Driving needs to be a privilege, not a right. Right now we treat it as a right and don't put any effort whatsoever into making sure that a driver's license actually confirms that the person knows how to drive properly.
In my area, a little town a bit east of Nashville, TN, acquiring a driving license is as follows:
1: Age 15: Get learner's permit. Parents responsibility to teach. Require 10 hours of daytime 1 nighttime driving experience, but it is NOT checked. And it isn't anywhere near enough. MUST have an over 24, licensed driver in the car at all times. Only test required: Vision and written.
2: Age 16: Get restricted license. Restrictions are:
2a: Vehicle must be a class D. This is anything under 26,000 pounds GVWR. [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJaL5nzy-IU]That includes one of these.[/url]
2b: Vehicle must not be occupied by more than one other teenager, and no more than 3 passengers total.
2c: Maximum Blood-Alch level legal is only 0.02.
2d: Must pass driving test in a vehicle that's legal and more or less intact. Mine was in a slightly worn out Nissan 200SX and I was guided through a suburb. That was it.
3: Age 18: License becomes unrestricted entirely. Normal Class D at this point.
That's WAY too fucking easy! There is NO logical reason that any 16 year old should be licensed to drive a 6x6 military truck to high school, [i]yet it's perfectly legal where I live.[/i] WHY?!
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;41858644]
Having more tests might remind some people but others will just conform for the test and then just go back to driving how they were before afterwards.[/quote] So back it up with far stricter enforcement. Yank licenses left right and center. We need to crack down on bad drivers badly.
[quote]
Social responsibility is a big problem with this I think. The bigger or more powerful or expensive a car someone has the more they seem to disregard the wellbeing of those around them in their mode of driving.[/QUOTE]
A lot of it is also because of how heavily modern cars coddle drivers. Nobody ever learns from their mistakes anymore because we, as a society, have demanded cars that cover for them. Nobody ever learns from their mistakes when they take a corner a bit too fast because the stability management sorts them out. Nobody ever learns from waiting too long to brake or going too fast in the rain because the ABS sorts them out. Pretty soon people are going to stop braking entirely in downtown/low speed environments because the car will do it for them. Why should they bother braking if they don't have to?
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if most drivers never even realized they did those things because the computers these days are so good at covering them up and making it seem like everything is kopasheeshy.
I say we combine stricter regulations for getting a license, making it far easier to lose it for bad driving, and removing the electronic driver's aids from cars. We can keep all the airbags and crumple zones 'n shit, after all accidents do happen, but traction control and the like? Gone. Poof. Like it was never there. People are using them as an excuse to drive like a moron.
[QUOTE=TestECull;41868496]Driving needs to be a privilege, not a right. Right now we treat it as a right and don't put any effort whatsoever into making sure that a driver's license actually confirms that the person knows how to drive properly.
In my area, a little town a bit east of Nashville, TN, acquiring a driving license is as follows:
1: Age 15: Get learner's permit. Parents responsibility to teach. Require 10 hours of daytime 1 nighttime driving experience, but it is NOT checked. And it isn't anywhere near enough. MUST have an over 24, licensed driver in the car at all times. Only test required: Vision and written.
2: Age 16: Get restricted license. Restrictions are:
2a: Vehicle must be a class D. This is anything under 26,000 pounds GVWR. [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJaL5nzy-IU]That includes one of these.[/url]
2b: Vehicle must not be occupied by more than one other teenager, and no more than 3 passengers total.
2c: Maximum Blood-Alch level legal is only 0.02.
2d: Must pass driving test in a vehicle that's legal and more or less intact. Mine was in a slightly worn out Nissan 200SX and I was guided through a suburb. That was it.
3: Age 18: License becomes unrestricted entirely. Normal Class D at this point.
That's WAY too fucking easy! There is NO logical reason that any 16 year old should be licensed to drive a 6x6 military truck to high school, [i]yet it's perfectly legal where I live.[/i] WHY?!
So back it up with far stricter enforcement. Yank licenses left right and center. We need to crack down on bad drivers badly.
