Subject:
|
Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 12 Oct 2001 00:48:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
644 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> 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?
Well I COULD assert in all cases but it's not very provable, is it?
> 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?
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 doesn't require licenses.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) Note that we're talking about drivers licenses here. I have seen LOTS of studies (and you could go dig them up if you wanted to, try starting at cato.org) about other sorts of licenses... all different kinds of licenses, showing inefficacy, (...) (23 years ago, 12-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) 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 (23 years ago, 12-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
|
|
|
|
