Stability Control and my 2009 SRT crash

[WILDASP]

I think we need to eleminate the ultimate nanny: the electric starter. I wonder if they had the nanny discussion back then.

Or maybe the electonic control of ignition timing. I'll bet all the Model T guys complained about how sissified the cars were becoming with the elimination of the timing advance lever. Took a real driver to optimize fuel spark and throttle at the same time.

Or then again maybe the power brake nanny. You lose braking sensation with power brakes and are less connected to the car.

Or maybe the power steering nanny. No longer directly connected to the steering wheels.

And now that I think of it lets bring back the carburetor and distributors. Bias ply tires also, only wimps drive on them radial thingies.


Technological advances will always have their detractors. Fortunately the ultimate factor in this Darwin evoution is time itself. Those that grow up with ABS, ESC, TC, paddle shift, etc will not know what they are missing and will be even more happy with how their cars perform. Because when you get down to it I am happiest when my car is faster. And in time every one of these so-called nannies will result in cars that are faster.

Now a real nnany in my book is anything that allows Big Brother to monitor me. Those are nannies worth fighting against.

Here's the fallacy in your argument: NONE of the mechanical "nannies" you mentioned try to drive the car for you. ESC and T/C do EXACTLY that; you have a computer and sensors trying to decide what you MEANT to do (as opposed to what you actually DID DO), then attempt to do it FOR you. Power steering, power brakes, and so on provide additional mechanical leverage to the driver; computerized nannies (and yes, that includes paddle shifters) attempt to take the driver out of the equation. The operative word is attempt, because unless the thing is so intrusive that it overrides everything you do, it simply can't do that; make a bad enough mistake, and the thing can't help you.

If you doubt this, try the following experiment: take a C6 Z-06 Vette to a large, wet parking lot. Leave the T/C off and AH on (the mode which most Vette drivers use in the wet). Get to about 20 mph in 2nd, and stomp the throttle. When the slide starts, counter steer into it (the AH will catch it, but NOT immediately), then go against your instincts and act like a panicked novice: over-correct hard the other way, and stab the brake. (Be sure to leave some room for the AH to catch up: you'll need it!). You will find, that despite the nanny, you just made a little bobble into a much bigger problem.

Right about now, you're going to say, "No one would actually do that on the road!". Well, you or I wouldn't; we'd make one smooth correction and that would be that; but if you believe nobody would (or has), go take a look at the vid over in the "Nannys won't save you" thread, and observe a Vette driver with questionable skills doing exactly what I just described, on the road at a higher speed. The moral: the nanny will ( at least sometimes) make a reasonably skilled driver who works with it look better; it will NOT, however, necessarily help a less competent driver who uses poor judgment, or panics, and thus fools it, or goes past its capabilities.

BTW, ESC, and T/C don't "make you faster; at best, they give you enough false confidence to TRY to be faster. Paddle shifters are arguably faster on the track-for an expert driver who can manage the car at its absolute limits. Below that level, shift speed has less effect on lap times than other factors; that is, unless we are talking about an utter novice who can't drive a stick (in which case he lacks the other skills needed to be fast anyway). On the road, well, if you're driving that fast on a public road, you're doing something you shouldn't in the first place!

On the other hand, this technology does promise one thing; eventually it will let the regulators literally drive for you, by remote control; not much fun, but hey, its the latest and best, and we'll all be safe....in a gilded cage! Coming soon to an overprotective, risk-averse, litigation-happy, and totally emasculated society near you! Ain't "progress" grand?

 

[RTTTTed]

So P. Law you're saying that Germans are smarter (less stupid) than Florida drivers? Or was the point that Germans have more nannies?

Trapper nannies slow do every car when they're turned on.

Dodge made the Viper without nannies and we trust Dodge and like no nannies. Ferraris and vettes are slower (they have nannies). Nice cars? So's my Stealth and it has nannies (like ECS and compert controlled stereo, etc.) which I removed.

If dodge wishes to cut profits and instal heads up displays, TC and ESC at a loss in my Viper, I would accept it, but only if the systems would turn off (which my Dodge pickup won't do).

Ted

 

[Chuck 98 RT/10]

Because when you get down to it I am happiest when my car is faster.

A guy can always buy a faster car. But I'm happiest when I'm faster no matter what car I'm driving. That's the difference between the anti-nanny crowd and the pro-nanny crowd.

