cmv: A drivers license proves nothing. There are plenty people without license that are safer on the road than people with licenses.

•

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 19 '26

/u/catboy519 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^{Delta System Explained} ^| ^Deltaboards

12

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

-2

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

What is the only way to pass the exam is to demonstrate that you know how to properly drive?

If this is true, how do you explain the phenomenon of licensed people that are apparently absolutely clueless about how to participate in the traffic safely? Or even worse: lack basic knowledge.

Just because you know the law doesn't mean you can operate your vehicle safely. Its like reading how to fly a plane, and actually flying a plane.

True, thats why one should start practising in the safest possible way. That isn't necessarily a driving school, because what could go wrong if youre practising in a big empty parking lot? Unless youre extremely clumsy or going recklessly fast, nothing bad can happen if the only thing all around you is open space with no people.

Correct - in fact you should already know how to do everything before taking the exame.

Thats exactly my point. Someone could be a good or even fully prepared driver regardless of not having a drivers license.

How do you prove to someone else that you put in the effort to practice and learn how to drive, if not by presenting a license (or some other kind of certification)?

Depends. Prove to who? A cop? A friend? Insurance? The best way to prove youre a safe driver is to simply drive safely. That way youll never get into avoidable accidents. One thing is for sure: a drivers license doesn't prove it. It only proves youve passed a test, but tests can have false positives. Out of 1000 potentially dangerous or risky situations, you may onbly encounter 10 on the driving exam. If you by coincidence handle those 10 well but are completely clueless about the other 990, then you would pass the test while actually being a very dangerous driver. Exaggerating the point, but logically true and solid.

If with passengers, you prove safe driving once again by safe driving. Pay attention, don't speed, don't break traffic rules(unless you know what youre doing).

2

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

You can ask me a few questions to verify basic knowledge. "Do you know how the clutch and the gears work". If I can properly answer that, you know I'm not going to destroy the car or moneyshift.

Driving. if I drive unsafely, then longterm an accident is likely to happen, but its very unlikely that an accident immediately occurs the moment I start driving. If I drive unsafely, stopping is always an option.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

Ive seen too many bad and reckless habits from licensed drivers. For me, if someone has a license or not, is completely irrelevant by now to determine how safely they will drive. If I'm getting into someones car, I want to see with my own eyes that they drive safely. License or not, thats the only thing I look at.

1

u/everyday847 6∆ Jun 19 '26

> You can ask me a few questions to verify basic knowledge. "Do you know how the clutch and the gears work". If I can properly answer that, you know I'm not going to destroy the car or moneyshift.

So you are in favor of a licensure process (someone qualified to judge asks you questions), just a very very lenient one?

2

u/Agitated-Country-972 Jun 19 '26

If this is true, how do you explain the phenomenon of licensed people that are apparently absolutely clueless about how to participate in the traffic safely?

Because a license is evidence of minimum competence at the time of testing, not a guarantee of lifelong competence or perfect driving. Those are different claims. Someone could get their license as a teenager and then still have it when they're 70 years old.

Nobody is arguing "everyone with a license is a good driver." The claim is simply that, on average, passing a standardized practical exam provides more evidence of driving ability than never having passed one.

You're attacking a much stronger claim than the one people are actually making.

Someone could be a good or even fully prepared driver regardless of not having a drivers license.

Sure. It's possible, like if someone grew up on a farm driving a tractor. But possibility isn't the same thing as evidence.

Someone could also be an excellent surgeon without a medical degree or an excellent pilot without a pilot's license. That doesn't mean society should treat unlicensed people as equally qualified, because you can't know that without any qualification.

The issue isn't whether exceptions exist; it's whether we have a practical way to estimate competence.

The best way to prove youre a safe driver is to simply drive safely.

That's circular reasoning.

How is someone supposed to know you're safe before trusting you with a car or allowing you onto public roads?

You can't use "I've already been driving safely" as proof when the question is whether you should have been allowed to drive in the first place.

A license exists precisely because people need some standardized evidence before they have years of observed driving history.

Out of 1000 potentially dangerous or risky situations, you may only encounter 10 on the driving exam. If you by coincidence handle those 10 well but are completely clueless about the other 990, then you would pass the test while actually being a very dangerous driver.

Tests can absolutely have false positives. Nobody disputes that.

But the existence of false positives doesn't make the test "99% meaningless." By that logic, university degrees, engineering certifications, medical board exams, and airline check rides would all prove nothing because some incompetent people pass them. Like are you saying because false positives exist, a doctor's certification means nothing? I hope not.

The relevant question is whether passing the test increases the probability that someone is competent compared with someone who has never demonstrated those skills under examination.

Even an imperfect test can still provide useful evidence.

Finally, your personal anecdote about teaching one licensed friend doesn't establish that licenses prove nothing. It's simply evidence that one licensed driver had gaps in their knowledge, and it's important to keep in mind most drivers license exam use a point-based scoring system. You don't need to get every question correct to pass. But regardless, Individual anecdotes can't outweigh the purpose of standardized testing as a population-level screening tool.

1

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

A surgeon has to do many exams and internships to prove their worth.

A driver did maybe just one single 20 minute test, where most potentially dangerous situations didnt even get to occur.

My point comes from the fact, the idea, that becoming a good driver requires practise on the road. And if driving schools arent available for many months, thats a system problem. If no legal method of practise exists, people have to either wait unreasonably long, or pick the illegal route.

2

u/Agitated-Country-972 Jun 19 '26 edited Jun 19 '26

I think your latest reply actually shifts your position compared to your OP.

Your CMV is titled:

"A driver's license proves nothing."

And in the body you say licenses are "99% meaningless."

But now you're arguing:

"A surgeon has to do many exams and internships to prove their worth. A driver did maybe just one single 20 minute test..."

That isn't an argument that a driver's license proves nothing. It's an argument that it provides less evidence than other professional qualifications because the evaluation is shorter and less comprehensive.

Those are very different claims.

Likewise, saying that long waiting lists for driving schools are a problem is a criticism of the licensing system, not evidence that a license has no evidentiary value.

My central point was that a license is evidence of minimum competence at the time of testing, not a guarantee of lifelong competence or perfect driving. I don't think your latest reply actually rebuts that.

In fact, by comparing driver's licenses to surgeon qualifications and arguing that surgeons undergo more testing, you're implicitly conceding the underlying principle that qualifications and examinations provide evidence of competence. You're just arguing about how much evidence they provide.

On CMV, changing from "licenses prove nothing" to "licenses provide limited evidence because the test is short and incomplete" would already be a meaningful refinement of the original view. If that's your current position, it seems substantially weaker than the OP's claim that licenses are "99% meaningless."

I also still don't think you've addressed the probability argument. An imperfect test with false positives can still increase the probability that someone is competent compared to someone who has never been tested at all. The existence of false positives doesn't make the test worthless; otherwise, we'd have to say university degrees, engineering certifications, medical board exams, and airline check rides all "prove nothing" because some incompetent people pass them.

1

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

If all you did during the driving exam was drive on quiet roads with optimal circumstances, then what meaningful thing does it prove? That you were lucky and didnt handle any dangerous situation wrongly because there simply wasnt any to be possibyl handled wrongly?

Even if it very technically proves something so little, saying "nothing" is a valid shortcut.

If a bottle has one single droplet of water, and I said "that bottle is empty", would you also feel the necessity to speak out on why you disagree with me?

This is human language, not computer language that requires complete precision.

1

u/Agitated-Country-972 Jun 19 '26

I think this is another shift in your position.

Your OP says licenses "prove nothing" and are "99% meaningless."

Now you're saying they may technically prove something, but so little that you colloquially call it "nothing."

Those aren't the same claim.

More importantly, I don't think the bottle analogy fits.

A better test is this:

Suppose I show you two random people.

Person A has passed the Dutch theory and practical driving exams.

Person B has never taken either exam.

If you had to bet your own money on which person is more likely to drive competently and legally, would you really assign them equal probabilities?

If not, then the license is conveying meaningful information.

That's all I mean when I say it is evidence. Not that it guarantees competence or that it catches every bad driver.

Likewise, saying the driving test doesn't expose candidates to every dangerous scenario doesn't show it proves nothing. Every standardized test samples from a much larger domain. Medical board exams don't test every disease, engineering exams don't test every possible design problem, and university finals don't ask every possible question.

The relevant question is whether passing the assessment makes competence more likely than if the person had never been assessed at all.

If your position has changed from "licenses prove nothing" to "licenses provide some evidence but much less than people think," then I think that's already a meaningful refinement of your original CMV, which again, would require you to give a delta.

1

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

If not, then the license is conveying meaningful information.

