[Vnbiz] How old to drive a motorcycle?

Sun Feb 4 19:46:13 PST 2007

Dear CACC:

'Hoanh you make a good point.  This is a new law, then?  I thought anyone
could drive a motorbike 50cc and under.  110cc with a license.

One point of clarification, which is made moot by the point of your
response, but in the US the law is different for every state.  In some
states students can drive at 16 but, I believe, with restrictions.  In my
state, we had to be 17 to drive a car, but 15 to drive a 50-75cc motorbike
with a license.  No bikes larger than that however until 17 with a special
license for motorcycle.  I do believe most states have been trending the age
higher to 18 of late;  at least placing great driving restrictions on those
under 18.

Lastly, I agree wholeheartedly with your last statement.  If you pay
lipservice to libertarian values without having them meet the street there
will be discontent.  In other words you can't enforce equality when it
doesn't exist, and when the fact that it doesn't exist is put in peoples
faces on a daily basis then the only result is greater discontent.  People
on the street know how things work and there is no use hiding the fact, or
speaking falsehood to power.  That will only ruffle their feathers, and
create further problems.

I believe your perspective might be keep moving forward, assuming the law to
be created to impose a false sense of equality.

I believe that the law would be unlikely to work, would lead to more poor
people being victimized by needing to pay periodically when caught, again
not impacting the number of bikes on the road, and would generally be both
disregarded and lived with, like so many other things.

Personally, I believe infrastructure concerns and gridlock to be a major
concern in the future prosperity of VN.  More room for bikes, never cars, to
move around a city like HCMC would probably be good for business, by my
estimation, as goods and commerce could flow.  Perhaps less bikes would
allow a policing of traffic to facilitate that flow.  Frankly, the future is
public transportation not personal.  Given the choice people will likely
continue to choose personal, but in the long run many houses, buildings(to
mention nothing of sidewalk commerce which I believe may be illegal in
laces but is very important to normal people) will be displaced by subsuming
transportation policy to personal choice.  Then there will be discontent.
Subways, Trams, Trollies, Buses, Trucks for Commerce, etc...

To which your easy reply is, how do you get rid of personal transportation
fairly?  Answer, not easily, perhaps not possible.  This is a topic that
will wait for solutions.

I do not have those answers but am in support of a fair and sustainable, and
environmentally clean, solution.

