Driving = Comercial

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The "Rem.Comp.Stat." abbreviation is to Remington & Ballinger's Compiled Statutes, published by Bancroft-Whitney (later part of Lawyers Co-op) in 1910 and updated at least through 1914. It was an early codification, perhaps the first codification, of Washington State statutes.

Exactly!!! You want to bet that those codes back then did apply only to commercial driving? It probably did.

My point is all of those codes have changed dramatically since there inception.

Anyway it was abvious to me that the case was not about the RWC.

You know I doubt that hte poster of that quote has yet to obtain and read the entire case. Probably just a cut and paste job from another "package" deal.

[Notorial dissent]

Do I not remember that the Washington Code has been totally repealed and re-enacted either in part or in total several times in recent history, which would make most of those cases moot since they were referring to laws that no longer existed?

It comes under the heading of if I were looking for precedent on computer software code, I wouldn't look much further back than the last 5-10 years because of the changes in law and perception.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

Do I not remember that the Washington Code has been totally repealed and re-enacted either in part or in total several times in recent history, which would make most of those cases moot since they were referring to laws that no longer existed?

Exactly. And on top of that the enire case about that statute becomes MOOT! FOREVER!!! Why on earth would one put arguments about a repealed law into their breif???

Oh yeah! They have no idea what they are doing.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by Codee

You want to bet that those codes back then did apply only to commercial driving? It probably did.

This is more likely to be true at an earlier time, say before 1905. There were then some states that only required DLs of commercial drivers -- truckers, bus drivers, taxi drivers, etc. -- in view of their increased time on the road and possibly also because their vehicles were usually larger than ordinary cars. Up to that point, private automobiles were a rarity and just a notch above experimental; the driver almost certainly had to double as the mechanic.

By the 1920s, automobiles were fairly commonplace and I have found references to statutes that required some sort of DL from the drivers of personal ("non-commercial") vehicles, including learner's permits and age restrictions.

The Seattle case says clearly that the plaintiff bus driver had a state-issued DL. There is not a word about DLs (or a lack of them) for non-commercial driving because the case did not involve any non-commercial driving. Neither does this case deny the state's authority to require and issue DLs, it only deals with a city's ability to impose additional - and very burdensome - requirements for a second, local, DL.

Stretching this case to say more than it actually does is the act of either a fool or a liar.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

Do I not remember that the Washington Code has been totally repealed and re-enacted either in part or in total several times in recent history, which would make most of those cases moot since they were referring to laws that no longer existed?

Codes are seldom repealed outright, but, necessarily require being kept up-to-date, they are usually replaced with newer editions every few years (the US Code at 6 year intervals). Some states contract with a commercial publisher to work up the state code, and if they change from one publisher to another the new edition may have a different title and possibly a different arrangement of sections (this happened in Michigan, for example).

A decision involving a law no longer in effect might yet be useful for something, such as an analogy to a recent situation involving different statutes. But claiming, on the basis of the legal situation of 1926, that DLs are not required now of some or most drivers is simply wrong.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Codes are seldom repealed outright, but...

Most vehicle codes have been repealed and re-enacted. There are differences between the versions as well.

[Notorial dissent]

Originally Posted by Codee

Exactly. And on top of that the enire case about that statute becomes MOOT! FOREVER!!! Why on earth would one put arguments about a repealed law into their breif???

Oh yeah! They have no idea what they are doing.

This is what happens when you go looking for something you think proves your point and then don't actually read the case before they make a fool of themselves.

[bman]

Please note; the RCW’S declare that they do not change any Previous laws, and if there is any inconsistency the previous laws shall control, that seems to be very straight forward.
This RCW below is current as of today
RCW1.04.021
Rule of construction — Prima facie law.
The contents of said code shall establish prima facie the laws of this state of a general and permanent nature in effect on January 1, 1949, but nothing herein shall be construed as changing the meaning of any such laws. In case of any omissions, or any inconsistency between any of the provisions of said code and the laws existing immediately preceding this enactment, the previously existing laws shall control. [1950 ex.s. c 16 § 2.].
Bouviers 1856 Edition
PRIMA FACIE. The first blush; the first view or appearance of the business; as, the holder of a bill of exchange, indorsed in blank, is prima facie its owner.
2. Prima facie evidence of a fact, is in law sufficient to establish the fact, unless rebutted.


