A friend of mine failed his exam TWICE for not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign.
Tbh, in some place it is complete bollocks, and usually I only slow down if there are no other cars around.
But on an exam: do a complete stop.
Printable View
A friend of mine failed his exam TWICE for not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign.
Tbh, in some place it is complete bollocks, and usually I only slow down if there are no other cars around.
But on an exam: do a complete stop.
The MUTCD (Manual of uniform Traffic Control Devices) prescribes a SOLID WHITE, 24" "stop bar" in advance of of pedestrian crosswalk if the cross walk is present, otherwise it will be placed at or even with a stop sign or before and intersection controlled by a light. The borders of pedestrian crosswalk "shall be" SOLID WHITE and 12" in width.Quote:
Originally Posted by niftyshaving
Note that this quote says "guidance" while the second quote says "standard". Standards are what I am required to use.
Quote:
Section 3B.16 Stop and Yield Lines
Guidance:
01 Stop lines should be used to indicate the point behind which vehicles are required to stop in compliance with
a traffic control signal.
Option:
02 Stop lines may be used to indicate the point behind which vehicles are required to stop in compliance with a
STOP (R1-1) or some other traffic control device that requires vehicles to stop, except YIELD signs that are not
associated with passive grade crossings.
In most states, stopping past the stop bar constitutes an illegal stop. I know it is rarely enforced but nonetheless is the law.Quote:
Standard:
04 Except as provided in Section 8B.28, stop lines shall not be used at locations where drivers are required
to yield in compliance with a YIELD (R1-2) sign or a Yield Here To Pedestrians (R1-5 or R1-5a) sign or at
locations on uncontrolled approaches where drivers are required by State law to yield to pedestrians.
05 Yield lines shall not be used at locations where drivers are required to stop in compliance with a STOP
(R1-1) sign, a traffic control signal, or some other traffic control device.
06 Stop lines shall consist of solid white lines extending across approach lanes to indicate the point at
which the stop is intended or required to be made.
07 Yield lines (see Figure 3B-16) shall consist of a row of solid white isosceles triangles pointing toward
approaching vehicles extending across approach lanes to indicate the point at which the yield is intended or
required to be made
I work with the above mentioned stuff pretty regular in my job. My state has its own MUTCD, the TMUCTCD,
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot...tcd/2011/3.pdf
which has more stringent stuff than the federally mandated one.
Yes, I think someone near blind still has common sense, if you cant see, you arent going to get too far and I suppose they would find other transportation. If someone was near blind and didnt have the common sense to stay off the roads, I would think them pretty easy to see coming down the road, i guess as long as you are not near blind yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
Yes, if one doesnt know how to fly, the most they will be able to do is drive it around. If they do get lucky and get airborne and figure out how to fly they will never be able to land and we will not have to worrow about them being a danger anymore. If they do land, then I guess they have just proven they were a somewhat capable pilot.
Yes, if one is too drunk to drive, then they are not going to make it far. If they are drunk yet make it home, with no property damage then I guess they werent too drunk to drive.
Now, before everyone jumps on, let me explain that no one has the right to put other peoples lives or property in danger, and I would go so far as to say that most people try not to put their own lives or property in danger even more. In all cases above I am not about to argue that the police have to sit by and watch, if anyone is a danger the police have the right, nay the duty to make a stop to accertain why. On the other hand I will argue that the cops should not be allowed to restrict any travel unless the publics safety is at risk, when I say that, I mean and already observed risk, ie; probable cause. Not all risk can be negated, there is and will always be risks in life, if one chooses to travel on a roadway they are doing so knowing there is a risk. There are people who think flying is too dangerous and do not fly. Those who think driving after drinking is too dangerous and do not drive after they have drank. We should be allowed to make those distinctions ourselves, I do not believe the vast majority of my fellow mankind need a babysitter, and I dont think that the vast majority should have their rights trampled on due to the actions of a small minority. When we do choose wrongly, thats what the courts of law are for, deciding after the fact.
