Drivers' Licenses Revoked for Student Loan Default
#27
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 379
Bikes: SR, Bianchi, Raleigh, Bertin, Kona, Schwinn, Eisentraut, Zunow, Columbine, Naked, Nishiki, Phillips, Specialized, Giant
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
#28
Sophomoric Member
What stereotype came to YOUR mind?
Romantic intellectual individual who chooses Carfree living as a good choice for his/her personal lifestyle, car free by choice;
or
Unemployed/underemployed college grad with an unmarketable degree and/or skill set; car free not by choice but by economic necessity, living on the edge. Perhaps posting on LCF looking for a support group and a positive spin on a failure to understand how others manage to function with the burden of car ownership.
Romantic intellectual individual who chooses Carfree living as a good choice for his/her personal lifestyle, car free by choice;
or
Unemployed/underemployed college grad with an unmarketable degree and/or skill set; car free not by choice but by economic necessity, living on the edge. Perhaps posting on LCF looking for a support group and a positive spin on a failure to understand how others manage to function with the burden of car ownership.
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
#29
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,355
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8084 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 14 Times
in
13 Posts
Bicycles and firearms aren't usually associated with each other but both are made essentially out of metal tubes. There's no reason some clever engineers of bikes and firearms couldn't get together and design some interesting bikes with firearms built into the frame, handlebar stem, etc. There might be some legality issues in some jurisdictions but the results would make for interesting conversation and museum pieces.
I can also imagine some artist taking old guns and converting them into bike parts but somehow I think that would upset firearms enthousiasts more than converting bikes into firearms.
I can also imagine some artist taking old guns and converting them into bike parts but somehow I think that would upset firearms enthousiasts more than converting bikes into firearms.
#30
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,977
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1638 Post(s)
Liked 741 Times
in
495 Posts
This is a good example of the dangers of calling driving a privilege instead of a right.
I have always said that we should never allow ourselves to accept that our rights are only privileges granted by government. That said, I don't consider driving rights irrevocable. Like all rights they are subject to some degree of regulation. In the case of driving, loss or restriction of the right should only be for reasons of danger or conflict with the rights of other road users, ie. dangerous driving, or a pattern of disregard for the rules of the road.
I don't have student loans (never had) and as a taxpayer, want every effort made to collect them so the rest of the public doesn't pick up the tab, but if we let our rights get nibbled away at the edges we'll soon find that we don't have any.
I have always said that we should never allow ourselves to accept that our rights are only privileges granted by government. That said, I don't consider driving rights irrevocable. Like all rights they are subject to some degree of regulation. In the case of driving, loss or restriction of the right should only be for reasons of danger or conflict with the rights of other road users, ie. dangerous driving, or a pattern of disregard for the rules of the road.
I don't have student loans (never had) and as a taxpayer, want every effort made to collect them so the rest of the public doesn't pick up the tab, but if we let our rights get nibbled away at the edges we'll soon find that we don't have any.
__________________
nine mile skid on a ten mile ride
nine mile skid on a ten mile ride
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Medford, MA
Posts: 335
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
There are two things about that policy that I find infuriating. One is totally irrelevant to this forum (student loan policy) but the other is completely relevant: Drivers licenses should be issued to people who have demonstrated the knowledge and ability to safely operate large dangerous machinery on public roads. Licenses to drive should be revoked when people demonstrate a lack of that ability.
Most people don't see the right to drive a car as a fundamental right on par with freedom of speech (or won't admit to it) but in the US we do tend to see it as something that's intrinsic to normal adult life in this country. It's even treated as a de facto universal ID because people assume that everyone has one (I've had people refuse to serve me beer because I had a state ID instead of a driver's license... because apparently you have to drive in order to drink?).
Revoking or refusing to grant drivers licenses as a punitive measure for stuff completely unrelated to a person's ability to safely operate a vehicle just perpetuates that idea. So we'll take away someone's drivers license because we want to punish them for not paying their student loans or for being an illegal immigrant or whatever. (Incidentally, I don't want to start a discussion on immigration; it was just an example I remember hearing discussion about on the news within the last few years)
But we won't take it away from an elderly person who has caused multiple accidents as a result of not being able to see; or from someone with a long history of causing accidents due to incompetence; or from someone who takes medication that doesn't mix well with driving but drives anyway; because we don't want to punish people for being old or sick or incompetent. We can barely manage to revoke licenses of chronic drunk drivers.
