Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The point is that you did not say much. You dissed the subject totally by not addressing what you were referring to. You mentioned "personal freedoms" being taken away and did not specify which.
The point is that you did not say much. You dissed the subject totally by not addressing what you were referring to. You mentioned "personal freedoms" being taken away and did not specify which.
All of them are minus the expiration. That issue varies from state to state.
The rest are either based on age discrimination and generalize the issue or are a form of extended punishment for the crime.
Are all drivers under the age of 18 dangerous? The OP makes the assumption that they are.
Are all drivers over the age of 65 dangerous? The OP makes the assumption that they are.
Even if a large number are dangerous, blanket laws can not be used as a means to restrict freedoms. It is a violation of the entire principal of individual freedom. Each should be held to the merit of their own actions, not summarized by weak generalizations to which implement resolutions that restrict or deny individual freedom.
I thought my responses were evident, but you questioned and so I am explaining now.
I can admit I was wrong about a few points here- I was writing this off of the top of my head- I would withdraw the cutoff age-and i realize that people are living longer today than they did in the past-but still after 70 I would require YEARLY eye exams, written test and road test- I am not a bigot against the elderly, I find our culture's lack of respect for the wisdom of the elderly sort of sad to tell the truth,and in fact, I have done a lot of volunteer work that has helped them- I just believe that there is a point that one reaches as they age that they shouldn't drive past and as it stands now the system just doesn't catch enough of those that drive past that point, and i guess family doesn't step in to stop them
As far as the age of 18 to start driving, I stand by that one- let them ride a bike or ride a bus to get to work if they work-I take a bus to work every day and leave my car at home- a car is NOT always a necessity
As far as drunk drivers- I still think that they should lose their license if caught, but will allow for a first time offense pass, after that sorry- there are far too many repeat offenders-
As far as the age of 18 to start driving, I stand by that one- let them ride a bike or ride a bus to get to work if they work-I take a bus to work every
I can admit I was wrong about a few points here- I was writing this off of the top of my head- I would withdraw the cutoff age-and i realize that people are living longer today than they did in the past-but still after 70 I would require YEARLY eye exams, written test and road test- I am not a bigot against the elderly, I find our culture's lack of respect for the wisdom of the elderly sort of sad to tell the truth,and in fact, I have done a lot of volunteer work that has helped them- I just believe that there is a point that one reaches as they age that they shouldn't drive past and as it stands now the system just doesn't catch enough of those that drive past that point, and i guess family doesn't step in to stop them
As far as the age of 18 to start driving, I stand by that one- let them ride a bike or ride a bus to get to work if they work-I take a bus to work every day and leave my car at home- a car is NOT always a necessity
As far as drunk drivers- I still think that they should lose their license if caught, but will allow for a first time offense pass, after that sorry- there are far too many repeat offenders-
Fair enough on the retractions and adjustment to the DUI's.
As for the age of 18, your reasoning seems to follow the line that it is ok to restrict because of other options and because you personally do it. The problem is, this is not a valid reasoning to suggest a restriction of freedoms.
The only time a restriction is viable is if it can be shown to be consistent that it violates the rights of others. If it does not, then it is simply personally subjective influence.
What of all the age 16-17 drivers who are responsible, are attentive and drive safely? If we are to generalize them, then should we not generalize everyone under like circumstances?
For instance, I have many hours of high speed driving and defensive driving education. I could using your own reasoning to suggest that nobody should be allowed to operate their vehicle until they have put in as much time as I have and have a passing approval of their skills to operate a vehicle.
I could state that those who do not wish to put in this effort can find public transportation as an option or spend the effort as I have?
This is similar to the reason you are using.
edit:
The overall point I am getting at is that pro-active legislation is a very dangerous path to walk for anything can be legislated to "protect" another if we base it on subjective opinions or instances of various individuals. Reactive legislation is better suited to a free enviornment. Sure, the down side is that until someone actually commits the action, it isn't dealt with, but this allows for individual freedom while the other approach restricts it based on what "might" happen due to the actions of some. I will take the risk of the dangers in a free world over a safe world with no freedoms any day. Most would as well, but some do not realize this until they have lost all their freedoms.
Why is it so easy to get a driver's license? An automobile is a serious piece of machinery and so many drivers out there just don't know how to drive-people act like it is their right to drive, it should be a privilege earned by showing you know the rules of the road and how to operate this machinery that has the potential to kill-
This part, I agree with. It is way too easy and we should look into adopting the driver's education and licensing requirements of some nations. Look into what works for some countries and seeing if we can adopt such practices.
