Subject:
|
Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 12 Oct 2001 00:27:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
687 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Horst Lehner writes:
>
> > And I do believe
> > that driver's licenses, while they certainly cannot eliminate the risk,
> > still do a good job of lowering it.
>
> And I have presented a counter example that shows it does no such thing, at
> least in some cases.
But not in others? Surely the relative percentages of each would give an
indication of whether the overall risk is lowered by licences or not? Have
there been any studies about this?
ROSCO
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) Well I COULD assert in all cases but it's not very provable, is it? (...) I'm suspecting not, since I don't know of any jurisdiction (similar enough to make meaningful comparisions, Botswana (if they didn't require them) doesn't count) that (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) Laws, not regulations, ameliorate fundamental rights violations. If someone gets killed and an automobile is involved, there are some possibilities The auto was used as a weapon - this is murder and the law against murder is the thing to (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
173 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