Drivers licenses should be about being competent to drive. I'd much rather share the road with an illegal immigrant who's defaulted on a bunch of student loans but who is in control of their vehicle than with someone who's a wonderfully upstanding citizen in every other way but for whatever reason isn't competent to drive a car.
Most people don't see the right to drive a car as a fundamental right on par with freedom of speech (or won't admit to it) but in the US we do tend to see it as something that's intrinsic to normal adult life in this country. It's even treated as a de facto universal ID because people assume that everyone has one (I've had people refuse to serve me beer because I had a state ID instead of a driver's license... because apparently you have to drive in order to drink?).
Revoking or refusing to grant drivers licenses as a punitive measure for stuff completely unrelated to a person's ability to safely operate a vehicle just perpetuates that idea. So we'll take away someone's drivers license because we want to punish them for not paying their student loans or for being an illegal immigrant or whatever. (Incidentally, I don't want to start a discussion on immigration; it was just an example I remember hearing discussion about on the news within the last few years)
But we won't take it away from an elderly person who has caused multiple accidents as a result of not being able to see; or from someone with a long history of causing accidents due to incompetence; or from someone who takes medication that doesn't mix well with driving but drives anyway; because we don't want to punish people for being old or sick or incompetent. We can barely manage to revoke licenses of chronic drunk drivers.
Drivers licenses should be about being competent to drive. I'd much rather share the road with an illegal immigrant who's defaulted on a bunch of student loans but who is in control of their vehicle than with someone who's a wonderfully upstanding citizen in every other way but for whatever reason isn't competent to drive a car.
#32
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Rochelle, NY
Posts: 38,670
Bikes: too many bikes from 1967 10s (5x2)Frejus to a Sumitomo Ti/Chorus aluminum 10s (10x2), plus one non-susp mtn bike I use as my commuter
Mentioned: 140 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5767 Post(s)
Liked 2,540 Times
in
1,406 Posts
Amen, this and nothing else.
__________________
FB
Chain-L site
An ounce of diagnosis is worth a pound of cure.
Just because I'm tired of arguing, doesn't mean you're right.
“One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions” - Adm Grace Murray Hopper - USN
WARNING, I'm from New York. Thin skinned people should maintain safe distance.
FB
Chain-L site
An ounce of diagnosis is worth a pound of cure.
Just because I'm tired of arguing, doesn't mean you're right.
“One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions” - Adm Grace Murray Hopper - USN
WARNING, I'm from New York. Thin skinned people should maintain safe distance.
#33
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,355
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8084 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 14 Times
in
13 Posts
Most people don't see the right to drive a car as a fundamental right on par with freedom of speech (or won't admit to it) but in the US we do tend to see it as something that's intrinsic to normal adult life in this country. It's even treated as a de facto universal ID because people assume that everyone has one (I've had people refuse to serve me beer because I had a state ID instead of a driver's license... because apparently you have to drive in order to drink?).
Revoking or refusing to grant drivers licenses as a punitive measure for stuff completely unrelated to a person's ability to safely operate a vehicle just perpetuates that idea. So we'll take away someone's drivers license because we want to punish them for not paying their student loans or for being an illegal immigrant or whatever. (Incidentally, I don't want to start a discussion on immigration; it was just an example I remember hearing discussion about on the news within the last few years)
Revoking or refusing to grant drivers licenses as a punitive measure for stuff completely unrelated to a person's ability to safely operate a vehicle just perpetuates that idea. So we'll take away someone's drivers license because we want to punish them for not paying their student loans or for being an illegal immigrant or whatever. (Incidentally, I don't want to start a discussion on immigration; it was just an example I remember hearing discussion about on the news within the last few years)
Social norms are not protected by law. Your friends may laugh at you if you don't wear certain brands of clothing but that doesn't mean the government should protect your ability to afford those brands. You have to differentiate between necessities and preferences. Many people may prefer to drive even though it's not a necessity for them to do so. In those cases, I don't see why revoking a driver's license shouldn't be a consequence of debt.
