making people suffer through much worse bullsh!t, like property damage, injury and death.
[Citation needed]

Anyway, the important question isn't what proportion pass (indeed, the larger proportion the less of a burden the test is on public transportation and carpools). The important question is what proportion would otherwise be (greater) hazards to the road. That includes not only the proportion that fail, but also the proportion that are incentivized to learn how to drive (better) by the consequences of failing.
The important question is whether it is acceptable to restrict human rights. The next question is how a bunch of bureaucrats will determine the utilitarian standard of testing.

There's no need to qualify your original statement; I granted it. Accidents, the category, are in fact inevitable even if you do ban cars. But that's relevant only if we consider more accidents no worse than fewer accidents. It's not as if the 10% that didn't pass would otherwise substitute for the worst 10% that passed. Those who didn't pass would otherwise cause different, additional accidents, with greater frequency, and you've yet to offer a reason to assume otherwise.
Well, the standard is completely arbitrary. Regardless of what level of licensure there is, except for banning cars, there are always going to be accidents. The best we can do is allow a structure where you are liable for any damages you cause.

Drivers licenses have absolutely nothing to do with driver ability. If they did, you would just have a certificate that you passed, not an ID card. The reason this is not how it is done is because licensure is fundamentally unnecessary and is just a bunch of smoke and mirrors AND it is a scheme to force ID cards on the populace.

You forgot to relate that difficulty to the difficulty of, say, recovering from dying in a car accident.
Licensing clearly doesnt prevent that. If anything, licensing increases fatalities because drivers become arrogant and complacent. If your license expired or was suspended and you still had to drive, would you not drive extremely carefully?

Because such supposition is yours exclusively. The state is supposed to make roads a bit safer (the aforementioned 10%), but no one assumes roads are categorically safe as a consequence.
Supposed to. It never does. See above. Again, why not just ban cars so things can be 100% safer?

I didn't say driving record isn't a predictor, I said it's not an adequate predictor. If it were an adequate predictor, it would be a confounding factor of the other predictors, some of which you mention, meaning actuaries would be fools to include them in the formulae.
Of course its an adequate predictor. Its not 100%, but it is the biggest factor by far.

The threat of higher premiums is insufficient for the same reason the threat of injury or death is insufficient: it's made good on only in the unlikely event of an accident.
Again, nothing is perfect. It will provide a better and more just system than the current one. Financial liability is a much greater incentive than cages. People also have the incentive to drive more safely because it will decrease the likelihood of accidents and the reduce their premiums. "I want to pay less, so I will drive safer."

The average person isn't an actuary, and tends to simply disregard small quantities such as the difference between the probability of an accident if he drives safely and that if he drives dangerously in a given instance (it's of course more dangerous to drive dangerously in some instances than in others, not to mention more beneficial, such as when one's late for work).
I think the average person can create a mentality of driving safer because they want to save money. It will certainly work a better than "I passed this test, so I can drive however I want." Further, even without the monetary incentive, people will no be complacent as they are when they have a license. A license makes you feel that you are a good driver, and leads to more risktaking.

who wants courts or legislatures to make arbitrary judgments about the indebtedness of those who cause the human costs of accidents.
No, I want the tortfeasor and victim to negotiate a settlement for the damages caused, with the use of a third party arbitrator, if necessary.

Given that we are both "statists"
Except I am not a statist.

But my position is quite simply that whoever owns the roads should institute licensure
And they will find their roads unused. Only a monopoly on roads, backed by force, is able to institute this.

http://epautos.com...
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2011 2:43:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/8/2011 9:53:42 PM, juvanya wrote:
The important question is whether it is acceptable to restrict human rights. The next question is how a bunch of bureaucrats will determine the utilitarian standard of testing.

Why would you assume I'm one of the few who consider driving a human right? There's no one utilitarian standard of testing. Some are more utilitarian than others, but any standard that removes drivers from the road, even a random one, is utilitarian in the sense that safety and environmental concerns are infinitely more important than bourgeois convienence. Your implication that suburbanites' employment relies on their driver's licenses is akin to the Luddites' insistance that machines would put people out of work. When you conceive of the economy as static, you expect great calamity from every intervention. When you conceive of it properly, as dynamic, you expect adaptation.

Well, the standard is completely arbitrary. Regardless of what level of licensure there is, except for banning cars, there are always going to be accidents. The best we can do is allow a structure where you are liable for any damages you cause.

What if you're as dead as the other victims? You're free of liability, and you can't have been expected to include their lives in the supposed utilitarian calculus that led to your behavior.

Drivers licenses have absolutely nothing to do with driver ability. If they did, you would just have a certificate that you passed, not an ID card. The reason this is not how it is done is because licensure is fundamentally unnecessary and is just a bunch of smoke and mirrors AND it is a scheme to force ID cards on the populace.

An ID card can be checked against one's appearance, actualizing its potential to be a useful certificate instead of a worthless scrap of paper one might have borrowed from a friend or family member. It's also useful for when private institutions, including even the most ma-and-pa of banks, demand ID.

Licensing clearly doesnt prevent that. If anything, licensing increases fatalities because drivers become arrogant and complacent. If your license expired or was suspended and you still had to drive, would you not drive extremely carefully?

Yes, but that has nothing to do with any subconscious equation of a (valid) license with driving ability. It has to do with the fact that a minor traffic violation could make me liable for a major one.