A lot of it is also because of how heavily modern cars coddle drivers. Nobody ever learns from their mistakes anymore because we, as a society, have demanded cars that cover for them. Nobody ever learns from their mistakes when they take a corner a bit too fast because the stability management sorts them out. Nobody ever learns from waiting too long to brake or going too fast in the rain because the ABS sorts them out. Pretty soon people are going to stop braking entirely in downtown/low speed environments because the car will do it for them. Why should they bother braking if they don't have to?
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if most drivers never even realized they did those things because the computers these days are so good at covering them up and making it seem like everything is kopasheeshy.
I say we combine stricter regulations for getting a license, making it far easier to lose it for bad driving, and removing the electronic driver's aids from cars. We can keep all the airbags and crumple zones 'n shit, after all accidents do happen, but traction control and the like? Gone. Poof. Like it was never there. People are using them as an excuse to drive like a moron.[/QUOTE]
What? Why would you want to remove shit like abs? If anything that would save lives in emergency situations.
And tbh cars would be a lot safer if cars pretty much drove themselves.
[QUOTE=TestECull;41868496]Driving needs to be a privilege, not a right. Right now we treat it as a right and don't put any effort whatsoever into making sure that a driver's license actually confirms that the person knows how to drive properly.
In my area, a little town a bit east of Nashville, TN, acquiring a driving license is as follows:
1: Age 15: Get learner's permit. Parents responsibility to teach. Require 10 hours of daytime 1 nighttime driving experience, but it is NOT checked. And it isn't anywhere near enough. MUST have an over 24, licensed driver in the car at all times. Only test required: Vision and written.
2: Age 16: Get restricted license. Restrictions are:
2a: Vehicle must be a class D. This is anything under 26,000 pounds GVWR. [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJaL5nzy-IU"]That includes one of these.[/URL]
2b: Vehicle must not be occupied by more than one other teenager, and no more than 3 passengers total.
2c: Maximum Blood-Alch level legal is only 0.02.
2d: Must pass driving test in a vehicle that's legal and more or less intact. Mine was in a slightly worn out Nissan 200SX and I was guided through a suburb. That was it.
3: Age 18: License becomes unrestricted entirely. Normal Class D at this point.
That's WAY too fucking easy! There is NO logical reason that any 16 year old should be licensed to drive a 6x6 military truck to high school, [I]yet it's perfectly legal where I live.[/I] WHY?!
So back it up with far stricter enforcement. Yank licenses left right and center. We need to crack down on bad drivers badly.
A lot of it is also because of how heavily modern cars coddle drivers. Nobody ever learns from their mistakes anymore because we, as a society, have demanded cars that cover for them. Nobody ever learns from their mistakes when they take a corner a bit too fast because the stability management sorts them out. Nobody ever learns from waiting too long to brake or going too fast in the rain because the ABS sorts them out. Pretty soon people are going to stop braking entirely in downtown/low speed environments because the car will do it for them. Why should they bother braking if they don't have to?
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if most drivers never even realized they did those things because the computers these days are so good at covering them up and making it seem like everything is kopasheeshy.
I say we combine stricter regulations for getting a license, making it far easier to lose it for bad driving, and removing the electronic driver's aids from cars. We can keep all the airbags and crumple zones 'n shit, after all accidents do happen, but traction control and the like? Gone. Poof. Like it was never there. People are using them as an excuse to drive like a moron.[/QUOTE]
what so should we get rid of power-steering as well? I mean abs is around for a reason, it's a really safe system that keeps you from skidding, i'd rather have an electronic aide system then go flying off the road cause of weather conditions.
I can't really see where you're coming from with the whole Drivers License process thing, that's pretty standard fare except my state removes the restriction at 21, and we have 40 hours in daylight and 10 at night.
The process seems to vary from state to state though so that's all up in the air
What would you suggest is added to the process?
[QUOTE=a-k-t-w;41879609]What? Why would you want to remove shit like abs?[/quote]
Did you not read beyond that point or something? I already spelled out exactly why removing drivers aids would help.
[quote] If anything that would save lives in emergency situations. [/quote] No, it wouldn't. That's the job of the crumple zones and airbags and such, which would still be there.
