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,

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.

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. 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

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 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.

Originally Posted by Jasongreat

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.

What ideals? I didn't offer any. My main argument would be that the cost/benefit ratio of going to court over this is not worth it for the vast majority of US citizens. Yes, you see that as a big negative, so you be the hero and fight the good fight for all the sheeple out there. Nothing wrong with that, it's your life, your priorities. People like you are certainly necessary for the good functioning of the society, though not too many of them.

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.

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.