Printable View
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