That’s pronounced dick…so don’t get offended Laura…or other lesbian warriors.

There was an article that my wonderful schnoogums pointed out to me that points out the failure rate those who take a driving test in a Saskatchewan city are higher than those who take a road test in a rural area.  It’s even said that some drivers will travel to a rural area to take a road test in the hopes that they will have a better chance of passing.  Of course one of the spots in Saskatchewan with a low failure rate is Lloydminister which is hardly a tiny village so that logic is kinda shot to hell but what the hay, let’s run with it.

Terry Dyck, president of the provincial driver educators’ association seems to think that people who get their license in a rural area should thusly have a restricted driver’s license that stops them from driving in an urban centre until they take a second test.  Dyck is also a parent of a child who goes to the same academically talented program as one of my girls H.  I should mention that K is also now being tested for entry into the program.  I wish I could brag about genes but not only are they not my genes…it’s really more about parenting.  So there’s a parenting bragging aside.

So Dyck is really a moron in this case.  I mean, I’m sure he’s a nice guy, I don’t really know him but even the nicest people who do the best parenting jobs can be complete asses at times.  I know I’ve been an ass before but hey, this is honestly incredible.  What really upsets me here is that no case is made for restricting the driving privileges of rural drivers aside from some anecdotal observations and Dyck claims SGI has implied they may consider a restricted license for rural folk?  Even a political party which finds its support in the urban centres like the New Democrats wouldn’t risk pissing off all the farmer folk by making such a stupid move so certainly the more conservative Saskatchewan Party won’t let this through but even though it won’t come to pass, the stupidity is still impressive enough to be pointed out.

When making a case for sweeping legislation that would change the legal privilidges of a huge number of people, you should probably be able to present something more than failure rates on tests.  Even if people in Rural areas had a two to one passing rate over those who took their road test in urban centres, there still wouldn’t be a case for giving those people a restricted license because fail rates on tests don’t really tell you a lot.  It might tell you that some one can’t parallel park, but it won’t tell you the likelihood of some one getting into an accident for the most part.  If some one like Dyck can make a claim via anecdotal and biased observations that rural drivers should be given a restricted driver’s license, he should at least try to back that fluffy crap up with something substantial.

A novel idea that occurs to me is that perhaps Dyck should be able to show that people with a rural address who have a license are more likely to get into an accident than some one with an urban address.  I mean, is the per capita rate of insurance claims from rural areas higher in the urban centres than claims from people with an address in those urban centres?  My bet is that the rates are very simmilar but the data isn’t crunched and available so far as I know, that data would have to be collected and calculated before Dycks…err…dicks open their mouths.

What is it about some people who just want to come up with the stupidest ideas to control how every one else lives their life?  If anything, we should provide a restricted licence of social interoperability to people like Terry Dyck.

“I’m sorry sir, you can’t make purchases over $100 because your math skills weren’t all that great in high school.  It says so right here on your license.  Best go get some one who can help you with that”

Oh no no…that would just be silly.