No license,No insurance

[Kathi]

Driving is a Privilege, Not a Right
Driving is not a constitutional right. You get your drivers license based on the skills you have and the rules you agree to follow. After you get your driving license you must continue to demonstrate your ability to drive safely on the road. If you fail to demonstrate this ability, you will be issued traffic tickets, or even have your license suspended or revoked. No one has more right to the road than anyone else. If you're going to drive, you owe it to the other drivers and yourself to operate the vehicle in a safe manner.
https://driversed.com/driving-infor...ilege/driving-is-a-privilege-not-a-right.aspx

 

[jasonc]

Why do you think driving is a privilege?
Is walking, running, bicycling, horseback riding, horse and carriage, on a road a privilege?

it says so on the back of most driving licenses. so why if its a right do we need to take a class to be able to use it? did the government regulate the others at the founding of the nation? yes and no. the word turnpike is from the original word turnspike as that is what kept you from backing up the horse for refusing the payment.
does the government have the power to remove your right to walk if you commit a crime? like it does with driving while intoxicated and also with gun ownership and the later is a right!

 

[Deborah13]

it says so on the back of most driving licenses. so why if its a right do we need to take a class to be able to use it? did the government regulate the others at the founding of the nation? yes and no. the word turnpike is from the original word turnspike as that is what kept you from backing up the horse for refusing the payment.
does the government have the power to remove your right to walk if you commit a crime? like it does with driving while intoxicated and also with gun ownership and the later is a right!

I think we should abide by the law and the rules and regulations of our government but I don't see it as a privilege that I can drive on any public road. That's a constitutional right.
The government says lots of things that aren't true, like they are doing now with marriage.

 

[jasonc]

I think we should abide by the law and the rules and regulations of our government but I don't see it as a privilege that I can drive on any public road. That's a constitutional right.
The government says lots of things that aren't true, like they are doing now with marriage.

ok, since you insist is there any history in the colonies of licensing horse back riding and testing them to be able to ride a horse? freedom of travel isn't denied here just a demonstration of the mental capacity and physical capacity to safely operate a vehicle. in the past , kids had to work and I bet they drove their carriages to the work factories or farm if they didn't live on the same they worked. im sure some of them were under the age of 13. is a a crime to deny a teen that right or say a six year old? I hate to be that trollish with you but you really went there. we have that reason. the simpliest Icon on your dashboard is a regulated one and the free market pushed that with the formation of the iso(internation safety organization and society of automative engineers. I have seen kid drivers under the age 13, that were tall enough to operate a semi in Afghanistan. so I ask are we deny them rights?nowhere in the constitution does the age of 21, or 18 is mentioned with the second amendment. I don't know any gun rights advocate think that a kid should own and fights against that right. I do know they train them too shoot them. perhaps im wrong on that. but ..

 

[jasonc]

I think we should abide by the law and the rules and regulations of our government but I don't see it as a privilege that I can drive on any public road. That's a constitutional right.
The government says lots of things that aren't true, like they are doing now with marriage.

you don't need a license to walk, or operate a bicycle over motorized vehicle under 50cc on any road. that right isn't denied. nor does it say one can horse back down the road. its rare to see that these days but where I live certain roads that are now being four laned did have horse back riders in the middle of the road at one time.

 

[Deborah13]

ok, since you insist is there any history in the colonies of licensing horse back riding and testing them to be able to ride a horse? freedom of travel isn't denied here just a demonstration of the mental capacity and physical capacity to safely operate a vehicle. in the past , kids had to work and I bet they drove their carriages to the work factories or farm if they didn't live on the same they worked. im sure some of them were under the age of 13. is a a crime to deny a teen that right or say a six year old? I hate to be that trollish with you but you really went there. we have that reason. the simpliest Icon on your dashboard is a regulated one and the free market pushed that with the formation of the iso(internation safety organization and society of automative engineers. I have seen kid drivers under the age 13, that were tall enough to operate a semi in Afghanistan. so I ask are we deny them rights?nowhere in the constitution does the age of 21, or 18 is mentioned with the second amendment. I don't know any gun rights advocate think that a kid should own and fights against that right. I do know they train them too shoot them. perhaps im wrong on that. but ..

Jason I think you keep miss understanding what I am saying. Privilege is the key word here.

 

[Deborah13]

you don't need a license to walk, or operate a bicycle over motorized vehicle under 50cc on any road. that right isn't denied. nor does it say one can horse back down the road. its rare to see that these days but where I live certain roads that are now being four laned did have horse back riders in the middle of the road at one time.

It is the Right of every American citizen to travel any public byway it is not a privilege.
Now could they have that Right taken away if they break a rule or regulation, yes.
But even then if they go to court under common law that Might make a difference.

 

[jasonc]

It is the Right of every American citizen to travel any public byway it is not a privilege.
Now could they have that Right taken away if they break a rule or regulation, yes.
But even then if they go to court under common law that Might make a difference.

Jason I think you keep miss understanding what I am saying. Privilege is the key word here.

its a right but one has to have license? okay. its a right to own a gun. a license is required to own one? do I need a license to own a gun ? NO unless its carry and conceal. open carry has no license. thus its not regulated. just a few simple common laws. if its a right to drive then its unconstitutional to force me to by insurance. see obamacare act for that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver's_license

As automobile-related fatalities soared in North America, public outcry provoked legislators to begin studying the French and German statutes as models.[5] On August 1, 1910, North America's first licensing law for motor vehicles went into effect in the US state of New York, though it initially applied only to professional chauffeurs.[6] In July 1913, the state of New Jersey became the first to require all drivers to pass a mandatory examination before receiving a license.[7]

im sure if the government wants to issue licenses for free speech you would have a problem and said that its a "right" but we are ensure you use that "right" properly. that is what you are saying.besides the right to operate is a privilidge not the right to travel, m dad can get into my car and I take him where he wants to go. no law against that.

 

[TOG]

You have a right to vote, but you still need to register.

The TOG​

 

[jasonc]

You have a right to vote, but you still need to register.

The TOG​

that is for the purpose of doing away with fraud and you do loose that right if you commit a felony.

 

[Deborah13]

its a right but one has to have license? okay. its a right to own a gun. a license is required to own one? do I need a license to own a gun ? NO unless its carry and conceal. open carry has no license. thus its not regulated. just a few simple common laws. if its a right to drive then its unconstitutional to force me to by insurance. see obamacare act for that.
im sure if the government wants to issue licenses for free speech you would have a problem and said that its a "right" but we are ensure you use that "right" properly. that is what you are saying.besides the right to operate is a privilidge not the right to travel, m dad can get into my car and I take him where he wants to go. no law against that.

Insurance is not mention in the Bill of Rights. They are administering this med. insurance almost like a tax by connecting it to the IRS.
Is it a Federal law that one must have a driver license or liability car insurance, no.
Each state makes their own rules and regulations and honor the driver's licenses from another states. It is the same way with liability insurance, different states have different requirements. All insurance companies do is provide a service between two drivers. As their client you pay them through your premiums.
I can tell you right now that the wealthy do not have to pay car insurance if they do not choose too. As long as they have the money in an account that is at least the same minimum liability amount set by the state that they live in.

In 1935, only 39 states required a driver's license to drive a vehicle.
People don't put up a stink about driver's licenses because they know that it is a good thing to make sure the person driving actually knows how. Besides that the revenue to the state is good. They could do the same thing that gun owner's are doing by fighting for their constitutional right to bear arms. Anti-gun people are using the same defense for gun control that was used to bring about driving rules and regulations. They can't get the Supreme Court to rule in their favor so they have to do it state by state just like it was done for driver's licenses.

I personally know a family of 4 adults and many kids that never had state issued driver's licenses but what they did have was legal. They didn't carry insurance through a company either. The father was (he just passed away recently) quite wealthy, he had an account like I mentioned.
When Carleen, one of the women, got stopped for speeding and she gave the state trooper her proof of right to travel he was taken aback. He'd never seen this before. He called it in just like any other license and guess what; she got a ticket for speeding but not for driving without a license.
When one of the teenage boys hit my neighbor at the intersection near my house. My neighbor called her insurance company and her insurance company dealt directly with Bob. Bob had an account. He paid Karen directly for her vehicle, her medical, and $50,000 for missed work (about a week) and punitive damages, which was basically her inconvenience and fright it had caused her. Karen was shocked because she wouldn't have received that from an insurance company, they scratch each others backs. The boy got a ticket for speeding through a stop sign and reckless driving but not for lack of insurance.

That family never paid one dime into FICA either. There used to be a form that you could fill out and send in to the government that said you were turning down their insurance and benefit program. I don't think you can do that anymore because they fixed the wording so that it is considered a tax not a retirement program. I used to have one of those forms and was considering doing that about 20 yrs. ago.

Bob is the same man who years ago put me in touch with the constitutional lawyer to help a family member who was being falsely charged and they had taken his rifle as well. I talked with that lawyer, he told me the law and how to approach the DA. I did that, all the false charges disappeared and we got the rifle back. I have to give the DA credit, he listened, obeyed the law, and was very nice about it.

 

[jasonc]

no , that is wrong. I know that the wealthy here have to have insurance( I work and enter into gated communities. my truck was hit by a wealthy woman whom fled. she was confronted by the cops. she was at fault automically and her insurance paid for the wreck. if the cops are called and they find out you don't have insurance its a ticket for that and for me a lawsuit. they would then loose money in that would have to pay for my health care. and also property loss or damage. pip is what that is for. I know this law. I sued a business for hitting me and doing permanent damage to my body. in my state if you don't have insurance and have had it. the company tells the state, the state then gives you a notice. if you fail to pay for insurance you tag is null. drive without a tag in my state and see what happens. it will be more then just a ticket.

I live in the second wealthiest county in my state. I know that the rich will give cash to the avoid a rate increase but you have to a registration present proof of insurance to buy a car. monica remember just bought a car? she had to present proof of insurance to be able to drive off the lot. she also drove her car without any regristation for six months in ignorance she didn't know it was a yearly thing down here. she also had a nc tag that was valid but in florida its if you live in florida for ten days,you must get a license and car registered. I told of that law when she moved her , she couldn't afford it. so she skirted it.

im not saying the wealthy can skirt the laws. they do. shoot if the rich person hit me and gave me # and said go to the body shop and I will pay the damages verses what it took me for my ranger(one month with state farm) I would say ok but I have per law 48 hours to report the accident. I would if I could go to the body shop get the car fixed or replaced. but given what I have seen, I may also use my collision. if he says no then what?

 

[Eugene]

OK gang, what we have isn’t working. On this thread so far I’ve seen illegal’s, drunk American Indians, and old people blamed; in a heartbeat I would add teens and women drivers.


Should we legislate a plan of accident elimination by removing hazards after the fact, and execute the perpetrator or guilty party in an accident of any magnitude? To make it somewhat fair according to ancient laws we could provide a city of refuge in Afghanistan or like country providing they could run fast enough to get there. I can near guarantee that jerk that speeds one mile an hour over the speed limit will start paying more attention to the driving laws. Why didn't I think of this before?

 

[jasonc]

OK gang, what we have isn’t working. On this thread so far I’ve seen illegal’s, drunk American Indians, and old people blamed; in a heartbeat I would add teens and women drivers.


Should we legislate a plan of accident elimination by removing hazards after the fact, and execute the perpetrator or guilty party in an accident of any magnitude? To make it somewhat fair according to ancient laws we could provide a city of refuge in Afghanistan or like country providing they could run fast enough to get there. I can near guarantee that jerk that speeds one mile an hour over the speed limit will start paying more attention to the driving laws. Why didn't I think of this before?

we have cities of refuge in America. ice, and border patrol cant detain nor arrest any illegal in these cities. Miami, fl, los angeles, ca and also new York and seattle I think are on that list.