#34
Senior Member
No, having a driver's license is not a right, but neither is owning a pug dog. Perhaps we should deny people who can't pay off their student loans the ability to own pug dogs. Or perhaps we should deny pug dog owners the ability to buy single malt Scotch. Or better yet, deny pug dog owners the ability to get drivers' licenses. Makes as much sense.
#35
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Singapore
Posts: 1,143
Bikes: Fully customized 11-spd MTB built on 2014 Santa Cruz 5010 frame; Brompton S2E-X 2014; Brompton M3E 2014
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
As has been explained by others very well: there is no logical relationship between not paying off a certain debt (and the whole student loan thing is all sorts of FUBAR) and having a driver's license.
No, having a driver's license is not a right, but neither is owning a pug dog. Perhaps we should deny people who can't pay off their student loans the ability to own pug dogs. Or perhaps we should deny pug dog owners the ability to buy single malt Scotch. Or better yet, deny pug dog owners the ability to get drivers' licenses. Makes as much sense.
No, having a driver's license is not a right, but neither is owning a pug dog. Perhaps we should deny people who can't pay off their student loans the ability to own pug dogs. Or perhaps we should deny pug dog owners the ability to buy single malt Scotch. Or better yet, deny pug dog owners the ability to get drivers' licenses. Makes as much sense.
I'm surprised some people here haven't firebombed a courthouse for the existence of prison - HOW DARE YOU TAKE AWAY MY FREEDOM FOR SOMETHING I KNOWINGLY COMMITTED? Wasn't America built on the foundation of FREEDOM? If prison was a brand new concept being debated, the Bikeforumers would be enraged.
Don't want to lose your license? DON'T DEFAULT THEN. People talk in terms of "poor guy, he lost his license because he defaulted on his loan" as if it's all the government's fault. There needs to be a sufficiently strong disincentive to discourage certain behaviors - like imprisonment.
There are those with justified financial troubles, and then there are many more who simply treat their loans as largely "optional". I'm guessing the second ones outnumber the first, and the first group can be helped if they stepped forward and asked for it (maybe).
Last edited by keyven; 01-23-15 at 01:07 AM.
#36
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Bay Area, Calif.
Posts: 7,239
Mentioned: 13 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 659 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
6 Posts
I'm surprised some people here haven't firebombed a courthouse for the existence of prison - HOW DARE YOU TAKE AWAY MY FREEDOM FOR SOMETHING I KNOWINGLY COMMITTED? Wasn't America built on the foundation of FREEDOM? If prison was a brand new concept being debated, the Bikeforumers would be enraged.
Don't want to lose your license? DON'T DEFAULT THEN. People talk in terms of "poor guy, he lost his license because he defaulted on his loan" as if it's all the government's fault. There needs to be a sufficiently strong disincentive to discourage certain behaviors - like imprisonment.
But when it's the 'privilege' of a DL being taken away it's likely to all be done by the DMV bureaucracy and all you get is a letter that your license is no longer valid unless you can prove to some clerk that you really did pay off your loan (or had it extended, reduced, etc.). Not that big a deal to many of the car-free members here, but a very big deal if you're a truck driver or in some other profession that requires a driver's license, or many other situations where being able to drive a motor vehicle is necessary. Mistakes do get made and this kind of regulation results in those inevitable mistakes having very serious consequences on people's lives. The error will probably get cleared up eventually, but in the meantime the guy may well have lost his job, missed some house payments, etc. and the letter reinstating his license will be little consolation.
Nor is this the only kind of remedy available for the state to be able to collect on legitimately owed debts. If the evidence exists, then apply for a court ordered garnishment of a portion of wages. If the person has no wages but has some substantial tangible assets then again a court can be petitioned to allow seizure of non-essential assets to satisfy the debt. And if the person has neither wages to garnish nor assets to be seized then the saying about not being able to squeeze blood from a stone applies and taking his license won't get you the money either.