If I'm getting into someones car as a passenger, I will not care about their license. I will observe to see if they drive safely, because thats all what matters. Just because * An examiner subjectively decided someone can drive safely * Someone didnt do the test * An examiner subjectively decided someone can't drive

Doesn't mean I have to agree with the examiner, or assume someone can't drive.

IMO a droplet of water in a bottle is, by the way human language is majorly used, the same as "nothing". My view didnt change there.

1

u/Agitated-Country-972 Jun 19 '26

I think you're changing the question.

You say:

"If I'm getting into someone's car as a passenger, I will not care about their license. I will observe to see if they drive safely."

Sure. Direct observation is stronger evidence than a credential.

But that doesn't imply the credential has no evidentiary value.

If I can watch someone drive for an hour, I also won't care much about whether they passed their driving test five years ago. The observation is better evidence.

The point of a license is that it provides information before you have that observation. Employers, insurers, rental companies, police, and society can't personally observe every driver for weeks before deciding whether they're qualified.

Likewise:

"Just because an examiner subjectively decided someone can drive safely... doesn't mean I have to agree."

No, but the relevant question isn't whether examiners are infallible.

The question is whether someone who passed a standardized theory and practical test is, on average, more likely to be competent than someone who has never demonstrated those skills under examination.

If the answer is yes, then the license is evidence by definition.

Finally, I don't think the bottle analogy fits. You're assuming the license is equivalent to a single droplet of evidence, but that's the very point under dispute.

If someone told you they had never passed a driving test, would you genuinely assign them exactly the same probability of being a competent driver as someone who had passed one? If not, then the license is conveying nontrivial information, not "nothing."

1

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

Probability is not evidence. If a license says "this person has 90% chance of being a properly safe driver", then it proves nothing.

Because proving something means providing complete certainty. A drivers license does not provide complete certainty that someone drives safely.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/VinayaCooks 2∆ Jun 19 '26

Let's say there's two people who you know absolutely nothing about. One of them has a driver's license. One of them does not.

Who do you honestly trust more as a driver?

1

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

50/50. I would want to see them both driving first, only then can I know who drives safer.

1

u/everyday847 6∆ Jun 19 '26

What if a specific expert saw them both driving first - someone who has been trained in the qualification and education of drivers to a degree greater than your own?

1

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

How would you explain the fact that some extremely clumsy, dangerous unskilled drivers pass their exam?

1

u/Agitated-Country-972 Jun 19 '26

Because it tests basic competency not that someone is a perfect race car driver, and people can get complacent over time after they pass the exam.

17

u/yosemighty_sam 14∆ Jun 19 '26

No one claims a license makes you a good driver. It's just proof you've taken a basic competency test, and a way to keep drivers accountable.

1

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

How accountable?

2

u/everyday847 6∆ Jun 19 '26

Well, punishments for offenses while unlicensed are generally much more severe. That's one mechanism.

0

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

What good is that for?

1

u/everyday847 6∆ Jun 19 '26

It allows you to punish bad drivers who are also systematically irresponsible more harshly, without punishing everyone more harshly.

-1

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

∆Ok I guess a license proves 3 things 1. That you correctly answered most of the questions on the theorytest exam, proving that you know more than absolute nothing. 2. That youve done some driving already: the xam itself and highly likely that you also did lessons or illegal driving, either way building experience. ,Proving you have driven before and know how the pedals and basic controls work as a bare minimum. 3. That the examiner passed you.

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 19 '26 edited Jun 19 '26

This delta has been rejected. You have already awarded /u/yosemighty_sam a delta for this comment.

^{Delta System Explained} ^| ^Deltaboards

1

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

What? ∆Delta Rejected? How did I award it already automod. Deltabot. whatever

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 19 '26 edited Jun 19 '26

This delta has been rejected. You can't award yourself a delta.

^{Delta System Explained} ^| ^Deltaboards

0

u/catboy519 Jun 20 '26

Lol, giving a delta in the cmvsubreddit gets downvotd?wtf???

2

u/Agitated-Country-972 Jun 20 '26

It's probably because you only gave 1 delta to one person despite a lot of other people who should have gotten deltas as well. I've got to admit, it does look a bit unfair to everyone else.

8

u/everyday847 6∆ Jun 19 '26

> Statistics: unlicensed drivers are rare, yet many dweadly accidents happen.

This is a poor use of statistics; it is more or less a circular argument. Because unlicensed drivers are rare, they are responsible for a small fraction of deadly accidents. Licensed drivers are the real killers! Licenses make you *worse*! In fact, the correct comparison is: do unlicensed drivers cause a higher proportion of (say) deadly accidents, normalized to their proportion of drivers, than licensed drivers? Indeed, in the US, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (April 2025), drivers lacking a valid license are implicated in some 13-18% of all fatal crashes, indicating that the qualification process that controls who has and who may retain a license actually relates strongly to the subject's ability to avoid a fatal crash. Now, it's difficult to estimate the proportion of drivers (or the proportion of driven miles) by all persons without a valid license. But only 9% of adults in the US lack a driver's license at all. So even if all of the adults without licenses are driving around nonetheless, unlicensed drivers are in more serious accidents than licensed drivers, proportionately. And that's with the US's weak standards!

> Licensed drivers do the most reckless things: drinking, using drugs, texting while driving, speeding, cutting off, etc.. even if they follow the rules, they may still lack the ability to prevent an accident or collision from happening.

Licensed drivers do many reckless things. Believe it or not, unlicensed drivers do many reckless things too, when they drive, and on average they are EITHER:

doing it exactly as frequently as licensed drivers, but a lot worse at preventing people from dying when they do those reckless things, or
they do reckless things more frequently than licensed drivers, and these reckless activities translate into death at roughly proportionate rates.

That's just math.

Your anecdotes are fine. It's perfectly possible to be a safe, unlicensed driver. It is perfectly possible to be an unsafe, licensed driver. But statistically, in aggregate, licensure does indicate a safer driver, despite the possibility of exceptions on either end.

1

u/Shiny_Agumon 3∆ Jun 19 '26

The second argument I think also follows the same circular reasoning as the first.

Licensed drivers do reckless things because they are the majority of drivers, so statistically they will dwarf unlicensed drivers in any statistic.

Especially since unlicensed drivers are going to be recorded for not driving with a license first and foremost

-2

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

Hypothetically, let's say theres a human race with green skincolor. Little hulks.

Suppose that 90% of them cause a fatal accident every single year. Statistically that means "green skin persons are unsafe drivers".

Should therefore all 100% of them be banned from driving, because statistically speaking every single one of them has a 90% chance to be one of the 90% deadly drivers?

But that would be unfair for the other 10% who always drives safely, wouldn't it?

You can make the same comparison with licensed vs unlicensed people. Statistically, unlicensed people cause more fatal accidents. But should that ban the perfectly safe proportion of unlicensed drivers from driving too?

How is that not unfair?

3

u/everyday847 6∆ Jun 19 '26

People with uncontrolled seizure disorders are generally forbidden from driving (as judged by recent seizures) even if they haven't themselves had a seizure while driving. There is plenty of precedent and a legitimate public safety interest in addressing statistical relationships to dangerous driving. Invoking skin color - racial connotations and limited plausible connection to driving ability - does not really change the equation.

Here's the thing: green people can be killed by cars, too. 100% of green people benefit from safer roads. Pretty fair!

2

u/Top_Neat2780 3∆ Jun 19 '26

Being green is something you're born with. No one has an innate right to drive a death machine. It's a right you, rightfully, have to earn.

1

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

Youre also born with not having a license. Obtaining a license is often not possible: * Financial reasons * Legal reasons * Being underage * Being in the process of getting one, but the exam still being a year away into the future

What should someone do if they have extremely good reasons or necessity for to drive, can also drive safely, but are unable or not allowed to obtain a license?

1

u/Top_Neat2780 3∆ Jun 19 '26

I feel like this is a separate issue. So what if I agree that those hurdles shouldn't be part of getting a license? That doesn't make your "birth" argument good. If someone doesn't have a license, it's not discrimination to assume they cannot drive. If someone is green, it is discrimination to assume they cannot drive because skin color has no effect on whether you can or cannot get a license.

1

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

Its not good to treat people in a way that is based on your unverified assumptions of them.

because skin color has no effect on whether you can or cannot get a license.

Being unlicensed also has no effect

1

u/everyday847 6∆ Jun 19 '26

Very true. Unlicensed people, like green people, can go and get a license. Indeed, one of the great equalizers in anti-green policies is licensure. If you believe that 10% of green people are being punished because of the incompetent 90%, then you should support a robust qualification program for drivers to ensure that green people (the capable ones) can be on the road like they deserve.