Supposed to. It never does. See above. Again, why not just ban cars so things can be 100% safer?

That's a good idea, but even if it weren't, that wouldn't imply licensure is bad. A bad driver has no more reason to drive than a good driver and more reason not to.

Of course its an adequate predictor. Its not 100%, but it is the biggest factor by far.

Only because so much of it is determined not by accidents themselves but by things that, like failing the driver's test, are merely associated with accidents. Failing the driver's test, in turn, is a poor predictor of accidents primarily because it's such a good predictor of not driving. Anyway, your definition of "adequate" is odd. If people are dying in accidents, the means of preventing them are inadequate.

Again, nothing is perfect. It will provide a better and more just system than the current one. Financial liability is a much greater incentive than cages. People also have the incentive to drive more safely because it will decrease the likelihood of accidents and the reduce their premiums. "I want to pay less, so I will drive safer."

I'm not aware of a judicial system in which cages substitute for financial liability, only ones in which they supplement them. Again, you keep reiterating points I've already granted. Yes, a perfectly individually rational driver will drive safer in order to prevent a hike in premiums if their aversion to injury and death isn't sufficient. But that their aversion to injury, death, cages (as you mention) and the hike in premiums you keep forgetting already result is evidently insufficient suggests that they're not perfectly individually rational. One reason I mentioned, that the human brain is a poor computer of very small numbers (like the probability that driving slightly more dangerously in a given instance will result in an accident) and so prefers to ignore them. Another reason is that individual rationality doesn't make evolutionary sense. We're by nature loyal to a particular part of the individual: the reliable reproducer. Risk to our future selves (which the cumulative effect of higher premiums in particular is), who're naturally less likely to be alive and fertile, is comparatively unimportant. On a related note, higher premiums are of reduced importance to those who intend to stop driving in their event or be or continue to be wealthy, and of no importance to those who intend to stop driving anyway. So your argument reduces to your theory of justice, which, by requiring certainty, subjects people to great uncertainty.

I think the average person can create a mentality of driving safer because they want to save money. It will certainly work a better than "I passed this test, so I can drive however I want." Further, even without the monetary incentive, people will no be complacent as they are when they have a license. A license makes you feel that you are a good driver, and leads to more risktaking.

Spare me your dimestore psychoanalysis.

No, I want the tortfeasor and victim to negotiate a settlement for the damages caused, with the use of a third party arbitrator, if necessary.

But unless the tortfeasor risks a larger, jury- or judge-awarded sum should he fail to agree to a given settlement, he has no reason to; which is to say he no reason to negotiate in the first place, arbitrator or no.

And they will find their roads unused. Only a monopoly on roads, backed by force, is able to institute this.

You're saying that, if there were two paths between home and work or school, a shorter one that required a licence and a more circuitous one that didn't, you would condemn yourself indefinitely to the latter rather than initially sacrifice a half-day to prove you're minimally competent? Do you really think there'd be enough of you time-rich, principled daredevils out there to have an impact on the road market? Your homework for tonight is to learn the concept of monopolistic competition and why it's relevant. The question of whether there would be licensure is only slightly more difficult. It's precisely the question of whether the worst driver pays more in tolls than the difference between what all the other drivers combined would be willing to pay if he were removed and what they currently pay. Your opinion of the driving ability of the worst driver is evidently quite high.

http://epautos.com...

There's nothing in here against driver's licensure per se, but only an unevidenced conspiracy theory about the motivation behind the driver's licensure that happens to be. The author's anti-German rhetoric is a quaint reminder of a time when white people treated eachother like black people; however, he leaves out an important fact, which is that Benz' license was issued in the light not of the dangerousness of the vehicle, but of the pollution (noise, smell and, unknown at the time, air) eminating from its engine. And there's not a bank or, for that matter, a cop in the country who wouldn't accept the alternative that's issued to non-drivers upon demand. If the purpose is social control, the driver's license is rather superfluous, no?
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2011 5:20:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
There is no human right to behave irresponsibly in a way that endangers other people. Young people often lack the judgment required to know what speed is safe under what conditions, or they do not correctly compute the probabilities. They tend to believe they are invulnerable. Licensing is not a perfect solution, of course, but it helps. The person has to know the basic rules of the road and the basic driving skills. If 100% of applicants passed, that would mean that everyone was inspired to learn the basics and did so, not that the test was pointless.

I'd like to see driver's licenses with an RFID chip, so cars could be equipped to tell if the driver has a license. Then the car would refuse to start if you didn't have a license. The car would also say something really insulting as it refused to start.

The libertarian angle does have some merit, under special circumstances. Suppose you have a pilot's license. Even better, suppose you have a license to fly a 747 and have twenty years experience. So you want to rent a little Cessna for a weekend. You just show your credentials and the guy sends you are on your way, right? Wrong?. Not a chance. You cannot rent a plane without personally demonstrating your skills to the rental company. They will want to see you do a stall sequence in that particular plane, and do everything else of importance -- like land, for example. Once qualified with the company, then you are good to go after that, but only with that company. It's not much of an exaggeration to say that the pilot's license adds little safety to the transaction, although it is required, of course.

I think having a license to fly a 747 is unnecessary, because no one who owns a 747 will let you near his plane without extreme certainty that you are functionally qualified.

Having a driver's license is a minimal standard for safety, and it facilitates renting and borrowing cars without taking a check ride. Incidentally, many states require that a driver be retested periodically after a ce3rtain age. Good idea.