 

[PatentLaw]

None of the above. Just that the special license for a sports car, in my opinion, does not make sense. I was poking fun at Chuck (Florida) where if we eliminate Viper deliveries to his state, we could save of 10% of the accidents with Vipers. That is a more significant number that the "nannies" would save. Also that speed does not kill. Germans travel at higher speeds and have less fatalities. And they are not all driving sports cars, believe me.

"Dodge made the Viper without nannies and we trust Dodge and like no nannies. Ferraris and vettes are slower (they have nannies). Nice cars? So's my Stealth and it has nannies (like ECS and compert controlled stereo, etc.) which I removed."

Your quote above is understood. I find it illogical to not produce the Viper or bash the next generation because it has to comply with the US Federal Regs. As you stated, you may be able to disable or remove them, if you choose. Have your cake and eat it too.

I am saying that we should be more trusting of Dodge in this instance. They have done a great job up to now.

 

[Chuck 98 RT/10]

Also that speed does not kill.

Hey, we finally agree on something!

Oh and that Florida drivers ****. I knew you were baiting me but it's tough to take the bait when one agrees.

 

[PatentLaw]

Hey, we finally agree on something!

Oh and that Florida drivers ****. I knew you were baiting me but it's tough to take the bait when one agrees.

Wait till you see some of the statistics I pulled up on different states. You guys do have a problem down there....it seems you have lots of unlicensed drivers. I mean lots....

 

[RTTTTed]

So would that mean that Florida has too many illegal immigrants or that their DMV makes it difficult to obtain or keep a DL?

I think that stupid kills (mostly). Young and new drivers insurance premiums are high for a reason. I think that although all the classifications are a PIA, training such as is mandatory for Police and Dodge provides with new Vipers (HPDE) should be utilized and would be a good thing to have happen. Here in BC (and maybe Ontario) we need certification for a chainsaw, all small motorized boats, snowmobiles, Forest Fire courses, First Aid Courses, Dangerous Goods (propane bottles) certifications, Air Brake, all DL classes special training, Gun licenses (pistol and rifle), Hunting certification, etc. A course for 400+hp cars would be a valuable certification as I used to be a great driver with vast experience and when I attended JonB/PIR for HPDE I found it a learning experience. I can't imagine kids and bad drivers taking that course without vast improvement to their driving skills. Since there are so many hp cars that have not taken a HPDE there would be a large reduction in accidents of supercars. People would actually experience their cars in high speed (read emergency) situations and control their cars.

I don't believe that a special class of license will be an issue as there aren't enough supercar crashes to warrant that expence. I also believe that the Government does it's law making according to inusrance lobbyists and do agree that it's quite possible that all cars will go up in price and get ESC installed and eventually no switches becaues the nannies do make the roads safer by controlling idiot's driving a little.

I'm ranting about no nannies and don't want them, but if the regs require them, they'll be installed or no more Viper.

Someone made a comment on being spied on? Yes the cars have "Black Boxes" since '08? They only record a few minutes (except the GTR) and the Government refused to allow Insurance companies to download the recorded data if they wished. But in another year will the insurance be allowed to read your computer memory? Probably.

Ted

Ted

 

[TrapperJ]

All you need to get a license in FL is be able to run a leaf blower. That is a limited license, since then you can only drive slow in the fast (left) lane at 10 mph below the limit.

 

[Chuck 98 RT/10]

Wait till you see some of the statistics I pulled up on different states. You guys do have a problem down there....it seems you have lots of unlicensed drivers. I mean lots....

Unlicensed and uninsured. Just goes to show how pathetic our legal system is.

 

[GR8_ASP]

There seems to be a difference here between what some consider nannies and what others consider technological advances. No question that ESC and T/C invade the realm of a drivers direct control. I would prefer to call them "active" devices versus passive devices.

Now there are other active devices on your car. How about a speed sensing differential, rain sense windshield wipers or auto dimming headlamps and mirrors, automatic temperature control, etc And how about what is on the horizon (this should make Chuck shiver) with active braking based on radar, active lane control, interactive cruise control (slows and accelerates your car up to your speed setting based on spacing to the next vehicle), active speed control, etc. Now these should scare the heck out of real drivers. But a defeatable (by a switch) stability control or traction control? That is what I do not understand. It adds no weight to an ABS vehicle, cost is in controls development, which evolve to be the basis for new models and have relatively small long term costs. And has been stated by many it can be turned off making it inactive.

