From: evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch)
Subject: Re: Interesting facts about bicycles in Ontario (from MoT)
Organization: Somewhere just far enough out of Toronto
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 13:11:53 GMT

In article <9080@ember.UUCP> pacolley@ember.UUCP (Paul Colley) writes:

>>There are times (emergencies.. illness etc) when
>>a driver's license is essential. I do not think that you are nuts for not 
>>driving every day.. or even for discouraging others.. but to purposfully 
>>limit your options?? 

>This reasoning is silly.

>I've got my driver's license.  So now what?  Break a window in the
>local parking lot, hot-wire a car, and drive to the hospital?

The issue was options. If you have a licence, you're not dependent on
others to drive. If you have a car, you're not dependent on others for a
car. It's all relative.

>If I can find a car I can legally use, it's almost certainly going
>to be by getting the keys and permission from the owner.  If it's
>an emergency, why not ask the owner to drive the car?

Common courtesy, for one thing. If you're going to inconvenience someone
by borrowing their car, it would be better (if you could) to not *also*
put them out by asking them to drive.

>If you have a car you normally have legal access to, I assume you've
>told the insurance company involved.

Most insurance companies do not require you do declare the names of
infrequent drivers. Only when you rent do they insist on the names of
everyone who will ever be behind the wheel.

>And again, there's an
>observation:  If the car is here, the person who drove it here is
>usually close by (not always).

If the issue is options, and flexibility, than the preferable choice is
one which does not *require* the above assumption.

>Of course, there's also the issue of just why we have emergency
>vehicles like ambulances, police...

Not every "emergency" is of this nature.

Say a close relative or friend had an accident or a stroke of whatever
(heaven forbid), and is now laying semi-conscious in a hospital in
Niagara Falls. Your ability to get to the hospital in reasonable time
without access to a car is not good. And in this circumstance, it's far
easier for someone else to lend you a car, than to drive you and awkwardly
hang around as long as you want to be there.

>I'll also point out that a driver's license costs money.

The annual cost of which appears reasonable considering the costs
involved in maintaining a road system.

>Here, I have a *MUCH* cheaper option for you:  If you ever have an
>emergency where you need to drive a car, drive a car!

Sheer brilliance, this one.

>The fine for driving without a license once is probably cheaper
>than renewing a license you don't use for the rest of your life.

How cheap do you consider jail time? Driving without a licence isn't
one of those things that are a-fine-and-demerits-and-that's-it.
But not having a licence, how could you be expected to know that?

>	It is a sane option to not have a driver's license.

Yes, it is sane, but only in certain environments.

In order for this to be an option, you need to be in a city of
high density, where most of the things you need are within walking
or cycling distance (a distance which varies from day to day according
to your physical condition).

Your city needs a public transit system that offers 24-hour, 7-day
service within walking/cycling distance of wherever you would want to
travel. (Maybe you've been fortunate enough never to have someone who
lives cross-town call you at 2am saying they need you there in a hurry.
I haven't been so fortunate.)

Then there are taxis, but it doesn't take many taxi rides to blow away
the argument of saving money. And your taxi rides are contribute as
much to pollution and congestion as if it was your own car.

>	It is not obvious, to put it mildly, that the "option" of
>	a non-driver driving a car only in emergencies is better
>	than finding a practiced driver, or using the emergency
>	vehicles provided by society.

No, it's not obvious at all. It's more like suicide.

>	The money and time spent on having a driver's license and
>	the regular practice needed to be a safe driver would likely
>	be better spent (from a safety viewpoint) on safety equipment
>	and training.

Having a licence requires that at one time you had the training (or were
self-tought) enough to know the rules of the road. It means that your
eyesight and reflexes were tested to some (minimal, admittedly)
standard, and if you needed glasses in order to drive properly, your
licence would say so.

You are really suggesting that the avoidance of these requirements is a
safety measure?

Remember, the original point was about options. IMO, the best option is
to have as many at hand as possible. At various times, when I must
travel, I will take whatever method of transportation is the right balance
of ease, safety, speed, and utility. This means that I have a driver's
licence, a car, a bicycle, pre-paid GO Train tickets, TTC tokens, and
my legs. Depending on circumstances, each one of these methods has been
better at various times. Sometimes a hybrid (such as driving to a
parking lot at a subway station and taking transit the rest of the way,
or taking my bike on the GO Train) works better. No one method is best
at all times.

-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
         evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504
   Said Captain Jean-Luc Picard to the tailor at his machine: "Make it sew!"
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles