Should someone with an IQ of 65 get a drivers licence?

B

bloodbob

Trollipop
Veteran
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,16520891-421,00.html
A STUDENT on his first day in Tasmania was chased and repeatedly run over and killed after stopping a driver to ask for directions. And when the driver was asked by police why he did it, he replied: "It seemed funny at the time."
...
"Instead of helping, they laughed at him," Mr Coates said. Mr Gouldthorpe had continued walking along Dowling St.

Mr Coates said the passenger in the car suggested Mayne should hit the student.
....
Mayne had told police he had not even considered he was likely to kill Mr Gouldthorpe.

Mayne, who had an IQ of 65, had a long record of previous offences including the bashing of a man with a star picket in 1998 at Ross.
Click to expand...

Frankly it appears Mayne lacked the mental capicaty to drive safely and should have never been given licence. Whats your thoughts?
 
Heck, over half the people here would loose their drivers license if that was the law.
 
My thoughts too. I have the opinion that some 70-80% shouldn't get a license. Not only because of IQ, but also because of the lack of physical abilities. Most people react too slow and can't process visual informations fast enough.
 
I read that artical in todays Age newspaper but don't think it's a simple question of mental capacity.

I used to work near to a sheltered workshop and shared a bus home with them. Noisy and annoying yes, but most, as the saying goes, wouldn't hurt a fly; except one. He used to abuse and hit those around him and throw the occasional rock at a pasing car to while away the minutes. He, like this Mayne fellow, was simply a complete arsehole.

A more poignant question might be, should we allow complete arseholes a drivers licence.
 
Shogun said:
I used to work near to a sheltered workshop and shared a bus home with them. Noisy and annoying yes, but most, as the saying goes, wouldn't hurt a fly; except one. He used to abuse and hit those around him and throw the occasional rock at a pasing car to while away the minutes.
Click to expand...

Here your suggesting the dangerous action can only be linked to violent behavior. Mayne A) claims he couldn't see the out come that means if he had done a non-violent act that could kill people he still would have done it B) your saying natural non-violent people can't be taken advantage of by suggetsion.
 
bloodbob said:
Here your suggesting the dangerous action can only be linked to violent behavior. Mayne A) claims he couldn't see the out come that means if he had done a non-violent act that could kill people he still would have done it.
Click to expand...

No.

...when the driver was asked by police why he did it, he replied: "It seemed funny at the time..."

His response was not I failed to comprehend the act of driving my car over another person may endanger them, his response was driving my car over another person repeatedly as they lie on the road injured and screaming in pain is funny, I did it for light entertainment IE, he's a sadistic arsehole. I don't for an picosecond entertain the notion a person with the mental capacity to drive a car can fail to understand running someone over with said car might injure them. He knew full well he was tormenting his victim and did it out of sadism.


bloodbob said:
B) your saying natural non-violent people can't be taken advantage of by suggetsion.
Click to expand...

...had a long record of previous offences including the bashing of a man with a star picket in 1998 at Ross...

Naturally non-violent people do not have long histories of offences including bashing men with star pickets. ;)




Your post questioned if his actions were a failing of intelligence, I suggested it was entirely a failing of attitude.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top