I expected you to ignore my point about 3rd party without good reason. Is it silly, or do you lack the intelligence to understand it?
I don't assume I have the right to drive. I know I have the right to drive, because I have a driving licence. The law says I have the right to drive because I have EAREND it, by passing a test.
You then say:- ' it follows that you are required to make the very minimum financial provisions for some other person injured by your stupidity IN your driving.'
So what is your reasoning that 'it follows' that I should pay for insurance in case I act stupidly.
I have the right to walk down the street but I don't need 3rd party mugging, or shoplifting, or murder insurance, just in case I am stupid enough to do any of them. I don't need 3rd party insurance in case I stupidly or accidentally cause death or injury in any other way.
So WHY does it follow I need it for driving.
You then say that you would increase costs, and difficulty of the test, to make it better for the rest of us. Us includes YOU. So you would only make it as expensive as YOU could afford and as difficult as YOU could pass! If I add this to your view that innocent young people should pay more for insurance so YOU don't have to, I see a pattern. Do YOU?
|
|