Definitions provided here for your convenience;

revised
1. rethink something: to come to different conclusions about somebody or something after thinking again
2. give updated version of something: to change a previous estimate in order to make it more accurate or realistic
3. alter something for correction or updating: to amend a text in order to correct, update, or improve it

Definition:
code
1. system of letters, numbers, or symbols: a system of letters, numbers, or symbols into which normal language is converted to allow information to be communicated secretly,
Encarta ® World English Dictionary


"A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received."
International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120

The term `motor vehicle' is different and broader than the word `automobile.'"
City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232
The RCW’S did not change these definitions

Current federal definition below
The distinction is made very clear in Title 18 USC 31:
"Motor vehicle" means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property.

"Used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.
The federal definition is the same as it has always been.
Clearly, an automobile is private property in use for private purposes, while a motor vehicle is a machine which may be used upon the highways for trade, commerce, or hire.
The term "travel" is a significant term and is defined as:
"The term `travel' and `traveler' are usually construed in their broad and general sense ... so as to include all those who rightfully use the highways viatically …and who have occasion to pass over them for the purpose of business, convenience, or pleasure."
25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect.427, Pg. 717

"Traveler -- One who passes from place to place, whether for pleasure, instruction, business, or health."
Locket vs. State, 47 Ala. 45;
Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Pg. 3309

"Travel -- To journey or to pass through or over; as a country district, road, etc. To go from one place to another, whether on foot, or horseback, or in any conveyance as a train, an automobile, carriage, ship, or aircraft; Make a journey."
Century Dictionary, Pg. 2034

Therefore, the term "travel" or "traveler" refers to one who uses a conveyance to go from one place to another, and included all those who use the highways as a matter of Right.
Notice that in all these definitions, the phrase "for hire" never occurs. This term "travel" or "traveler" implies, by definition, one who uses the road as a means to move from one place to another.
Therefore, one who uses the road in the ordinary course of life and business for the purpose of travel and transportation is a traveler.
Driver
The term "driver" in contradistinction to "traveler," is defined as:
"Driver -- One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle ..."
Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Pg. 940

Notice that this definition includes one who is "employed" in conducting a vehicle. It should be self-evident that this individual could not be "traveling" on a journey, but is using the road as a place of business.
Have the RCW’s changed the meaning of a word here or is the RCW’s adheringto its own rules of constuction “ but nothing herein shall be construed as changing the meaning of any such laws”
The early laws, many of which were derived from court decisions as outlined above, had specific meanings to words that were used, to arbitrarily change the meaning of a word that was used as the basis of a court decision would be fraud to say the least, But the RCW’s specifically say that they do not change any law previous to there (the RCW’s) enactment. So if the cases which used the words with the meaning as above and they have not been changed then the meaning must be the same as indicated above.


License
“The permission, by competent authority, to do an act which without permission, would be illegal, a trespass, or a tort.”
People vs. Henderson, 218 NW. 2d 2,4

“Leave to do a thing which licensor could prevent.”