[quote]And tbh cars would be a lot safer if cars pretty much drove themselves.[/QUOTE]
And this is even more of society's 'band aid solution' presenting.
Instead of giving bad drivers more crutches just remove the fucking bad drivers!
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;41879754]what so should we get rid of power-steering as well?[/quote] No, and nice job reading things that weren't there. Power steering doesn't correct for any mistakes automatically, it merely reduces the effort necessary to steer a car. Drivers should be able to handle a car that lacks it/has experienced failure in that system, but it isn't a driver aid in this context.
[quote] I mean abs is around for a reason[/quote]
Yeah. It's mandatory by law. Federal law states you cannot manufacture a car that lacks it. Same with traction control 'n shit. The law doesn't say it's illegal for the end user to disable it, but if you're a car maker and you're coming up with a new model you have to put ABS on it or you cannot sell it in America for use on public highways.
[quote] it's a really safe system that keeps you from skidding[/quote] ROFL no. Maybe once in a blue moon it does but it's nowhere near as good as you're implying it is. Most ABS systems don't even trigger on snow and ice, and if they do go off they don't do anything useful at all. Even on dry pavement when the ABS does work it doesn't prevent you from skidding, it merely prevents the wheels from locking up. The car is no more stable than it was without it.
I see it happen firsthand in my mom's -96 Explorer. I'll periodically take it out and firewall the brakes to test them and make sure everything is working properly. About 70% of the time the ABS triggers, 25% of the time I lock all four tires up, and the remaining 5% of the time the tires don't skid at all thus not triggering the system. The ABS system is 100% healthy in it, too, no trouble codes or anything.
Also, people use it as a crutch and drive more recklessly than they do without ABS.
[url]http://www.mastersoftrivia.com/blog/2011/10/what-is-risk-compensation/[/url]
[url]http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/road_safetyrisk_compensation/[/url]
[url]http://www.damninteresting.com/the-balance-of-risk/[/url]
ABS does not work to improve road safety. People just use it as a crutch to get away with driving more recklessly than they did before. On paper it works nicely, but in practice it does little. Oh, and if you want to bitch about those sources, [url=https://www.google.com/search?q=risk+compensation+ABS&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a]Here's the google search I used.[/url]
[quote] i'd rather have an electronic aide system then go flying off the road cause of weather conditions.[/quote] I'd rather you not drive at all if you're relying on computers to keep you on the road.
[quote]I can't really see where you're coming from with the whole Drivers License process thing, that's pretty standard fare except my state removes the restriction at 21, and we have 40 hours in daylight and 10 at night.[/quote]
You don't see how laughably easy it is to get a driving license?!
Can you answer 25 DUI questions, see straight, and putz around a suburb? CONGRATS HERE'S A LICENSE TO DRIVE ANYTHING UNDER 26,000 POUNDS!
I'm sorry but if you canot see the problem with getting a license in tennessee you need to have your eyes checked. There is no logical reason for getting a license to be that easy, yet it is.
[quote]What would you suggest is added to the process?[/QUOTE]
1: Mandatory driver's ed by an approved school.
In my area at least the state just assumes the child's parents are capable of handling this. They rarely are, and many maaaany drivers have terrible habits as a result. Forcing anyone getting a license to attend an actual driving school will drastically reduce the amount of new drivers that hit the road without having the faintest idea what the hell they're actually doing. As for who's paying....this should be paid for out of road taxes, not out of student's pockets.
2: Stricter driving tests taken in a Ford Model A.
Electronic driver's aids are annoying, not always reliable, and not everyone has access to a car that has them. Additionally, circumstances can often overwhelm the aids' ability to correct a car. Thus, it's imperative people know how to drive if these aids either malfunction or aren't present. So the road test should be done in a car so old that it lacks even the most basic of amenities.
Enter the Model A. The only modifications made to it are a modern 5 speed manual transmission, a modern seat belt, and a roll cage. Aside from those three mods, the car is no different than it was when it rolled off the assembly line in the 1930s. This thing will not be forgiving at all, and will demand actual skill on the part of the driver to handle safely. There's a good reason to use this car to take road tests: If drivers are able to handle this car in a safe manner regardless of outside conditions they can handle a modern car when the electronics either malfunction, break, or don't trigger at all. Which means they're far safer. Hell they likely won't even trigger the electronics at all, mostly because they won't be making the mistakes that the electronics act as a crutch for.
