Thread: Going to take my drivers test any tips

Originally Posted by Jasongreat

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.

here is the law in the UK as it stands.
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........

Originally Posted by osdset

here is the law in the UK as it stands.
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.

Originally Posted by Jasongreat

....snip....
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
....snip....
Citizens were not required to get a license to travel on their horse, either.

This is interesting...
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.

Originally Posted by Jasongreat

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Jimbo

It is like saying that people without a degree cannot possibly understand complicated things

I wanna be Freeman Dyson!!! Just not that old

Originally Posted by Jimbo

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.

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.

Originally Posted by gugi

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.

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.