Rights vs. Privileges

[ATOMonkey]

I'd say that driving skill is equal parts experience and maturity. Your average 16 yo has the attention span of a squirrel behind the wheel and the emotional conviction that he/she is immortal. Even a couple more years helps some to get past the former.

I made worse decisions at 21 than I did at 16. The only thing that saved my bacon was living in an urban environment, where the average speed is 30 mph and I was constantly impeded by other motorists.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I made worse decisions at 21 than I did at 16. The only thing that saved my bacon was living in an urban environment, where the average speed is 30 mph and I was constantly impeded by other motorists.

Well, yeah. At 21 you can add legal alcohol consumption to the mix. Maybe they ought to raise the driving age to 35....

 

[dross]

To me, that's because we have a standard starting age of 16.

It's just as statistically accurate to say that most accidents happen within the first 11 years of driving.

It would be interesting to see if that held up if it were controlled for people who drive for the first time at a later age.

I've heard that people over 40 who drive a motorcycle for the first time have less accidents than people under thirty who have been riding for several years. I can't back it up, that's just what I've heard.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Well, yeah. At 21 you can add legal alcohol consumption to the mix. Maybe they ought to raise the driving age to 35....

Now we're talking!!!

 

[ATOMonkey]

It would be interesting to see if that held up if it were controlled for people who drive for the first time at a later age.

I've heard that people over 40 who drive a motorcycle for the first time have less accidents than people under thirty who have been riding for several years. I can't back it up, that's just what I've heard.

I think there are just far fewer people over 40 riding.

More accidents happen to people in their 30s, because that is the modal age of motorcyclists.

If we're talking percentage, we need to normalize that based on miles. A person over 40 who only rides a couple hundred miles a year is obviously going to be less likely to be in an accident than a person in their 30s that rides several thousand miles per year.

 

[Eddie]

Indeed. Although, the point of a buying land in order to build a road would be to increase profits and revenue.

It would seem that the impetus behind such an endeavor would be to encourage travel upon the road.

So, restrictions of such severity, would run counter to the initial economic incentive to build the road in the first place.

Not neccessarily. In a world of all private roads I might want to maximize my profit by building roads as barriers. You have to pay me to cross them so why waste asphalt going from city to city? Easier to build a dirt road cross country like a firebreak. To get from City A to City B folks gotta cross my dirt road someplace. (Maybe its a circular dirt road surrounding Indy.) I'll charge as much as I think you can afford to cross my dirt road to get where you are going. That's what you get if profit is the sole motivator.

 

[dross]

I think there are just far fewer people over 40 riding.

More accidents happen to people in their 30s, because that is the modal age of motorcyclists.

If we're talking percentage, we need to normalize that based on miles. A person over 40 who only rides a couple hundred miles a year is obviously going to be less likely to be in an accident than a person in their 30s that rides several thousand miles per year.

I have a good working knowledge of statistics, too. We could go on and on, but it's pure speculation because I don't know what the stats are controlled for. It's possible you're right, it's possible you're not. The data we're discussing doesn't say one way or another.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Not neccessarily. In a world of all private roads I might want to maximize my profit by building roads as barriers. You have to pay me to cross them so why waste asphalt going from city to city? Easier to build a dirt road cross country like a firebreak. To get from City A to City B folks gotta cross my dirt road someplace. (Maybe its a circular dirt road surrounding Indy.) I'll charge as much as I think you can afford to cross my dirt road to get where you are going. That's what you get if profit is the sole motivator.

Maybe, but I think this would be a short term gainer at best.

If the road added no economic benefit, it would simply be a cost to businees. This drives incentive to localize and avoid your toll.

You also have the cost of enforcing your toll. As you either drive business away or force them to localize, you will continue to lose toll revenue and profit will shrink to the point where it makes more sense to sell the land and invest the money in the market or just put it in the bank.

A long term strategy is to invest money where it will encourage economic growth, thus a long term gain.

Depends on your invest strategy, I suppose.

 

[ATOMonkey]

I have a good working knowledge of statistics, too. We could go on and on, but it's pure speculation because I don't know what the stats are controlled for. It's possible you're right, it's possible you're not. The data we're discussing doesn't say one way or another.

Which is how Levitt was able to prove that it's more dangerous to walk home drunk than to drive home drunk.

 

[hoosiertriangle]

While the correlation may be valid, causation is not proven. Young drivers get into more accidents for two main reasons. Lack of maturity and lack of experience. The new law would likely help improve the maturity problem. The new law, however, would not help the experience issue.

Perhaps. Yet the correlation between certain age groups and the percentage of accidents is statistically overwhelming.

 

[hoosiertriangle]

Economics are not the sole motivation for investment. Sometimes, the investment is a means to a social end or a personal motivation.

Maybe, but I think this would be a short term gainer at best.

If the road added no economic benefit, it would simply be a cost to businees. This drives incentive to localize and avoid your toll.

