Thread: Going to take my drivers test any tips

Originally Posted by Jasongreat

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?

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.

You can be charged and
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.

Originally Posted by Slartibartfast

Is the ostrich licensed?

Only of your going interstate. How much fuel does the rocket have?

Originally Posted by Mvcrash

Only of your going interstate. How much fuel does the rocket have?

Doesn't matter since I have the right to bear arms either way

Originally Posted by Mvcrash

You can be charged and
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.

.04 BAC if you're operating a commercial vehicle OR if the cop wants to push it because you happen to hold a CDL.

Originally Posted by Bruno

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Originally Posted by Mvcrash

You can be charged and
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.

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?

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.

Originally Posted by osdset

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Jasongreat

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?

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.

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.