They are, of course, welcome to drive a modern car in their daily lives. But they should have to prove they know how to handle it when all the electronics fail, because said electronics can and do fail. They need to be able to drive, not rely on a bunch of computers to keep them on the road.
3: If you want to drive a pickup, SUV, minivan, or other topheavy vehicle you need an endorsement on your license.
Pickups, SUVs and the like handle vastly different to sedans and hatchbacks. They're big, they're heavy, they're lumbering, and they're prone to flipping over. They need to be driven vastly differently to how sedans and hatchbacks need to be driven, particularly regarding cornering and such. Nobody that I've seen, however, seems to be able to put 2 and 2 together on this one. Everyone drives large vehicles as if they were sodding sports cars. Requiring people to take classes and prove competence on a large, top-heavy vehicle before they're allowed to drive one on public highways will reduce the amount of people driving them in stupid manners...and probably cut down on the amount of them being driven outright, because a lot of people don't even need them.
4: Road retests every 3 years.
In my state, once you acquire your restricted license at age 16 you never have to take another road test again. This is a very bad thing. It makes people not really give a shit if their driving gets worse and worse every year. Mandatory retests every 3-5 years would ensure that bad drivers get their licenses pulled, and it would make sure that all drivers are actually competent enough to hold the license.
This should be retroactive, too.
5: Mandatory snow and ice training.
It may not do it often, but it does snow in my area. One of the most entertaining things I have ever seen in over two decades of life is watching my fellow Tennesseans try to drive on snow. NOBODY can figure it out! The problem is obvious: They were never taught how to handle snow and ice. Mandating such training would drastically reduce the amount of people who wreck in the snow, since the main problem seems to be more "They were never taught at all".
6: Learn how to fix your damn car.
I'm not talking "they need to be able to rebuild an engine blindfolded", so don't get carried away. I'm referring to simple things. Changing your own flat tire. How to jump-start a car without setting it on fire. How to change a battery. How to safely and quickly bodge a busted radiator hose well enough to limp to the nearest town. How to push start a manual transmission car. How to check and add the various fluids cars use. Basic tasks like that, which anyone driving is likely to have to fix on the side of the road, should be common knowledge. Thus, anyone seeking a license should be able to demonstrate they can do such basic things.
7: How to drive a stickshift.
Nobody in America knows this. Yet they need to know this. You never know when life will dump you into a car with a manual gearbox and give you no option with an automatic. Knowing what to do when your treasured PRNDL is replaced with a clutch pedal is something anyone with a license should be able to do. They're, of course, free to drive automatic all they want, but they need to know how to handle a manual.
8: How to get onto and off of a fucking freeway without causing problems.
Getting onto an interstate is not difficult. You turn onto the on ramp, you [i] fucking floor it[/i], you match speed with the traffic on the freeway, you line yourself up with a gap in traffic, and you merge into traffic. It's a simple-as-fuck process, and I can do it in a worn-the-fuck-out Ford truck that should have had an engine rebuild five years ago. Yet I rarely go a week without seeing some numbnutz putz onto the freeway at just 45-50MPH, or ride on the shoulder until someone else lets them in, or in some other way fuck it up. If I can get my old rustbucket up to 65MPH on the ramp your Corvette can do so as well, so fucking accelerate already...
Getting off isn't hard, either. You pay attention to the signs, and when you see "Exit <your desired exit number> - 1 mile", you get to the right hand side of the freeway. When you're about an eighth of a mile away you signal right, then you merge onto the off ramp [i]while still travelling at speed.[i] You then start slowing down once you're out of traffic. If you miss your exit, no big deal. Go to the next, get off, get back on going the opposite direction, and try again. Again, though, people manage to fuck this up all the time. I see it most often on cloverleaves where people are afraid of their brakes, so they gradually slow down on the freeway itself and don't merge off until they're doing 40. Other people will just blindly swerve across lanes to hit an exit last second, sometimes even crossing the stripes beyond it. I've even seen a couple dipshits reversing up the damn shoulder.
