Commuting - Do I need a Driver's license?

Hi all,

I commute to work on a bike and do not have driver's license yet. I recently had a discussion with a few of my friends, all of whom seem to have the impression that I should definitely get my license, at least for an emergency...

Do you guys think that I absolutely, positively need a driver's license? The reason I am asking this is, we want to sell our car (my husband drives occasionally) and if I do need to get a license, I should start practicising for it. Right now, I dont really have the interest or the time for doing it! :(

Cheers,
Raji.

If you don't want to get one, you shouldn't. If you get one, and you don't drive, you may lose the skills you learned while learning because of lack of practice. If, during an emergency, you drive without practice under pressure and panic, this may lead to greater calamities. Unless you really need to drive everyday, and even if you come to enjoy it, IMO you don't need one.

I personally would like people who drive on the streets practice their current skills, or even develop better ones. But most people don't see driving as a sport, as I do.

I misunderstood your post!
Yeah I would get a drivers licence before you sell your car, as it may come in handy if you ever rent or borrow a car.

I was 25 when I finally got a license. Before than I just got friends to drive the rented truck pick up the used sofa or whatever the need was, and rode my bike or took public transportation the rest of the time.

After we owned a home and started thinking about kids, it started to seem like driving was going to be hard to avoid. So I went ahead and got a license. Then a car.

Then I started driving instead of cycling, got out of shape, got fat, got sick, nearly died of being unfit.

After several narrow escapes I finally started cycling instead of driving most of the time, and now I'm fit to live again.

So no. You don't need a driver's license. It's the first step on the road to ruin.

RichC

Personally I've never had a driver's licence, and I'm about as single as it's humanly possible to be, so there isn't really anyone else to rely on. Without a car there's no need for one - it's not physically possible to drive a piece of paper down the road. You mention that your husband "drives occasionally". I'm assuming that he has a licence. Why would you need one?

By all means get one if you really want to, but if you don't, it's not something that's likely to be necessary.

Get one why you have the chance , you never know when it may be usefull , its also a requirment for some jobs , but you don't need one to ride a bike :D

Some people like to see the cycling lifestyle as "car-free". Mine is "car-lite". For for everyday travel needs a bike suits me fine, but occasionally I need to hire a car for a journey which is too difficult or expensive by public tranport, or I need to haul something large.
A driving license is always useful to have, so I would say get one while you can.
You dont need a license to ride.

Originally posted by MichaelW
Some people like to see the cycling lifestyle as "car-free". Mine is "car-lite". For for everyday travel needs a bike suits me fine, but occasionally...I need to haul something large.

I go with that, sometimes I have to take a bike to the LBS in my car. Also difficult to take two golden retrievers to the beach in panniers.

If you don´t feel you must have a car, then there is no reason to take a licence. My wife have a drivers licence but have not been sitting in driver seat for over ten years. She no longer remembers how to drive. My self, I have no licence and we manage without a car. If you are planning to sell your car that means you could manage to live without it. Taking a licence and newer driving a car is pointless and a waste of money. But, it could be the other way around...;-)

Anders

It depends on the laws in your Province. Here in California, residents must carry either a State issued Driver's License, or a Department of Motor Vehicles issued I.D. on them at all times, for identification.

Here in California, residents must carry either a State issued Driver's License, or a Department of Motor Vehicles issued I.D. on them at all times, for identification.

granted i think its a good idea to carry ID in case of an accident but it seems a odd to have a law about it. do you really get into trouble if they stop you for some reason (while not driving of course) and you dont have any ID? Maybe im taking this the wrong way but that sounds alittle restrcitive to me. heck , maybe we have a simular law here that i never knew about. but other then i feel like im missing something if i dont have my wallet with me i often walk or ride around with no id.

Originally posted by Mike in KS
Here in California, residents must carry either a State issued Driver's License, or a Department of Motor Vehicles issued I.D. on them at all times, for identification.


You are misinterpreting the law. The state can mandate what constitutes acceptable forms of ID under varying circumstances. So if you are stopped by police in the course of an infraction or some such, they can require you to prove your identity, and detain you until you do. One of those cards would be acceptable proof.

But you are NOT required to carry identification. You cannot be arrested or cited simply for not carrying identification. This is not a totalitatian regime (yet), and the brownshirts aren't stopping people and demanding to see their "papers" (yet(.

What frightens me is that so many people believe that they can be required to carry ID, and even worse, that they are willing to cede their right to privacy not only without a struggle, but without knowing they ever had it.

