Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!cca!ima!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <2029@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 9-Mar-85 02:44:56 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.2029
Posted: Sat Mar  9 02:44:56 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 11-Mar-85 05:19:36 EST
Lines: 53
Nf-ID: #R:dciem:-143600:inmet:7800323:177600:2413
Nf-From: inmet!nrh    Mar  7 13:28:00 1985

>***** inmet:net.politics / dciem!mmt / 12:01 pm  Mar  6, 1985
>
>>On another front, one little European country had no drivers licenses
>>until quite recently (sorry, can't remember which).
>
>Belgium, and Belgian drivers were a byword for danger throughout
>Europe.  See a car with a "B" on it, and keep WELL CLEAR.  It really
>isn't a very good example in favour of non-regulation.
>-- 
>
>Martin Taylor

Naturally, one would want figures to back up their reputation
(on the other hand, I too have heard of their notorious reputation
and will agree with you, for the moment, that there's something to it).

On the other hand, give them ten years under licensure, and if they
DON'T improve, it would show that the bad driving habits are not
stopped by the license requirement.

Unfortunately, my one other memory of the news item was that 
the plan was to "grandfather" the  people already driving -- that is,
those who could prove they'd already driven would not need to 
get a license.

It's really too bad.  It would have made a nice test.  

I live in Boston, Massachusetts, a place legendary for its bad drivers.
I'd love to compare accident rates (normalized somehow for traffic
density) between Belgium, Mexico, Italy, and Massachusetts, but
can't find the figures.  Anybody have access to these numbers?

The point of my bringing up the Belgian experience at all was that
the world didn't end if you didn't license people to drive -- that 
there was even one fairly modern nation that had failed to do so.

Naturally, I agree that failing to license people might result
(absent all other criteria) in more fatalities -- more automobile
miles travelled results in more fatalities.  ANYTHING that
results in more people driving (without somehow causing
more careful driving) results in more fatalities.  It's one of the
trade-offs inherent in having automobiles around at all.  
Thus, there's no reason to suppose that the licenses must be 
based on anything sensible for one to think that the
fatality rate might go down -- denying licenses at random
would have this effect (assuming that the licensing law
was obeyed).

Finally, there's no statistical reason to think (yet) that the
behavior of Belgian drivers was due to absence of licensure.
It will be interesting to see what happens once the non-licensed
drivers cease to drive, but I suspect we'll have no way of isolating
that effect from others.