Drivers Licenses and driving.

[Msterbeau]

This is a branch off of the recent Gun Control thread. I thought Nightgaunt's points about driver's licenses was worth further discussion away from the established topic of that thread.

Weeellllllll...many, myself included, would like to see driver licenses and vehicle registration go the way of the dodo. The "common wisdom" that you always hear is that driving is a privilege, not a right. Here's what the Supreme Court has to say:

"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." - Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579

Now, just because the Supreme Court rules one way, doesn't mean that state and local governments are going to follow it. That's where the people are supposed to stand up and demand that their rights not be abridged. We don't do that in America anymore, so we just silently put up with things that the Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional, like:

The government selling off or leasing highways to foreign interests for the purposes of creating toll roads. The government holds the highways in trust for the people.

The rules of Traffic Acts are there to regulate the use of highways in the public’s interest, but not to destroy your rights to use them, yet the state will forbid you to drive at the drop of a hat.

An execution of a right can not be charged a fee, yet we put up with it.

Insurance fees can not be mandatory. Hahahahahaha.

You wouldn't put up with having to buy a free speech license, so why a driver license?

While I agree with the notion that we (should) have the right to travel freely in whatever conveyance we choose, and that the licensing of those vehicles is not entirely necessary, particularly making us pay fees to do so, I do think that training and licensing of drivers makes a lot of sense. Why? Because it's pretty damn easy to kill someone with one. People with demonstratively crappy skills should not be behind the wheel endangering others. Bearing these things in mind, there must be some mechanism to keep track of drivers and their skillfulness. Personally, I'd like to see a lot more emphasis placed on good training before anyone is ever allowed on the road. What we have now is a joke and doesn't really prepare drivers for some of the situations they may encounter.

[bean]

This is a branch off of the recent Gun Control thread. I thought Nightgaunt's points about driver's licenses was worth further discussion away from the established topic of that thread.

While I agree with the notion that we (should) have the right to travel freely in whatever conveyance we choose, and that the licensing of those vehicles is not entirely necessary, particularly making us pay fees to do so, I do think that training and licensing of drivers makes a lot of sense. Why? Because it's pretty damn easy to kill someone with one. People with demonstratively crappy skills should not be behind the wheel endangering others. Bearing these things in mind, there must be some mechanism to keep track of drivers and their skillfulness. Personally, I'd like to see a lot more emphasis placed on good training before anyone is ever allowed on the road. What we have now is a joke and doesn't really prepare drivers for some of the situations they may encounter.

I also think people's driving skills need to be checked every so often as well. There are people on the roads right now that really shouldn't be.

[Msterbeau]

I also think people's driving skills need to be checked every so often as well. There are people on the roads right now that really shouldn't be.

Agreed. And particularly true of the elderly.

[Slogo]

Agreed. And particularly true of the elderly.

And particularly true of me

[KatRN05]

And particularly true of me

That bad?

[Nightgaunt]

I agree...there definitely has to be a way of certifying people as being competent to drive. My issue is that the state should not be able to take away your right to drive because of unpaid parking tickets and the like. The whole system of funding government through the issuance of tickets has got to go, as does the practice of only allowing people to exercise their right to drive if they've paid a pile of fees. When a government relies on people breaking laws and regulations in order to stay afloat, there's a problem.

[candyman]

I think there should be some sort of rating system as far as what people can drive or not too. I don't care if you can afford something fast or something huge you need to be able to handle it too.

It should be more intensive when you are learning to drive and it should be more intensive AND expensive when you get your license. Also, If you lose points you have to earn them back doing something other than sitting on your ass for a bit...like going back to driving school.

However when it comes to driving I can be a little cocky. I have been pulled over for speeding about 12 times with no tickets. I also drive alot of track and consider good driving skills at the top of my list and tend to look down on many of the other drivers on the road...its not that hard to use turn signals, lights, seat-belts, wipers, or keep proper preventative maintenance on your vehicle and lacking those things I would like for you to be off the road.

[Nightgaunt]

It should be more intensive when you are learning to drive and it should be more intensive AND expensive when you get your license. Also, If you lose points you have to earn them back doing something other than sitting on your ass for a bit...like going back to driving school.

