[SpamCop-Social] Re: So we are becoming more like China why?

[Porpoise]

"Miss Betsy" <nobody at devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message 
news:d60tsn$pp5$1 at news.spamcop.net...
>
> "Porpoise" <porpoise1954 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:d602ob$cf7$1 at news.spamcop.net...
> <snip>
> <snip>
>> Hmmmm.... Don't quite make sense of the whole para, but (as far
> as the last
>> bit goes) I think I'd be hard pressed to be able to walk/run fast
> enough to
>> mow down/kill people as easily as driving a ton or two of steel
> at them at
>> speed...........
>
> My point is that for most people, it doesn't matter whether they
> were licensed or not because they obey the laws and are capable of
> driving safely.  Part of the reason is that  have studied the laws
> in order to get the license.  But if driving were not as
> complicated or as dangerous, then there would not be the need to
> make sure that people were lawabiding and competent.  They could
> drive wherever they wanted to without having to be licensed - as
> most people do since they don't have to show anyone their license.
> It is only those who disobey laws or drive recklessly who have to
> show licenses.
>

Not really...

The *real* point is to protect the "rights" of other citizens to have 
recourse to the driver's insurance in the event of an accident. As you can't 
get insured without having a licence to "prove" that you are *able* to 
drive, anyone driving without a licence is ergo driving uninsured. Where 
does that leave you if you get hit by such a person? OK you could sue them 
in civil court, at great expense, and maybe even get a judgement in your 
favour - but that's a fat lot of use if they ain't got no munney!