🚀 go-pugleaf

mark carroll wrote:
> 
> In article <33A6A639.1375@net-link.net>, Aeoleus  <osiris@net-link.net> wrote:
> (snip)
> >Don't you know?  The 16-25 demographic has a less percentage of auto
> >accidents than one demographic - people 50 and over.  Don't discriminate
> >by age, and don't act like you know what you're talking about when you
> >don't.
> 
> Is this more accidents in total, or more per head?
> 
> To be honest, I'm not surprised. IMHO people should have to retake
> the driving test regularly throughout their lives as drivers; I don't
> know if that would be practical, though.

One of those damned columns my mom reads quotes that statistic every
once in awhile.  I think it's Ann Landers.  Put it's like percentage
per population.  More per head, in other words.

I always thought people should have to pay for driving tests (after
their first one) and have some kind of government subsidy program for
those who can't pay because they don't have the cash.  The money could
to to the roads (which we desperately meed here in Michigan).  Then we
could have a driving test at 16 to get the license, then again at 25,
then every 10 years until 55, then every 5 years.  Once your sight or
reflexes get too bad, you don't get a license anymore.  If you can
improve (through glasses or training) you can apply for a new one.  I
think that would do more in reducing the number of accidents than
messing around with the driving age.

-- Brian Ream                                         Kalamazoo Michigan
-- mailto:osiris@net-link.net            http://www.net-link.net/~osiris
-- Never call someone stupid and misspell it.