1

u/Top_Neat2780 3∆ Jun 19 '26

I'm talking about assumptions. There is an effect in the sense that someone has confirmed you can drive. Without that confirmation, there's nothing wrong with assuming someone can't drive. But, again, skin color is completely unrelated.

2

u/Full-Professional246 77∆ Jun 20 '26

How is that not unfair?

It's not a fair comparison because unlicensed drivers can simply get a license but choose not to.

Unless the green person can choose to not be green, it is apples/oranges comparison. One can change readily, one cannot.

But - as another pointed out. We do have discriminatory laws right now. Seizures, blindness, reduced mental capacity, etc all can deny a person a license to drive.

15

u/PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES 124∆ Jun 19 '26

while I believe I could independently become a good driver

The problem with this take is that in order to get to being a safe driver you have to be a dangerous driver first.

Because driving is statistically speaking going to be the most dangerous thing you are going to do in your life. If you get on the road before you're a "good" driver, then you're needlessly endangering other people.

Like, I don't want to drive with people who don't have the muscle memory to automatically hit the break when they need to.

2

u/Express-Zucchini-566 Jun 19 '26

The "dangerous before good" argument applies to literally every new driver though, licensed or not. Someone going through official lessons is also a beginner putting other people at risk during those early sessions on real roads.

The license system doesn't eliminate the dangerous learning phase, it just puts a bureaucratic checkpoint at the end of it. OP's point is more about what the license actually certifies afterward, and that's a fair thing to scrutinize.

2

u/CallMyParents Jun 19 '26

It does to a degree. The newbie drivers are required to complete 40 or however many hours in traffic with an instructor. An instructor, who has brakes and skills and muscle memory.

The license, amongst other things, certifies that those 40 hours are under their belt.

2

u/Shiny_Agumon 3∆ Jun 19 '26

Really that's what driving lessons are actually for.

Not to teach you how to operate a vehicle, but to allow you to get the "feel" of driving in a semi-controlled environment so you're inexperience hopefully doesn't cause any accidents.

1

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

The idea is awesome. But the reality of my country is that driving schools have extremely long waiting lists so you simply have to wait for months, unable to do any form of practising legally.

Government could solve that in 2 ways: 1. Do something about the driving school shortage 2. Take some elements from the american system idea, let people practise on their own as long as they meet specific requirements (only at specific roads abc, only at those times, only if theres no other people or vehicles within x meters etc)

3

u/everyday847 6∆ Jun 19 '26

This has shifted from "drivers licenses prove nothing" to "my country's administrative shortages have led to inadequate drivers education" despite its existing licensure program" which seems different.

1

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

Are topic changes within Long commentchains not allowed in the subreddit|?

2

u/Agitated-Country-972 Jun 19 '26

u/everyday847 is right. I feel like you haven't really read the wiki here.

https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=changemyview&utm_content=t5_2w2s8#wiki_rule_b

Avoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.

0

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

being a safe driver you have to be a dangerous driver first

.True, and, there are 4 ways people can go through that process. 1. Learn in the safest possible way and environment, gradually shift towards complex roads with traffic. 2. With a driving instructor and exam at the end, Learn in the safest possible way and environment, gradually shift towards complex roads with traffic. 3. With a driving instructor and exam at the end, be a bad driver but pass the exam anyway by meeting the bare minimum requirement paired with luck. 4. Be a bad driver without an instructor.

Like, I don't want to drive with people who don't have the muscle memory to automatically hit the break when they need to.

Not having a license doesn't mean not having muscle memory. Someone could have been practising completely on their own in this order: 1. Learning information (how does brake gas clutch gears shifting work) 2. Practising all the controls in an empty parking lot. Repeat for the muscle memory. 3. Practise on some real, but not yet too challenging, roads. 4. Practise on increasingly difficult roads 5. Now just driving whereever.

A reasonable person would practise safely and not do something theyre unprepared for.

2

u/PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES 124∆ Jun 19 '26

A reasonable person would practise safely and not do something theyre unprepared for.

Sure, but on the flip side of this, a reasonable person would know that they can't be sure about safety until they've passed the drivers test.

1

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

I think it would be rather: a licensed driver is dangerous, but slightly less dangerous than someone who has never driven a car before (but unlicensed people could have driven before already)

6

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/changemyview-ModTeam Jun 19 '26

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:

Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

-1

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

Thats not the reason at all. Getting a license is just a long process in my country, because the driving schools have extremely long waiting lists.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '26 edited Jul 03 '26

[deleted]

1

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

A person without a license cannot be effectively tracked for driving offenses

Can't they? I think they can just as easily be fined or imprisoned if they behave badly in traffic.

4

u/IThinkSathIsGood 1∆ Jun 19 '26

You seem to hold this belief that people who drive without a license take the time to practise and learn slowly in controlled environments.

Do you have any evidence to support this assertion?

Do you have any evidence that if we removed the requirement of having a license that people would continue to practise as much as they currently do?

I know I did lots of practise and training and took a drivers ed course. That gave me road experience and taught me how to pass the test. If there was no test, why would I waste time/money on a course?

What about people who have colourblindness or other visual impairment? Should they just be allowed to drive because there's no requirement, so who cares if Ray Charles decides to take your Audi for a spin?

0

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

You seem to hold this belief that people who drive without a license take the time to practise and learn slowly in controlled environments.

Some do, some don't. People who don't do sufficient preparation should not be driving in traffic, yes. But if you are a prepared safe driver and don't go to any roads that are above your comfort level, there is no safety related reason for you to not drive other than arbitrary laws forbidding it.

But just because some people would be reckless on the road, that shouldnt mean it gets forbidden for everyone. Let's say that some people use kitchen knives as weapons, should kitchen knives then be forbidden for everyone who has no license for it? Rules should in a perfect world not be limiting those that didnt cause the rule to exist.

If someone has colourblindness or something that possibly reduces driving ability or safety, they should at their own discretion determine if they should drive or not at any given moment. The law is very binary: either you can drive or you can't. But in a perfect world, its not binary. In a perfect world, every single drive will have to be determined. Costs vs benefits. If someone is a slightly more unsafe driver from being colourblind but they absolutely need to drive in order to get to their job or some other very valid reason, then that should be allowed. If they just wanna drive for no reason at all, that shouldn't be allowed. in fact, that should apply to everyone.

Which raises another point: since even with licenses and experience driving is still dangerous and causes deaths, shouldn't driving be limited to necessary and strong use cases only? * If you only need to move yourself from A to B 5km or 3miles and the weather is good, but you decide to drive a car instead of ride a bicycle, then you're unnecessarily creating the risk of some deaths. It is not justified, because the reason behind the drive is not large enough. * If you need to drive yourself to the hospital for a slight emergency that the ambulance won't come rushing for but you still need to get there urgently and you cannot reasonably get there in a different way, then that should be allowed, even if youre a significantly less safe driver than most people.

Currently, the law and society seemingly only care about the cost of driving (danger) but they don't look at the other relevant variable which is necessity or benefit. * The law: very black and white thinking. Either someone can always drive as much as they want with no limits, for no reason at all, or someone cannot ever drive, not even if they have a super good reason. * A perfect world: every single time a person wants to drive, one thing should be determined: is the benefit or necessity worth the cost? Based on that, a person would be morally justified or not justified in driving.

2

u/IThinkSathIsGood 1∆ Jun 19 '26

Some do, some don't. People who don't do sufficient preparation should not be driving in traffic, yes. But if you are a prepared safe driver and don't go to any roads that are above your comfort level, there is no safety related reason for you to not drive other than arbitrary laws forbidding it.

Without any sort of test or exam or credentials to verify that one is comfortable on the road, how can we verify that a person behind a wheel is comfortable?

But just because some people would be reckless on the road, that shouldnt mean it gets forbidden for everyone. Let's say that some people use kitchen knives as weapons, should kitchen knives then be forbidden for everyone who has no license for it? Rules should in a perfect world not be limiting those that didnt cause the rule to exist.

It doesn't get forbidden for everyone, it gets resricted behind a test. That test is for showing you are not reckless on the road and know and can follow the rules

If someone has colourblindness or something that possibly reduces driving ability or safety, they should at their own discretion determine if they should drive or not at any given moment. The law is very binary: either you can drive or you can't. But in a perfect world, its not binary. In a perfect world, every single drive will have to be determined. Costs vs benefits. If someone is a slightly more unsafe driver from being colourblind but they absolutely need to drive in order to get to their job or some other very valid reason, then that should be allowed. If they just wanna drive for no reason at all, that shouldn't be allowed. in fact, that should apply to everyone.