RichC

Hi raji, you don't need one, but it would be handy to have, there will be times when you can't always ride, you only need to get it once, and never have to get it again, be sure to carry it with you while you are out riding, in case of an emergency.

Originally posted by Rich Clark
You are misinterpreting the law. The state can mandate what constitutes acceptable forms of ID under varying circumstances. So if you are stopped by police in the course of an infraction or some such, they can require you to prove your identity, and detain you until you do. One of those cards would be acceptable proof.

But you are NOT required to carry identification. You cannot be arrested or cited simply for not carrying identification. This is not a totalitatian regime (yet), and the brownshirts aren't stopping people and demanding to see their "papers" (yet(.

What frightens me is that so many people believe that they can be required to carry ID, and even worse, that they are willing to cede their right to privacy not only without a struggle, but without knowing they ever had it.

RichC


I didn't think I was sleeping when they covered this. I punched "Carrying ID in California" into my search, and came up with some type of Civil Rights organization's web site. Apparently California is the only state with a law on the books like this. It is an interpretation of the Motor Vehicle Code, and the California State Supreme Court has ruled on it. You CAN be arrested in California for not carrying I.D. An appeal at the Federal level is planned. I couldn't find the case number on the Web.

Originally posted by Dchiefransom
I didn't think I was sleeping when they covered this. I punched "Carrying ID in California" into my search, and came up with some type of Civil Rights organization's web site. Apparently California is the only state with a law on the books like this. It is an interpretation of the Motor Vehicle Code, and the California State Supreme Court has ruled on it. You CAN be arrested in California for not carrying I.D. An appeal at the Federal level is planned. I couldn't find the case number on the Web.

Rather than spouting off from some random Freeper website, I thought I'd do a 20-second Lexis search. I think this may be the case you've cited. Let's read from the decision, People v. McKay (2002) 27 Cal.4th 601:

Defendant's final argument is not without some initial commonsense appeal: "If a person is not required by law to carry identification, he cannot be constitutionally arrested for not doing so." The flaw in defendant's argument, though, is that he was not arrested because of his failure to carry identification. Rather, he was arrested for committing a Vehicle Code infraction. A bicyclist is subject to all provisions of the rules of the road "applicable to the driver of a vehicle" (§ 21200, subd. (a)) and is subject as well to division 17 of the Vehicle Code, which includes section 40302. (§§ 231, 21200, subd. (a).) Here, of course, defendant was not arrested merely because he failed to produce a license. He was arrested because he violated the Vehicle Code. At that point, the need to obtain reliable evidence of identification and ensure compliance with a promise to appear is equally great for a bicyclist as for a driver of a motorized vehicle. Although only the latter is obligated to have a license in his or her possession at all times while driving on the road (§ 12951, subd. (a)), both are required to produce satisfactory evidence of identity for examination when stopped for a violation of the law. If enforcement of those laws duly enacted by the Legislature is to occur, it could hardly be otherwise. (See People v. Mercurio (1970) 10 Cal. App. 3d 426, 430 [88 Cal. Rptr. 750] ["The statute obviously is designed to insure that the violator will be held personally responsible for a Vehicle Code violation"].) (Id., at p. 625, emphasis added.)

Rich Clark, you win a cigar for your cogent analysis.

I'm not that good on internet searches, so thank you Caloso for the reference. Rich Clark is indeed correct on it not being law that you have to have ID, BUT, in the case you found, which I then could access through the California Supreme Court archives, the man was put into custodial arrest under 40302 of the California Mototr Vehicle Code, for riding his bicycle the wrong way down a street. The subsequent search, and the reason why he appealed, revealed he had methamphetamines in his sock. After reading the California Supreme Court's decision for some length, it was apparent that if we do not present sufficient ID to an officer if we do violate the Code, we could be taken into custodial arrest. This could be as simple as not putting your foot down at a stop sign( I have been stopped for that). The man argued that since he gave his name, birth date, and address to the officer, it was sufficient, but the court overruled him. Many people have advised others that they don't need to carry ID when on a bicycle, but even though I was wrong about the specifics of that law, it could still result in a trip down to the station, or a Magistrate. A person I know was recently cycling through a small town in Florida, and paid an $80 ticket for not having reflectors and a bell on his bike in the middle of the day. I will always carry some form of accepted ID when riding.
Again, you are correct.

Interesting thread. For me I wouldn't be caught dead w/o my driver's license on my commute because I lack any other form of ID if I were to get injured.

