Only those who are qualified to operate a vehicle should be allowed to do so. Where is the controversy in that statement?

The way you seem to put it is that only a small portion (sounds like less than 25%) should be allowed to drive.

How is the rest of the population supposed to get around?

Ever heard of public transports?

I have as my girlfriend and I have lived for over a year without a car. We walk/lyft/occasionally use the Seattle lite rail to get to 90% of the places we want to go.

However, despite the amazing hiking/backpacking places we can go here, we have only done that a few times (relying on other people driving).

Should we always rely on other people to go to non-public transportation routes (This has also hampered us from doing lots of other things hence why we got a zipcar membership recently)?

Well, at least drivers should be prepared and trained thoroughly. I'm not sure if this is still true but it is my understanding that getting a drivers license is a very casual affair in the US - a quick theoretical and a practical test and you're done. In Germany you have to finish about two dozen practice sessions, in class and on the road, before you can apply for a theory or road test.

And it will cost you - over the whole course it will almost certainly be above € 1000 and generally depend on how well you do, how many sessions/tests you need. With these kind of costs people take this very serious and still fail all the time.

Naturally I'm not a fan of the costs, but I think thorough preparation and training is essential. Operating a car is a huge responsibility that affects not only your safety but that of other drivers, pedestrians, passengers, etc. Getting the license to do so should not be a cakewalk.

On a sidenote: Of course this approach requires valid alternatives to a car, like efficient public transport options, but that's another discussion.

The US covers a lot of land, but the American population does not. And there is no real reason it even needs to occupy as much land as it presently does. It's bad urban planning and dubious tax incentives that makes us sprawl. Most people in or near major metros shouldn't need a car to be a functioning member of society. It's a major policy failure that it is presently so.

I don't know how you just pulled "25%" out of the air. Most people could be trained to drive better, they just never bother learning because the standards for licensing are so lax that there is no downside to doing so. There are lots of areas where you can get a drivers' license without even knowing how to parallel park.

I'm not from the US, but the hearsay is that getting a driver's license is a lot easier than in e.g. in Germany. Here in Germany getting a license costs ~1500 Euro and it's not uncommon for people to flunk their first attempt.

I took a semester long drivers education class and then had to have a 50 hours of driving with my parents (Although I heard of other parents just signing the forms for driving with parents (my parents did not)).

> had to have a 50 hours of driving with my parents

The assumption with this requirement is that the parents are good drivers. That may or may not be the case. It would be better to require that the 50 hours be completed with a certified driving instructor.