Privilege And Driving Rights

[Dillon Hunt]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Riding a bicycle is not inherently dangerous, especially to other people. You can't say that about a car.

Moreover, there are some highways where bicycles are explicitly forbidden.

The cars are not dangerous it's the People Driving with Licenses that alarm me !!!

[aksis]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Riding a bicycle is not inherently dangerous, especially to other people. You can't say that about a car.

Moreover, there are some highways where bicycles are explicitly forbidden.

This dosn't justify the deprevation of People's unalienable rights.

Besides... if registration and licencing prevented accidents and other crime, there would be none. People will have to find another way to hold people accountable for their actions (if they even cause any damage or human rights violations - the possibility of crime is not crime).

The alienation of peoples rights are a crime... and a very serious one at that. Many of these crimes occured today, and more will occure tomorrow.


Further, life is a "use at your own risk" kind of thing... get real shoonra...


Much love,

Christopher Theodore of the family of Rhodes

P.S.

The People will be hauling these People, conducting these so-called "hearings", out of their retirement for their trials. They have been given due Notice. Watch!

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Riding a bicycle is not inherently dangerous, especially to other people. You can't say that about a car.

Moreover, there are some highways where bicycles are explicitly forbidden.

Wrong! Maybe you can't say that about a car, but I can. Interesting how you exhibit your paranoia about living in a free society and profess your need to regulate anything that may be deemed "dangerous". Neither a car or bike is inherently dangerous. Making a statement that a car is inherently dangerous has zero merit (maybe you should have found a better word than inherently - check a dictionary).

Fact: A bicycle can be just as lethal as a car when not driven with care. Do your own web search and see how many accidents (including fatal accidents) have been caused by bicyclists.

You live in a fantasy Shoonra, where, in your make believe world, you think that licensing automatically makes the roads safer. Time after time licensed drivers who have disobeyed the traffic laws causing accidents (my favorite is the repeat DUI/DWI offenders) get their licenses reinstated if they throw enough money at the problem. And of course, those in the BAR are all to happy to assist him/her. They know full well there's a good chance for repeat business!!

By the time I was 6 years old I could drive a riding tractor; by 8 I was able to drive a car down a country road. So who's more dangerous Shoonra? That licensed driver, who, after a bad day at work decides to drive home after drowning her sorrows during the local Pub's happy hour or me driving a Chevy down a country road at age 8?

Your delusions on licenses have little association to reality and quite frankly are getting old. Spin it any way you like; licenses are only mandatory for special situations and regulating a man/woman from traveling from point A to point B on their leisure or personal business is not one of them (go here http://www.suijuris.net/forum/travel...urt-cites.html for your court cites.

I'll ignore your comment on "driving bikes on some highway" because sadly you miss the point made in the post I was responding to.

[Shoonra]

In Hendrick v. Maryland (1915) 235 US 610, 59 L.Ed 385, 35 S.Ct 140, the Supreme Court upheld a state licensing and registration law (in a case where the motorist was alone in his car and no mention is made of the purpose of his trip into Maryland from DC) on the grounds that "The movement of motor vehicles over the highways is attended by constant and serious dangers to the public, and is also abnormally destructive to the [road]ways themselves. ... Primarily for the enforcement of good order and the protection of those within its own jurisdiction the State put into effect the above-described general regulations, including requirements for registration and licenses. A further evident purpose was to secure some compensation for the use of facilities provided at great cost from the class for whose needs they are essential and whose operations over them are peculiarly injurious. ...[H]ere the statute at most attempts to regulate the operation of dangerous machines on the highways...."

In Anderson v. Driverless Cars Inc. (1929) 11 La.App 515, 124 So. 312, a case alleging negligence in entrusting a car to an incompetent driver, the court said: "Since an automobile, though not an inherently dangerous agency, may become such if intrusted to incompetent hands, it follows that the owner lending or renting his car must make reasonable investigation to determine whether or not the borrower or renter is an ordinarily competent operator."

And much more recently, Commonwealth v. Waters (1994) 37 Va.Cir. 575: "Because the operation of automobiles is an inherently dangerous proposition, the burden of justifying a stop of a vehicle that appears to have mechanical problems, one which appears to be operated by an impaired driver, or one whose location poses a danger to persons in other vehicles, is not a high one because of the risk of harm to the public."