As to the comment about a paddle shifter, it does not specifically infer active or passive. It only moves the shifting location from the console to the steering wheel. Same functionality. Some are connected to a normal hydraulic planetary automatic transmission with a torque converter and the "active" control the transmission provides is maintained. Some add manual selection to the automatic operation (meaning no active gear selections). Some are connected to DCT (dual clutch transmissions). With a DCT a human cannot properly operate the two clutch system so it is automated. Gear selection, however, can be automated or forced to be manually selected. Whenin manual mode it is comparable to a manual with automated clutch. And an automated clutch is a passive device (it only clutches when asked to). So how can a paddle shift be considered a so-called nanny? or do we now call passive devices that make cars respond better to driver inputs a nanny aid. If so we are back to power brakes, power steering and other passive driver aids as being in the same class.
So I disagree that paddle shifters are a nanny. by definition paddle shifters themselves do not have to provide automatically selected shift points. And shifting automatically then makes it a nanny aid. Then a normal automatic must really be a nanny aid.

But the bottom line is it is the law. To sell a car in volume you must have ESC. And no amount of Chuck's in this country will overturn the regulation. It is just one more thing in a long list of technological improvements that have reduced the drivers involvement in how a car operates. And Chuck read this closely: NHTSA HATES sports cars. They are surely not going to make a ruling with a sports car preference. If they could NHTSA and the EPA would have outlawed anything but pure transportation vehicles. You need to be face to face with them to see the hatred they have for automobiles in general.

 

[WILDASP]

But the bottom line is it is the law. To sell a car in volume you must have ESC. And no amount of Chuck's in this country will overturn the regulation. It is just one more thing in a long list of technological improvements that have reduced the drivers involvement in how a car operates. And Chuck read this closely: NHTSA HATES sports cars. They are surely not going to make a ruling with a sports car preference. If they could NHTSA and the EPA would have outlawed anything but pure transportation vehicles. You need to be face to face with them to see the hatred they have for automobiles in general.

Just who was it, that empowered these bureaucrats? The same feckless, worthless politicians of both parties who have systematically undermined and dismantled everything from our rights under the constitution, to our national defense, to our industrial base, to any control of our sovereign borders, to morality, decency, or any vestige of common sense. They have done that, in a mere thirty years, while an ever more sheep-like, feminized, and over-cautious population meekly allowed it. They have turned the land of the free and the home of the brave into the land of the serf and the home of the fearful. If there are enough of us left who still care, there is one thing we can do about all of this, which is vote the politicians out (ALL of them!) and start over; if not, it won't matter anyway; we soon won't have a country, much less sports cars.

 

[FastestBusaAround]

So P. Law you're saying that Germans are smarter (less stupid) than Florida drivers? Or was the point that Germans have more nannies?

Trapper nannies slow do every car when they're turned on.

Dodge made the Viper without nannies and we trust Dodge and like no nannies. Ferraris and vettes are slower (they have nannies). Nice cars? So's my Stealth and it has nannies (like ECS and compert controlled stereo, etc.) which I removed.

If dodge wishes to cut profits and instal heads up displays, TC and ESC at a loss in my Viper, I would accept it, but only if the systems would turn off (which my Dodge pickup won't do).

Ted

Vettes are slower then Vipers? Maybe a few seconds on the ring, but not due to the nannies, only the handling. Last time I checked, Vettes were faster in the quarter mile than the viper 95% of the time. (late model Z06)

 

[Proshop]

Stability control on my Z06 saved my life......

The bad thing about nannies is that you tend to push the car to the nanny limits..

 

[RTTTTed]

Well I guess there may be one or two vettes out of every few thousand that are a little faster than the thousands of vettes? Not sure that I could care much about the 1% or less that are ARGUEABLY as fast as a Viper.

You're referring to 2 or 3 years of 1 model vette? So you mean that a few thousand are as fast as their equivalent year Viper? Forgetting about the millions of vettes that all Gen 1 Vipers beat?
;0

 

[RTTTTed]

"But the bottom line is it is the law. To sell a car in volume you must have ESC."

You're saying that the newer Vipers have ESC? When did this happen? The earlier discussion was that it was going to become law.

 

[WILDASP]

Stability control on my Z06 saved my life......

The bad thing about nannies is that you tend to push the car to the nanny limits..

Precisely the point I have been trying to make since thhe beginning of this thread.

 

[GR8_ASP]

"But the bottom line is it is the law. To sell a car in volume you must have ESC."

You're saying that the newer Vipers have ESC? When did this happen? The earlier discussion was that it was going to become law.

