4 ms·

Yes. Make driver education mandatory in public school. A vehicle tag should simply identify the vehicle out of a sea of mixed clones (a la: which blue Mustang?)

Yes. Make driver education mandatory in public school. A vehicle tag should simply identify the vehicle out of a sea of mixed clones (a la: which blue Mustang?). I actually think the U.S. Founding Fathers would have enumerated a "right to vehicular travel" if they had conceived of license-as-a-privilege restriction on horseless carriages.

krasin 11y ago
>Yes. Make driver education mandatory in public school. This is not a good time investment for children, given that not all of them will drive. Especially, considering that driverless cars are coming soon.
- ctdonath 11y ago
  It's a few hours' training to teach a basic skill most of them will use (along with all the other "not all of them will use it" things they do or should learn). Those who don't formally learn will still likely end up behind a wheel anyway, documented or not - and it's those non-documented ones who are precisely the ones we particularly DO want to ensure are trained one way or another.
  - tailgate 11y ago
    In what universe is learning to drive a "few" hours? At minimum most courses I know of have 10-20 hours of lecture type instruction.
    - Dylan16807 11y ago
      When it comes to an entire course, that's few. If you took the whole school day it would be 2-3 days. It's barely anything.
tracker1 11y ago
not just horseless...
wavefunction 11y ago
>>I actually think the U.S. Founding Fathers We'll never know though, which makes personal conjecture meaningless. And while the "Founding Fathers" may have had some singular ideas at the time, they were merely people. We could speculate what the authors of the Magna Carta might feel about drones, or the Athenian democrats as well...
- brazzledazzle 11y ago
  The position the founding fathers held on freedom of movement is known based on their writings. I don't think it's too speculative to debate about which way they'd lean on the matter. That said it should be an exercise in futility since we do live in very different worlds but it isn't because the constitution's only flexibility is interpretation by federal judges.
mikeash 11y ago
Or maybe they would have been scared completely senseless seeing tons of steel being piloted by an idiot with no training at speeds they didn't even know were possible for humans to achieve. Either way, I couldn't care less about what people who died 200+ years ago would have thought about cars, except in an abstract "wouldn't it be cool to show George Washington a modern car and see how he reacts" sort of way.
- Hyperborian 11y ago
  > Or maybe they would have been scared completely senseless seeing tons of steel being piloted by an idiot with no training at speeds they didn't even know were possible for humans to achieve. In light of the second amendment, that seems unlikely.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    Automobiles are far more deadly than any 18th century firearm.
    - ctdonath 11y ago
      The Founding Fathers approved of personal ownership of battleships, hence the "letters of marque" clause in the constitution.
      - mikeash 11y ago
        Isn't a letter of marque basically a primitive license? I think it's funny that both of these replies center on refuting my idea that they might be frightened, but ignore the more important idea that what they would or would not think is not important.
        ctdonath 11y ago
        License to initiate warfare under authority of Congress, yes. License to own and operate harmlessly one defensively, no. The philosophy of the Founding Fathers is extensively documented. Not the least of which is their carrying out revolt and secession against a superpower for the purpose of securing personal liberty and minimizing control & harassment by government. In light of that, the notion of them fearing cars and using government to restrict ownership thereof by punishing lack of paperwork is absurd.

krasin 11y ago

>Yes. Make driver education mandatory in public school. This is not a good time investment for children, given that not all of them will drive. Especially, considering that driverless cars are coming soon.

ctdonath 11y ago
It's a few hours' training to teach a basic skill most of them will use (along with all the other "not all of them will use it" things they do or should learn). Those who don't formally learn will still likely end up behind a wheel anyway, documented or not - and it's those non-documented ones who are precisely the ones we particularly DO want to ensure are trained one way or another.
- tailgate 11y ago
  In what universe is learning to drive a "few" hours? At minimum most courses I know of have 10-20 hours of lecture type instruction.
  - Dylan16807 11y ago
    When it comes to an entire course, that's few. If you took the whole school day it would be 2-3 days. It's barely anything.

tracker1 11y ago

not just horseless...

wavefunction 11y ago

>>I actually think the U.S. Founding Fathers We'll never know though, which makes personal conjecture meaningless. And while the "Founding Fathers" may have had some singular ideas at the time, they were merely people. We could speculate what the authors of the Magna Carta might feel about drones, or the Athenian democrats as well...

brazzledazzle 11y ago
The position the founding fathers held on freedom of movement is known based on their writings. I don't think it's too speculative to debate about which way they'd lean on the matter. That said it should be an exercise in futility since we do live in very different worlds but it isn't because the constitution's only flexibility is interpretation by federal judges.

mikeash 11y ago

Or maybe they would have been scared completely senseless seeing tons of steel being piloted by an idiot with no training at speeds they didn't even know were possible for humans to achieve. Either way, I couldn't care less about what people who died 200+ years ago would have thought about cars, except in an abstract "wouldn't it be cool to show George Washington a modern car and see how he reacts" sort of way.

Hyperborian 11y ago
> Or maybe they would have been scared completely senseless seeing tons of steel being piloted by an idiot with no training at speeds they didn't even know were possible for humans to achieve. In light of the second amendment, that seems unlikely.
- mikeash 11y ago
  Automobiles are far more deadly than any 18th century firearm.
  - ctdonath 11y ago
    The Founding Fathers approved of personal ownership of battleships, hence the "letters of marque" clause in the constitution.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      Isn't a letter of marque basically a primitive license? I think it's funny that both of these replies center on refuting my idea that they might be frightened, but ignore the more important idea that what they would or would not think is not important.
      - ctdonath 11y ago
        License to initiate warfare under authority of Congress, yes. License to own and operate harmlessly one defensively, no. The philosophy of the Founding Fathers is extensively documented. Not the least of which is their carrying out revolt and secession against a superpower for the purpose of securing personal liberty and minimizing control & harassment by government. In light of that, the notion of them fearing cars and using government to restrict ownership thereof by punishing lack of paperwork is absurd.