The voters have decided that swimlax is right!
Vote on the post to say if you agree or disagree.
Related Posts
Also about Cars & Transportation
+148It's safer to be an airport Uber driver since your passengers went thru TSA before getting in, amirite?
Driving is already considered a privilege not a right
Actually, some people don't get their licence until they're 21. Driving laws are pretty strict. In AZ, if you've got 3 minor tickets and you're under a certain age, you automatically have a suspended licence. So yeah, there's a pretty high chance of losing it. And if you pass the test, you are one of the select few that has got it.
But what I mean is (in the US, not sure about other countries) EVERYONE here gets their license at age 16, 17, or 18. Many kids and adults abuse it and it is given back to them way too easily. Driving tests and penalties should be much tougher than they are, greatly raising the standard for drivers.
Then you worded post wrong. Idk what state you live in but in New Jersey there are very strict driving laws especially for new drivers
Not everyone passes the first time. During the tests when I was 16, they started with parallel parking (because it's one of the hardest tasks) and if you couldn't do it, then you failed.
Well, in my test 2 weeks ago, I drove for 2 minutes before realizing the e-brake was up and I still passed.
I don't really think that's a safety hazard. It might create a bad smell when the brakes get hot though.
And tell me how at all that seems fair or just
It's more fair to pedestrians, who are no longer at as much of a risk, and good drivers, who will have less traffic, and the environment, which will have less pollution.
Do you honestly think pedestrians won't flood onto the roads? Public transport will take well over 10 years to absorb the sudden increase in non-drivers, and sidewalks are packed as it is. HAve you seen pictures of India? Even in Singapore's Little India, (there are hundreds and thousands of foreign workers there), the pedestrians are like, "Fuck you" and walk all over the roads. And no one can do a damn thing about it because of their sheer numbers.
Not to mention that many places in America don't really have any kind of public transportation at all and are much too rural for pedestrian traffic. OP is trying to put us in the stone age, apparently.
Also, the 1 out of 10 people who would be allowed to drive would most likely have transportation jobs. After factoring in a high demand for transportation and a lack of drivers to do it drivers would get paid a ton of money. Unfortunately, the cost of transporting people and goods would increase dramatically because there would be less semi-truck drivers, bus drivers, taxi drivers, etc.
I realise you're arguing my point too, but I think OP means 'consumer level' driving. Like you can use driving for your job, or completely recreationally, but it's not your job to drive.
No, OP stated that only 1 out of 10 people be selected to have licenses. Lack of drivers means lack of transportation drivers and since they were good enough to pass the strict guidelines, it would be wise for them to be transportation drivers.
Ohh... I thought he meant only certain people were allowed to drive if it's not their job. You know, the non-essential drivers. I realise he didn't say it, I thought it was implied or something
... I can''t convey what I thought without sounding condescending...
But tell me how it's fair to look at a group of 10 people and arbitrarily pick just one who's "responsible enough" to drive
That was just an example. Obviously that would mean some less qualified people get it over a more qualified person. What I mean is that the restrictions should be so tough that only about 1 in 10 people, on average, could pass. It should be more like a pilot's license or a boating license, where it is much less common to have one.
You're saying that it should be SO hard to get your lisence that on average 10% of people should have the prowess and skill to get it? That if I graduated last year finishing grade 12 with 600 other kids all age 18 only 60 of them should be good enough to be driving while the other 540 take the bus and public transit and such? The roads made for vehicles should be practically barren because 90% of the population is still forced to struggle along in transit/ pedestrian style forms of transportation regardless of commute distance? That's an absolutely ridiculous idea. I get that there's a good chance this post was made in 'passion' after a personal vehicular incident in your life, but your reaction and solution is just plain terrible. driving is a privilege but it's also, for most, mandatory for living required in almost all faucets of life. Let's say you're in a family of 5, 2 parents and 3 kids ages 16, 17, and 19. You're saying that the system should be changed so that statistically none of your family is good enough to drive? I don't know your life situation but how many families can function day to day life if not a single family member can legally drive? Very stupid idea.
But they should be even stricter, as in 1 in 10 people or so should get it. People should think of it as a great accomplishment to be trusted to drive a car, not a punishment not to be able to.
In this day and age, a lot of people, much more than 10%, actually need a car. Cars get people to and from work in about half the time public transport takes, so many billions of man hours will be wasted in this system. It's like having a computer. over a decade ago, computers were a luxury, but now they are an essential part to not only a person's social life but to his livelihood as well. Even vocational workers' jobs are becoming increasingly reliant on computers. The situation has changed similarly for cars.
I don't agree with the heavy reliance on cars. When you're on the road, as a pedestrian or a driver, you're putting an unbelievable amount of trust into an unbelievable amount of people just so that you will make it out alive. Being in high school, I can tell you that only 10% of the kids I know with their license should actually have their license. Now, obviously that number would increase with age.
Uhhh.. you put an unbelievable amount of trust in everyone around you everyday that you spend around them no matter what they're doing. A co-worker could stab you for no reason at any moment. Does that mean we should create some sort of standardized test for people to work to make sure that they'll never stab a co-worker? No.
I'll agree that there are shitty drivers out there but they teach you in driving school to be a defensive driver. This means that you should never assume what maneuvers another person is going to make. If you're a pedestrian, never assume a driver is going to stop for you to cross the street until they're actually stopped. If you're driving, never assume that someone will see you in time to slow down if you decide to pull out in front of them.
It sounds to me like you're suffering from an extreme case of paranoia. If you're afraid someone is going to run you over, stay at home where you'll be nice and safe. Not everyone constantly fears for their life like you.
I actually was suffering from severe paranoia when I first made this post (I'm pretty sure it was right after I finished driver's ed, where they show you all the videos to scare you) and now I'm not really sure I agree with my former self.
That only makes sense if you think about a car as a 'deadly weapon which it isn't. Drivers are, for the most part, responsible, and most people rely on their cars to get to work and go places. You have to consider everyone, not just the kid running after his ball in the street.
?
I would completely agree with you if you hadn't said that there should only be a certain number of people that should get their licenses. No, I do think that everyone deserves an equal opportunity not based on other people's abilities.
Yeah, that's not what I meant. This post is worded terribly(8 months ago...) I don't think there should be a cutoff, but rather when it's all said and done, there is a select few people. Not a set number, just a low number.