Maybe the writer is American, maybe he isn't, but it sounded to me as if he was specifically calling out Americans. Maybe I'm wrong. > Well, the amount of tr

Maybe the writer is American, maybe he isn't, but it sounded to me as if he was specifically calling out Americans. Maybe I'm wrong. > Well, the amount of traffic accidents is evidence enough, > isn't it? What amount? Evidence of what? The original post I responded to claimed that in order to decrease the number of traffic accidents, we need to license fewer people to drive, because the average person can't operate a vehicle safely. But licensing fewer people != licensing only people who will always drive a vehicle 100% safely. The set of accidents includes accidents caused by factors other than lack of training or lack of attention. Poor weather conditions, drunk drivers, falling asleep at the wheel; these aren't things that licensing fewer people to drive will solve, not to mention that simply refusing to issue a license doesn't ensure that the person won't drive. It's an overly simplistic solution presented in a superior tone that does not solve the stated problem.