Many people regard an "accident" as a random, unavoidable event. Something akin to an act of God – as the insurance mobsters say. But most "accidents" are not acts of God. An act of God is a huge tree branch dropping on the roof of your car; i.e., something you could not realistically have foreseen and taken measures to avoid. Most so-called "accidents" are events that could have been avoided by attentive, competent driving. They are the result of such avoidable errors as driving too fast for conditions or the driver's abilities. Or by driving too slow – as by pulling out in front of traffic and expecting it to yield to you. It is also not an "accident" when you run into the vehicle ahead of you because you were following too closely to stop in time or because you just weren't paying attention and didn't notice that the car ahead of you had slowed down. It is definitely not an "accident" when a driver who can't meanders across the double yellow and into the path of another vehicle coming the other way.

Many people regard an "accident" as a random, unavoidable event. Something akin to an act of God – as the insurance mobsters say. But most "accidents" are not acts of God. An act of God is a huge tree branch dropping on the roof of your car; i.e., something you could not realistically have foreseen and taken measures to avoid. Most so-called "accidents" are events that could have been avoided by attentive, competent driving. They are the result of such avoidable errors as driving too fast for conditions or the driver's abilities. Or by driving too slow – as by pulling out in front of traffic and expecting it to yield to you. It is also not an "accident" when you run into the vehicle ahead of you because you were following too closely to stop in time or because you just weren't paying attention and didn't notice that the car ahead of you had slowed down. It is definitely not an "accident" when a driver who can't meanders across the double yellow and into the path of another vehicle coming the other way.

If, that is, we must persist in this silly business of pretending that a driver's license is something like a high school diploma (or, these days, an undergraduate degree). That is to say, a measure of baseline competence rather than what it actually is. That being a government-issued ID which everyone who isn't actually homeless must possess in order to be able to apply for a job, open a bank account (or cash a check) or buy cough syrup, for that matter. Observe that none of the foregoing things have anything to do with driving. The "test" one is obliged to take to get this government ID has about as much to do with establishing that the applicant has baseline skill behind the wheel as wearing a surgical mask had to do with stopping the spread.

If we're going to call these IDs driver's licenses, then perhaps establishing baseline competence ought to be a requirement. This arguably ought to include a meaningful, real-world driving test on the road – as opposed to driving around the parking lot at the DMV. The applicant arguably ought to demonstrate that he or she can competently execute lane changes and merges with faster-moving traffic. That he or she can competently pull out from a sidestreet onto a busy main street. They should be required to drive on a road with curves, at a speed congruent with the speed limit, while keeping the vehicle in its travel lane. Wandering across the double yellow would constitute an immediate failure. The applicant also ought to have to demonstrate his or her ability to park curbside, without any "assistance" from "technology."