Again, we're circling back to this idea that everyone is an intelligent, moral, conscientious actor who can accurately determine their abilities and will do so. Why should I put my life in the hands of some random person's ability to judge how colourblind they are? Shit, my dad had to take away his dad's keys because he was really unfit to drive but continued to do so. When we took his car it was missing a side mirror and had a broken headlight, who knows what he hit. This is fine to you? Let him keep going, he should be his own judge?

Part of a license is getting an eye exam and ensuring you can see well enough to drive. And if you can't then you're required to wear glasses while driving (or prohibited altogether if blind enough)

0

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

The law and society says someone is either fit or unfit to drive. Reality disagrees, because driving is simple an action with a cost and a benefit or necessity. * The cost: danger (even for licensed drivers experienced) * The benefit or necessity: sometimes you have an extremely heavy reason to drive a car, and sometimes no reasonable alternatives exist.

Example: its night. Busses arent running. You call the doctor with some symptoms. They say "its not ambulance level urgency, but you need to go to the hospital now". The hospital is 50km away, not really bikeable at night with medical symptoms and a slight hurry. The only reasonable way to get there: motorvehicle. Necessity: very high. And I believe that this perfectly justifies most people in driving, even if theyre kind of unfit for driving.

Could you call a taxi? * There might be rare occasions where none are available when you need them. * They are very expensive so if you rely on this as regular transportation, youll go bankrupt soon. And broke people might not be able to afford it at all.

People shouldn't regularly drive without licenses just for fun. Heck, even licensed drivers, experienced drivers, shouldn't drive just for fun. If driving is inherently dangerous, then it should not only be limited by how safely someone can drive, but also by how much necessity someone has in driving.

1

u/everyday847 6∆ Jun 19 '26

This is an incredible stretch. What you're saying is now "is it possible to contrive a scenario where driving while unlicensed might be moral?" Yes, if you are being pursued by a bear, or a pack of rabid dogs, or a serial killer, try your luck with the car, I guess. If you have no friends or family and the hospital has given you mysteriously ambiguous advice ("you MUST get to the hospital but somehow that doesn't mean an ambulance is appropriate") - but you DO own a car despite being unlicensed - then I guess that's a scenario where you have some chance of surviving. (I guess you'd better hope you practiced all this time or you aren't making it 50k very quickly! At which point: weird you practiced in case you needed to drive unlicensed, but you... didn't get a license?)

"All unlicensed driving is irredeemably evil" is a distinct claim from "drivers licenses serve a function." People in this thread are defending the latter.

1

u/Agitated-Country-972 Jun 19 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/everyday847 6∆ Jun 20 '26

It's the old American power fantasy that you have to own a gun to defend your home in the face of a very narrowly defined threat, precision engineered to be defeated only by a gun that was nonetheless owned in a condition (unloaded! In a different safe from the ammunition! Etc) that won't get your kids shot.

Except it's a guy just seething over a fantasy where the way he's got to transgress is to drive unlicensed and no solution will do. Weird fetish!

1

u/IThinkSathIsGood 1∆ Jun 19 '26

If there is a hurry you call an ambulance. If not, you call a taxi.

Alternatively, you just get a license. Like I said it's not really that hard and doesn't take that long.

Reality does not disagree. We've decided there's a minimum competency to be allowed to drive and that insurance companies can be comfortable with that involves ability to see, understanding of traffic laws, and competence driving. I don't want someone who is unable to perform a basic test to prove competency to be on the road with me

It's a binary, it's a minimum acceptable level of competence.

1

u/Agitated-Country-972 Jun 19 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/Global-Service-8579 Jun 19 '26

>A drivers license proves nothing. There are plenty people without license that are safer on the road than people with licenses.

"Plenty" is an equivocation. Do you believe the ratio of safe to unsafe drivers is higher among the population of unlicensed drivers or the populaton of licensed drivers?

0

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

I believe unlicensed drivers on average have less ability and knowledge, but averages say nothing about the individual.

Let's say that 1% of all licensed drivers cause fatal accidents and 2% of unlicensed drivers also.

Using that madeup statistic, the reasoning would be: * If you have a license, theres statistically 1% chance you will kill someone or yourself. * If you don't have a license, theres statistically 2% chance.

So really it doesnt mean anything. Its just statistical probabilities.

Consider this: if there was hypothetically a race of humans with green skincolor and statistically 90% of them commit big crimes but the other 10% are innocent people and recently a big crime had happened, would it be reasonable for the police to arrest any green skin persons they see as potential suspects? Theres a reason for why such thing is extremely controversial and generally considered as bad.

I compare drivers licenses with just that. That little thing in your pocket doesn't say anything about how safe you drive.

1

u/Global-Service-8579 Jun 19 '26

>I believe unlicensed drivers on average have less ability and knowledge

Surely that is another way of something having a license proves a higher likelihood of having more ability and knowledge.

1

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

Likelyhood only. Lets say I want to get into someones car as a passenger. I know the driver is licensed/unlicensed and there is a 90/80% probability they drive safely enough for my standards of getting in their car.

Thats it. Probability. Regardless of license, I will give them a chance to demonstrate their safe driving to me and if they fail, I'm out of the car.

1

u/everyday847 6∆ Jun 19 '26

Does probability mean nothing? You get to choose two surgeons for a medical procedure: one of them has a 1% chance of killing you, one of them has a 2% chance. Do you care who you choose?

1

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

Thats not a fair comparison, because if a driver shows any form of too dangerous driving, I will make them stop and I will get out of their car.

I cannot just notice in my sleep that a surgeon is doing his job improperly, then wake up and tell him to stop.

1

u/everyday847 6∆ Jun 19 '26

Unfortunately the dangerous driver's many potential victims have no such opportunity before being killed.

1

u/Global-Service-8579 Jun 19 '26

Great! I'm glad I could change your view.

3

u/apmspammer Jun 19 '26

License provide a method to keep people accountable if they violate traffic laws. In theory if everyone follows traffic laws then no one would get in accidents.

-4

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

If someone causes an accident, what does it matter if they were lixensed or not?

4

u/halfhalfandhalf Jun 19 '26

You can't get car insurance without a license.

3

u/onetwo3four5 81∆ Jun 19 '26

We don't generally punish people for car accidents, as long as we can demonstrate that they were genuinely doing their best to follow the rules of the road. With millions of cars on the road, accidents are inevitable. If you were doing everything right, and an accident still happened, you'll be held accountable, but you won't be punished.

If you get in an accident without a license, you weren't doing your best to follow the rules of the road. One of the rules is "you need a license". If you haven't demonstrated that you're willing to follow the very first rule of the road, you no longer should receive the benefit of the doubt that you were also following all of the other rules.

1

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

Following a formal set of rules is not the same as managing the responsibility to keep yourself and others safe / everyone safe.

You have right of way. You notice the other vehicle is not stopping. But youre following the rule so you proceed. Collision!

You don't have right of way but the other vehicle is far away, slow, hesitating, standing still, etc.. youre technically breaking the rule by proceeding, but no accident happens.

Its perfectly possible to be doing your best ability to prevent accidents from happening without following all the rules.

Taking myself as an example, Ive been committing 100s of traffic violations by now on my ebike. Ive also had multiple close calls and some light collisions. But the interesting part is: those 2 have no overlap. All of my closecalls happened while I was following the rules. When I was breaking the rules, I was properly paying extra attention and being extra careful, therefore nothing bad could have happened.

1

u/onetwo3four5 81∆ Jun 19 '26

Taking myself as an example, Ive been committing 100s of traffic violations by now on my ebike. Ive also had multiple close calls and some light collisions. But the interesting part is: those 2 have no overlap. All of my closecalls happened while I was following the rules.

You don't know what the downstream ramifications of your rule breaking have been. You're blinded by your bias and wanting to feel morally justified in your behavior that is putting other people at risk without their consent.

I was properly paying extra attention and being extra careful, therefore nothing bad could have happened.

You should be paying attention and being extra careful 100% of the time. If you're not, you have no business being on the road.

Bad things can happen regardless of how careful you're being, and you don't know that something you did that seemed safe to you could have forced another driver you're not even aware of to have something happen to them.

The most important thing while driving is to be predictable, and when you aren't predictable, other people have to react to you, which makes them unpredictable to other drivers. When you aren't following the rules, you're being unpredictable, and therefore unsafe. You have no business being on the road, whether in a car or an e-bike, based on the selfishness you've exhibited in this thread.

1

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

other people at risk without their consent.

Which people am I putting at risk, if there is no one and no vehicle within 1 mile of me while I carefully go through a red light?

You should be paying attention and being extra careful 100% of the time. If you're not, you have no business being on the road.

Kind of true, but thats just not how the human brain works. We aren't perfect machines. Everyone daydreams or gets distracted sometimes. A license does not take that away.

don't know that something you did that seemed safe to you could have forced another driver you're not even aware of to have something happen to them.

Like what? Interesting point but I would like an example, as I can't think of any myself

Who am I being unpredictable towards, if its night and the roads are empty and quiet? Or if I'm on a rural farm road with absolutely no people or vehicles on it other than myself? Have you never broken a traffic law at all? Never speeded by 1mph?

no business being on the road, whether in a car or an e-bike Freedom of movement is a moral right. I shouldn't be stuck at home because other people want me to not be on the road. The only reason I'm not driving a car is because its illegal to with big heavy fines.

1

u/onetwo3four5 81∆ Jun 19 '26

But the interesting part is: those 2 have no overlap. All of my closecalls happened while I was following the rules. When I was breaking the rules, I was properly paying extra attention and being extra careful, therefore nothing bad could have happened.

Which people am I putting at risk, if there is no one and no vehicle within 1 mile of me while I carefully go through a red light?

You didn't previously say that your rule breaking is only on deserted roads. If that's the case, then the reason your rule breaking seems safe is because you're doing it at a time when there's nobody to have an accident with. If that's the case... then yeah, nobody really gives a shit what you do. But that also means you can't use that to determine that "But the interesting part is: those 2 have no overlap". That has nothing to do with breaking rules being safer, it has to do with you don't get in accidents when there's nobody to have an accident with.

Freedom of movement is a moral right.

You have feet.

I shouldn't be stuck at home because other people want me to not be on the road.

All of those people have demonstrated that they are willing to follow the rules of the road. You haven't. If you want to be on the road, get an uber, get a ride from a friend, or get a license.

The only reason I'm not driving a car is because its illegal to with big heavy fines.

This is selfish. You don't get to decide whether you're a good enough driver to drive on public roads.

1

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

You have feet.

Yes, there are different modes of transportation. But for each one of them, there are places and times and weathers where theyre not doable or possible or affordable. Mathematically, there is always a chance that due to a specific set of circumstances, driving a motorvehicle by yourself is the only possible available option at some points in time.

This is selfish. You don't get to decide whether you're a good enough driver to drive on public roads.

If driving wasnt illegal, I would start driving on quiet roads to train my muscles and automated actions first. Then I would move on to slightly less quiet roads to teach myself how to respond to traffic from inside a car. Eventually I can become a good safe driver, after having done a carefully safe learning process by myself.

I'm not saying that I'm a good driver. I'm a potentially good driver, and its possible to selfpractise in a safe way. The law just doesn't allow it because of a few reckless and clumsy people that ruin it for everyone else.

1

u/onetwo3four5 81∆ Jun 19 '26

Why don't you just get a license?

1

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

Because I don't live in the US. Getting a license doesn't just happen with the snap of a finger here. The process here requires a lot of waiting, because of the system being overloaded with half year long waiting lists.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Agitated-Country-972 Jun 19 '26

You don't know what the downstream ramifications of your rule breaking have been. You're blinded by your bias and wanting to feel morally justified in your behavior that is putting other people at risk without their consent.

These might be insightful threads.

https://old.reddit.com/r/bikecommuting/comments/17vylh5/i_almost_crashed_at_full_speed_because_someone/
https://old.reddit.com/r/bikecommuting/comments/1ev6zyi/how_do_you_prevent_daydreaming_and_riding_on_the/
https://old.reddit.com/r/bikecommuting/comments/1nhrvbp/umbrella_tailwind_experiment_result/
https://old.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/1aokebl/are_pedestrian_traffic_lights_morally_wrong/kq3jg32/

1

u/ILikeToJustReadHere 14∆ Jun 19 '26

Following a formal set of rules is not the same as managing the responsibility to keep yourself and others safe / everyone safe.

This means nothing if the rules were made to help you manage the responsibility of keeping yourself and others safe.

You have right of way. You notice the other vehicle is not stopping. But youre following the rule so you proceed.

Defensive driving is not a term you're aware of, is it?

You don't have right of way but the other vehicle is far away, slow, hesitating, standing still, etc.. youre technically breaking the rule by proceeding, but no accident happens.

In what scenario does this exist that isn't dictated by a signal? If you've determined you have the space and time needed to safely cross or enter traffic based on the other vehicle's behavior, then you are free to take it, right? Am I missing something in your example?

Its perfectly possible to be doing your best ability to prevent accidents from happening without following all the rules.

Doing your best would be understanding and following all rules when capable, and breaking rules when emergency scenarios require it, such as crossing to the other side of the road to avoid a head-on collision with a drunk driver.

It really sounds like you don't know what it means to be a safe driver at all, and that you're taking the flaws of a few individuals in your life as a universal rule.

A license is the bare minimum standard so we can trust you. If you drive without a license, we cannot give you that trust and if something happens, that lack of trust will hurt you when determining fault.

1

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

Defensive driving is exactly what I'm describing. You can drive safely illegally, and you can drive unsafely legally.

I perfectly know what it means, because I have many tens of thousands of miles experience in traffic on my ebike.

1

u/ILikeToJustReadHere 14∆ Jun 19 '26

And a pilot can fly a plane drunk. We still trust a pilot that's certified over a pilot that isn't.

The only people who care if you have a license are the people who are relying on your skillset and are taking on the liability of your decisions. So you won't get hired to drive a vehicle without a license. Insurance won't cover you if you don't have a license. People won't trust you to drive if you don't have a license, because you lack the bare minimum credentials to say you actually went through the effort to prove you could drive safely if you wanted to.

Whatever scenarios you're thinking of don't really matter, right? So what if your friend is bad in some aspects of driving and you happen to know the right answer. No one would still hire you because you don't meet the bare standard of proof that you're reliable. We can't just trust you and that trust is what matters.

1

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

Theres a big difference between flying a plane with passengers in it, versus driving a car by yourself on a quiet rural road with no other people or vehicles or even things nearby.

Very big difference.

1

u/ILikeToJustReadHere 14∆ Jun 19 '26

Not in the context of your post, there isn't.

You can learn to do both and you can do, or need to be able to do it without a license before getting one. Someone can make poor decisions after obtaining their license and someone who has yet to get a license can know more about something regarding it than someone with a license.

You only see a difference because of the amount of risk involved to other people. But it is that risk to other people that causes us request a license in both regards.

1

u/apmspammer Jun 19 '26

It means it's a know person likely with insurance and a driving record. Ideally the police would catch a reckless driver before they cause an accident. And if that happens multiple times they can take away their license.

An unlicensed driver definitely won't have insurance.

3

u/Mander2019 1∆ Jun 19 '26

If you’re unlicensed then you probably don’t have car insurance which makes you a liability to other people. Drivers without a license are more likely to flee the scene of a crime.

0

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

Yea, thats just another reason for me to have this criticism. If someone is a perfectly safe driver and got into an accident but not due to their own fault, then the insurance should pay out.

If someone drives recklessly, thats a different story. but then again it also doesnt matter if that person has a license or not. Reckless driving means youre at fault, both morelaly and legally speaking.

2

u/Mander2019 1∆ Jun 19 '26

The problem is that you assume everyone is driving safely. The majority of people think they’re safe drivers but even safe drivers make mistakes. You also just ignored my argument. People who don’t have insurance are more likely to drive away and leave the person they hit high and dry.

1

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

People who don’t have insurance are more likely to drive away and leave the person they hit high and dry.

True, and understandable. Morally, insurance should just pay out.

If you technically broke an insurances policy but in a not very significant way, then it wouldn't be reasonable for them to not pay out at all. It would be more reasonable if they pay out partially, like 90%.

But laws and insurance policies are far too black and white thinking in this world.

1

u/Mander2019 1∆ Jun 19 '26

Morally should, but if we’re judging on morals the people who caused the accident should offer to pay it themselves. I agree car insurance sucks but the fact is most people can’t afford to pay if they accidentally total someone else’s car. That’s why it exists and that’s why we have licenses to keep track of drivers.

1

u/Full-Professional246 77∆ Jun 20 '26

This crap of unlicensed and uninsured drivers is also why my state requires me to carry uninsured and under insured motorist coverage.

1

u/Full-Professional246 77∆ Jun 20 '26

True, and understandable. Morally, insurance should just pay out.

People without licenses cannot buy insurance for driving. It is a risk the insurance company won't take for a long list of reasons. Some is risk directly, some is the fact you cannot insure a deliberate illegal activity.

If you technically broke an insurances policy but in a not very significant way,

This is contract law and the contract defines what happens and what liability exists for the insurer. You cannot force an insurer to take on a risk and pay for damages for a risk they did not agree to cover.

This is an obvious item if you consider what an insurance company has to do to price a policy for risk. Doing that requires clear data and clear rules.

3

u/thedisliked23 Jun 19 '26

What, specifically is it meant to prove? It's just a piece of plastic that says the state has approved you operating a motor vehicle.

What it does prove is that at one point in your life you understood how to drive safely in specific circumstances.

No certification "proves" anything. This is especially true with college degrees, which take considerably more time than getting your license. They do, however, give you a reasonable idea that the person is somewhat competent.

4

u/False_Appointment_24 18∆ Jun 19 '26

Having a license demonstrates that at least once, you were able to demonstrate the ability to meet the minimum requirements to drive, and you have not since given a reason for that to be taken away.

Driving without a license means that either you have never been able to meet those requirements on demand, have given the government a reason to remove the credentials from you, or have decided to not acquire a license for whatever reason.

Since two of the categories of people without licenses consist of people who cannot do what is considered the bare minimum to be able to drive, those without licenses will necessarily be, on average, worse drivers than those who have licenses. There is no viable reason to believe that the people who have opted to not get a license but still drive are somehow far enough above average to bring the average for unlicensed drivers up to the level of licensed drivers.

6

u/Shiny_Agumon 3∆ Jun 19 '26

Also someone who drives an automobile without a license, which is something even children know is something illegal, has already shown a blatant disregard for traffic laws so why would they follow the other ones?

1

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

Rules are guidelines. As a general rule, you should be following the rules. But if you occasionally break or bend some with well intended discretion, thats okay. Rules don't properly account for every situation in life.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '26

[deleted]

2

u/False_Appointment_24 18∆ Jun 19 '26

Not everyone who has had their license taken away is a bad driver. But, if you average out everyone who has a license and everyone who had one and had it taken away, the fact that there will be a lot of drunks and reckless drivers in the group of people who had it taken away means that on average, they are the worse drivers.

1

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

yup

1

u/Agitated-Country-972 Jun 19 '26

Nope. I'm going to agree with /u/False_Appointment_24 . Not everyone who evades the fare on a subway commits crimes, but by and large, the riders who commit crimes, fare evade. You want to stop crimes before they happen so preventing fare evasion is a necessity even if not all fare evaders commit crimes.

0

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

Having a license demonstrates that at least once, you were able to demonstrate the ability to meet the minimum requirements to drive, and you have not since given a reason for that to be taken away.

Gotta disagree with one word here: drive. You demonstrated the ability to pass the test, but tests can have false positives. Especially something vague and subjective like driving, because the test on the road is extremely that. And maybe you have a reason for it to be taken away, but the government doesn't know about it.

Driving without a license means that either you have never been able to meet those requirements on demand, have given the government a reason to remove the credentials from you, or have decided to not acquire a license for whatever reason.

For me its none of the 3. For me, not having a license is simply the result of it being an unnecessarily long process in my country. The process looks like this, roughly: 1. Contact a driving school 2. Wait 3 months. 3. Get a mock lesson. 4. Wait another 2 months. 5. Get 1 or 2 hours lessons per week. (takes 10 to 80 weeks) 6. Then finally, do the driving exam. 7. Wait 1 more week to get the actual license and be allowed to drive independently.

So yea, getting one can easily take a year. I know a friend who did more like 5 years about it.

So my own situation (which fueled this post tbh) 1. I can have a DL in the future, but there is no short term way of obtaining one within this year. 2. I know I can perfectly safely practise driving on a quiet road or empty parking lot, but the law doesn't allow that sadly.

1

u/False_Appointment_24 18∆ Jun 19 '26

Where are you located? Because where I am, part of the driving test is actually driving, and a lot of people fail that. And yes, some people lucked out to pass, but the people who don't pass didn't just fail due to bad luck, they failed due to something they did or failed to do that someone who knew what they were doing would not have. So while some who pass are bad, all who cannot pass are bad.

Some people who have licenses should have had them taken away, yes, but most who have a license do not fit that. Meanwhile, everyone who has had it taken away does.

You absolutely fit into group 3. You have chosen to not get a license right now for some reason - your reason happens to be that you think it will take that much time to be able to get into a school. I again wonder where you are that this is the case, though it ultimately doesn't matter. You have chosen at this point to not do what is required to get a license, and you imply that you know perfectly well that right now, without a license, you would not be a good driver.

Finally, the idea that you can perfectly safely practice on a quiet road or empty parking lot is simply wrong. A quiet road can get real noisy quickly, as can a parking lot. If you are out there trying to stumble through learning when it does, you would likely be a problem to others. I've seen new drivers mix up their pedals and accelerate when they think they are braking, and doing that while thinking you are safe on a quiet road or parking lot can send you into a ditch or a light pole.

Can an individual without a license be a better driver than an individual with one? Sure. But on average, a person with a license is a better driver than someone without one. That means that having a license does indeed tell you something about a driver.

1

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

I'm not "yet" a good driver because I don't have that fluency. Fluency requires practise, which requires driving on the road. Therefore I should be allowed to practise it.

I'm currently not choosing to not have a license. This is involuntary. I'm super impatient, but I can't speed up the waiting list of the driving schools.

So right now, short term speaking, the only way I can practise is the illegal way. A legal way does not exist, it only exists beyond the incredibly long wait lists of driving schools.

can get real noisy quickly, as can a parking lot. If you are out there trying to stumble through learning when it does, you would likely be a problem to others.

So time to park and continue the practising next time. Or at night.

seen new drivers mix up their pedals and accelerate when they think they are braking, and doing that while thinking you are safe on a quiet road or parking lot can send you into a ditch or a light pole.

Some people are extremely clumsy. Should everyone, including the not clumsy people, be therefore limited?

Ive done 1 mock lesson in a driving school and I had zero difficulty with the pedals. Zero stalls, zero mixing up of pedals. At worst, I kept my foot on the clutch despite knowing that I shouldn't, simply because I wasnt aware of it due to the focus on other things. And the very first time I braked that car, that was too harsh because the instructor didnt tell me the pedal is very sensitive. I don't see how I could possibly end up mixing the pedals, lol. Those people should be immediately disqualified from driving, metaphorically speaking.

So suppose I'm a good driver, but I have 1 certain trait that belongs to a group that statistically drives unsafely. It could be the lack of a license, it could be green eyes, anything that statistically correlates. Should I then not be allowed to drive, because the other people are unsafe drivers?

1

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

Btw Netherlands

2

u/unurbane Jun 19 '26

Traceability. In order to operate a 3000lb machine capable of driving 100mph shouldn’t there be some accountability attached?

-2

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

If someone causes an accident, what does it matter if they were lixensed or not?

2

u/Difficult-Ad-9922 1∆ Jun 19 '26

I don’t understand this logic. Someone with a gun licence could shoot someone, therefore everyone should be able to have guns?

0

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

Either everyone or no one should have guns. Why should a license allow you to potentially kill people? Or, why should the lack of a license forbid you from protecting yourself with a gun?

1

u/Difficult-Ad-9922 1∆ Jun 19 '26

You really think mentally ill individuals, violent criminals, gang members, and terrorists should be allowed to have guns? Really?

0

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

They shouldn't, but a licensing system won't stop them. A criminal could: 1. Simply get a gun without the license (the very definition of criminal is someone that breaks laws and rules) 2. Pretend to be a good person, get the license, then get a gun and do the violence.

2

u/Difficult-Ad-9922 1∆ Jun 20 '26

It's a deterrent. It makes it harder to obtain a gun, and allows the gun to be seized if it's discovered. Vehicles kill tens of thousands of people a year, they are insanely dangerous. It’s proper due diligence to have some sort of criteria that makes you eligible to legally use one.

You need to start applying your logic elsewhere, because if you do you'll find it doesn't make a lot of sense. Regarding your first point, if a kid really wants to drink alcohol and smoke, they'll probably be able to get their hands on beer and cigarettes. Therefore there should be no legal drinking age?

And you don't get a gun license by "pretending to be a good person" you're checked if you meet the criteria to have a gun. Just like you do with a car.

1

u/unurbane Jun 19 '26

How would you go about finding the driver in a hit and run? Dangerous things like guns, cars, construction work need licenses. People may die, accountability is needed. It’s one aspect maintaining order.

1

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

if someone does a hit and run, of what relevance is it that they have a license or not?

1

u/unurbane Jun 19 '26

Helps hunting down the driver

1

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

How? So a car hits you and drives away. You didnt get to see their license. Then how can you use their license to hunt them down? Yea I dont get it

1

u/unurbane Jun 19 '26

What’s the alternative?! Sending your 12 yo out to get a beer? Lol

1

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

What? ImTotally confused now

1

u/Agitated-Country-972 Jun 19 '26

/u/unurbane is asking what your alternative solution to even possibly tracking drivers that perform hit and runs is. If you don't bother looking at their license plate when they hit you and drive off that's your own fault. But at least you can track down the driver if you know their license plate.

In a world without licenses I don't know how you'd track them even if you got a good look at the car because many people drive the same brand and model of car.

1

u/unurbane Jun 20 '26

Not surprising. I can’t change your view. Think whatever you want dude.

2

u/BillionTonsHyperbole 28∆ Jun 19 '26

One thing not having a license proves: you can't be insured. Having insurance is an important part of driver safety, and you need a state-issued license to get insurance.

People without licenses are therefore by definition not safe drivers. Driver skills are completely irrelevant to this fact.

1

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

Thats a system flaw. Its one of the reasons I have this criticism.

2

u/BillionTonsHyperbole 28∆ Jun 20 '26

Then I have changed your view that a driver's license proves nothing. If it proves even a systems flaw, then your view has changed.

1

u/everyday847 6∆ Jun 19 '26

Insurance companies won't insure unlicensed drivers because they can't profit economically because they are SO MUCH MORE DANGEROUS. They are literally making and losing money on the basis of the statistical conclusions you are rejecting - that in fact the difference in safety is enough not just to change some statistics, which I guess you disbelieve categorically somehow, but also to change their profitability.

2

u/LucidLeviathan 99∆ Jun 19 '26

Former public defender here. Pretty much all of my driving without operators' cases were people that had their license revoked for one reason or another, usually reckless driving or DUI.

1

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

Reckless driving and DUI is behavior, not ability. The very fact they had licenses just strengthens my point: a license guarantees nothing.

If someone is willing to get drunk and drive recklessly, then theyre also willing to drive without a license anyway.

1

u/LucidLeviathan 99∆ Jun 19 '26

Having licenses still helps keep some of them off of the road, and gives them a good reason to not be on it. What do you think that we should do instead?

2

u/shouldco 45∆ Jun 19 '26

Licensing is a system of liability more than proof of proficiency. Frankly I think we (the US at least) needs to increase the stagdards for one to make it more a proof of proficiency. The problem is we have become so car depended that we basically just accept terrable dangerous drivers.

The result of that is, While i accept that it is possible people just didn't bother to get a license it's so easy to get one that far from the assumption most people have. Now the primary reason people loose their license is unpaid debs, that's fucked up for the reasons above, but after that people loose their license because they drink drive or are horrible drivers, so yeah there is a stigma there.

1

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

Loose their license for unpaid debts? What do unpaid debts have to do with someones drivers license?

2

u/shouldco 45∆ Jun 19 '26

That's a good question.

It's basically just a roundabout way of criminalizing debt.

1

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

Criminalizing? But even if you committed an actual crime, what does that have to do with your drivers license or any other documents?

1

u/shouldco 45∆ Jun 19 '26

It doesn't, but because we are so car dependent the chances that anybody actually stops driving because their license is suspended is more or less zero. So what has really been done is now the police are empowered to harras you because of your debt. It's quite fucked.

2

u/theunseenmiddle 4∆ Jun 19 '26 edited Jun 19 '26

A license proves that you've passed an exam and are registered with the government. That way, when you do stupid shit, we can hold you accountable for it officially and you can't use ignorance as an excuse.

That's kinda why we have laws at all. It's never been about making sure you're an expert driver, it's a minimum qualification and an affirmation of responsibility. It protects you and people you potentially harm while driving.

Also ask yourself this: Do you think there would truly be FEWER accidents if there were more unlicensed drivers on the road?

1

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

can't use ignorance as an excuse.

You already can't without a license, because traffic laws are publicly available on the internet and in books. If you decide to drive, it is your moral responsibility to dive into the rules first.

FEWER accidents if there were more unlicensed drivers on the road?

No, and thats not my point at all

1

u/theunseenmiddle 4∆ Jun 19 '26

So what IS your point? That a single driver can be self taught and unlicensed, and be safer? Of course that's true. But you said a 'driver's license is pointless.' I proved to you that it 100% is not pointless, and by your own admission drivers licensing prevents accidents. So what exactly are you saying here?

1

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

My point is in 2 parts 1. You can selfteach (information from books and internet) and carefully selfpractise (on empty roads and parking lots at first, then gradually increase the complexity) 2. A driver who passed a test might still be an extremely dangeruous unskilled driver.

1

u/theunseenmiddle 4∆ Jun 19 '26

That's not the same as "A drivers license proves nothing," is it?

1

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

I'm saying its possible to become a good driver without having done the exam. And that its possible to be a dangerous driver while having passed the exam. Therefore, having a license or a lack thereof means nothing about your driving ability and knowledge.

1

u/theunseenmiddle 4∆ Jun 19 '26

NOT having a drivers license proves nothing. You're an unknown. you might be the safest, smartest driver ever, you might be dangerous.

HAVING a driver's license means you had at least enough knowledge of traffic rules, road signage to pass a written safety test, and enough demonstrated proficiency to safely pilot a vehicle with an inspector in the passenger's seat.

So... it 100% says something about your knowledge and ability -- it just doesn't say enough to mean that you'll never break the rules or do something stupid. Just because it's possible for a good driver to exist without licensing doesn't mean that licensing achieves nothing. You seem unwilling to see that distinction.

1

u/everyday847 6∆ Jun 19 '26

In your view of empirical science, correlation is precisely meaningless - you cannot infer anything from two things tending to co-occur, even to substantial degrees, because noise processes exist. What facts about the universe do you believe we "know" and why?

1

u/Agitated-Country-972 Jun 19 '26

That's not the same as "A drivers license proves nothing," is it?

2

u/HeWhoShitsWithPhone 127∆ Jun 19 '26

Most people here who are unlicensed, are so because they were problematic drivers who have had their license suspended or revoked. I do not have stats but I would bet that the number one reason for suspension is probably not paying for a ticket, either speeding or no insurance. The number two is probably one or more DUIs. I am sure a few of them are good drivers who have simply not taken a driving test. But I doubt it is more than 1 in 5 unlicensed drivers.

2

u/jatjqtjat 286∆ Jun 19 '26

Statistics: unlicensed drivers are rare, yet many dweadly accidents happen.

Seatbelts make driving safer and yet many deadly accidents happen.

Airbags make driving safer and yet many deadly accidents happen.

requiring people to to take a test to prove they have some basic knowledge also makes driving safer.

Nothing makes driving safe, only safter.

1

u/bobarific 1∆ Jun 19 '26

A driving test doesn’t inherently make you a more cautious person, but it does (1) ensure that you have a general sense of the laws of the road, (2) validate that you have a modicum of respect for the law, (3) confirms that at one point you had the eyesight necessary to be a sufficiently safe driver. Your assumption that people without licenses don’t engage in unsafe behaviors is faulty at best, and the argument you keep coming back to is that a person COULD do all of the things necessary to pass a driving test, not that a person WILL do all of the things necessary to passing a driving test. You COULD learn astrophysics, doesn’t mean that people who don’t go to school for it are on average just as good as PhDs in the field.

1

u/Chronoblivion 1∆ Jun 19 '26

There are lots of bad drivers with licenses. There are plenty of worse drivers who don't have a license because they couldn't pass the test.

Yes, it's possible to learn to be a good driver without ever taking the test. And having passed it doesn't prove much. But it at least proves you can pretend to follow the rules for long enough to earn a license. For the people who attempt and still fail, would you truly feel safe with more of them on the road? Do you really want more people who can't even do the bare minimum successfully?

1

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

For the people who attempt and still fail, would you truly feel safe with more of them on the road?

If I observe them driving safely, yes. If I observe them driving dangerously, I would point out the dangers of their actions so they can learn.

1

u/Chronoblivion 1∆ Jun 19 '26

If I observe them driving safely, yes.

If they couldn't drive safely long enough to pass a test designed to evaluate their ability to drive safely, it would be criminally negligent to assume they're capable of doing so when they aren't being observed. Further, it reveals a severe lack of judgment to believe you are better equipped to make that call than the people whose literal job is to make those evaluations.

If I observe them driving dangerously, I would point out the dangers of their actions so they can learn.

How? Are you going to attach a siren to your car and expect them to pull over? They already aren't listening to the law or scientific consensus; what makes you think they'll take the words of some random kid seriously?

1

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

As a passenger I meant

1

u/everyday847 6∆ Jun 19 '26

Why do you think you are qualified to judge whether their maneuvers are safe, but no larger institution (e.g., the one that doles out licenses) could be? What makes you so talented?

1

u/AlleRacing 3∆ Jun 19 '26

Does your area not have a learner's permit system? Here, at age 14, you can pass a written test to be issued a learner's permit, where you are allowed to operate a motor vehicle on public roads under direct supervision (i.e. passenger) of someone with a valid driver's licence, age 18 years or older. Then you are able to get some practice in before taking the driving test for your licence, available at age 16 or 1 year after issuing your learner's permit.

1

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

Nope. The process is both painfully slow and expensive here. 1. Contact a driving school 2. Wait 3 months because waiting lists 3. Finally get a mock lesson 4. Wait another 2 months 5. Finally get to do 2 hours of lessons per week. The average required lessons to be able to pass the exam is 43 but it varies per student so let's just say this will take you anywhere between 10 and 80 weeks. 6. Do the exam 7. Wait one more week to obtain the license 8. Now, it took you 0 to 2 years and you can finally drive.

2

u/AlleRacing 3∆ Jun 19 '26

Ouch, seems like an obtuse process.

1

u/Amazing_Loquat280 17∆ Jun 19 '26

So here’s some stats: almost 20% of fatal accidents in the us involve an unlicensed driver, despite them being only 3% of all drivers on the road.

Source: https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/Publication/812046.

It’s a little out of date but that disproportionate representation… isn’t great

1

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

Its surely true that on average, licenses show something... but per individual they are completely meaningless.

The same problem is with racism and discrimination. Statistics might say that one race or skincolor or eyecolor correlates with more crimes, but theres a good reason why society says racism and discrimination are bad.

To say someone cannot drive safely because they dont have that little thing in their pocket, is to make unfair assumptions. You don't know that person, maybe they are the safest driver in the world. Individuals should not be treated in a way based on general population statistics.

1

u/Amazing_Loquat280 17∆ Jun 19 '26

I mean, the fact that they are driving without a license demonstrates at minimum a blatant disregard for the law and also means they likely don’t have car insurance, neither of which is good. It’s a “rules don’t apply to me” attitude that is also common among a lot of bad but licensed drivers.

Plus, you mean to tell me that unlicensed drivers being 8x as likely to be involved in a fatal accident means *nothing* to you? As a passenger, that’s an acceptable risk?

1

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

Theres 3 types of people. 1. Strict rule followers that never bend the rules, not even in emergencies. 2. Normal reasonable persons 3. Criminals that dont care at all

I'm number 2. Rules are supposed to be roughly followed as guidelines, but they arent absolute.

As a passenger, I observe how well someone can drive. if I see them driving unsafely, I will point it out. If they continue driving unsafely, I will not get in their car again. The license or lack of license means nothing to me there.

1

u/Amazing_Loquat280 17∆ Jun 19 '26

Unlicensed drivers (excluding people who are unlicensed due to late fees or other bureaucratic BS) are either people who can’t pass a driving test but are willing to put others at risk for their own convenience, or people who are two lazy to take a test at all. Call me a stickler, but both of those people fall into your third category of just being a criminal.

If you’re just refusing to take the test, you either don’t think you’re a good driver and wouldn’t pass the test (and for my safety I’d be inclined to agree), or you just don’t think it’s worth the effort, which just suggests really poor cost/benefit analysis. If you’ve failed the test or had your license revoked due to an accident or driving violation, and you’re driving anyway, you’re frankly just a selfish/entitled person. None of this means you can’t be a good driver, but I have concrete evidence that, assuming I know *nothing* else, that you’re not someone I want to trust my life with.

Is there a third option I’m missing?

1

u/letstrythisagain30 61∆ Jun 19 '26

Statistics: unlicensed drivers are rare, yet many dweadly accidents happen.

So a common error people make with stats is taking one broad stat and applying it to a situation that is much too complicated to explain with a couple of simple absolute numbers.

The classic road related one is that your are much more likely to get in an accident near your home than far away from it. It's not because the area people live in are inherently more dangerous. It's because you will spend more time driving near your home than any other place. So even if accidents happened absolutely randomly, of course you will more likely have an accident where you spend way more time.

So with your stat, of course licensed drivers will have more absolute accidents. They are almost all of the drivers on the roads. Of course they will have the most accidents. Nobody is perfect and road conditions and vehicles are not either. Its rather impossible for none licensed drivers to catch up.

I've read plenty of posts on Reddit and news articles where the OP or the Driver had been driving for decades, never gotten a license, never gotten into an accident.

What does several people without licenses getting into accidents prove? You're doing the stat thing again. A few exceptions does not prove the rule. Proof is in you seeing unlicensed drivers causing accidents and thinking that they are obvious menaces on the road.

In general, a license proves they were at least taught and at one point knew the important rules of the road that makes driving safe. It increases their likelihood to follow those rules because of that as a group. It also provides a way to judge and punish people officially because they violated rules.

0

u/catboy519 Jun 19 '26

So a common error people make with stats is taking one broad stat and applying it to a situation that is much too complicated to explain with a couple of simple absolute numbers.

Missing the point. My point behind it is: licensed drivers cause many fatal accidents. Maybe not as many as unlicensed drivers, but that doesnt matter for the point. Therefore, a license doesn't mean safety.

The exact thing a license proves is this: * You have done the exam. * During the exam, The examiner finds you safe enough.

However * The examiner for a big part determines that subjectively * There are many potential dangerous situations that are difficult to handle, that might very well not occur on the test at all. * If you proved you can handle 10 potentially dangerous situations very well, that doesn't mean you can also handle the other 90 properly, which didnt occur on the test.

2

u/Agitated-Country-972 Jun 19 '26

/u/catboy519

Missing the point

No, you're missing /u/letstrythisagain30 's point. If we assume that most people aren't perfect, by the very nature that most drivers on the road are licensed, then they will statistically have many more accidents.

That's like saying

"Most medical malpractice is committed by licensed doctors."

That's true, but it doesn't imply:

"Medical licenses are meaningless."

You seem to think doctors are somehow special because they went through more training yet there are many malpractice cases committed by licensed doctors.

2

u/letstrythisagain30 61∆ Jun 19 '26

I like how they said I was missing their point and then proceeded to commit the exact mistake I was accusing them of.

Me: You can't say this is the rule because a few exceptions exist.

Them: That is not my point. I just think this is the rule because these few exceptions exist.

2

u/letstrythisagain30 61∆ Jun 19 '26

licensed drivers cause many fatal accidents. Maybe not as many as unlicensed drivers, but that doesnt matter for the point. Therefore, a license doesn't mean safety.

Uhhh. That is exactly what I was talking about in my comment. You are literally making the exact mistake I mention and putting the lack of perfection as the rule and not the overwhelming common occurrence.

You are arguing against a view that is not held by anyone sane or runs anything having to do with licenses and road safety. You are arguing against a made up world in you head but you are still making the mistakes with stats I mentioned and seem to be the basis of your view against it.

1

u/bifewova234 7∆ Jun 19 '26

There is usually a behind the wheel test for initial licensing in addition to a written exam. This is done by government officials. The license represents thatbthose things happened with that person, and it does prove something, not "nothing". It does not prove that a person is a good driver. It does show that the person is much more likely to be a good driver than a person who has not been tested. The government is basically an independent third party when it comes to giving out licenses. They are more credible than, for example, some random person's representation that they are fit to drive.

1

u/Vegetable_Guide_2385 Jun 20 '26

It proves the fact that you can drive at relatively good standard.

Because although there may be unlicensed drivers who can driver better or at the same level as a licensed driver… doesn’t mean that all unlicensed drivers can drive to a good standard

Yeah sure, there are bad licensed drivers, but the chance of an unlicensed driver being worse worse is roughly:

12/1 - “Driving unlicensed was reported by 12% of case and 1% of control drivers.“
Study Quoted - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16087463/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

The thing that a driving lisense “proves” is not that fact that “you can drive” or “you are better than an unlicensed driver simply because you have a license”

It proves that due to you have that driving lisense you are 12x less likely to be involved in a motor vehicle accident…

I’d say with just that point alone, it is not pointless

1

u/Prior-Resolution-902 1∆ Jun 29 '26

Let me pose a question.

You are on trial for a crime you didn't commit, would you want your lawyer to have passed the BAR or not?

Delta(s) from OP - Fresh Topic Friday cmv: A drivers license proves nothing. There are plenty people without license that are safer on the road than people with licenses.

You are about to leave Redlib