#37
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: E TN MTS
Posts: 258
Bikes: 1989 TREK 400, Suntour accushift drivetrain. 80's Raleigh mtb all Suntour.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Whoa... could've sworn I clicked on the LCF link and not the P & R link...
My $0.02: This topic has no relevance to this forum (but I'm not moving it since I'm 'involving' myself in the discussion).
Losing one's DL (for whatever reason) isn't some magical chrysalis that turns motorists into LCFers. Lack of a DL doesn't preclude owning a vehicle- what it does is make operating one without the DL illegal and subject to hefty fines if caught. I don't know about y'all, but I have known a few people in my lifetime who didn't have either insurance nor a DL and continued to drive.
My $0.02: This topic has no relevance to this forum (but I'm not moving it since I'm 'involving' myself in the discussion).
Losing one's DL (for whatever reason) isn't some magical chrysalis that turns motorists into LCFers. Lack of a DL doesn't preclude owning a vehicle- what it does is make operating one without the DL illegal and subject to hefty fines if caught. I don't know about y'all, but I have known a few people in my lifetime who didn't have either insurance nor a DL and continued to drive.
i'm not kidding. Whether suspended or revoked, in tn you WILL be arrested and taken to jail for driving without a license.
And, if you beat the charge, you still pay court costs. That is the gospel truth. My wife paid over 300 dollars in court costs for failure to provide proof of insurance and registration(judge dismissed it all because she supplied the documents in court. They just weren't in the car.) Money trap.
Last edited by dave42; 01-23-15 at 01:55 AM.
#38
Sophomoric Member
A major difference in your two scenarios above is that before someone is fined or imprisoned for a criminal offense there are lots of 'due process' guarantees. You have a right to hear the specific charges against you, the right to gather evidence and present it (with the aid of an attorney if needed) so as to refute those charges, the right for the case to be decided by unanimous vote by a jury, etc.
But when it's the 'privilege' of a DL being taken away it's likely to all be done by the DMV bureaucracy and all you get is a letter that your license is no longer valid unless you can prove to some clerk that you really did pay off your loan (or had it extended, reduced, etc.). Not that big a deal to many of the car-free members here, but a very big deal if you're a truck driver or in some other profession that requires a driver's license, or many other situations where being able to drive a motor vehicle is necessary. Mistakes do get made and this kind of regulation results in those inevitable mistakes having very serious consequences on people's lives. The error will probably get cleared up eventually, but in the meantime the guy may well have lost his job, missed some house payments, etc. and the letter reinstating his license will be little consolation.
Nor is this the only kind of remedy available for the state to be able to collect on legitimately owed debts. If the evidence exists, then apply for a court ordered garnishment of a portion of wages. If the person has no wages but has some substantial tangible assets then again a court can be petitioned to allow seizure of non-essential assets to satisfy the debt. And if the person has neither wages to garnish nor assets to be seized then the saying about not being able to squeeze blood from a stone applies and taking his license won't get you the money either.
But when it's the 'privilege' of a DL being taken away it's likely to all be done by the DMV bureaucracy and all you get is a letter that your license is no longer valid unless you can prove to some clerk that you really did pay off your loan (or had it extended, reduced, etc.). Not that big a deal to many of the car-free members here, but a very big deal if you're a truck driver or in some other profession that requires a driver's license, or many other situations where being able to drive a motor vehicle is necessary. Mistakes do get made and this kind of regulation results in those inevitable mistakes having very serious consequences on people's lives. The error will probably get cleared up eventually, but in the meantime the guy may well have lost his job, missed some house payments, etc. and the letter reinstating his license will be little consolation.
Nor is this the only kind of remedy available for the state to be able to collect on legitimately owed debts. If the evidence exists, then apply for a court ordered garnishment of a portion of wages. If the person has no wages but has some substantial tangible assets then again a court can be petitioned to allow seizure of non-essential assets to satisfy the debt. And if the person has neither wages to garnish nor assets to be seized then the saying about not being able to squeeze blood from a stone applies and taking his license won't get you the money either.
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
#39
Thunder Whisperer
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NE OK
Posts: 8,843
Bikes: '06 Kona Smoke
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 275 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times
in
2 Posts
Fines +jail time+bail/bond money +court costs amd attorneys fees/public defender fees if you fight it. Here, you have to pay for a public defender if you want one.
i'm not kidding. Whether suspended or revoked, in tn you WILL be arrested and taken to jail for driving without a license.
