Periodic Driver Retests.

[bwizz]

I wrote to my MP some years ago on the same subject. he made all the right noises but did now't
Good idea but a political hot potatoe

[Grahamm]

Ah so you lost your right to drive when they introduced a drivng test in 1935.  So you lost your right in 1935, i dont get how you can loose what was a right? Grahamm can you explain that.  Cheers

Oh dear, is that the best you can come up with? Please, go and troll somone else.

Cheers.

[Grahamm]

[Snip]
So here we have it. The point I am making is this:

Oh goody!

You know (although won't openly admit) that the 70mph legislation is bullshit,

Erm, excuse me? What on earth gives you the idea that I "won't openly admit" that the 70mph legislation is bullshit? Look, I tell you what, if it will make you happier:

THE 70MPH LEGISLATION IS BULLSHIT!!!

There, better now?

But there's a difference between that and *your* proposal of compulsory 70mph limiters on vehicles which was also bullshit.

and that we can (and do) travel at speeds in access of that in complete safety depending on the conditions and situation. Right? But although you or I may be capable of doing so we can't, because we are restricted to 70 mph by law.

Umm, no, we *can* do that, albeit not legally, because that's what the law says, but, again, there's a difference between the law saying "you must not travel faster than 70mph" and a physical device being introduced to ensure that you *cannot* travel faster than 70mph.

So like the blanket 70mph limit that you know is bullshit but won't come out and say so, you would like to see a blanket re-test that applies to all and tests the good with the bad.  So your argument consists of a strange schism in that what you seem to be saying is you know the 70 limit is nonesense and restricts those will the knowledge and ability to safely exceed it, yet you want to introduce retesting system that includes those with the knowledge and proven ability to avoid accidents.

You can't have it both ways mate.

Oops, looks like *another* Straw Man argument from Rusty...!

Let's try an analogy. Let's say we have a competition where we both roll a 6 sided dice and the winner is the one who rolls it the most times without getting a six.

You roll it five times, then get a six. I roll it twelve times before I get a six. Does that mean that I have a "proven ability" to avoid getting sixes? Well, no, it just means I got lucky.

In the same way, someone can drive like a twunt yet "get lucky" and manage to avoid having an accident. Does that prove that they're a good driver? Well, no.

What I want is for everyone who is on the roads to have a demonstrable level of skill and to *continue* to have that level of skill. If the price of that is for them to have to demonstrate it again after X Years, I have no problem with that.

What you seem to want, however, is to consider that anyone who hasn't had an accident to be a "good driver" because they *once* passed a test (even though it could have been many years ago). Why not just go the whole hog and say that *NOBODY* needs to have a test and that they should *NOT* have to take a test UNTIL they have an accident? It makes about as much logical sense.

(NB this post may contain irony...)

[smithfz]

The best i can come up with, no its what i came up with and you didnt answer my question.

[Grahamm]

The best i can come up with, no its what i came up with and you didnt answer my question.

Of course I didn't because it's a stupid question. Please show me *ANYTHING* anywhere which says (or has said) that you have (or have ever had) the Right to drive a car and I'll answer it. But I won't be holding my breath.

[smithfz]

which part of having a driving license make it a privilege rather than a right to you Grahamm?

You do not have the right to drive a car, you must past a test to be allowed to do it.

You do not have to pass a test to have the right to freedom of expression, a fair trial, the right to go about your lawful business without let or hindrence etc etc etc.

ok you said above you dont have the right to drive a car - based on the fact you need to pass a test, ok. In turn making it a privilege, great.  HOWEVER what l'm implying is - a driving test was introduced not that long ago so.  so was driving it a privilege  BEFORE the test was introduced or a right?   For example, and a real analogy-

l own a knife.  Its my right to have, own and use this knife.  5 years later, you now need to sit a competency test to gain a license  to own and use a knife.  Is it then now deemed a privilege because you now ned to sit a test?  Even though before they enforced a license it wouldnt have been classed a privilege??

Does this make sense.

[Grahamm]

Does this make sense.

What makes sense is that you don't understand what a "Right" is.

Under English Common Law, everything that is not explicitly forbidden or controlled by law is permitted. That, however, does *NOT* make it a Right!

You never had the right to drive a car, but up until 1935 it was not controlled by law. It now is. If you pass the test you have the privilege under law of driving a car, not the right to do so.

Clear?

[smithfz]

Cheers for that Grahamm.  Where does your interest in Goverment legislation come from l'm just interested not many people take the time to educate them self in this subject and you seem to somewhat carry a strongly worded corner which seems to be *the* answer or is it just a strongly backed opinion?

[Chillum]

The best i can come up with, no its what i came up with and you didnt answer my question.

A barking dog requires no response 

[smithfz]

Yes yes Chillum, very good.

[Raymy]

I disagree, I take it as a right to respond to barking dogs.

[Grahamm]

Cheers for that Grahamm.

You're welcome.

Where does your interest in Goverment legislation come from l'm just interested not many people take the time to educate them self in this subject and you seem to somewhat carry a strongly worded corner which seems to be *the* answer or is it just a strongly backed opinion?

I've been a supporter and defender of civil rights and liberties for a very long time, so I've done the arguments, seen the counter points, checked the facts, read the legislation etc etc over the years.

Consequently I've developed my positions and opinions based on that and have had a lot of practice in defending them against, for instance, people who think that the only Rights you should be permitted are the one that *they* agree with and most probably only if you're a person from a group which they approve of as well.

And when someone starts deliberately mis-reading or misrepresenting my position to make a ridiculous Straw Man argument, it tends to annoy me

[smithfz]

l'm in no way implying l have a belief in a "strawman" theory (call it what you wish) however i am more than willing to listen to other people's opinion based on experience and belief (as far fetched as the idea and opinion may sound).    In fact what i have been doing is reading way too much Jean Jacques Rousseau. 

[Raymy]

Never mind the straw man, I'm hoping this turns into the wicker man

[Grahamm]

i am more than willing to listen to other people's opinion based on experience and belief

I have no doubt that some people won't believe this, but (as I've said before in the past) I am perfectly willing to change my views on a subject if someone can provide a logical, reasonable and factual argument for why my position is wrong.

However the point is simply that I've already *done* that over the course of 20 or more years of discussing subjects like this in forums, so a argument is going to have to be pretty damn convincing to achieve that.

[His Dudeness]

i haven't read this thread but from the other one you had recently and the length of this one it seems that you like stirring it up a bit 

[Grahamm]

 

[smithfz]

ok sorry we're talking about driver license retests right? So have you been fighting for driver retests for 20 years or just just been backing government  legislation for 20 years?

[Raymy]

Dug? meet burst baw. Burst baw? Meet Dug

[Grahamm]

ok sorry we're talking about driver license retests right? So have you been fighting for driver retests for 20 years or just just been backing government  legislation for 20 years?

Err, neither.

[smithfz]