This shit needs to be hammered into people pretty quickly. Otherwise they're going to get hammered by a semi truck...
9: How to park your car properly.
Parking isn't hard. You move into a parking lot, find an empty space, and slip right in. Yet, again, most drivers seem to mess it up. I've seen people endlessly circle looking for a prime spot, I've seen people take up four spots with a hatchback, I've had to swerve around people who can't get anywhere near the curb when parking parallel to said curb...it's mind boggling how such a basic thing that you do literally every time you drive is something that so many people manage to balls up.
So yeah, far more education on and testing over parking needs to happen.
10: How to handle rain.
It rains fairly often in Tennessee. Especially this year, where it's been rainy more often than it hasn't since the start of July. Yet, again, people seemingly have no idea how to handle it. Instead of slowing down a bit and driving more carefully [i]they fucking speed up[/i], apparently thinking "Oh the ABS/TCS/ASM will keep me right as rain time to do 80!".
People need to experience firsthand why this is a bad idea, and a good driving school can arrange this on a skidpad without any issue.
11: Take care of your car!
People also seem to have no idea that they should change their tires when the tread is thin. I see far too many people rolling around on slicks. I also hear far too many people driving around with their wear indicators on their brake pads squealing away. This is bad! Unsafe, even! These cars are a hazard to everyone else on the road and shouldn't be driving, and the people that drive them should have their license pulled until they can demonstrate the ability to either A: Keep a car roadworthy or B: At least know when to park a car, if finances are tight and they cannot afford tires or brakes. Having a clapped out engine is annoying, but having to share the road with cars that stay on it only by pure fucking luck?! No thank you.
I have no idea how this would be accomplished, but some way to encourage people to have dash cams as well as cameras of themselves would be a singularly massive benefit as well. Got into an accident? Footage shows you on your phone? Tough shit. You just lost your license for x period of time. I am honestly perplexed as to why insurance companies haven't attempted to offer benefits to drivers that do this.
I know people hate surveillance, but I fucking hate people who just sit there and text in stop and go traffic. Cruising along on an empty highway at 70? Fine. It's your own damned problem if you can't pay attention and kill yourself. It's still stupid, but it's relatively safe compared to 10-35 mile an hour stop and go stutter stepping with pedestrians everywhere and vehicles moving in every direction.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;41882859]I am honestly perplexed as to why insurance companies haven't attempted to offer benefits to drivers that do this.[/quote]
They do. I run a dashcam and it drops my insurance rates 20%. Progressive even offers a little spy gadget you can opt into to that end. Basically a black box you plug into your OBD-II port. That device is a no-go for me, firstly I don't even have an OBD-II port secondly if I wanted a black box in my truck I'd buy and install one from an independent third party, but it is an opt-in option and it has a similar effect on the insured's rates if they do opt in. Rather nice that it's opt-in as well, you can have it if you want but if you don't no big deal.
Also, it's sort of impossible for me to be on the phone while driving since my phone is my dashcam. :v:
I agree with a number of things TestECull is saying. Having just come from England and now learning to drive in America, they are far more lax with drivers licenses in America than in England. There are also a lot more shitty drivers, people who are clueless in certain situations or handle other situations poorly, stupidly, or with complete disregard to anyone else on the road. A little more rigor applied to the driver's education and license application processes would do everyone good.
Depending on how you behave on the road and your road rule history, if you're good on both of those, I doubt you need to take any tests or anything.
No. In the UK, the test is cruelly hard and if I had to do it again later I would consider it a violation of human rights :P
[QUOTE=Novangel;41685113]I think a driving test every 2-3 years or so would be good.[/QUOTE]
Yes, for the driving schools. Driving tests are expensive and having one every 2-3 years is just unnecessary and is just another expense. Maybe after a certain age.
[QUOTE=TestECull;41868496]Driving needs to be a privilege, not a right. Right now we treat it as a right and don't put any effort whatsoever into making sure that a driver's license actually confirms that the person knows how to drive properly.