If it were up to me -
-Minimum age to apply to get a drivers license would be 18, same age as to vote-unless one could prove the necessity for work- like those who live on farms or ranches-or rural citizens who could prove there is no public transportation in their area-otherwise take public transportation
-Maximum age to hold a drivers license would be 65-upon reaching 65, a person would be given free public transportation-exceptions would be those whocould prove lack of public transportation in their area-
This part I disagree with. I'll explain and offer an alternative later.
-Every time a drivers license expires the holder of the license would be required to take an eye exam, a written test and a driving test-
-Anyone who is caught driving under the influence loses their right to drive-period-
This would cut down on the numbers of drivers on the road and would alleviate the use of gas too-
Instead of making the maximum age 65, don't offer a maximum age. Instead, at an age of 70, require a vision and driving test. The vision test should include a Peripheral Vision test. Read somewhere that many elderly loose their peripheral vision which causes them not to see things outside their direct line of vision. Require retesting every two years to renew the license. Make a state or federal requirement for hospitals and doctors to notify DMV of a patient having a medical condition that would make them unsafe to drive on public roads. By wording it in such a way, they can avoid giving out private medical information. Such conditions include seizures or fainting spells or some other condition. Thankfully, my father-in-law voluntarily turned in his drivers license when he felt it wasn't safe for him to drive. Not too much later he suffered his first seizure.
Fair enough on the retractions and adjustment to the DUI's.
As for the age of 18, your reasoning seems to follow the line that it is ok to restrict because of other options and because you personally do it. The problem is, this is not a valid reasoning to suggest a restriction of freedoms.
The only time a restriction is viable is if it can be shown to be consistent that it violates the rights of others. If it does not, then it is simply personally subjective influence.
What of all the age 16-17 drivers who are responsible, are attentive and drive safely? If we are to generalize them, then should we not generalize everyone under like circumstances?
For instance, I have many hours of high speed driving and defensive driving education. I could using your own reasoning to suggest that nobody should be allowed to operate their vehicle until they have put in as much time as I have and have a passing approval of their skills to operate a vehicle.
I could state that those who do not wish to put in this effort can find public transportation as an option or spend the effort as I have?
This is similar to the reason you are using.
edit:
The overall point I am getting at is that pro-active legislation is a very dangerous path to walk for anything can be legislated to "protect" another if we base it on subjective opinions or instances of various individuals. Reactive legislation is better suited to a free enviornment. Sure, the down side is that until someone actually commits the action, it isn't dealt with, but this allows for individual freedom while the other approach restricts it based on what "might" happen due to the actions of some. I will take the risk of the dangers in a free world over a safe world with no freedoms any day. Most would as well, but some do not realize this until they have lost all their freedoms.
I picked the age 18 as the earliest age to get a license for two reasons- one was that the whole point in my idea was to eliminate as many drivers from the road as possible- the most obvious way was to cut off both ends of the spectrum of drivers- Ipicked 18 at the front end because that is the age when the government has determined that people are of age to vote-I figured if you aren't able to vote until you are 18, why should you be able to operate a dangerous machine like an automobile-
Tofurther show I am not trying to discriminate against the elderly i would adjust my rules by removing the criteria for anyone over 70 and make it mandatory that EVERYONE has to take an eye exam, a written test and a road test every year- it will increase costs for the DMV, but I think that would be saved in costs to to states in road repairs, time spent by police officials dealing with traffic accidents, etc.
My whole point was to try to weed out the bad drivers as best as i could-those that tie up the roads and cause the accidents-and to get as many cars off the road as possible
Last edited by specialrequest; 02-27-2010 at 04:52 PM..
When my kids were little, I freaked at the idea of them driving. The closer the oldest got to 16, the more ready I was for her to drive. Then she went off to college (out of state) before the younger one could drive. What a pain to have to take the little one everywhere! Little gal's birthday is the 4th of July, which was a Friday the year she turned 16; she had to wait till Mon. July 7 to take her test. I celebrated with her! I am a strong supporter of 16 year olds driving, with the parents knowing where they are at all times, and not making dumb decisions like letting ther kids drive on heavily tafficked interstates at first, or in the mountains of Colorado. (There are always kids getting into accidents doing such.) I also like the laws in Colorado regarding a midnight curfew for 16 yr olds, and no passengers allowed until 17.
The closer I get to 65, the less I can support just yanking one's license due to age.
IIRC, you have to get your eyes tested every time you renew in CO.
Illinois randomly selected people out of the renewal line to take the rules of the road when they renewed their license, at least when I lived there.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
