MMACH 5

Wow. Even more baseless than I expected it to be.

(In before the move to P&R.)

Kontact

Any reasonable person would understand that there are no absolutes, and any law that manages to function correctly for 99.9% of the population is one that works.

What you're describing is the classic conflict that arises when you make a lot of things illegal - it just creates more illegal behavior because the laws have no flexibility to observe reality. It is little different than the range of criminal behavior you get when you criminalize drug use - of course there's going to smuggling and violence.


So if you enjoy criminalization of immigration, then you should expect there to be other criminal activity associated with it. You don't get the milk without buying the cow.



That said, just how much of an actual problem is this? If illegal immigrants are only 3% of the population, how many of those 3% are both uninsured AND likely to have an accident? And if they do have an accident, how are they different than US citizens that are uninsured?

It strikes me that the net problem is mainly that you want to punish people, not that accident victims aren't able to get medical help or get their cars fixed.

salcedo

At least you are not trying to deny that I am 100% right about you and your thread.

LanghamP

I agree with the original poster that all bicyclist should be registered and insured, along with all other vehicles on our roadways including pedestrians.

To be registered: we track you at all times in public to ensure you comply with our right to road laws.

To be insured: every person is insured in case of an incident (accident or intentional injury).

The amount of roadway you get is equal: regardless of the type of transport you select, it will be the same across the board. Therefore a pedestrian path will be the same width as an automobile or bicycle path, as is parking.

The insurance you pay is dependant upon the average damage your vehicle inflicts. The insurance you have is what you should have as a citizen in our civilization.

I think the original poster is on to something: treat all major forms of transportation equally. I'm 100% for it.

prairiepedaler

It really depends. Once upon a time licensing was either optional or non-existent, as with many many other avenues of pursuit & endeavor. There are legions of fully licensed, insured, tracked, monitored, permitted and counted drivers on the road who are reckless and irresponsible. The state makes it's money either way, whether a little old lady drives or a leadfooted teenager. Some do not even own a car and drive once every few years yet have to pay to renew every year. Imagine paying to renew your diploma or degree every year. A drivers license is a wellspring of perpetual cash for the state and functionally serves more as a means of identification to engage in commerce than proof of ability to drive. I would wipe involuntary licensing off the map.

jefnvk

I mean, there is always the option of simply not having a drivers license if you don't use it. AFAIK, every state offers a non-driving ID.

But sure, it makes total sense to not regulate people driving three ton hunks of metal at 80mph. If we're getting rid of licensing, lets get rid of speed limits too. I'm a vehicle dynamics engineer, I've been trained to drive prototype performance vehicles north of 100MPH, why should I be subject to speed limits?

Milton Keynes

Yep, shut it down!

WhyFi

Ah, yup.

livedarklions

I'm beginning to wonder if there should be licensing to post in these forums.

BikeLite

loaded question.

Shimagnolo

I challenge anyone to find an insurance policy that will cover an accident in which the driver had no license.

Kontact

I am disappointed the OP can't be troubled to complete his thought.

LesterOfPuppets

I'm in favour of bringing back red flag laws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locomotive_Acts

Daniel4

Well, in Ontario, a car can't be legally on the road without an up to date and valid licence plate. And you can't get a licence plate updated unless you submit your insurance policy number and the name of the insurer to the Ministry of Motor Vehicles. And when you renew your licence plate, the Ministry records will show the name of the registered owner. If the car wasn't stolen and it's yours, you can bet the Ministry will have your records too especially if you have a valid driver's licence.

Furthermore, your insurance company would have information about your driver's licence too. When my son got his, somehow my insurance company knew about it and adjusted my premiums to account for him being a potential driver of my cars.

So at least on Ontario, you can't get around it. If you try, you better hope that the police won't be anywhere near where you're driving.

Cyclist0084

Or the close.

Cyclist0084

livedarklions

Only if the loopholes are closed. Flaggers for all motorized vehicles now!

rumrunn6

does a driverless car need to be certified? or licensed? does it have to pass a safety test of some kind?

WhyFi

I think that the real question, at least in this thread, is "are driverless cars illegal aliens?"

LanghamP

One thing not mentioned is the sheer damage a motorized vehicle can cause compared to a non-motorized vehicle. If anyone here owns an electric bike/unicycle, then you would know that 1800 watts of peak power is a tremendous amount of power compared to our own legs. One just flies up hills while expending virtually no energy. And a 1 to 2 horsepower vehicle is many times less powerful than the 140 hp engines we find in subcompact cars. The amount of energy it takes to run a 2600 pound car up to 70 mph is phenomenal, so of course we rate human powered vehicles differently from gas/electric motorized vehicles.

Although, here in the US, usually when there's a fatal auto to pedestrian collision, we invariably see the cops fanning out and giving tickets to pedestrians in that area.

jefnvk

How is this thread still here and going?

I have never once seen that.

BillyD

Better still, closed.