Which are covered by other amendments. IX is for things like eating.
Anyway, catsix already provided a compelling argument.
You realize, of course, that the problem we face isn’t that negligent drivers don’t lose their license, it is that they keep driving anyway. No matter how often you take their license away, if they can drive, and they need to drive, they probably will drive. Get it?
Um, yeah. That will solve everything.
Look, as a Massachusetts resident I think I get to stand very close to the front of the line for people who hate aggressive and irresponsible drivers. But I think it is a total miscarriage of fucking sensibility to think that they want to hurt people with their doings. Come on.
There isn’t some “bad driver” conspiracy against you on the road. There’s people who are idiots, can’t drive, but continue to do so even when told not to by law. When will it occur to you that the solution to this isn’t more or stricter laws?
This is the problem with arguments like “If you lose your license, you can move closer to your job. Or get a different job. If you don’t like it, don’t lose your license.” Moving and finding a new job are very difficult, especially if you can’t make it to your old job in the meantime, and driving with a suspended license is easy.
As much as some folks might like to think that the threat of having to find a new job will convince people to drive carefully, in reality they’ll just keep driving with a suspended license. Ironically, it’s then that they’ll be careful on the road, because they won’t get caught with a suspended license if they don’t get pulled over.
Totally and completely. Humans are nothing if not suckers for the quick fix.
Well perhaps you might want to look at this chart (PDF) in 1982 ther were 4,511 alchol related (.08 or above) fatalities for 16-20 year olds. Since that time many states have encacted “zero tolerance laws” for minors and alcohol. By 1990
the death rate had droped to 2,811, and for 2002 is at 1,881.
Or perhaps you would rather look pictures like these or perhaps this one (warning both link are to graphic pics)
I know how much driving ment to me when I was a minor. I would not drink if it had meant the loss of my license.
They’ve also stepped up fines for underage distribution (selling and giving), increased enforcement of those fines, made programs like MADD more common, and so on. There are many possibilities for such a decrease besides “threatenin’ the pants of the little buggers” or somesuch.
I wouldn’t drink if it meant getting shot in the head, either. That doesn’t mean summary execution is an appropriate punishment for underage drinking. Revoking a kid’s driver’s license just because he was drinking without driving is just as inappropriate.
Nice man you got there Mr 2001 need some more fucking straw?
The states legislature has passed these laws and they have been through the courts. They have held up. Therefore they are legal and not cruel and unusual punishment, or unconstitutional.
Shooting someone in the head, would not pass these tests. :wally
On to your other point about the DMV not making the laws, You are correct they don’t write the laws, they administer the laws that our elected officials pass. Are you seriously suggesting that the California DMV has text in their driver’s handbook that is contrary to California law? If so please provide link to the relevant portions of the California law. :wally
I am still waiting for you to come up with a cite (other that your overactive mind) that driving is a right. :wally
BTW did I mention :wally
Yes. we should continue to let them flout the laws. :rolleyes:
It’s not as if states suspend licenses for one speeding ticket or surprise you by suspending you license for unpaid parking tickets without telling you. People are or should be aware of their actions and suffer the consequences of those actions.
Did I say that? No. In fact I don’t think I’ve suggested lessening the penalties at all, nor do I recall expressing even mild distaste at them. Admittedly, I have some distaste I can share, but it is totally irrelevant so I haven’t brought it up.
They did face the consequence: they lost their license. They also did what they felt they had to do in order to live their life: keep driving. The problem is that they keep driving without a license. It is already illegal to do so. So how is another law for them to break supposed to accomplish anything? 
I tend to agree.
But if a person is underage and drinking illegally, doesn’t that make it that much more likely for that kid to be a drunk driver? So, it’s not that much of a stretch. Driving is very important in our society, but must not lose sight of the fact that a moving automobile can be more dangerous than a loaded gun.
Since when? I knew a man from our church who walked all the way to Guadelope from here (Pittsburgh), and later walked all over Europe and the Holy Land. (He had a donkey, or a mule, I believe, for a pack animal). Now granted, that’s not practical. But what do you think people did back in the days before they had cars?
What the fuck? That logic is so twisted I could dip it in mustard and wash it down with a beer.
You know, there are all kinds of programs out there for people who can’t drive, for whatever reason. My grandmother (mother’s mother) had to surrender her license within the last year. She can call a cab for very little money (I think it’s through one of the Access programs, or whatever for seniors). I once worked with an elderly woman who was picked up everyday by a van for seniors. You can carpool.