Western Electric Co. vs. Pacent Reproducer Corp., 42 F.2d 116, 118

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491

and ...
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime."
Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489

and ...
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights."
Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946

“Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion – to go where and when one pleases – only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conduction himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another’s Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.”
II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect. 329, p.1135
continued

[bman]

“…Based upon the fundamental ground that the sovereign state has the plenary control of the streets and highways in the exercise of its police power), may absolutely prohibit the use of the streets as a place for the prosecution of a private business for gain. They all recognize the fundamental distinction between the ordinary Right of the Citizen to use the streets in the usual way and the use of the streets as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business for private gain. The former is a common Right; the latter is an extraordinary use. As to the former, the legislative power is confined to regulation, as to the latter; it is plenary and extends even to absolute prohibition. Since the use of the streets by a common carrier in the prosecution of its business as such is not a right but a mere license of privilege.”
Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516


“The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived.”
Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22;
Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934;
Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607;
25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163


“The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579

“… For while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the later purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or a license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion.”
State vs. Johnson, 243 P.1073;
Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171;
Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256;



“Heretofore the court has held, and we think correctly, that while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain.”

Willis vs. Buck 263 P.1982;
Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82

“The right of the citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus.”
State vs. City of Spokane, 186 P.864

“The former is the usual and ordinary Right of the Citizen, a common right to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary.”
and …
“This distinction, elementary and fundamental in character, is recognized by all the authorities.”
State vs. City of Spokane, supra.


“the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus. The former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary.”
Ex Parte ****ey, (****y vs. Davis), 85 SE 781


“The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.”
Thompson vs. Smith, supra.;
Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784

There is no dissent among various authorities as to this position. (see Am.Jur (1st(Const. Law, 329) and corresponding Am.Jur.[2nd].)

“Personal Liberty – or the right to enjoyment of life and liberty – is one of the fundamental or natural rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from nor dependent on the U.S. Constitution … It is one of the most sacred and valuable rights [remember the words of Justice Tolman, supra.] as sacred as the right to private property … and is regarded as inalienable.”
16 C.J.S. Const. Law, Sect.202, Pg. 987

As we can see, the distinction between a ‘Right” to use the public roads and a “privilege” to use the public roads is drawn upon the line of “using the road as a place of business” and the various state courts have held so. But what have the U.S. Courts held on this point?

“First it is well established law that the highways of the state are public property, and their primary and preferred use is for private purposes, and that their use for the purposes of gain is special and extraordinary which, generally at least, the legislature may prohibit or condition as it sees fit.”
Stephenson vs. Rinford, 287 US 251;
Pachard vs. Banton, 264 US 140, and cases cited;
Frost and F. Trucking Co. vs. Railroad Commission, 57 SE.2d 290;
Parlett Cooperative vs. Tidewater Lines, 164 A. 313

So what is a privilege to use the roads? By now it should be apparent even to the “learned” that an attempt to use the road as a place of business is a privilege. The distinction must be drawn between …

1. Traveling upon and transporting one’s property upon the public roads, which is our Right; and …
2. Using the public roads as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business, which is a privilege.

“[The roads] .. are constructed and maintained at public expense, and no person therefore, can insist that he has, or may acquire, a vested right to their use in carrying on a commercial business.”
Ex Parte Sterling, 53 SW.2d 294;
Barney vs. Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82;
Stephenson vs. Binford, supra.

“When the public highways are made the place of business the state has a right to regulate their use in the interest of safety and convenience of the public as well as the preservation of the highways.”
Thompson vs. Smith, supra.

“[The state’s] right to regulate such use is based upon the nature of the business and the use of the highways in connection therewith.”
Ibid.

“We know of no inherent right in one to use the highways for commercial purposes. The highways are primarily for the use of the public, and in the interest of the public, the state may prohibit or regulate … the use of the highways for gain.”
Robertson vs. Dept. of Public Works, supra.

There should be considerable authority on a subject as important as this deprivation of the liberty of the individual “using the roads in the ordinary course of life and business.” However, it should be noted that extensive research has not turned up one case or authority acknowledging the state’s power to convert the individual’s right to travel upon the public roads into a “privilege.”
Therefore, it is concluded that the Citizen does have a “Right” to travel and transport his property upon the public highways and roads and the exercise of this Right is not a “privilege.”
So the “driver license” is a privilege and is used for commercial purpose .