But the whole issue here is that driving is a right. The state or city has no authority to abrogate or charge a fee to exercise that right. It cannot, Constitutionally (according to the Supreme Court), take away your right to drive with a point system, with the points being issued at will by police. That sort of thing has to be done in a court of law, with the burden of proof being on the state or municipality that the driver is a threat to others. If you can demonstrate competency behind the wheel, that should be it.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

The problem I see is that people are not thinking like lawyers which one needs to do when interpriting law.

Look at the above stated case wording more closley. It does indeed say that people have the right to travel on the roads. It does no say how. You can walk. You can take a bus. You can hitch a ride with a friend. Taxis do in fact exists.

See? You can travel.. you can use the roads... driving is not mentioned in any of the court cases and precidents I can find. Only travel and use.

[Msterbeau]

I agree...there definitely has to be a way of certifying people as being competent to drive. My issue is that the state should not be able to take away your right to drive because of unpaid parking tickets and the like. The whole system of funding government through the issuance of tickets has got to go, as does the practice of only allowing people to exercise their right to drive if they've paid a pile of fees. When a government relies on people breaking laws and regulations in order to stay afloat, there's a problem.

I think the whole system of using fees as a way of funding government is getting completely out of control. Totally agreed with you on this point. I was actually thinking of starting another topic about that. I'm utterly sick of being nickle and dimed to death by cops and local municipalities, not to mention the state, with fees and fines. I think we need to take a hard look at budgets and start spending more responsibly in these economic times. People need to understand that too... that government can't fund all of this when times are tough. Likewise, government can't start using extraordinary means to obtain income when many of us can barely afford necessities. Michigan's driver responsibility fines are a good example of this. In my opinion they're double jeopardy, and completely unconstitutional.

[candyman]

But the whole issue here is that driving is a right. The state or city has no authority to abrogate or charge a fee to exercise that right. It cannot, Constitutionally (according to the Supreme Court), take away your right to drive with a point system, with the points being issued at will by police. That sort of thing has to be done in a court of law, with the burden of proof being on the state or municipality that the driver is a threat to others. If you can demonstrate competency behind the wheel, that should be it.

Personally, I am going past the law and am referring to the basics. Yes there are tickets given for the wrong reasons...but from people I know most of them are given correctly. Look at how many people just let their cars fall apart even if it is just the exhaust of lights...driving hazard that impairs driving...they should get the 5-day that says get it fixed in 5 days or get a fine. Go watch a parking lot and notice the number of people that can't seem to handle parking between two lines that are wider than their cars...or the people that have no fucking clue that there are lines in the lot OR on the road. I am sorry but even though I may go 10 mph over the limit I still watch the road, traffic, pedestrians, and everything else I need to watch to stay safe.

Its gone past the law is the point...the simple rule of not moving an inch until you seatbelt is on or your lights are on has gone out the window...people can't even handle manual transmissions anymore but they can sure as hell have bluetooth, dvd players, XM radio, and all the other shit the takes you away from driving.

Here is a though...sell stripped down cars and make people EARN those option of their cars...maybe people won't drive like Ted Kennedy if they know that they don't get their airbags or sync system until a few years with a clean driving record. In my belief, and many other auto-engineers feel the same way, people are driving WORSE due to the fact that their cars are "safer"...and they are treating dangerous moving vehicles like offices or home theater systems.

I want people to "level up" with their cars...they can start with a bare bones Geo Metro and earn good driving points so they can upgrade. Toss the law out of this...there are alot of stupid drivers out there and I can't cut that many coil wires by myself.

[Nightgaunt]

The problem I see is that people are not thinking like lawyers which one needs to do when interpriting law.

Look at the above stated case wording more closley. It does indeed say that people have the right to travel on the roads. It does no say how. You can walk. You can take a bus. You can hitch a ride with a friend. Taxis do in fact exists.

See? You can travel.. you can use the roads... driving is not mentioned in any of the court cases and precidents I can find. Only travel and use.

"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." - Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579

It does say how. I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that what they meant was that people have a right only to be driven, not to drive. That would open the door to the creation of a system where we have different classes of citizens: those who are granted the right to drive and those who are not. That goes against the idea of a Republic based on natural rights.

[n0Mad]

The whole system of funding government through the issuance of tickets has got to go, as does the practice of only allowing people to exercise their right to drive if they've paid a pile of fees. When a government relies on people breaking laws and regulations in order to stay afloat, there's a problem.

X10²³