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

Re: driver's ed. is a joke



In article <3uh3rv$p9p@khis_news.khis.kodak.com>,
Robert King <king@khis.com> wrote:
}In article 3ih@wanda.pond.com, russotto@wanda.pond.com () writes:
}>In article <3ubiag$htd@khis_news.khis.kodak.com>,
}>Robert King <king@khis.com> wrote:
}>}In article ko0@wanda.pond.com, russotto@wanda.pond.com () writes:
}>}>In article <3u9mgf$11u@ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>,
}>}>J. Hale  <lily1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
}>}>}How can we even think of raising the speed limits to a reasonable level
}>}>}with the current lack of skill displayed by most drivers on the road
}>}>}today?
}>
}>}>Let Darwin handle the driver training.
}>
}>}   I suspect that will happen to some extent, but often its not just the
}>}driver that is involved in the accident.  What if its you, your spouse,
}>}or your children?  I lost two of my best friends to drunk drivers.  They
}>
}>Drunk driving is a somewhat different situation.  The accidents
}>involving other people there tend to be the kind where the drunk gets onto the 
}>wrong side of the yellow line.  Accidents truly due to excessive speed
}>tend to be the kind involving one car and one solid object, such as a
}>Jersey barrier or a tree.
}
}   Ah, but we are limiting the discussion to one, now two very specific
}kinds of accidents.  By saying "Let Darwin handle the driver training," the
}author is implying that the unskilled drivers will kill themselves off
}REGARDLESS of the way its done.  The fact is, they will take innocents
}with them in many cases.  I included my experience to illustrate my point,
}not to support it.

Then I guess the rest of you had better take driver training courses
so you can avoid us unskilled drivers as we struggle with Darwin's course.

}>}   Why is it that most people think this way?  Sure driving your car is a
}>}right.  BUT driving your car on public roads is not!  Those roads arn't
}>}yours and you don't own them, the PUBLIC does.

}>"the PUBLIC" is a meaningless abstraction.
}
}   Why is it meaningless?

More precisely, the idea of that abstraction owning anything is
meaningless--  it is a concrete entity which owns the roads, the government.

}>  The goverment owns the
}>roads-- and the sidewalks.

}   True in most cases.
}
}>  IMO, the government is unlike any owner in
}>that they shouldn't get to put any arbitrary restriction on what they
}>own.
}
}   You're certanly welcome to your own opinion, but do you really want to
}restrict the government's rights of ownership because you don't like their restrictions?

No, I want to restrict them because it is the government -- but that's
a political issue which belongs elsewhere.

}>   Or do you want a dress code for the sidewalk?
}
}   A dress code dpesn't make the sidewalks unsafe.  I think a more
}appropriate question would have been "Or do you want to NASCAR off
}the sidewalk."  (A ridiculous question on the opposite extreme to be
}sure, but no less appropriate.)

That wouldn't illustrate MY point.  If the government has unrestricted
ownership rights, it can require us to wear suit and tie when on the
roads or on the sidewalk.  But again, that belongs elsewhere.

}>}   Then include experience in the driver training program!  When I
}>
}>Can't.  The actual experience dealing with other drivers can only be
}>learned on the road.
}
}   No.  You can learn certain aspects of controlling your car in a
}class and on a track.  You can't learn it all, but you can learn a
}hell of a lot.

You can't learn experience _dealing with other drivers_ there.
-- 
Matthew T. Russotto      russotto@pond.com     russotto@his.com
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."