In my area, a little town a bit east of Nashville, TN, acquiring a driving license is as follows:
1: Age 15: Get learner's permit. Parents responsibility to teach. Require 10 hours of daytime 1 nighttime driving experience, but it is NOT checked. And it isn't anywhere near enough. MUST have an over 24, licensed driver in the car at all times. Only test required: Vision and written.
2: Age 16: Get restricted license. Restrictions are:
2a: Vehicle must be a class D. This is anything under 26,000 pounds GVWR. [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJaL5nzy-IU]That includes one of these.[/url]
2b: Vehicle must not be occupied by more than one other teenager, and no more than 3 passengers total.
2c: Maximum Blood-Alch level legal is only 0.02.
2d: Must pass driving test in a vehicle that's legal and more or less intact. Mine was in a slightly worn out Nissan 200SX and I was guided through a suburb. That was it.
3: Age 18: License becomes unrestricted entirely. Normal Class D at this point.
[/QUOTE]
Damn your tests really are simple. Here you need to.
a) be at least 17 (to start lessons)
b) pass a medical exam that you are ready to drive
c) go trough trough about 24 rides with an instructor (each one was about 45 minutes long, maybe an hour, don't remember too well) That sets you back about 500USD
d) pass a written portion of a driving exam (basically 4 answer exam about driving laws more or less)
e) pass a driving exam with a testing commissar
f) pass a technical exam from the same guy(though those are simple)
[QUOTE=wraithcat;41955913]Damn your tests really are simple. Here you need to.
a) be at least 17 (to start lessons)
b) pass a medical exam that you are ready to drive
c) go trough trough about 24 rides with an instructor (each one was about 45 minutes long, maybe an hour, don't remember too well) That sets you back about 500USD
d) pass a written portion of a driving exam (basically 4 answer exam about driving laws more or less)
e) pass a driving exam with a testing commissar
f) pass a technical exam from the same guy(though those are simple)[/QUOTE]
That's pretty much the same process over here.
I'd be 47 if they expired every 30 years.
That would suck.
Why not have it expire when you're at state pension age, you have to pass a test (eye sight, practical test) which lets you keep it until your 70 when you have to do it again. Each of these 60+ every 10 year tests would be cheaper than the original license and you just need a top up fee of about half the price of the original license.
And, because this starts at pension age if you do fail when you're 60 you'd still have a buss pass to get around.
NO
Arguments,
FACT: [B][U][I]The right to travel is a unalienable right under common law....[/I][/U][/B]
(will accept a direct challenge to this fact as per the rules of the forum if i cant proove it i will happily accept ban)
FACT: Proven time and time again in the [B][U]Supreme courts of law[/U][/B], legally man dosnt even need a license to travel on roads using a automobile....
...... but if that man was a person and he was driving a motor vehicle operating some form of commerce, then that is a different story.
-cc
[QUOTE=devilbear;41752696]Getting a driver license in Norway is ridiculously pricy (costs about $2500 +/-), so no thanks. That's if you'd have to pay the same price.[/QUOTE]
they're $20 here
[editline]2nd September 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=consolecowboy;42051067]NO
Arguments,
FACT: [B][U][I]The right to travel is a unalienable right under common law....[/I][/U][/B]
(will accept a direct challenge to this fact as per the rules of the forum if i cant proove it i will happily accept ban)
FACT: Proven time and time again in the [B][U]Supreme courts of law[/U][/B], legally man dosnt even need a license to travel on roads using a automobile....
...... but if that man was a person and he was driving a motor vehicle operating some form of commerce, then that is a different story.
-cc[/QUOTE]
can you cite those claims?
[QUOTE=butre;42051091]they're $20 here
[editline]2nd September 2013[/editline]
can you cite those claims?[/QUOTE]
I made it clear they where [B]FACTS [/B]not claims.
The world famous Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579 ............
[B]"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."[/B]
[I]"Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment."[/I]
Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147.
[I]
Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property ... and is regarded as inalienable."[/I]
16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987
[I]"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct."[/I]
II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.113
[I]"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."[/I] Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491
and ...
[I]"The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime."[/I] Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489
and ...
[I]"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights."[/I] Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946
I would argue that those statements i made in the previous post where common knowledge in certain schools of understanding.
