Alohacyberian wrote:
>
> "proffsl" wrote in message
> news:1190091474.146403.126060@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> > Driver Licensing serves no purpose for highway safety that laws
> > against endangerment did not already serve, and instead only serves
> > fiscal greed.
> >
>
> I don't agree, but, driver licensing is here to stay. Might as well get
> used to it. If it were fiscal greed, it would cost a couple hundred dollars
> to get a license. License information also helps solve a lot of crimes,
> offer identification and let others know that the people with the licenses
> had to provide some proof that they were somewhat competent to drive motor
> vehicles.
That article is a crock. Driver licensing does ensure that drivers have
completed written and road tests to demonstrate that they understand the
traffic laws in their state or province and that they are capable of
handling a motor vehicle safely. Enforcement of rules of the road is a way
to try to force compliance with the law, and liability suits are yet
another means of forcing compliance. Unfortuneatley, too many people think
only of themselves and refuse to accept that they could be caught in
violation or get into an accident.
Licensing standards have improved road safety. Graduated licensing for new
drivers has improved road safety. Medical suspensions for people with
physical and mental problems have improved road safety. Demerit points for
driving violations have improved road safety. To suggest that there is no
merit to driver licensing is just plain foolish.
I worked for a short time as a driver examiner and I can tell you how bad
some of those new drivers are, and how bad some of the senior drivers are.
Some people should not be allowed behind the wheel of a car. |