As for your proposition, no case supports the notion that anyone is entitled to steer/drive/operate a car on the public roads - for any purpose - without a DL.

[fulltitle]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

In Hendrick v. Maryland (1915) 235 US 610, 59 L.Ed 385, 35 S.Ct 140, the Supreme Court upheld a state licensing and registration law (in a case where the motorist was alone in his car and no mention is made of the purpose of his trip into Maryland from DC) on the grounds that "The movement of motor vehicles over the highways is attended by constant and serious dangers to the public, and

As for your proposition, no case supports the notion that anyone is entitled to steer/drive/operate a car on the public roads - for any purpose - without a DL...

Without Prejudice.
A certificate of competency will do.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

In Hendrick v. Maryland (1915) 235 US 610, 59 L.Ed 385, 35 S.Ct 140, the Supreme Court upheld a state licensing and registration law (in a case where the motorist was alone in his car and no mention is made of the purpose of his trip into Maryland from DC) on the grounds that "The movement of motor vehicles over the highways is attended by constant and serious dangers to the public, and is also abnormally destructive to the [road]ways themselves. ... Primarily for the enforcement of good order and the protection of those within its own jurisdiction the State put into effect the above-described general regulations, including requirements for registration and licenses. A further evident purpose was to secure some compensation for the use of facilities provided at great cost from the class for whose needs they are essential and whose operations over them are peculiarly injurious. ...[H]ere the statute at most attempts to regulate the operation of dangerous machines on the highways...."

In Anderson v. Driverless Cars Inc. (1929) 11 La.App 515, 124 So. 312, a case alleging negligence in entrusting a car to an incompetent driver, the court said: "Since an automobile, though not an inherently dangerous agency, may become such if intrusted to incompetent hands, it follows that the owner lending or renting his car must make reasonable investigation to determine whether or not the borrower or renter is an ordinarily competent operator."

And much more recently, Commonwealth v. Waters (1994) 37 Va.Cir. 575: "Because the operation of automobiles is an inherently dangerous proposition, the burden of justifying a stop of a vehicle that appears to have mechanical problems, one which appears to be operated by an impaired driver, or one whose location poses a danger to persons in other vehicles, is not a high one because of the risk of harm to the public."

As for your proposition, no case supports the notion that anyone is entitled to steer/drive/operate a car on the public roads - for any purpose - without a DL.

Exactly, no mention was made concerning the purpose of their trips. The state will always ASS-ume jurisdiction unless proven otherwise.

Your post does prove one thing: there have been activist judges around as long as the first motor vehicle laws.

Originally Posted by Shoonra's infallible bookshelf references

Since an automobile, though not an inherently dangerous agency,...

Two points:
1. Here the court is stating an auto is not inherently dangerous.
2. Since when is an auto an "agency"?

It's clear you and your insecure cohorts believe you can regulate society into security. The same logic is being applied by the anti-gun lobby, despite explicit and strict Constitutional construction that says otherwise.

Can't wait to see what else you want to rehash (I'm sure I won't have to wait long).

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

The drivers license is not inherently useful.

The police are inherently dangerous.

Previous poster got it right-
CERTFICATE OF COMPETENCY! Takes 10 minutes, quick driver's test, parallel park, etc. I volunteer.

here's a partial provision for just that, PA Vehicle code-

Any nonresident ... shall be exempt (from local DL) only upon showing a satisfactory understanding of official traffic-control devices.

Its great to be a nonresident. Pity the poor citizen.

[aksis]

I find nothing in those case cites that justifies the alienation of God given rights via licencing & registration services that require people to submit them selves to the egos and will of men.

Shoonra, unless you can support a claim of an alienation of some right you have then you have no right to complain.

What is your complaint shoonra?


Much love,

Christopher Theodore of the family of Rhodes

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by aksis

I find nothing in those case cites that justifies the alienation of God given rights via licencing & registration services that require people to submit them selves to the egos and will of men.

Shoonra, unless you can support a claim of an alienation of some right you have then you have no right to complain.

What is your complaint shoonra?


Much love,

Christopher Theodore of the family of Rhodes

I'm in absolute agreement Christopher.

[johngr]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The US Supreme Court says this is a matter of public safety, not revenue and not even commerce.

Sure is reassuring that the State agents are keeping us safe from "deadbeat dads".