And, if you beat the charge, you still pay court costs. That is the gospel truth. My wife paid over 300 dollars in court costs for failure to provide proof of insurance and registration(judge dismissed it all because she supplied the documents in court. They just weren't in the car.) Money trap.
i'm not kidding. Whether suspended or revoked, in tn you WILL be arrested and taken to jail for driving without a license.
And, if you beat the charge, you still pay court costs. That is the gospel truth. My wife paid over 300 dollars in court costs for failure to provide proof of insurance and registration(judge dismissed it all because she supplied the documents in court. They just weren't in the car.) Money trap.
OK law now provides for seizure- not impounded- of any vehicle operated by an unlicensed driver, whether the vehicle is registered to them or not.
__________________
Community guidelines
Community guidelines
#40
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: E TN MTS
Posts: 258
Bikes: 1989 TREK 400, Suntour accushift drivetrain. 80's Raleigh mtb all Suntour.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
We got a ticket for failure to insure once as well. I sent a copy of the insurance ASAP to the court clerk- ticket dismissed, no fees .
OK law now provides for seizure- not impounded- of any vehicle operated by an unlicensed driver, whether the vehicle is registered to them or not.
OK law now provides for seizure- not impounded- of any vehicle operated by an unlicensed driver, whether the vehicle is registered to them or not.
#41
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,355
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8084 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 14 Times
in
13 Posts
As has been explained by others very well: there is no logical relationship between not paying off a certain debt (and the whole student loan thing is all sorts of FUBAR) and having a driver's license.
No, having a driver's license is not a right, but neither is owning a pug dog. Perhaps we should deny people who can't pay off their student loans the ability to own pug dogs. Or perhaps we should deny pug dog owners the ability to buy single malt Scotch. Or better yet, deny pug dog owners the ability to get drivers' licenses. Makes as much sense.
No, having a driver's license is not a right, but neither is owning a pug dog. Perhaps we should deny people who can't pay off their student loans the ability to own pug dogs. Or perhaps we should deny pug dog owners the ability to buy single malt Scotch. Or better yet, deny pug dog owners the ability to get drivers' licenses. Makes as much sense.
Driving is the same. If you don't NEED to drive, why shouldn't a court order you not to as a means of restructuring your costs so that you can pay off debt?
Don't want to lose your license? DON'T DEFAULT THEN. People talk in terms of "poor guy, he lost his license because he defaulted on his loan" as if it's all the government's fault. There needs to be a sufficiently strong disincentive to discourage certain behaviors - like imprisonment.
There are those with justified financial troubles, and then there are many more who simply treat their loans as largely "optional". I'm guessing the second ones outnumber the first, and the first group can be helped if they stepped forward and asked for it (maybe).
There are those with justified financial troubles, and then there are many more who simply treat their loans as largely "optional". I'm guessing the second ones outnumber the first, and the first group can be helped if they stepped forward and asked for it (maybe).
There's a lot of grey and room for interpretation. Think of all the people who took out huge mortgages before the credit crisis when houses were 100s of percent more expensive than they are now. Creditors may want to see all that money repaid, but the borrower's financial situation may have changed in the mean time to the point that s/he can no longer afford to pay the mortgage. Then the question becomes whether to foreclose or negotiate some kind of short-sale where the debtor can refinance with less overall debt.
Bankruptcy has traditionally protected one house to live in and one car to drive, but I'm not sure why it protects your right to own and drive a vehicle if you can take public transit or ride a bike at a lower cost.
Why should people have the right to drive if they can't afford to?
#42
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Singapore
Posts: 1,143
Bikes: Fully customized 11-spd MTB built on 2014 Santa Cruz 5010 frame; Brompton S2E-X 2014; Brompton M3E 2014
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
If you declare bankruptcy (inability to pay debt) and the court is restructuring your costs, they may order you to sell your dog if it incurs significant expenses and you can't prove that you have some need for it as a service animal. Personally, I find the idea of separating people from their pets pretty heartless but it's not a punishment so much as a cost-restructuring issue.
