Subject: Re: driver's ed. is a joke

From: [email-masked]
Date: 20 Jul 1995 14:07:45 -0400

In article <[email-masked]>,
Robert King <[email-masked]> wrote:
}In article [email-masked], [email-masked] () writes:
}>In article <[email-masked]>,
}>Robert King <[email-masked]> wrote:
}>}In article [email-masked], [email-masked] () writes:
}>}>In article <[email-masked]>,
}>}>J. Hale  <[email-masked]> 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      [email-masked]     [email-masked]
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."

---

From: [email-masked] (Hi Ho Silver)
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 1995 01:27:42 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] writes:
$   Granted, the course wasn't nearly as thorough as Bondurant's, but I gained
$a WEALTH of knowledge about driving my car,and I feel I'm a better driver now
$because of it.

   So long as you use this knowledge to drive better, and not to cut
more corners on safety because you can now drive more "on the edge" with
the same safety level as before, you _are_ a better driver.

   Advanced driver training really ought to be basic driver training.
To get a license in Ontario, you basically have to be warm-blooded.
It ought to take much more training and a more thorough exam.

$   Yep.  Its always better to avoid the situation.  You can learn this in
$a driving school also.  Like if you think someone's going to turn, but isn't
$using his signals (now that NEVER happens, does it,) you can get an idea of
$what he's going to do by watching either his steering wheel, or better yet,
$his head.  This just doesn't occur to some folks.

   Now this _really_ is basic driver training.  It's simple defensive
driving.  Unfortunately, you can't legislate that people drive this
way, but you could at least legislate that they be _trained_ in it
before getting their license, and you might be able to create an exam
which would test to make sure that at the time of the exam the driver
was using these techniques.
-- 
 ______________________________________________
/  Hi Ho Silver, who likes the idea of having  \  __________________________
\  SNTF and large h00ters in the same package   \/   [email-masked]    \
 \______________________________________________/ ...{!uunet}!bokonon!silver \