I wish I could say the same for my paternal grandfather. He’s in his eighties, he has epilepsy (and he DOES have seizures quite frequently-even when he’s on medication), he’s had god knows how many severe ones and quite a few strokes within the last two or three years, his hearing is terrible, as is his eyesite, he doesn’t pay attention most of the time. And yet, he keeps insisting on going to try and renew his license. He even bought a new truck, for crissakes, after totaling his last truck. I can only pray to god that he’ll be denied. And no, he won’t drive with a suspended license. If any of my family found out (including my grandmother, who pretty much insists on driving when they go somewhere), we’d raise hell and turn him in, if necessary. I wish more people would do this with their relatives.
If you know someone, a close relative who is driving with a suspended license, or is unsafe-turn them in! If more people would do this, instead of indulging their loved ones, we wouldn’t have such a problem. Most of the time, it IS a life or death situation.
Huh? Meaningless. How do you know the bus driver won’t have a massive heart attack ten minutes outside of town? How do you know the bus engine won’t explode the second he turns the key or shuts the door? How do you know the bus driver won’t decide half-way there that he’s had enough of bus driving, won’t quit right then and there and won’t just walk away taking the keys with him?
No, of course not. The law itself infringes the right to drive. (Or maybe it doesn’t - I’m not familiar with the things that can get one’s license suspended in CA.)
Well, while you’re waiting, why don’t you go back and re-read the part of my earlier post that I quoted for you? Then all will be clear, grasshoppa.
To the same extent that an adult drinker is more likely to drive drunk than a teetotaler, but no further. Certainly not likely enough to justify taking away his driver’s license.
Just like you said - it’s not practical. This is what I meant by “reasonable means”. It may have been reasonable to walk 4 hours to and from work a few centuries ago, but it isn’t anymore.
All of this depends on flukes of geography. Not everyone lives in a city with useful public transit, carpool programs, and cab service.
Those are all the results of chance events or personal unwillingness, and they have no bearing on my rights. Just like if I shout myself hoarse, and I can no longer exercise my freedom of speech - I may be physically unable to do it, but I’m still legally able. If no one will sell me a computer, a typewriter, or even a pen, I’ll be physically unable to exercise freedom of the press, but still legally able.
My concern is that if I don’t have the right to drive, and no one else has the right to drive me anywhere, then I may be legally unable to exercise my right to travel, even though I am physically able, and the bus driver and I are still fit to drive. And that’s a problem.
A commercial license is supposed to be a higher standard than the ordinary private-citizen car license. The bus driver is also probably subjected to periodic drug testing, and the company may even do a criminal background check or driving violations check prior to hiring the person doing the driving. In other words, a commercial driver (or pilot) is being observed much more closely than the private citizen.
Does that mean commercial drivers are all perfect? No - some slip through the cracks, and some people have breakdowns after years of good functioning. No system is perfect. However, the average commercial driver is probably a better risk on the road than the average non-commercial driver.
And although driving IS a privilege, it’s recognized as an important one - as a general rule, you’re not going to lose it unless you have either a medical problem or you’re being irresponsible.
Mind you - I DO agree that loss-of-driving punishments should be restricted to just violations involving irresponsible driving behaviors, or situations where there is a high likelihood of someone causing havoc from behind the wheel. I don’t think, as an example, that shoplifters should automatically lose their driver’s licenses - unless they’re “shoplifting” cars off a dealer’s lot.
I’ve got a solution- we stop acting as if driving is somehow so special that its treated differently than other acts. People apparently get their license suspended for reckless driving - but other forms of reckless behavior that endanger other people are likely to result in jail, even if no one is actually hurt. Perhaps those people who feel they have to drive to get to work even though the license is suspended would think differently if they actually faced jail time. Or perhaps they wouldn’t drive so badly in the first place. And as long as we’re jailing those who drive dangerously, I’m not terribly worried if someone is driving with a license that was suspended solely for unpaid parking tickets.
But there is no consequence in this case, they lost their license but if there isn’t any incentive to not drive on a suspended license, why would they stop? It’s as if there is no punishment.
Sheesh, if I was a burgler and got sentanced to probation for my actions, could I do what I felt I had to in order to live my life: rob people? I’ll just get more probation so I’ll just keep on doing it. I think people who ignore the consequences of their actions should be subject to harsher and harsher punishment. First time driving on a suspende license, 30 days picking up trash, second more it on to jail time. I really don’t care about their livelihood as they really don’t care about the legal code or the welfare of others. Selfishness shouldn’t be rewarded.
But the adult drinker (assuming he’s not smashed in public) has not broken a law. The teen has broken laws at least one.
In California, this MAY keep the teen from getting a licence until he’s 21.
Except for the fines and jail time, yeah. I think the same thing about murderers, you know that? There’s just no punishment.