It is a regulation, among the many thousands of regulations. Its effective point and its approval date are two different things. It is a regulation now and will be fully complied with next year (each OEM had to have a phase in plan to supported a phase in rate).

 

[GR8_ASP]

Just who was it, that empowered these bureaucrats? The same feckless, worthless politicians of both parties who have systematically undermined and dismantled everything from our rights under the constitution, to our national defense, to our industrial base, to any control of our sovereign borders, to morality, decency, or any vestige of common sense. They have done that, in a mere thirty years, while an ever more sheep-like, feminized, and over-cautious population meekly allowed it. They have turned the land of the free and the home of the brave into the land of the serf and the home of the fearful. If there are enough of us left who still care, there is one thing we can do about all of this, which is vote the politicians out (ALL of them!) and start over; if not, it won't matter anyway; we soon won't have a country, much less sports cars.

It was natural outcome of the Ford Explorer and Firestone tire fiasco. As were the rollover regulation increases.

Now I am sure you all can find cases of expert drivers that would not have rolled over when the tires blew out, thus negating the need from the regulators perspective. But science caught up with it and provided a solution that they could put in place. And save drivers that would otherwise have been placed in a dangerous situation. Not by their driving behavior but by not being able to manage an emergency situation. That is precisely why the regulation was put in place. Not to improve or limit a performance cars ability, but to provide an added degree of protection in an unforeseen incident. That is also what is behind the tire pressure monitors, which can also be "active" and modify the vehicles performance until the low pressure situation is rectified. Ah, another reason to march on Washington.

In the end at least they allow a defeat switch. You have to be thankful for the minor victories in the wars against regulation.

 

[Chuck 98 RT/10]

But the bottom line is it is the law. To sell a car in volume you must have ESC. And no amount of Chuck's in this country will overturn the regulation.

That is certainly true if everybody lays down and takes it. But that aint my nature. Let the pacifists and the naive take the blame, I'm fighting to the end.

31 years ago GM stopped building the last 400 cid motor. If anyone said there would be a 488 cid in 13 years they would have been called nuts. And now we have 510 cid. The same can happen with the nannies.

Nannies in sports cars are as dangerous as they are safe in the hands of certain drivers and there are countless examples posted all the time. You are correct GR8, the NHTSA hates sports cars but the only way they will be able to outlaw them is if we let them. Sadly, many are doing just that and don't even realize it.

 

[Cop Magnet]

Man, I have seen some great posts in this thread. It constantly amazes me how varied opinions can be, how well articulated, and how passionate the arguments. Clearly someone is wrong, but impossible to tell who. In all such cases of diametrically opposed theory, the truth lies somewhere in between.

Are "nannies" safer or more dangerous? Under perfect conditions, worse. No argument. Under less than ideal road conditions, which is where accidents happen, better. So what is the "in between" answer to this problem? It already exists. It is called the on-off switch.

 

[PatentLaw]

As to the additional licensing, here are the statistics:
http://www.aaafoundation.org/pdf/unlicensed2kill.PDF

The results are troubling. Obviously, if we had more trained common drivers, the statistics would look much better. Worrying about an additional driving level would not do anything. It is the common driver that is the problem.

Some short takes on the above:
1) In all fatal crashes, the odds of one of the participants being unlicensed is TWENTY percent.
2) New Jersey and Wyoming are interesting. Of those two states, people involved in deadly crashes had a licenses the previous three years that were revoked SIXTY FIVE percent of the time. This indicates the willingness of police to fully prosecute the "bad guys" and also the bad guys unwillingness to change their ways.
3) Male drivers were FOUR times more likely to be unlicensed.
4) You are more likely to be hit and injured by a licensed driver between 3 and 4 pm. An unlicensed driver between 10 and 11 pm. Unlicensed driver accidents outnumber licensed driver accidents between the hours of 7 pm to 6 am.
5) Vehicle impoundment continues to be an effective way to eliminate unlicensed driving.
6) Convert. autos were only involved in fatal crashes .8 percent of the time. 2 door coupes 34.6 percent. Yes.... .8 compared to 34.6

There are so many statistics that you could go on and on evaluating them. Suffice it to say, check up your state and see how it does. It is obvious to me, that some states police much more heavily than others. Some states don't try to police anything at all, while others crack the whip. It may be a reason why some states have less deaths than others.

 

[WILDASP]

It was natural outcome of the Ford Explorer and Firestone tire fiasco. As were the rollover regulation increases.