A license system does not reduce risk to zero, heck its along way from zero if you look at traffic statistics. It does not prove that a person is capable in all circumstances, heck not even most cases. I can take a competent licensed driver, from the east and have him drive in the west and it is a completely new experience, would they, the first day be as safe as someone driving those roads for years? They are licensed. Vice-versa, and I learned this the hard way, take someone from the west and go east an it is a new experience, especially if one experiences an ice storm, in the west we skate on ice, I was surprised to find that easterners drive on it. :) What it does do is gives government the power to control our basic common law right to travel.
I understand why driving regulations originally came about, and I dont think mexico city style anything goes driving is good. We can have regulations most everyone agrees on and follows, like stopping at a stop sign, without a license system where we beg our governments for a fundamental right, and pay them to do it. Freemen(as in mankind, i hate politcal correctness) should be able to make their own choices and live with the consequences, our governments are not there to protect us from ourselves.
To the OP: Well its sunday and we havent heard, should we take that to mean you are driving around and dont have the time to let us know?
no sorry guys i got a bit busy helping finish a garage, I failed it i was 1.5 inches over the white line for parallel parking and he shut me down right there even tho i did everything else perfect. so i can take it next week at some point so ill practice a few more times and see what goes. i still think he could have cut me some slack since i did everything else right.
In Belgium we have the same set-up. First you have to do the maneuvering tests (parking, driving in read, etc) and if you fail there, you're not allowed to take the actual road test.
As soon as you have a lot of people living in 1 location, that just doesn't work anymore. I can completely follow your reasoning if the only person at risk is you.Quote:
Freemen(as in mankind, i hate politcal correctness) should be able to make their own choices and live with the consequences, our governments are not there to protect us from ourselves
As soon as you put other people at risk for no reason at all, that is no longer true.
To take drunk driving: allowing people to drive drunk in a crowded street is similar to putting 1 bullet in a revolver, spinning the cilinder, and shooting at a pedestrian eveyr mile or so. Your argument is basically that it is ok to do so as long as the gun doesn't fire. And you continue the argument that if the gun should fire, there are laws to deal with that.
However, I think the majority of the people just don't want to participate in this game of russian roulette. I otoh say that the person playing russian roulette with passers by should be taken off the streets, even though he has managed (through dumb luck) not to shoot anyone so far.
By the same token, I think that when you approach a busy airport it is the wrong time to find out if you are aware of the relevant protocols and procedures.
Great news guys i just got back from a job interview and i start this saturday. so now im ready to get my liscence lol
good for you, now you definitly need the license, should have practiced with a big vehicle, works every time. my younger brother took his driving test in a ford fiesta, a 78 model, all he did was pulled the thing into the spot, the trooper told him to do it again, but right this time. wasnt trying to be a smart ass, but all the same, why parallel park something you can swing in. besided how many areas still have parallel parking. i cant think of many.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deerhunter1995
When and where I grew up, it was standard procedure for the examiner to fail you at least once, just to put the fear in you and make you study and practice all the harder. It worked.
Rochester NY is one such place http://straightrazorpalace.com/conve...park-like.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by wvloony
AWESOME!! Now you can start your journey through life in style, as soon as you ace that test next week that is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deerhunter1995
Now that you have an idea what to expect on the test and from the examiner, you can smoke it like a cheap cigar.
Congrats on the job and welcome to the real world.
I'm proud for ya and happy for ya.
Willie
I failed the first time , too . When I parallel parked , I was more than 12" from the curb . I know how you feel .Quote:
Originally Posted by Deerhunter1995
I got my drivers license in 1 go. But I had to do the theoretical exam twice. In those days (God, I'm getting old) we had to perform the exam with a punch card and a metal needle. I was one of the last to ever use that system. The problem was that halfway through I discovered that I had somehow, somewhere missed a question :roflmao The questions were shown 2 times, first to last, and there was a second strip where I could punch corrections. Yet that didn't match up 100% at the end either. The second time I took the test, they had switched to a computer based system and I passed.
I also failed the exam for my moped. We had to drive along lines between traffic cones, and my moped didn't have a small enough turn radius. I tried arguing with the examinator that according to the rules, I was to be allowed a wider trajectory because of that. He argued that on a technicality, my moped didn't qualify for that (it was a pointless technicality that had nothing to do with the turning radius). So I ran over the traffic cones and failed.
