Taylor Sauer Died While Driving And Facebooking; Now Parents Want To Make It Ilegal

[kentauros]

88. Okay, I'm breaking my rule here,

because you use those needling tactics to keep the argument going while continuing to avoid the point I made by adding unnecessary modifiers.

So, let's refresh on my one single point:

First Post
"Top Gear did a segment on what Finnish drivers are like as well as what their driver's ed entails, and I wish I'd gotten the same, 35 years ago"

Second Post (to another DUer)
"As I said, the better thing to have going on is to have better drivers, so the idea of an interior cell-phone jammer is rendered irrelevant."

Third Post
"However, in this whole discussion, is what doesn't seem to be getting through to you, that better drivers would eliminate the need for any kind of jamming system.

Why not instead improve the driver's education classes, and mandate that all who get a ticket, for any reason, have to take remedial and updated driver's ed classes? And for those that want a discount on their insurance, people could upgrade their driving skills. All of that could be done on a track so that people could be put into real-world emergency situations and they have to react to them, including the hazards of distracted driving while on a phone. Get people's hearts pumping due to such hazards without endangering their lives, and they just might learn enough to stop that behavior."

Fourth Post (to another DUer)
"Go back to what I posted about better driver's ed. The kind like they do in Finland. It takes three years and they have to learn on a skid track, too. You can't be doing things on a phone while your car is skidding out of control. Thus, that such training makes people better drivers."

Fifth Post
"A skidtrack would be an integral part of an improved driver's education training. Improved driving ability and awareness through training is the best way to lower incidents of distracted driving. As has been successfully argued elsewhere in this thread, a device to jam phone signals wouldn't be feasible. Improving people's driving ability is feasible. And you get bonuses from that. Driving in general becomes safer for everyone. Accident rates go down. Insurance rates (may) go down."

Sixth Post
"I used Finland only as an example of the kind of comprehensive driver's ed that I'd like to see. I really don't need to research it beyond that point."

~~~

As for your claim that you gave me "the reasons why their driving program is so effective", you really only told me to basically "google it" with the following:

"Fairly easy explanation. Check out what they do in Finland if you do not have your license or insurance and compare it to here. Or if we're talking about Finland, national ID are also requested."

Now, feel free to utterly dismiss everything I've said because you've got it in your head that in order to implement Finnish-style driver's education you must also implement their draconian licensing and other related traffic laws and courts. Nevermind that those are points that have nothing to do with my point, simply put: better driver's education training results in BETTER DRIVERS! None of your other added points have anything at all to do with that, and why I can tell you're a debater out to win your blood sport of debating on DU. If you're not already there, may I suggest honing those "discussion" skills in the Religion Forum? They all seem to prefer that tactic over actual discussion...