Craig

On 2/3/07, Tran Dinh Hoanh <tdhoanh at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [ Vietnam Business Forum ]
>
>
>
>
> Dear Brother Khanh & CACC,
>
> You make a very good economic policy argument, brother Khanh.  Social
> welfare is a very good measure for economic policy.  We can agree that
> students under 18 are more accident-prone than folks over 18.
>
> On the one hand we have the benefit of reduced traffic (if the students
> will use buses instead of bicycles), reduced air polution, reduced
> accidents.  On the other hand we have the loss of productivity (when the
> parents have to spend time to carry their children to school) and the
> reduction in motorcycle demand, which means the loss of profit to motorbike
> manufacturers and loss of some labor jobs in the workforce.
>
> Depending on the economic strategy the welfare loss may be different. Say,
> if in an economy that is stimulated by consumption (like the US), loss in
> production demand may be considered great when compared with the goal of
> reducing traffic accident.  (Since it is hard to calculate the value of
> deaths saved, we have to work on "mental values" rather than exact dollar
> numbers in calculating social welfare gain or loss in this case).
>
> But for the sake of argument, we all may agree that in the current state
> of Vietnam's transportation infrastructure, reducing traffic and accidents
> is such a big goal that we need to give it a lot of weigh.  Therefore,
> social welfare will increase when we reduce the number of motorbike on the
> road.  And it is reasonable to let students under 18 carry this burden.
>
> I think that is a very sound argument.  And I can agree to that.
>
> But here is something else for us to consider:
>
> 1.  We are using one economic policy (reducing the purchase and production
> of motorbikes) to affect another completely different policy (reducing
> traffic accidents, pollution and burden of the transportation
> infrastructure).  That is not a very good way to make policy.  It is just
> like imposing a curfew at midnight to reduce robberies (that tend to happen
> after midnight).  We may distort the economy greatly if we keep using
> economic measures to make non-economic policies.
>
> 2. In the country like the US, students are allowed to drive a car at 16
> (with parental consent and cut-throat insurance costs).  In Vietnam students
> are not allowed to operate a motorbike until 18.  Would that tend to make
> Vietnamese students feel less mature psychologically?  This kind of
> important psychological factor, that may affect the nation's human
> development greatly, is usually not taken into the economic "social welfare"
> calculation, because it is too abstract and cannot be translated into a
> number for econometrics.
>
> 3.  Traditionally Vietnamese students have been riding motorbikes under
> 18.  Can the new rule, being the against such tradition, be enforced at all?
>
> 4.  Just wondering if the real reasoning could be to make all students
> alike and similar (wearing uniform and bicycles.  No motorbikes).  If that
> is a consideration, we need to ask if this consideration has any value (in a
> society when some of the top guys who run  state-owned enterprises have
> become millionaire stockholders after their companies went public)?
>
> Just something to brainstorm about.
>
> Have a great day, Brother Khanh.  Superb reasoning, brother.
>
> Hoanh
>
> On 2/2/07, Khanh Truong <khanhbc at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > [ Vietnam Business Forum ]
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear CACC,
> >
> >
> > I think it would be more sensible to support this policy if some
> > statistics and explanation are provided in this case. Because we have
> > limited resources to satisfy the needs of every people in our society,
> > therefore policy makers have to make decision based on the second best
> > approach. Regarding this case, Vietnam is experiencing a high demand
> > for modern infrastructure especially the expansion of the transportation
> > system in the urban areas. Things cannot be change over night, therefore
> > there is a trade of between the efficiency and the right to have direct
> > access to the limited resource, which is in this case one's right to drive
> > on streets.
> >
> >
> >
> > Road and infrastructure in most cases are public facility, and the
> > service it provides is considered as a public service, yet in the situation
> > of capacity constraint. The road system enables drivers to commute from one
> > place to another, and we call it the "service" for short in this case. Too
> > many people travel on streets will cause serious traffic congestion and
> > high accident rate leading to the high social costs. In the short run,
> > despite the effort to expand and build roads and reorganize the routes for
> > traffic flows, we have little capacity to increase the "supply size" or the
> > service. If we try to maximize the aggregated social welfare, we have to
> > compromise by reducing the "demand" for the service, which mean we impose
> > the "cost" to some groups. The problem here is which groups will be forced
> > to lessen their use of the service (for example reduce the frequency or even
> > ban from using the service directly), and if the selection is fair and to
> > the best interest of the nation. Of course, many solutions can be proposed.
> > When it comes to the issue of fairness, it is a tricky issue. The randomness
> > some times is considered to be a fair process in making public choice, but
> > it does not work in this case. We may argue that people may have different
> > ability to drive safely while commuting, and because of the potential cost
> > he or she may impose on others and public in general, several factors can be
> > used to classify people and to form groups to be treated differently in this
> > matter. Some other may also say the benefit generated by having access to
> > the service for one group is significantly smaller than that of other group,
> > therefore having too much people of one group using the service will reduce
> > the social welfare. If we use these two arguments, with the collected data
> > and statistics to prove that people under the age of 18 are among the groups
> > that have either a highest rate of unsafe driving or likely to cause traffic
> > accident, or able to use public transportation like bus or motorbike pool
> > with adults without much change in the "benefit", and having ban this group
> > of using the service can significantly reduce the traffic congestion
> > problem and accident rate, and increase the social welfare then a temporary
> > ban of this group from using the service can be seen as the second best
> > choice.
> >
> >
> >
> > It is my thought to share with you.
> >
> >
> >
> > Have a great day.
> >
> >
> >
> > Truong Khanh
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 1/31/07, Tran Dinh Hoanh <tdhoanh at gmail.com > wrote:
> > >
> > > [ Vietnam Business Forum ]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tran Dinh Hoanh, LLB, JD
> > > Attorney of Law
> > > Washington DC
> > >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> To subscribe/unsubscribe, please contact admins at
> vnbizadmin at vietlinks.net
> Info at http://mail.saigon.com/mailman/listinfo/vnbiz
> Archive at
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vnbiz/
> or http://groups-beta.google.com/group/VNBIZforum/
> or http://mail.saigon.com/pipermail/vnbiz
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.saigon.com/pipermail/vnbiz/attachments/20070204/703bb9bf/attachment.html 