Now I am sure you all can find cases of expert drivers that would not have rolled over when the tires blew out, thus negating the need from the regulators perspective. But science caught up with it and provided a solution that they could put in place. And save drivers that would otherwise have been placed in a dangerous situation. Not by their driving behavior but by not being able to manage an emergency situation. That is precisely why the regulation was put in place. Not to improve or limit a performance cars ability, but to provide an added degree of protection in an unforeseen incident. That is also what is behind the tire pressure monitors, which can also be "active" and modify the vehicles performance until the low pressure situation is rectified. Ah, another reason to march on Washington.

In the end at least they allow a defeat switch. You have to be thankful for the minor victories in the wars against regulation.

GR8,

In the first part of this, you have provided us an excellent insight into the bureaucratic thought process; they could not be satisfied with finding a perfectly good solution to a specific problem, i.e. instability in vehicles with a high center of gravity. Instead, they were so thoroughly impressed (mostly with themselves, I suspect), that they decided the idea was a cure-all, to be applied indiscriminately across the board, whether it was actually applicable to other problems, or not. These people like "one size fits all" solutions, because these give them more power over more people. Don't forget, these are the same people who mandated airbags, with the full knowledge that the devices would kill a certain number of people; didn't matter to them; this was simply a numbers game, and so long as the devices saved more lives than they took, this was deemed acceptable. I would hazard a guess that the families of those killed by this "safety device" in minor, otherwise harmless accidents might have a different take on the matter, but that was of no concern to our regulatory masters in Washington; those lives were and are considered mere "collateral damage" and I doubt that a single one of the bureaucrats involved has lost a moment's sleep over the matter. Typical of bureaucrats the world over, I might add; their mentality is mindless, soulless, heartless, pretentious, and power hungry; a nice way to justify a drab, boring, and mostly useless existence. Given all that, I hope I can be forgiven for having less than a charitable attitude toward the species. Given their track record (the airbag is only one of their many mistakes) I also am not particularly comforted by the level of competence displayed by those who have been empowered to regulate more and more of our lives.

So, while I am happy with the few small bones they throw us (thankful is too strong a word!) I am FAR from satisfied with their dismal performance record, especially when the same agency that can mandate nanny tech to its heart's content cannot be bothered to find the time to prohibit the sale of over-aged tires as new, despite the well-documented risks associated with that practice; further evidence (as if any were needed), that these people are more about the arrogance of power than about safety. I will be satisfied, if and when we get our Republic back from these people, and the politicians who created them in the first place!

 

[Chuck 98 RT/10]

I don't see where not have a license is a big issue. Having a license doesn't make someone a better driver. Forcing people to have a license won't make them better drivers. Requiring people to pass a defensive driving course will make them a better driver. But there are so many things wrong with our legal system in regards to driving that the effort of real defensive driver's training is just the tip of the iceberg.

But licenses? Pfft. All they mean is that the person holding it paid the government for the right to drive. Nothing else.

 

[FastestBusaAround]

Well I guess there may be one or two vettes out of every few thousand that are a little faster than the thousands of vettes? Not sure that I could care much about the 1% or less that are ARGUEABLY as fast as a Viper.

You're referring to 2 or 3 years of 1 model vette? So you mean that a few thousand are as fast as their equivalent year Viper? Forgetting about the millions of vettes that all Gen 1 Vipers beat?
;0

Yes, I am...2006 and up Z06's, with almost 100 less HP. They are NOT slower than a Gen IV Viper. I have both. In fact, the Z has more punch in the bottom end of the gears than the Viper does and it is faster than the Viper at lower RPM's. It's not quite as ****, but it is as fast every day of the week and in fact faster than most times I see around here in a Gen IV in the quarter. Most around here are high 11's low 12's...

 

[Chuck 98 RT/10]

these are the same people who mandated airbags, with the full knowledge that the devices would kill a certain number of people; didn't matter to them; this was simply a numbers game, and so long as the devices saved more lives than they took, this was deemed acceptable.

I'm glad you brought that up. Since it's inception three million airbags have been deployed and attributed with saving 6,000 lives. That's 0.2%. Nearly all of those 0.2% lives saved by airbags were idiots not wearing seatbelts. So once again, hundreds of millions of responsible motorists are being forced to pay for an unnecessary safety device because .2% are too ******* stupid to wear their seatbelts. Talk about diminishing returns.