The second time I took that test I used a smaller moped that belonged to the driving school. It had half the turning radius of mine, and still qualified as the same type, so I passed that test. I still think that it is kind of pointless to prove that you can drive a tight figure 8, and across a 4' long beam 4" wide without touching feet to the ground.
Isnt every person on the roads already at risk? Even with the licensing protocol already in place, people get in accidents, there is no way to completely alleviate that risk. A license does not prove you will never hurt another, but it does give you an out of liability. Ie; I got in an accident, but I was a licensed driver, notice how I said because I was licensed I was in the right, what if it was the facts and only the facts counted, you operated your equipment in the wrong way it doesnt matter at all about a license. On the other hand I could say that I havent had a moving violation let alone an accident in the last ten years, even though I am unlicensed. Why is a license the test for one being at fault or not, shouldnt it be their actions?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
For drunk driving, do you consider those at .08% BAC unsafe? Are they gauranteed not to hurt others no matter what if below that limit? If above that limit there is no chance they are fine to drive? Speaking from experience, an experience I am not proud of, my DUI's have came at the .18 to .23 levels, at .08% I could drive for years without ever being pulled over, with probable cause. Does that make me an anomoly? I dont think so. I have known people that have driven for fourty years, drunk as hell, but they never do anything that would get them busted, ie; swerving, speeding, wrecking. Is it the amount of achohol that is at fault or peoples driving habits, ie; safe driving that is in question?
Like I said before, people, try to preserve their own life. Would someone go into a position that puts themselves at excessive risk? Let alone put other peoples life at risk? I will agree that a few do, but should we punish the majority for the actions of the minority? There is always the court of law if one feels wrongly put at risk.
Citizens have no right to put others at an unacceptable risk, but IMO, we should have to prove that unacceptability, beyond having a state sanctioned license, since those licensed can already cause risk. It is actions that matter.
I would like to say, Ben Franklin in poor richards almanac said- As soon as one feels safe they are no longer secure. Which I think is a very valid point, and I think America has proven by the actions of 9/11, we felt secure were we safe? Or on point with this discussion, do you feel secure knowing everyone on the road is licensed? Then according to him you are no longer safe. We should all be aware of the dangers, but the belief we can be secure as long as everyone is licensed is ridiculous, imo.
There are no absolutes. But just because you can't reach the optimum of having 0 casualties does not mean you should not go for something that causes much lower accident rates than without.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasongreat
Accident rates have gone steadily down since requiring people to take an exam before driving. Making sure that people know the traffic signs, and know that various right of way rules, and the other things that are meant for keeping people safe cannot be a bad thing.
Additionally, having a drivers license also make it possible to take it away from people who have done grossly dangerous things and have been convicted by a judge. People who do extremely irresponsible things on the road (such as 100 miles per hour in a school area like the idiot last week) have their license taken away. Sure, this doesn't prevent them physically from driving, but you'd be surprised how many times such people are caught because they're pulled over for speeding / other things.
I have said my beliefs are not going to prevent all accidents but neither does a licensing system. I will not argue that everything is peachy with my ideas, only that they are true. :D Here is a little segment of USC cases speaking to this, atleast in the US. But as far as I know there isnt much difference between the US, Canada, the UK, and probably Belgium and the Netherlands. What I am talking about is based on english common law, that which as americans left intact in the US, and I assume is the same in every british empire since 1655.
Here it is:
DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS, HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS.
For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal. Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases:
CASE #1: “The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived.” Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
CASE #2: “The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579. It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.
CASE #3: “The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.” Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
CASE #4: “The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right.” Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.
As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. Government—in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question—is restricting, and therefore violating, the people’s common law right to travel.
Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not. This means that the beliefs and opinions our state legislators, the courts, and those in law enforcement have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that case law is overwhelming in determining that to restrict the movement of the individual in the free exercise of his right to travel is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions. That means it is unlawful. The revelation that the American citizen has always had the inalienable right to travel raises profound questions for those who are involved in making and enforcing state laws. The first of such questions may very well be this: If the states have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions—such as licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections to name just a few—on a citizen’s constitutionally protected rights. Is that so?
For the answer, let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination of this very issue. In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly:
“The state cannot diminish rights of the people.”
And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60,
“Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void.”
Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point—that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the people? Other cases are even more straight forward:
“The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.”
Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.
There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights.” Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946
We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision; however, the Constitution itself answers our question – Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason? The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary not one word withstanding.” In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by this Supreme Law:
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…”
That being said, if Belgium or the UK wants to prohibit, or nullify their rights, they have every right to do so. I would even go so far as to say to US has the right to do so, but an ammendment to the constitution is inorder. I will never go against the rights of the many, as long as they follow the constitution in doing so. Write an ammendment, get it passed and that is the law of the land, until then we are stuck with the constitution we have, one which I am very satisfied with.
Sweet! So does that mean I do have the right to travel around strapped to a rocket tipped with a nuclear warhead? After all, it's my choice, my freedom, and we don't want to jeopardize that by restricting its use in the name of safety. Does this mean I can ride an ostrich to work down the interstate? I certainly hope nobody would try to stop me since they are bound to uphold the constitution
Is the ostrich licensed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoglahoo
You can be charged andQuote:
Originally Posted by Jasongreat
Convicted of DWI with a BAC below .08. Below .08 the presumption is your not drunk and the state needs to provide more proof that you were drunk not just a bad driver. And yes, at .08 your too drunk to drive.
Your logic about licensing is seriously flawed.
Only of your going interstate. How much fuel does the rocket have?Quote:
Originally Posted by Slartibartfast
Doesn't matter since I have the right to bear arms either wayQuote:
Originally Posted by Mvcrash
.04 BAC if you're operating a commercial vehicle OR if the cop wants to push it because you happen to hold a CDL.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mvcrash
You are arguing for something that you cant show, you assume because we are told a license is needed to keep the highways safe, that because we are licensed it makes us safer than if we werent. I agree that nothing will get a 0% accident rate, but there is no proof, that a licensed driver is safer than one who doesnt have a license. It is skill that makes a safer driver, not a peice of paper you pay a fee for and is sanctioned by government, and we dont need to give up our fundamental rights to be safer, only more oppressed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
I agree, but I would argue that it was the instruction given, as in lessons learnt, that make us safer, not a license. Could we not learn how to be safe, without the fees and the loss of rights?
Would not a court of law be able to do that without the license? You said that a license can be taken away, yet they can still drive. How about if the person you you describe was tried for attempted murder, or recklous endangerment? Or a number of other offense, A license does not prevent, and does not punish(unless you believe taking away a piece of paper is punishment), those guilty can still drive. Granted, government revenues would go down from all the little tickets, but if one went to the point of endangering the public, and the state could prove its case, those guilty would be in jail, not just have a few points removed from thier license, or to lose an insignifigant piece of paper.
And Bruno, I would like to say thank you for your reasoned responses, as gentleman its not the end of the world when others disagree, it gives us a chance to get to know one another a little better, as well as get to know our own opinions a little better. Thank you.
Not only a strawman, but a fantastical strawman at that. I guess my arguments are hitting where it hurts(tainting basically held beliefs), when this is the rebuttal. First off I already stated that safety is a valid concern of government, and people can be punished for endangering the public safety, a license isnt needed for that. Second, if you can get your ostrich to speed up a couple miles an hour, you could, but 45mph seems to be the lower limit. :) Citizens were not required to get a license to travel on their horse, either.Quote:
Hogaloo= Sweet! So does that mean I do have the right to travel around strapped to a rocket tipped with a nuclear warhead? After all, it's my choice, my freedom, and we don't want to jeopardize that by restricting its use in the name of safety. Does this mean I can ride an ostrich to work down the interstate? I certainly hope nobody would try to stop me since they are bound to uphold the constitution
Excuse me but I thought we were presumed innocent until proven guilty? Can you prove that everyone over .08 is drunk, or is that just what you were taught?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mvcrash
If so please enlighten me, or am I wrong just because you say so? I have given references to USC cases, please feel free to read them, that is why I posted them, and argue your point.
The licencing issue is not a problem in the UK, it's illegal to drive without one, end of story.
