prathmann

Maybe, but I suspect there are lots of people who live car-free who would not want to be Driver's License free.

Chief

...darn that pesky 2nd amendment....

Roody

I feel this forum is for both stereotypes and everybody in between. I think it's a shame that one or two individuals here are constantly trying to make others feel inferior for choices (or unchosen circumstances) that they don't even begin to understand.

tandempower

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.

02Giant 

Realizing I am several days late to the party, I just wanted to say that I have always had issues with driving being referred to as a privilege and agree with your comments.

Coluber42

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.

FBinNY 

Amen, this and nothing else.

tandempower

Social norms don't always make good laws or policies. What are the major debt-purchases that people make? 1) mortgages and 2) cars. People who aren't paying student loans but are making car payments, paying auto insurance, maintenance, etc. don't NEED to drive. There is public transit. There is bicycling. Evicting someone out of their residence makes them homeless. If a person can't prove hardship as a result of not being able to drive, why should their right to have and drive a car be protected?

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.

desconhecido 

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.

keyven

It also makes no sense that if you rob a bank, you end up living in a small room 24/7 for several years. What's your point?

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).

prathmann

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.

dave42

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.

Roody

Good post. I doubt if anybody can refute it.

no1mad 

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.

dave42

it's a mess. I'm glad you didn't have to pay court costs. I don't know if it's a state thing in TN, or if we just lived in a money-hungry jurisdiction.

tandempower

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?

keyven

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).

FBinNY 

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.

tandempower

I knew someone who got a DUI and was ordered to limit her driving to getting back and forth to her job and school. Revoking a driver's license is probably just easier than trying to police specific driving habits and making sure people don't cheat.

Cash4Clunkers was a slippery slope to a communist automotivist state.

fietsbob

Only went to Uni while the GI Bill made it affordable .

Walter S

I hear ya. Maybe the thread stays because LCF is so inactive. Might as well waste some cycles on student loans and drivers licenses!

I-Like-To-Bike

Perhaps some more old time LCF favorite topics need repostings like car expenses, TV wasteland, dumpster diving and naval gazing.

Dave Cutter

+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.

Walter S

I would say that is your opinion, not your confirmed belief. How will bicycles get banned? Has it started yet? Will it be a slow movement that takes over the globe? Or a sudden unified effort world-wide? Feeling paranoid? And why not support bicycle infrastructure? Seems like that would make the motorists more less inconvenienced. But I suppose that feeds your paranoia that bicycles will be banned, you don't want the government using infrastructure to support the idea of licences.

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.

Roody

Maybe I'm naive, but at this time, bikes seem to be winning. However, if driverless cars ever become popular, I worry that they won't be able to cope with bikes on the same roads.