In Washington State one can only receive a license from the Department of License that has on its face “CDL END” in the upper left hand corner of the front of the New Drivers License’s. CDL END obviously means COMMERCIAL DRIVERS LICENSE ENDORSEMENT as per the federal regulations demands that the State comply with.


Does the Driver license in your pocket have CDL or commercial driver license on it anywhere? If so it is a COMMERCIAL DRIVER LICENSE .

Since the word “DRIVER” is defined as someone receiving renumeration or payment for hire that would be commercial in nature, and “LICENSE” “The permission, by competent authority, to do an act which without permission, would be illegal”. If as outlined above and below also if it is a RIGHT to travel why would one need a “license” except for commercial purpose. All of the rules, codes, laws mention “DRIVER” which as pointed out in the above very old cases is a privilege granted by the State, the State apparently cannot grant a right to anyone according to the very old “LAW” called the Constitution.

I am sorry if these are to old for you to believe but apparently these are the basis for these rules, once they were decided the legislature must have thought it futile to go back and try to change the meaning of certain words so they left that task to the unelected director of motor vehicle/licenseing.I suppose you consider the Constitution’s to be too old and need to updated on a regular basis to conform to the whim of the day also.

[bman]

- PUBLICVEHICULARTRAVEL.COM -

Key Excerpts -

"The right to travel interstate by auto vehicle upon the public highways may be a privilege or immunity of citizens of the United States. Compare Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35. A citizen may have, under the Fourteenth Amendment, the right to travel and transport his property upon them by auto vehicle. But he has no right to make the highways his place of business by using them as a common carrier for hire. Such use is a privilege which may be granted or withheld by the state in its discretion, without violating either the due process clause or the equal protection clause. Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140, 144[.]" See Buck v. Kuykendall, 267 U.S. 307, 314 (1925).

"It will be observed that . . . a highway, within the contemplation of the act, is, "Every way or place of whatever nature open as a matter of right to the use of the public for the purposes of vehicular travel." There can be no question but that this definition is broad enough to include streets in incorporated cities, because they are open as a matter of right to the use of the public for the purposes of vehicular travel." See Neeley v. Bock, 184 Wash. 135, 140, 50 P.2d 524 (1935).


RCW 46.09.020 Definitions. As used in this chapter the following words and phrases have the designated meanings unless a different meaning is expressly provided or the context otherwise clearly indicates:
"Highway," for the purpose of this chapter only, means the entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained by the state department of transportation or any county or city when any part thereof is generally open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel as a matter of right.

RCW 46.10.010 Definitions. As used in this chapter the words and phrases in this section shall have the designated meanings unless a different meaning is expressly provided or the context otherwise clearly indicated.-
(6) "Public roadway" shall mean the entire width of the right of way of any road or street designed and ordinarily used for travel or parking of motor vehicles, which is controlled by a public authority other than the Washington state department of transportation, and which is open as a matter of right to the general public for ordinary vehicular traffic.

Washington Administrative Code ("WAC") 296-32-210 Definitions.
(46) "Public highway." Every way, land, road, street, boulevard, and every way or place in the state open as matter of right to public vehicular travel, both inside and outside the limit of cities and towns.
WAC 296-45-035 Definitions. These definitions apply to chapter 296-45 WAC.
"Public highway" - Every way, land, road, street, boulevard, and every other way or place in the state open as a matter of right to public vehicular travel, both inside and outside the limits of cities and towns, regardless of ownership.

RCW 47.04.010 Definitions. The following words and phrases, wherever used in this title, shall have the meaning as in this section ascribed to them, unless where used the context thereof shall clearly indicate to the contrary or unless otherwise defined in the chapter of which they are a part:
(6) "City street." Every highway as herein defined, or part thereof located within the limits of incorporated cities and towns, except alleys;
(9) "County road." Every highway as herein defined, or part thereof, outside the limits of incorporated cities and towns and which has not been designated as a state highway, or branch thereof;
(11) "Highway." Every way, lane, road, street, boulevard, and every way or place in the state of Washington open as a matter of right to public vehicular travel both inside and outside the limits of incorporated cities and towns;

RCW 46.30.010 Legislative intent. It is a privilege granted by the state to operate a motor vehicle upon the highways of this state.