You also have the cost of enforcing your toll. As you either drive business away or force them to localize, you will continue to lose toll revenue and profit will shrink to the point where it makes more sense to sell the land and invest the money in the market or just put it in the bank.

A long term strategy is to invest money where it will encourage economic growth, thus a long term gain.

Depends on your invest strategy, I suppose.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Economics are not the sole motivation for investment. Sometimes, the investment is a means to a social end or a personal motivation.

Good point, I did not factor in spite.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Actually, you can't. Most interstates have restrictions/prohibitions on non-motorized travel. So much for options, huh?

There are roads that you can walk on. The fact that interstate highways have additional restrictions is not relevent. (Almost) anywhere you can get to via interstate you can get to via a different public road.

But I think that your analogy is comparing the wrong thing. Driving isn't the issue. Free movement is. Do we or do we not have the right to free movement? If the answer is yes, then the issue becomes a discussion of at what point does the government have the right to limit it in any way?

Limiting your movement occurs when the government says you can not move, not because it regulates the mode of travel. Mode and movement are not interrelated in the slightest. The fact that the government does not allow you to build a helopad in your yard (unless your last name is Irsay) does not mean the government has limited your freedom of mevement in any way.

Be careful how you answer that. The method one chooses to exercise a right does not change it to a privilege. Or would you agree that my method of carrying a firearm or where I choose to carry it are a privilege and my right to keep and bear arms is only absolute on my own property?

You have a right to free movement, but that right is not absolute. For instance, you may denied the right to travel if you are incarcerated, on probation, or in quarantine. As stated earlier, you may not walk on interstate highways. You may not walk onto property where tresspassing is prohibited, public or private.

You do not have a right to dictate how your movement is performed. I can't walk in to the Delta ticket counter and demand a plane ticket to St Louis because I have a right to go there. I can't get on a plane, start being a jerk, and demand that I be entitled to continue my journey because I have a right to travel.

Having options is not enough. Not if you believe in true liberty. Having the full range of options unfettered by the state (up until the point that said usage violates another's rights, notwithstanding) is the only acceptable answer.

I'm not signing up for anarchy, which is what your statement implies.

I agree user fees are in order. The proper and acceptable user fees for public good items like roads are taxes. Nothing more, nothing less. But restrictions on the use--excepting safety regulations along the lines of driving lanes, right of way, etc. for uniformity in driving standards--is still an infringement on the right.

Tax collection is one way. Use fees is another. Those fees come in many forms. I view the fee for a driver's license as proof I paid the fee to use the road. I view the license plate fee as proof I paid the fee to use that vehicle on the road. Again, I agree with the government managing the provision of roads.

Saying I have to get permission to drive a motor vehicle is like asking for permission to carry a firearm off my property. If you support the one, you cannot rationally disagree with the other.

What? That makes no sense at all. Trying to corollate driving and firearms is irrational.

Edit: and apparently I took took too long to answer since somebody beat me to it.

But then they changed their mind.

 

[rambone]

Apply all that driver's license logic to personal boats and private planes. The government doesn't build the sky. It doesn't make rivers flow. But you are still taxed and controlled for all those methods of travel too. Try buying an airline ticket and see if you can avoid government harassment and providing your government papers. Just because they haven't found a way to tax "walking" hardly means that we may freely travel in America.

 

[dross]

While the correlation may be valid, causation is not proven. Young drivers get into more accidents for two main reasons. Lack of maturity and lack of experience. The new law would likely help improve the maturity problem. The new law, however, would not help the experience issue.

Causation isn't relevant to the discussion. I wan't claiming any sort of causation. For all I know, younger drivers get into more accidents 'cause older drivers play tricks on them. The fact remains, younger drivers get into more accidents.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

While the correlation may be valid, causation is not proven. Young drivers get into more accidents for two main reasons. Lack of maturity and lack of experience. The new law would likely help improve the maturity problem. The new law, however, would not help the experience issue.

Watch the insurance companies; they're the ones who really study these things because they have to figure out how to make a living out of selling us insurance policies. An insurance underwriter can probably cite relevant statistics pertaining to various age groups; especially as they relate to teen drivers.

 

[Duncan]

Roads and driving are one of the areas I believe make perfect sense for the government to be involved.
.

Yes in as much as your conduct on the road ... but not the permission to use it before the fact.

Thanks
Duncan

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Yes in as much as your conduct on the road ... but not the permission to use it before the fact.

Thanks
Duncan

Well, strictly speaking, I guess governmental permission isn't necessary today; look at how many folks get into accidents without having a valid driver's license...

 

[oldfb]

Wow. I can't believe all these threads and no real brokeback hurt feelings.

This is a pretty good discussion so far. I think if we just get people to learn and get involved in the whys and hows of what happens beyond their own personal hot topic.

Which IMHO is how we ended up where we are.

We end up with taxes on bottled water and soft drinks beyond sales tax because some city decides it is an untapped source of revenue.

There are more and worse examples but that was the quickest that came to mind.

 

[Pocketman]

+1 oldfb
Can't put all the blame on politicians WE put in power.