Originally posted by Dchiefransom
Many people have advised others that they don't need to carry ID when on a bicycle, but even though I was wrong about the specifics of that law, it could still result in a trip down to the station, or a Magistrate.

I think it would be foolhardy not to carry identification when cycling, if only in case of medical emergency. Personally, I actually do carry my driver's licnse, along with medical info. If I thought getting socked with points on my driving record for a cycling infraction were a potential problem I might choose a different form of ID, but there's very little effective traffic enforcement of any kind around here, let alone directed at cyclists.

My intent was simply to point out that we give up our rights at our own peril. People who go into government and law enforcement are likely to be people who believe in themselves and their sense of what's right. It's not much of a jump for them to want to exert control over other people so they they will do what's "right" as well. This creates the natural tendency towards legislation that creates more government control and restricts individual rights. (Witness the "Patriot Act.")

It happens all the time, and usually these laws that constrain constitutional freedoms end up being struck down by the judiciary -- but in the meantime, it's up to us as citizens not to relax our own sense of responsibility and ownership of the process.

RichC

I don't usually carry a driver's license when I ride my bike. Since most of my rides are commutes, I'm usually carrying my work badge which, since I work for a state agency, is a government-issued identification badge. I also carry in my saddle bag a copy of my Blue Shield card and a business card with emergency info on the back. So, I'm trying to balance my right of privacy with my hope that, god forbid I end up in the ER or morgue, they'll be able to notify my wife.

I understood your intent, Rich C, and am very glad you and Caloso could find the accurate interpretation. It's scary what's being proposed sometimes. I think we ride because it gives us a freedom others don't appreciate.

Good riding.

Dave R

Originally posted by Andy Dreisch
Interesting thread. For me I wouldn't be caught dead w/o my driver's license on my commute because I lack any other form of ID if I were to get injured.

The ID point is a valid one. I'm about to get myself a passport for that very purpose. If you have no other form of ID a driver's licence is useful. However, it's probably more difficult to get than other forms of ID, so if you don't already have one, and don't intend getting one for any other purpose, I'd be looking at other forms of ID.

Thanks everyone, for your comments.

I do have my "certificate of citizenship" that I got when I became a Canadian citizen...But I should probably not be carrying it with me all the time because if I lose it I lose my status in Canada. I don't have any other document with me to prove that I am canadian.....

Anyway, I gather from what most of you have said that it may be beneficial for me to get a license...Although, I hate driving around with no purpose, I will start practising for the test..I will let you guys know when I get my license.

Thanks once again!

Cheers,
Raji.

I have had a driver's license for almost 30 years.

I still use it sometimes. I can't take my family to church with me on my bike.

:)

I'm sure that you already have an official ID of some type so the drivers liscense is an option for you. I got my truck 2 years ago before that it was a decade before I owned one but I did have access to one if needed. The only time I used it was for trips out of town that I could not fly or rail to (I hate buse for cross crounty trips). The one thing that I do like having a license for is for that ocasional drive who reminds me they have a lisence to be in the street my answer then is "So do I" :D

I am horrified to read that all you freedom loving US citizens seem to need to carry round ID with you. Here in the UK we don't. In fact there is some debate at present about whether we should or not. Personally, I think that if someone wants to know who I am they can ask. If I'm telling the truth, then they'll have found out who I am. If not, then I could just as easily have forged an ID so who's to know?

And anyway why SHOULD I have to account for who I am? If I am doing no harm, then I should be left in peace. If I am doing harm, I should be dissuaded or restrained from doing so regardless of who I am. My identity is not immediately relevant either way.

Originally posted by georgeupstairs
I am horrified to read that all you freedom loving US citizens seem to need to carry round ID with you.

As has been established, we don't.

Most people choose to, because it can make life easier and it's useful in an emergency. I'm sure this is just as true in the UK.

RichC

Originally posted by Rich Clark
As has been established, we don't.

Most people choose to, because it can make life easier and it's useful in an emergency. I'm sure this is just as true in the UK.

RichC

That is true there is no law requiring us to carry one with us, in fact it is a constitutional guarantee; but try and get through life without one. Reality is that you need them to get jobs, bank,cash checks, get into bars, on airplanes, on buses and trains now also. You can be detained if you violate the law(any one major or minor i.e they detained a "person of color" last year for jaywalking and had no ID) and do not have proof of ID, until proof can be established. So yes we do need to have an ID.

Originally posted by ngateguy
So yes we do need to have an ID.

Georgeupstairs appeared to be making some sort of distinction between what we "need" in the US vs. what they "need" in the UK.