Driving is the same. If you don't NEED to drive, why shouldn't a court order you not to as a means of restructuring your costs so that you can pay off debt?
Prison is for criminals who won't be reformed by other means. 'Declaring bankruptcy' is the traditional means of surrendering to one's creditors in exchange for a certain amount of leeway/freedom in negotiating debt-forgiveness. If you take a loan in good faith of repaying it but circumstances changed, for example, it may be logical to forgive some of the debt but expect you to pay what you're able to pay.
There's a lot of grey and room for interpretation. Think of all the people who took out huge mortgages before the credit crisis when houses were 100s of percent more expensive than they are now. Creditors may want to see all that money repaid, but the borrower's financial situation may have changed in the mean time to the point that s/he can no longer afford to pay the mortgage. Then the question becomes whether to foreclose or negotiate some kind of short-sale where the debtor can refinance with less overall debt.
Bankruptcy has traditionally protected one house to live in and one car to drive, but I'm not sure why it protects your right to own and drive a vehicle if you can take public transit or ride a bike at a lower cost.
Why should people have the right to drive if they can't afford to?
Driving is the same. If you don't NEED to drive, why shouldn't a court order you not to as a means of restructuring your costs so that you can pay off debt?
Prison is for criminals who won't be reformed by other means. 'Declaring bankruptcy' is the traditional means of surrendering to one's creditors in exchange for a certain amount of leeway/freedom in negotiating debt-forgiveness. If you take a loan in good faith of repaying it but circumstances changed, for example, it may be logical to forgive some of the debt but expect you to pay what you're able to pay.
There's a lot of grey and room for interpretation. Think of all the people who took out huge mortgages before the credit crisis when houses were 100s of percent more expensive than they are now. Creditors may want to see all that money repaid, but the borrower's financial situation may have changed in the mean time to the point that s/he can no longer afford to pay the mortgage. Then the question becomes whether to foreclose or negotiate some kind of short-sale where the debtor can refinance with less overall debt.
Bankruptcy has traditionally protected one house to live in and one car to drive, but I'm not sure why it protects your right to own and drive a vehicle if you can take public transit or ride a bike at a lower cost.
Why should people have the right to drive if they can't afford to?
And I guess there could be special arrangements for the few who MUST drive (for their job).
#43
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Rochelle, NY
Posts: 38,670
Bikes: too many bikes from 1967 10s (5x2)Frejus to a Sumitomo Ti/Chorus aluminum 10s (10x2), plus one non-susp mtn bike I use as my commuter
Mentioned: 140 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5767 Post(s)
Liked 2,540 Times
in
1,406 Posts
IMO- this whole thread belongs in the P&R thread. It has little to do directly with people here, since we're already folks who've elected to be car free.
__________________
FB
Chain-L site
An ounce of diagnosis is worth a pound of cure.
Just because I'm tired of arguing, doesn't mean you're right.
“One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions” - Adm Grace Murray Hopper - USN
WARNING, I'm from New York. Thin skinned people should maintain safe distance.
FB
Chain-L site
An ounce of diagnosis is worth a pound of cure.
Just because I'm tired of arguing, doesn't mean you're right.
“One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions” - Adm Grace Murray Hopper - USN
WARNING, I'm from New York. Thin skinned people should maintain safe distance.
#44
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,355
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8084 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 14 Times
in
13 Posts
I agree with this - some comments here make it sound like taking the driving license away is a slippery slope to a communist state. Driving is very much optional if you live in the suburbs or city. Many people do it every day. Some even willingly.
And I guess there could be special arrangements for the few who MUST drive (for their job).
And I guess there could be special arrangements for the few who MUST drive (for their job).
Cash4Clunkers was a slippery slope to a communist automotivist state.
#46
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Atlanta, GA. USA
Posts: 3,804
Bikes: Surly Long Haul Disc Trucker
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1015 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I hear ya. Maybe the thread stays because LCF is so inactive. Might as well waste some cycles on student loans and drivers licenses!