Common law works from precedents set by constitution and judges, common law is inherited at birth, for something to be a crime there must be a LOSS or BENEFIT.
[B]Now can we see a cite to your claim of it costing $20[/B],
Thanks in advance,
-cc
[QUOTE=consolecowboy;42051163]Sure:
The world famous Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579 ............
[B]"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."[/B]
[I]"Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment."[/I]
Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147.
[I]
Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property ... and is regarded as inalienable."[/I]
16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987
[I]"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct."[/I]
II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.113
[I]"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."[/I] Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491
and ...
[I]"The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime."[/I] Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489
and ...
[I]"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights."[/I] Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946
I would argue that those statements i made in the previous post where common knowledge in certain schools of understanding.
Common law works from precedents set by constitution and judges, common law is inherited at birth, for something to be a crime there must be a LOSS or BENEFIT.
[B]Now can we see a cite to your claim of it costing $20[/B],
Thanks in advance,
-cc[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.dps.state.ms.us/driver-services/new-drivers-license/driver-services-fees/[/url]
It's $24 apparently. I think it might have been $20 when I last got mine but I've been driving on an expired license for 3 years
[QUOTE=Gustafa;41685036]In the last decades, a significant increase of crash rates for drivers aged over 60 has been reported.
Researchers note that "24.8% of drivers aged over 74 years keep driving". "When they are involved in a car crash, the injuries they suffer are more serious than that of middle-aged or of young drivers'".
I believe this problem is not limited to the elderly however, and that an individuals driving skills should be reassessed every 30 years, regardless of their age.
Should driving licenses expire?
Please share your opinions on this matter.[/QUOTE]
Where is evidence of this statistics a link to news article would of been good when forming a debate topic post.
Opinions have nothing to do with a debate so dont ask for them or you will get statements like below as the first response.
[QUOTE=Novangel;41685113]I think a driving test every 2-3 years or so would be good.[/QUOTE]
.......Anyway,
" The right to travel is a unalienable right under common law.... " still stands.
[U]FACT[/U]:[B] the answer is NO, due to common law and constitutional protection, making a policy/statue like you suggest would be anti-constitutional.[/B]
FIN,
-cc
I was thinking that if you are a senior (65+) you should retake it, and if you fail it, you get your license revoked until you pass so you are not an accident waiting to happen.
The right to travel isn't a right to a car and driving one...
[QUOTE=ryansav;42054916]I was thinking that if you are a senior (65+) you should retake it, and if you fail it, you get your license revoked until you pass so you are not an accident waiting to happen.[/QUOTE]
Your opinion is not needed in a debate, only reply with facts "What you was thinking" means nothing to us in a debate. ryansav has 2 posts and i bet both are "what you think" yet you didnt "think" to read the rules of a DEBATE!
[editline]14th September 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Rhenae;42056749]The right to travel isn't a right to a car and driving one...[/QUOTE]
Next time read the FACTS and reply with FACTS noone cares for your opinion in a debate:
Once again for people like you to skip threw already stated precedents.
[U]Once again[/U] i ask you to please check the legal case, [B][U][I]Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579[/I][/U][/B] ............ There is no argument here the debate is over its been proven in law the precedent is set.
The right to travel is essentially the right to a car and the right to driving one, by car i mean AUTOMOBILE and not a MOTOR VEHICLE they are two different legal entities, do drive a car for business you need a license but to drive a car for enjoyment or perinatal rights is a unalienable natural right, regardless what you think, these are the FACTS, see posts above to reconfirm where i posted legal precedents.
The right to travel is EXACTLY that the right to a car and to drive one, you only needed to read before you posted to work that out.
[I][B]
"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct."
II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.113[/B][/I]
.......Anyway,
" The right to travel is a unalienable right under common law.... " still stands.
[B][U]FACT[/U][/B]: [I]the answer is [U]NO[/U], due to common law and constitutional protection, making a policy/statue like you suggest would be anti-constitutional.[/I]
And lets refrain from posting 1 liners about your opinion or what you think....
I cant see how this debate can continue and a mod should be locking it for its obviously over.
-cc
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.