Origin Of Driver's Licenses

[weishaupt1776]

A 1925 Act Creating Driver's Licenses for those Engaged in Transportation for Hire.

STATUTES OF CALIFORNIA
Passed At The
REGULAR SESSION OF THE
FORTY-SIXTH LEGISLATURE
1925
CHAPTER 412

An act to impose a license fee for the transportation of persons or
property for hire or compensation upon public streets, roadways and
highways in the State of California by motor vehicle; to provide for
certain exemptions; to provide for the enforcement of the provisions
hereof and for the disposition of the amounts collected on account
of such licenses; to make an appropriation for the purpose of this
act; and to repeal all acts or parts of acts in conflict herewith.
[ Approved by the Governor May 28, 1925. ]
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
Section 1.**** The words and phrases used in this act
shall for the purposes of this act, unless the same be
contrary to or inconsistent with the context, be
construed as follows:
(a)* The phrase "railroad commission certificate" shall
be construed to mean a certificate of public convenience
and necessity granted or issued by the railroad
commission of the State of California, authorizing a
common carrier by motor vehicle to operate under the
conditions prescribed by said commission, and shall
include all amendments to or changes in such certificate
which may be made by said commission.
(b)* The word "operator" shall include all persons,
firms, associations and corporations who operate motor
vehicles upon any public highway in this state and
thereby engage in the transportation of persons or
property for hire or compensation, but shall not include
any person, firm, association or corporation who solely
transports by motor vehicle persons to and from or to or
from attendance upon any public school or who solely
transports his or its own property, or employees, or
both, and who transports no persons or property for hire
or compensation, but all persons operating freight
carrying so exempted shall be required to obtain from the
state board of equalization and to display exempt emblems
in the manner herein

[TheBlackTruth]

Good piece of historical information. Word has it that it was repealed and replaced with much more general language to describe the scope of the act so as to obscure the legislative intent. I have copies of the same text and enactments following for about 30 years and you can see the slow manipulation of the verbiage.

-BT

This is cool. When did the other states follow?

[Shoonra]

First and foremost, this was not the origin of the drivers license. There were laws in other states going back to 1904 and possibly earlier which regulated who could operate horseless carriages, and definitely court cases on those laws from well before 1925. Similar early laws were enacted in England and France and probably some other countries.

Incidentally, simultaneous with the quoted California law about a license for drivers for hire, there was enacted another California law requiring a license for people driving themselves in their personal motor vehicles. And, of course, both those 1925 laws have been replaced by newer laws since then.

[fulltitle]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

First and foremost, this was not the origin of the drivers license. There were laws in other states going back to 1904 and possibly earlier which regulated who could operate horseless carriages, and definitely court cases on those laws from well before 1925. Similar early laws were enacted in England and France and probably some other countries.

Incidentally, simultaneous with the quoted California law about a license for drivers for hire, there was enacted another California law requiring a license for people driving themselves in their personal motor vehicles. And, of course, both those 1925 laws have been replaced by newer laws since then.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
I would not have presumed that he inferred such to be the origin of drivers licenses. Seems more to have alluded to the notion of a discussion concerning their origin. Nonetheless, I've come across some interesting resources on the topic.

thats why i say, dont argue over the commercial nature of the license. the point is, no harm, no crime. without a injured party, its strictly a civil case. when i won my recent traffic case, i didnt touch on the commercial nature of the license, ive already gone down that road in federal court. I TOLD THE COURT I WAS GUILTY, but BRING ON THE DAMAGED PARTY. they didnt wanna touch that. you can write up a million pieces of legislation to try and go against The Most High, and cannot do it. peeace

[fulltitle]

Originally Posted by kgod999

thats why i say, dont argue over the commercial nature of the license.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Key is not arguing. Imagine they are trying to one to argue about driving and licenses and one replies: "Since I made those statutes to make sure that those involved in commerce on the common ways would be well regulated--I mean why argue with myself. As for me? I'm not a commercial operator. But, I do sojourn or travel by means of automobile and at my own volition."

[weishaupt1776]

The "commercial" aspect is meritorious, therefore inferior to jurisdictional aspects such as "verified complaint", improper venue, etc . .

its not worth the battle. why risk getting yourself and or your family beat down by some cops just because YOU know the truth about a drivers license. they look for a reason to kick butt and trying to force the truth on them just agitates them because you are basically telling them that 99 percent of what they are doing is wrong. its all about common sense. since the license BELONGS TO THE STRAWMAN, keep the damn thing.

[fulltitle]

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Indeed. Argue with a servant and perhaps he/she might mistake you for his servant or equal.