Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Charlie Blue
I'm not exactly sure where you're coming from in your analogy. I guess you're trying to pinpoint the definition.
Anyway, along the lines of what you seem to be talking about, to me, the bottom line, is that person engaging in any type of commerce. If so, he or she is a driver. If not, he or she is just a traveler.
Although, I suppose if you're doing some type of governmental function (i.e. a cop driving a patrol-car), you also have to have a license too. That I'm not sure.
|
Yes- pinpoint the definition. Call it what you will, the statute defines vehicle in the way posted above- so a device that is used for a kind of commerce called transportation is by law a vehicle, and no other thing is.
Driver vs traveler misses the point. I know it sounds like splitting hairs, but there are many court cases that have been lost on just this basis (some posted on this forum). All drivers travel and some travelers drive. Travelers who aren't driving aren't behind the wheel.
A license is only required to
operate a classified motor vehicle. It is only possible to operate when there is a vehicle. Operate = drive a motor vehicle. Or be in physical control of same.
no vehicle, no operation. No operation, no license required. The "sell" on the mass TV-mind is that there is any such thing as a "Driver's License". There isn't. There are only (driver's) License to Operate, the permit for a driver to operate a device used or registered in a certain manner- for transportation of "persons and property" fka "passengers and cargo"