Washington state counties -
Franklin County, WA § 2.25 Road, Public. "Public road" means a road, whether improved or unimproved, held in public ownership and intended to be open as a matter of right for public vehicular travel and to provide access now or in the future to adjacent properties.

Jefferson County, WA § 18.10.160 "P - definitions." "Public road, or public street" means an approved road or street, whether improved or unimproved, held in public ownership or control (i.e., either through deed or easement conveyance) and intended to be open as a matter of right to public vehicular travel.

Kittitas County, WA - Title 10 Vehicles and Traffic. 10.37.020 Definitions. As used in this chapter the following words and phrases have the designated meanings unless a different meaning is expressly provided or the context otherwise clearly indicates:
"Highway" - For purpose of this chapter only, means the entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained by the state is generally open to the use of the public for the purposes of vehicular travel as a matter of right.

Pierce County, WA § 11.02.030 Definitions. For the purposes of this Chapter, the words or phrases below shall have the following meanings:
K. "Highway" shall mean all impervious ways, lanes, roads, streets, boulevards, and/or places in the County open as a matter of right to public vehicular travel both inside and outside the limits of incorporated cities and towns.

Snohomish County Code, WA - 10.01.020 Definitions. All technical terminology used in chapter 10.01 SCC, and not defined in chapter 10.01 SCC, shall be interpreted in conformance with the American National Standards Institute Specifications, Section 1.1-1983 and Section 1.4-1983 as now in force or as later amended. As used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings set forth below:
(26) "Public highway" means the entire width between the right-of-way lines of every roadway publicly maintained by the Washington State Department of Transportation, or any county or city, when any part of the right-of-way is generally open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel as a matter of right.

Yakima County, WA § 8.06.010 Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the indicated meanings:
(1) "County road" means every way, lane, road, street, boulevard, and every way or place, or part thereof, in the county of Yakima open as a matter of right to public vehicular travel outside the limits of incorporated cities and towns, which has not been designated as a state highway, and which is regularly maintained and accepted by Yakima County as part of the county road system. (Ord. 1-1978 §1(part), 1978).

Washington cities -
Asotin, WA municipal code § 12.08.030 "Street" means every way, lane, road, street, boulevard, and every way or place in the city open as a matter of right to public vehicular travel which is not an alley or a driveway. (Ord. 96-519 § 1, 1996; Ord. 232 § 1.030, 1975).

Bremerton, WA municipal code § 10.11.005 Definitions. The following definitions are applicable in this chapter unless the context otherwise requires:
(b) "Right-of-way" or "street" means any highway, avenue, lane, road, drive, place, boulevard, alley, right-of-way, way, sidewalk, planting or parking strip, shoulder and every way or place in the City of Bremerton open as a matter of right to public vehicular travel or parking or other similar public use.

Cathlamet, WA municipal code § 10.05.010 Definitions. The following terms used in this chapter shall have the meanings herein set out:
(1) "Public highway" includes every way, lane, road, street, boulevard, and every way or place in the town open as a matter of right to public vehicular travel inside the limits of the town of Cathlamet.

Edgewood, WA municipal code § 16.04.060 For the purposes of this title, certain words and terms used in this title are defined as follows:
"Street, public" means as approved street, whether improved or unimproved, held in public ownership and intended to be open as a matter of right to public vehicular travel.

Everett, WA - 8.56.030 Definitions. The following definitions are applicable in this chapter unless the context otherwise requires:
F. "Street" means any highway, lane, road, street, right-of-way, boulevard, alley, and every way or place in Everett open as a matter of right to public vehicular travel. (Ord. 2129-96 § 3, 1996)