[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: The fallacy of DRLs



Craig Baltzer <cbaltzer@nsx.com> writes...
[attribution lost due to previous edit]

>> Seatbelt laws should not be in place, let alone enforced. The government has
>> no right and certainly no duty to attempt to protect people from themselves.
>> If your own stupidity endangers noone but yourself, that is your right.

>Unless I'm paying the tab for your stupidity in *almost* killing yourself 
>through higher taxes or medical insurance costs. If you don't wear seatbelts, 
>either don't get hurt or have the curtesy to the rest of us to fully exercise 
>your right of choice and kill yourself.

The taxpayers foot the hospital bill for those who injure themselves and end
up on a slab with an unpaid $10000 bill for medical services trying to save
them from their own suicidal tendencies.  They raise liability for drivers
unfortunate enough to hit them.

I think if a person refuses to engage an active safety device, or
deactivates a passive one, they waive all rights to collect in an accident.

>> Better driver education is a good idea. I took driver's ed, and it's crap.
>> (never taken defensive driving, though).

Defensive driving can be just watching 6 hours of tape of accidents, with an
answer session and someone says "Don't let this happen to you!"

>> I'd like to see the written test be *much* harder.

>Well, the written test is a place to start, but I'm more concerned about the 
>level of actual training. Current driver ed programs should be called 
>"non-taxing coast around the block courses". Some teach "paper" defensive 
>driving, but most don't teach any hands on defensive driving techniques. One 
>thing which I think would be valuable is something along the lines of the 2 
>day course put on by Skip Barber's Driving school teaching emergency 
>maneuvers, skid control and high performance driving techniques. Graduated 
>licenses may also be a good idea, and would help get the Interstates up to a 
>reasonable speed by keeping inexperienced drivers off them. Also mandatory 
>testing for the elderly after a certain age.

There is a place on the liscence for restrictinos.  Instead of the DMV
having the burden of proof to put a restriction on, the applicant should
have to pettition to get the restrictino removed.  There are lots of
codes that could go on: Cannot exceeg 45 mph, no freeway driving,
no nightime driving, power steering only, automatic transmission,
applicable prosthetic devices, etc.

If you want to drive at night, you have to take the test at night.
In my driving test, I never exceeded 45mph.  In fact, I was not on
a road with a limit above 25 for more than 100ft.  If you had
highway entrance and exit part of the test, a greater number fould fail,
and the roads would be safer, if not just populated by am increased
number of people without liscences.

How much is the Skip Barber school?  I would like to take a real driving
class, but I get the idea it would be prohibitively expensive.

Marc


References: