I’m generally considered to have good reading comprehension and English is my first language. Given the other posts below you, have you considered you are really bad at writing clearly?
I’m generally considered to have good reading comprehension
I have no idea why you’re thinking I’m anti-vax. I’m pro-vax.
Dude, seriously? Give me a break.
You have also said the following:
Ok, so if you read that - we’re going to take away the only form of transportation for these people and worry about fixing it later - that’s what lead to my initial reply.
Already wrong. But let’s continue.
Do you dispute this? Am I making an unfounded leap of logic that many people need a car to get to a store and bring back food?
Yes, you are genuinely making an unfound leap of logic, it’s called begging the question. That’s your entire problem, really.
And these people tend to not be in heavily populated areas.
Yeah you mentioned this a few times.
But the other thing that isn’t teased out that I can see is how that riskier driving interacts with cities. That is, NY data is by population overwhelmed by the NYC area, and maybe Buffalo. But that’s by land area - you know, places people might drive - like 1% of the state. So when you’re likely to be the only car on the road, or one of a few - how does the risk change there from a public policy perspective?
People don’t drive on the land per se, they drive on roads—you know, the places people might drive. Where the fuck do you think all the roads are? I’ll give you hint, it’s where the people are, as evidenced by every road atlas ever printed.
And let’s not forget these gems:
I’m also pro proving you can drive to drive, but we don’t do that in the US
Actually we do do that. It’s the aptitude test they have at the DMV when you get your license. The one you also have to get re-tested on when your license expires. The one I’ve been talking about this entire time.
I really thought your characterizations
>Letting blind people with dementia
was hyperbole because if that is what you mean exactly - I don’t think we actually let blind people drive.
I agree. I propose that people whose vision is naturally deteriorating be screened more often so that we catch the ones who are too blind to drive. Again, this is my entire point. You know what else it is? It’s already the law in some states, such as the one I cited, and those states have declining rates of road death, like I cited. And yet I can just feel that this is going to sail right over your head.
I agree. I propose that people whose vision is naturally deteriorating be screened more often so that we catch the ones who are too blind to drive. Again, this is my entire point. You know what else it is? It’s already the law in some states, such as the one I cited, and those states have declining rates of road death, like I cited. And yet I can just feel that this is going to sail right over your head.
And my point this entire time has sailed right over your head. I don’t disagree that more stringent testing for driving would seem on its face to lead to more skilled drivers, which may lead to lower road deaths. I’m complaining about your apparent ageism, lack of concern for solutions that amount to more than “olds or disabled people get rekt for driving” and seemingly complete denial that large swaths of the US that are rural both exist and have old or disabled people living in them who need transport and the only option is cars.
You keep ignoring my actual point and continue to use basic sophistry to hammer a point I’ve accepted and granted in I think my first response. I admit, I like to play devils advocate, so I humor you with responding to your later points. You have yet to respond to my actual issue - accomplishing your desired end should be done in a way that is both realistic in our political environment and doesn’t make a large voting block widely worse off.
You also assert that lower road deaths is the greatest good, accomplished best by taking older drivers off the road, and do not compare to what deaths there would be if these same drivers could not travel at all, and were basically trapped in their houses. I’ve poked at that, but perhaps not directly enough to get you to substantiate this sets of assertions.
I’m generally considered to have good reading comprehension and English is my first language. Given the other posts below you, have you considered you are really bad at writing clearly?
Dude, seriously? Give me a break.
You have also said the following:
Already wrong. But let’s continue.
Yes, you are genuinely making an unfound leap of logic, it’s called begging the question. That’s your entire problem, really.
Yeah you mentioned this a few times.
People don’t drive on the land per se, they drive on roads—you know, the places people might drive. Where the fuck do you think all the roads are? I’ll give you hint, it’s where the people are, as evidenced by every road atlas ever printed.
And let’s not forget these gems:
Actually we do do that. It’s the aptitude test they have at the DMV when you get your license. The one you also have to get re-tested on when your license expires. The one I’ve been talking about this entire time.
I agree. I propose that people whose vision is naturally deteriorating be screened more often so that we catch the ones who are too blind to drive. Again, this is my entire point. You know what else it is? It’s already the law in some states, such as the one I cited, and those states have declining rates of road death, like I cited. And yet I can just feel that this is going to sail right over your head.
And my point this entire time has sailed right over your head. I don’t disagree that more stringent testing for driving would seem on its face to lead to more skilled drivers, which may lead to lower road deaths. I’m complaining about your apparent ageism, lack of concern for solutions that amount to more than “olds or disabled people get rekt for driving” and seemingly complete denial that large swaths of the US that are rural both exist and have old or disabled people living in them who need transport and the only option is cars.
You keep ignoring my actual point and continue to use basic sophistry to hammer a point I’ve accepted and granted in I think my first response. I admit, I like to play devils advocate, so I humor you with responding to your later points. You have yet to respond to my actual issue - accomplishing your desired end should be done in a way that is both realistic in our political environment and doesn’t make a large voting block widely worse off.
You also assert that lower road deaths is the greatest good, accomplished best by taking older drivers off the road, and do not compare to what deaths there would be if these same drivers could not travel at all, and were basically trapped in their houses. I’ve poked at that, but perhaps not directly enough to get you to substantiate this sets of assertions.
Damn, I think you might just be dumb. Listen, I can explain this for you, but I can’t inderstasd it for you. I’m done with you.