transportation

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

what does "transport" mean?

I am a little leery of that definition found in U.S. Title 18, defining "transportation" as "carrying-for-hire", since this statute has to do with special criminal penalties for hijacking interstate commercial carriers.

court cites, legislation, customs...

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

I hear you- legislative history is the key to understanding the intent.

I looked on 3 different online law dictionaries and found nothing for "transportation", which is very suspicious. What are they hiding?

* the act of moving something from one location to another

* the commercial enterprise of moving goods and materials

The second is very clear for our purpose here; but even the first one is an angle- why is driving licensed specifically in relation to a machine being defined by who or what goes along for the ride?

In other words, if the DL is to regulate public safety in relation to other users of the road, what's different whether a device is used to "transport person or property"- who cares what's being carried?

If the DL were in relation to outsiders, the statute should read something like- "DL required to drive a motorized device weighing more than..." But it's not- the defintion of a vehicle is in relation to it's 'use'.

..."used for transportation of persons or property..."

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by Pure Trust

It would be very silly to use the federal definition.

I like to use the codes that are applicable, a law dictionary, or a dictionary.

In your statement in the second sentence, which 'codes' are your preference? And what is the difference between your 'codes' of preference to that which you refer to when referencing "federal definition"?

Jerry

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Originally Posted by Pure Trust:

This can be explained quite simply by the fact that in many jurisdictions there such a thing as "Incidental Use" of the roads. For farming equipment to use the road for a 100 ft just to get to another field does not constitute is function as transporting. It is plowing fields and is only incidentally on the road.

That should tend to prove the defintion of "transportation" in the VC. It is the nature of the use of the road that creates "Incidence", going from one field to another- not the actual physical control over a self-propelled machine. The pilot cannot be "taking persons or property from one point to another" because in this case he is just going from one field to another.

Its more proof that the operators license for a motor vehicle has to do with the kind of use, not the actual steering (driving in the common sense).

I am thinking "they" just changed "passengers and/or cargo", to "persons and/or property"... an obfustication.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

this brings something further to mind- how about self-propelled construction machinery? I can drive a bulldozer or something down the road, and I am not "moving" or "transporting" 'persons or property'.


Also, the term is "used for" (moving, transporting, etc). Again, the 'use' is determinant. It's not, by way of contrast, "can be used for", the law reads- (is) used for...

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Horses propel themselves by legwork, but I still drive them forward... another defintion might differ. My "pedal to the metal" makes the horses in the engine vroom.

As to new things included by the use of "persons or property"- that could be that the definition was extended to include everyone and everything, when used for that purpose, or as though for that purpose. Popular demand created a DL and registration scheme available to those who wished to use it, even though they were not "carrying for hire".

Thats how we get today, "transportation for hire", which should be a redundancy, but now means;

"actually carrying for hire or profit"

wheras transportation now means:

"carrying as though for hire"

So a new helpful benefit has been turned into an impostion...

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by Pure Trust

If it is propelling itself how can you be driving it (Drive is defined as to propel)?

That is why the word 'commerce' includes in its' definition the term 'navigation'. The man or woman sitting behind the steering wheel of one of those self-propelled modes of travel are considered to be the 'navigator' who is in charge of the 'navigation' of that mode of travel. Thus that man or woman is engaged in 'commerce' and the laws of 'commerce' attach.

Jerry

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Yes, but the specific definition of a motor vehicle is related to that part of commerce included in the business of "operating".

The other commercial aspects, the mere navigation of the vessel, may be for 'private transit purpose', since apparently it is important to what end we put these auto-mobile machines, the question of "carrying", or not.

Just walking around is commerce, as far as it involves interaction with others, but it's not "operating". We have a traditional immunity against unwarranted interference with our right to travel.

Rights only exist in commerce, so yes this is commercial and we are traditionally immune from legal interference, as a general principle. This is apart from 'operating a motor vehicle', or 'incidental use', or the act of 'navigation'.

we have Rights, Privileges and Immunities-

both 'operating' AND 'steering', 'piloting', 'navigating' may ALL be privileges of some sort or another, but of a different nature and regulation for each one.

[Jerry Pitts]

Farmer:
I don't know what part of the north american continent you are occupying, but for the sake of convenience and ease of locating, I am including a segment of California code as an example of the REAL nature of the problem.

"California Vehicle Code §12810.5.

1. Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (b), any person whose driving record shows a violation point count of four or more points in 12 months, six or more points in 24 months, or eight or more points in 36 months shall be prima facie presumed to be a negligent operator of a motor vehicle. "

First, I realize that the above includes an additional word "negligent", but the point is the same. Notice the highlighted word at the end of the statement. It is obvious, that even the legislators there in California are making it very clear, that my old saying is true. "The whole system is based upon a presumption that something happened, which may or may not have happened in the manner which has been represented."

Jerry

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

Yes, but the specific definition of a motor vehicle is related to that part of commerce included in the business of "operating".

The other commercial aspects, the mere navigation of the vessel, may be for 'private transit purpose', since apparently it is important to what end we put these auto-mobile machines, the question of "carrying", or not.

Just walking around is commerce, as far as it involves interaction with others, but it's not "operating". We have a traditional immunity against unwarranted interference with our right to travel.

Rights only exist in commerce, so yes this is commercial and we are traditionally immune from legal interference, as a general principle. This is apart from 'operating a motor vehicle', or 'incidental use', or the act of 'navigation'.

we have Rights, Privileges and Immunities-

both 'operating' AND 'steering', 'piloting', 'navigating' may ALL be privileges of some sort or another, but of a different nature and regulation for each one.

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by Pure Trust

First the term used is "driver" in statutes NOT navigator.

Second the person who in control or steers the car is a "driver"

So while commerce might "include" navigation, I assume that the complete absence of the use of the term "navigation" pretty much makes your entire post irrelevant.

SO WHAT? Are you yourself gullible enough to think that the ptb's do NOT use 'words of art' in their dealings with the private sector?

Surely you know what words of art is!

Jerry