I sure wish I could come up with a relatively worthless safety device, lobby Washington and sell the public on it. That would be enough cash to buy the Viper brand and lobby Washington to exclude it from all the regulations so we could have the ultimate car of all time.

 

[PatentLaw]

As for ESC, contrary to the gibberish that it does not work, or only works in certain selected instances, the data shows that there is a THIRTY FIVE percent reduction in single vehicle accidents. That is a huge difference.

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/809790_files/809790.pdf

The point is to look at the data and don't rush to judgement or think you know better. If anyone else who reported that it does not work has any other data to refute it, please post it. Honestly, I don't think you can find it.

As for the number of lives saved with air bags, the above is incorrect as well. See the report.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811105.PDF

Air bags have saved many thousands more lives. In fact, air bags save more lives than minimum age drinking laws AND motorcycle helmets COMBINED. See the report.

And most people think that riding a motorcycle without a helmet is crazy. They are necessary.

Be thankful you have not had to use the airbag. You are complaining about spending a few bucks on safety, but you have multiple Vipers. Life is rough. We all have to do things we don't necessarily want to do.

 

[Chuck 98 RT/10]

We all have to do things we don't necessarily want to do.

Yep. Like continuously fight to repeal excessive, oppressive and tyrannical laws. Pity and ironic that we have to go to such great efforts to do so in a country that likes to tout freedom and at one time actually had it.

 

[Cop Magnet]

I don't see where not have a license is a big issue. Having a license doesn't make someone a better driver. Forcing people to have a license won't make them better drivers. Requiring people to pass a defensive driving course will make them a better driver. But there are so many things wrong with our legal system in regards to driving that the effort of real defensive driver's training is just the tip of the iceberg.

But licenses? Pfft. All they mean is that the person holding it paid the government for the right to drive. Nothing else.

It's not having a license that makes you a better driver, it is having LOST a license that proves how bad you are. That's what the quoted stats suggest.

 

[WILDASP]

As for ESC, contrary to the gibberish that it does not work, or only works in certain selected instances, the data shows that there is a THIRTY FIVE percent reduction in single vehicle accidents. That is a huge difference.

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/809790_files/809790.pdf

The point is to look at the data and don't rush to judgement or think you know better. If anyone else who reported that it does not work has any other data to refute it, please post it. Honestly, I don't think you can find it.

As for the number of lives saved with air bags, the above is incorrect as well. See the report.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811105.PDF

Air bags have saved many thousands more lives. In fact, air bags save more lives than minimum age drinking laws AND motorcycle helmets COMBINED. See the report.

And most people think that riding a motorcycle without a helmet is crazy. They are necessary.

Be thankful you have not had to use the airbag. You are complaining about spending a few bucks on safety, but you have multiple Vipers. Life is rough. We all have to do things we don't necessarily want to do.

Before you get too carried away, you (and everyone else) take a real good look at the "unbiased" source for those stats. It's a government agency; do you really think their reports are going to be anything but self-serving? Perhaps you trust the government NOT to lie to you; I do not. By the way, did those NHTSA reports make mention of the 175 (so far) people killed by airbags, or do they matter to NHTSA? Did they mention the thousands of serious injuries caused by these devices, especially in the first generation airbags NHTSA FORCED on the motoring public (after NHTSA was warned this would happen), or do they not matter, either? I repeat: BIG GOVERNMENT IS NOT YOUR FRIEND! BIG Government does not care; not about your safety, not about your rights to even be informed, and certainly not about the truth. Big government bureaucracy exists for one reason only: to perpetuate and enlarge its own power;anything else is secondary to that end. Therefore, I remain as hostile to their interests, as they are to mine and yours.

Keep believing in government taking care of you, if you must; but don't complain, if within 20 years, you have government regulators telling you what to eat, and how much exercise you have to get, and enforcing rules to that effect, all ostensibly for your own good; there is not one single area of your freedom they do not wish to take, one regulation at a time. You'll be free, alright; free to do what some nameless, faceless, government bureaucrat thinks you should do.

 

[Chuck 98 RT/10]

It's not having a license that makes you a better driver, it is having LOST a license that proves how bad you are. That's what the quoted stats suggest.

Not all unlicensed motorists have lost their license because of a traffic violation. There are a lot of people driving around with expired or suspended license because they never bothered to renew or their insurance has run out. That doesn't mean they are bad drivers.

From PatentLaw's link...
Invalid license (suspended, revoked, expired, canceled, denied) 20,596
No known license 10,228
unknown license status 7,632