My point is that thre's no difference.

Quibbling over the definition of the word "need" is not really germaine.

RichC

Originally posted by Rich Clark
Quibbling over the definition of the word "need" is not really germaine.

RichC

All I can say is, reading what's been posted, the way people from the US who have contributed to this thread feel about the consequences of not carrying ID is very different from how I feel about it.

Originally posted by georgeupstairs
If I'm telling the truth, then they'll have found out who I am. If not, then I could just as easily have forged an ID so who's to know?

Does this extend to law enforcement? Do you think a police officer who stops you for, say, running a red light should be required to take your word for your identity?


And anyway why SHOULD I have to account for who I am? If I am doing no harm, then I should be left in peace. If I am doing harm, I should be dissuaded or restrained from doing so regardless of who I am. My identity is not immediately relevant either way.

Kinda depends on what you're doing.

In any event, I'm not disputing your right to feel how you feel about this. I do wonder if you really speak for all of your countrymen, however, as you represent ("here in the UK we don't"). The debate over proposals to issue national ID cards is no less heated in the UK than it is here. If everyone there agreed with you, there's be no debate, would there?

RichC

Rich, I cannot think of a time that anything had total agreement so there is always debate. It is our constitution that we will not be required to carry identification. This is not true and you can be arrested if you do not have one granted you have to violate a law but as I mentioned before our police here in Seattle detained a "person of color" (thats how the paper put it) a couple of years ago after this person jay walked. If you are riding as a passenger in a car now days you will need to produce ID so they can check your background,even though you have done nothing wrong. This type of thing happens on a daily basis. Our country has been quietly turning into a police state for years now. ANd now with the national ID, and of course the un appropriately named Patriot Act they are going to wave 9/11 in our face in order to accomplish it

ngateguy, in a country governed by "rule of law, not rule of man," it's important to know the difference so that abuse can be identified and resisted.

Yes, of course there are frequent abuses of power, by the police no less than by others in authority. That's why knowing the law is so important; when someone is arrested due to racial profiling, such as the case you cite, the (often unpublicized) result is frequently a civil (if not a criminal) suit that ends with the municipality paying damages to the person whose rights were illegally abridged.

Laws like the Patriot Act are particularly insidious because they prey on people's fears in order to get them to voluntarily give up their rights. That's very similar to tactics used in other countries that ended up becoming totalitarian states. One reason so many of the people of Germany in the 20s and 30s accepted National Socialism was because they were afraid that the rest of the world would swallow them up if they didn't unify.

I'm heartened (and our British friend georgeupstairs should take careful note of this) by the fact that more than 115 state and local governments in the US have formally responded to the Patriot Act by passing resolutions calling for its repeal, by passing resolutions reaffirming their committment to civil liberties and the Bill of Rights, or by other means. This includes state legislatures like Vermont, Hawaii and Alaska, and major cities like Philadelphia and Seattle.

I'm not British, so I can only go by what I read about the social and political climate in the UK. Based on that, I would dispute the contention that fear of terrorism (which has been a daily reality there much longer than it has here) has not had a similar effect, both on the behavior of law enforcement agencies as well as on the general populace's willingness to put up with "temporary" abridgements of their rights, in the UK as it has here.

RichC

I think we've also missed an important point, not just about ID. If they don't know who we are, and we are unconcious, I believe (could be wrong) that they will only go so far in treating us medically. Beside ID to show who I am and notify my family in case of accident, should we carry permission for medical treatment? If they suspect we have a cognizance problem from a head injury, would the medical community take our word for treating us for non-life threatening injuries? Any medical types out there?

Need: No.

Your bike works fine with out it.

Required: No.

But deal with the consequences if you do not.

Should you?

Only if you're concerned about your well bieng, and less concerned about some political statement.

Good point, William Karsten. You can carry around an ID and make it easier for the EMTs and ER docs to figure out who you are, or you can stick to your freedom lovin' guns. I'd rather be a thoughtful husband and son than a constitutional martyr.

I also write on my running shoes my name, ph. number, blood type, "no allergies", and "I am an organ donor." My wife thought it was freaky until I explained that I did it for her peace of mind.

you know there are othwer ways to id yourself for medical emergencies, and I am not standing on political grounds because I do have an ID I was just pointing out that you cannot get through life with out an official ID

I dont carry my drivers lic. when riding my bike ,just on the principle, the only time I drive is at work so I keep it at work . I have my name, blood group & home phone # written inside my helmet + I carry my work photo I.D card & money cards with me.