#47
Been Around Awhile
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,965
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,530 Times
in
1,042 Posts
#48
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: D'uh... I am a Cutter
Posts: 6,139
Bikes: '17 Access Old Turnpike Gravel bike, '14 Trek 1.1, '13 Cannondale CAAD 10, '98 CAD 2, R300
Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1571 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 12 Times
in
9 Posts
For the record, driving was unregulated until about 1910, with various states going to licensing later than that. So, by your logic driving was a right, until the state decided to regulate it and require licenses. However you claim that traveling on a public road is a right (and I agree). So, if the state in three years decides to require a license of riding a bicycle, does our right suddenly disappear and become a privilege?......
Well put. I've opposed the bicycle license, bicycle insurance, bicycle lanes and paths (and yes I like and use the paths). But it is a slippery slope as to what is legal and acceptable.... with the concept of acceptable continually changing. Far too many laws are based on revenue generation, or public fears... and have nothing to do with the concept of right and wrong.
I am of the confirmed belief that bicycles will eventually be banned from all roads and streets. Simply because motorist feel inconvenienced by the presents of cyclists.
The problem is... to assure our own future access to the roadways we must be willing to accept and promote a willingness to accept rude, reckless, and [electively] impaired motorist. And maybe... even some drivers who owe student loans too... apparently.
#49
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Atlanta, GA. USA
Posts: 3,804
Bikes: Surly Long Haul Disc Trucker
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1015 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
+1
Well put. I've opposed the bicycle license, bicycle insurance, bicycle lanes and paths (and yes I like and use the paths). But it is a slippery slope as to what is legal and acceptable.... with the concept of acceptable continually changing. Far too many laws are based on revenue generation, or public fears... and have nothing to do with the concept of right and wrong.
I am of the confirmed belief that bicycles will eventually be banned from all roads and streets. Simply because motorist feel inconvenienced by the presents of cyclists.
The problem is... to assure our own future access to the roadways we must be willing to accept and promote a willingness to accept rude, reckless, and [electively] impaired motorist. And maybe... even some drivers who owe student loans too... apparently.
Well put. I've opposed the bicycle license, bicycle insurance, bicycle lanes and paths (and yes I like and use the paths). But it is a slippery slope as to what is legal and acceptable.... with the concept of acceptable continually changing. Far too many laws are based on revenue generation, or public fears... and have nothing to do with the concept of right and wrong.
I am of the confirmed belief that bicycles will eventually be banned from all roads and streets. Simply because motorist feel inconvenienced by the presents of cyclists.
The problem is... to assure our own future access to the roadways we must be willing to accept and promote a willingness to accept rude, reckless, and [electively] impaired motorist. And maybe... even some drivers who owe student loans too... apparently.
And when I take my unlicensed bicycle out on the town, should I expect police cars in hot pursuit? What if jump off the road and pedal thru a park or something? Will there be bicycle police to come take up the charge and apprehend me?
Bicycles are here to stay.
#50
Sophomoric Member
+1
Well put. I've opposed the bicycle license, bicycle insurance, bicycle lanes and paths (and yes I like and use the paths). But it is a slippery slope as to what is legal and acceptable.... with the concept of acceptable continually changing. Far too many laws are based on revenue generation, or public fears... and have nothing to do with the concept of right and wrong.
I am of the confirmed belief that bicycles will eventually be banned from all roads and streets. Simply because motorist feel inconvenienced by the presents of cyclists.
The problem is... to assure our own future access to the roadways we must be willing to accept and promote a willingness to accept rude, reckless, and [electively] impaired motorist. And maybe... even some drivers who owe student loans too... apparently.
Well put. I've opposed the bicycle license, bicycle insurance, bicycle lanes and paths (and yes I like and use the paths). But it is a slippery slope as to what is legal and acceptable.... with the concept of acceptable continually changing. Far too many laws are based on revenue generation, or public fears... and have nothing to do with the concept of right and wrong.
I am of the confirmed belief that bicycles will eventually be banned from all roads and streets. Simply because motorist feel inconvenienced by the presents of cyclists.
The problem is... to assure our own future access to the roadways we must be willing to accept and promote a willingness to accept rude, reckless, and [electively] impaired motorist. And maybe... even some drivers who owe student loans too... apparently.
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"