If thats what you believe, but the right to travel in the US is based on English common law(our founders continued it here, since it was the basis for the declaration of independence and our inalienable rights), I would believe the UK, would honor that also, aslong as those asserting the right are willing to fight for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by osdset
You have a right to travel, not a right to operate a 2-ton piece of machinery at speeds that give it as much kinetic energy as a bomb going off while carting around several gallons of highly flammable liquid though populous areas. If you want to exercise your right to travel, and find the law prevents you from driving because you lack a license, then it's time to exercise your legs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasongreat
There are other things one needs to prove in a DWI case other than intoxication. The presumption is that you are intoxicated, not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of an offense. You can loose the case mearly by failing to prove operation of the vehicle.
here is the law in the UK as it stands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasongreat
Driving without a valid driving licence is an offence, and the penalty – for the basic offence – is 3 to 6 penalty points, a fine of up to £1,000, and possible disqualification. Driving whilst disqualified can lead to a prison sentence.
Whether a group or individual could successfully defend driving without a valid licence under common law is debatable, there is the revenue stream that the licence provides, plus it's another way for the government to keep tabs on us, I can't see them giving up those advantages lightly, and it does at least demonstrate that the holder is capable of driving (at least in basic form) a vehicle, however I personally know a number of people who have valid licences that I would not let within 50 feet of a petrol / diesel fuelled vehicle, but that's another story........
Thanks for giving me the description, I havent followed english politics since 1770, it seems your government is as wrong as ours. :) The same things that effect you and yours is the same that effect me and mine. A government never wants to give up a revenue stream, and to keep tabs on the citizenry, a government would never give up those rights without a fight. I would love for those in england to check into common law, and fight to keep it, the only problem I see is that your rights have been eroded since 1655, ours since 1776. Seems you over their are over a hundred years ahead of us, which means it is harder to go back, atlhough your rights are on a stronger footing than ours, will you fight for them, or say they have been lost a few hundred years ago. One thing us americans have, which was based on english common law, the bill of rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by osdset
This is interesting...Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasongreat
If you are a race car driver you do not need a state issued drivers license.
Many tracks' age limit is lower than the state driving age.
Yet racing organizations do license/ permit member drivers, also they do
have pre-race driver safety meetings. They do have rules. They do black
flag and red flag cars and ban drivers.
Having had a couple horseback riding lessons in my life I can tell
you that there are lot of "rules" enforced by the horse. Try to mount
some horses from the wrong side, dig your spurs in or go nuts with the crop and
you will learn quickly what it feels like to be airborne without a pilots
license no less.
Its a good thing that you can drive stick for your first car. I did and I am glad I did. I have been driving for 3 years or so (not long i know) and i still can't parallel park.
If you still need to take it again and have time, i would say take a driver ed course and get the test done by them. I took drivers ed and they gave me the test while I was driving. My instructor didn't even tell me he started the test. I got back and he handed me a voucher saying to give this to the DMV
drivers ed tests are a lot easier. Same with motorcycle license, if you can take a class and get it, do it that way (if you want on that is)
Driving is not a right, it is a priviledge......If you can not pass a driving test you can not reap the benefits of that privilidge. Focus on the task at hand, not on the constitution.
I'm with you - pieces of paper don't mean a thing. It is like saying that people without a degree cannot possibly understand complicated things, or that people without immigration papers cannot possibly be allowed into the US, or that people without green cards cannot work in the US. It is all a big rort.
James.
Your ideas may be true in an abstract sense, but they are way too idealistic to be relevant for the real world where practicality is the deciding factor. The US constitution is in this sense flawed, and the only reason that this isn't recognized more is that it has been largely ignored instead of practiced. Many parts that have been put into practice have been altered.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasongreat
I wanna be Freeman Dyson!!! Just not that old :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo
People can understand things without a degree, as well as have no idea what is going on with a degree. Immigration can be enforced, in fact it is a delegated power of the us government, same with green cards. For that matter they can get here without either and can work without either. So my question is what is your argument? Restricting travel fits into none of your above examples.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo
The only reason my ideas are idealistic and yours are not, is that you belive in your idealism, which means you have to discount mine. And you will get no argument from me for your last point, isnt that the whole argument we have been having? Where you see the distortions as a positive, I see them as a negative. So here we are right where we started, that was fun, except I have offered court decisions for you to look at, you only spout your ideals with no proof other than it is, therefore its right, and the only way it can be, unless I have miss-understood.Quote:
Originally Posted by gugi