The real purpose of driver's licenses: safe drivers?
In expressing concern about a bill sneaking through Congress that would make state issued driver's licenses into national IDs, a New York Times Editorial is concerned that the gov't will forget: "the real purpose of driver's licenses: safe drivers." There's just one problem. Driver's licenses were not introduced for that reason. My grandmother, who was around at the time, told me years ago that driver's licenses originally had no photo for ID purposes nor any requirement for testing the safety of the driver. When they were first introduced, as she recalls, the purpose was entirely plain: Raise revenue for the state government. The "driver's license" was really just a receipt to show that you had paid your tax on being a driver.
Now perhaps this was specific to North Carolina where my Grandmother grew up. I would be curious if anyone knows (or remembers) the original rationale given for introducing driver's licenses in various states. Whatever the original purpose, as these licenses now are on their way to becoming the "papers" in "your papers, please" one might suggest that the government doesn't have "safe drivers" as a top priority whatever they tell us. (Also should be noted is the appalling death toll on the gov't roads (Don't drive in Wyoming... Yikes!))
Comments (10)
Michael A. Clem
It should be obvious that drivers' licenses aren't intended to ensure safe drivers--they only test you when you first apply for the license. As long as you renew on time, you're never tested again on your driving ability.
Published: May 4, 2005 11:28 AM
billwald
Agree with Mr Clem. Driver's licenses are 100% revenuing. The lack of one doesn't seem to keep people from driving. Not in Washington State, anyway.
Published: May 4, 2005 12:26 PM
Curt Howland
I received my first license in New York State. At the time (1979) no fingerprint, no photo, a greenish cardboard stamp=out.
But it did have one little bit of honesty. Across the top in big letters it said, "Chauffeurs License".
This harkens back to the excuse that only commercial activity can be licensed on a "public" road, which is why bicycles, walking, horses, tractors, etc, are not licensed yet they too use that same road.
Published: May 4, 2005 12:54 PM
Charles Hanes
I have an issue with the point about driving safety in Wyoming (and some other US states).
The safety web-site link offered presents death statistics on a number per 100,000 population basis.
The web site bashes the USA for having poor results in this measure compared to other IRTAD (International Road Traffic Accident Database) participating countries. For example Portugal, the worst IRTAD country, ranks above 11 US states.
But I am certain that the people in those states drive many more miles per capita than the Portugese population, and so have a much higher exposure to auto accidents.
I think that also looking at a deaths per miles (or kilometers) driven figure would put the relatively rural US states on a more equivalent basis.
Published: May 4, 2005 1:14 PM
Vvagr
Here goes rather good account: http://www.voluntaryist.com/articles/119a.php
Published: May 4, 2005 2:53 PM
Lisa Casanova
Driver's licenses are vital! They teach you that most important of all driving skills, how to parallel park. Doesn't matter if you don't know how to use a turn signal, where your blind spot is, what to do at a four-way stop, what that big sign that says NO TURN ON RED means, that following six feet behind another car on the freeway is unsafe, or anything else about driving. The government is making sure you know how to parallel park. I would ask if the NYTimes is really so dumb that they think driver's licenses cut down on the number of stupid, clueless, and downright homicidal drivers (they sure don't here in NC), but I guess I know the answer.
Published: May 4, 2005 3:47 PM
Stephen W. Carson
Many thanks to Vvagr for the link to The Precursor of National Identification Cards in the U.S.: Drivers Licenses and Vehicle Registration in Historical Perspective By Carl Watner. Mr. Watner writes:
Mr. Watner also notes that my own state of Missouri was the first (along with Massachusetts) to establish licenses in 1903, but had no driver examination until 1952. Oo, what a giveaway!
Published: May 4, 2005 3:48 PM
Rolf
It is all just more parts of the "Institutions of Credibility" which have been established in the past 100 years and as a spider web interconnects globally now.
Those without the "Istitutions of Credibility" documents do not drive, work or play.
Published: May 12, 2005 2:44 AM
Rolf
Miss type correction:
"Institutions of Credibility" not "Istitutions of Credibility"
Published: May 12, 2005 7:40 AM
Elizabeth L. Bixler
I do not know how Ohioans used to get licensed but I do understand that a license has been turned into this never ending circle of paying money to drive and then losing priveleges and then having to pay to get them back. They are definitely not worried about safe drivers anymore, in Ohio your drivers license will be suspended for just about everything, nonpayment of fines, child support, stealing gas, it is just out of control. It's no longer a joy it has become an obligation to the state to drive.
Published: May 12, 2005 11:00 AM