Thread: Going to take my drivers test any tips

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.

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.

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)