# Why is driving a privilege and not a right? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 2, 2003, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-driving-a-privilege-and-not-a-right/146237 "2003-01-02T18:19:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2003, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-driving-a-privilege-and-not-a-right/146237/21 "2003-01-02T21:01:15Z")
Actually, methinks **Realhoops** hit the distinction nail on the head - stripping a privilege from someone is not a criminal punishment, but a civil one. The practical effects of the distinction are: 1. there is a lower standard of proof required before your license can be revoked/suspended (preponderance of evidence v. beyond a reasonable doubt); 2. Loss of license can be imposed in addition to (and in separate proceedings from) criminal punishment; and 3. A license may be revoked/suspended without any actual evidence of wrongdoing - e.g. at least in some states you may have your license suspended if you refuse to take a BAC test - even if DUI charges are never made against you, much less proven. 4. I may very well be wrong here, but IIRC the suspension for refusal to take a BAC test is automatic - IOW no due process. I really think that can’t be right, but that’s what my brain is telling me. So, given these practical distinctions between privilege and right, should driving be a privilege or a right? Sua ---
**Author:** ![happyheathen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5e925/32.png) [@happyheathen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/happyheathen)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2003, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-driving-a-privilege-and-not-a-right/146237/22 "2003-01-02T21:20:26Z")
**Sua** - The law is “implied consent” - by operating an automobile on a public road, you are consenting to BAC testing on demand. By refusing to take a test, one breaks the terms of the license, whereupon it ceases to exist. And, yes, CA Supremes have upheld “sobriety checkpoints” - random stops without cause, to administer field sobriety checks. Don’t know if they would actually take a blood sample without cause, but they will do the stops. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2003, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-driving-a-privilege-and-not-a-right/146237/23 "2003-01-02T21:29:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi \* > Yet teh examples you gave refer to rights issuing from AAA or the owners of the SDMB. I confess, that I think of the first example as a matter of contractual obligation, not rights. the second example I see very much as a privilege, though the scope of that privilege is also delineated in formal agreement between parties. Contractual obligation is a way of acquiring rights. My paying for the service gives me the right to demand the service. I picked a private sector example because it offered a sharper delineation. If you were looking for a government example, I would say the government allowing you to eat pretzels is a right. The government deciding to build a park in your neighborhood is a privilege that they are bestowing on you. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2003, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-driving-a-privilege-and-not-a-right/146237/24 "2003-01-02T21:30:42Z")
Sobriety (drugs or alcohol) as it relates to ones safety _while driving_ is certainly a valid reason to strip someone of thier lisence. What I meant was the government taking away driving rights/priviledges strictly as a punishment. This is the case when someone is caught with marijuana in ones home and looses their driving license as a punishment, IMO. Also, the courts can take away a driver’s license for a year for anyone caught using a fake ID. No one is making the argument these people are unsafe drivers, the lisence revoke is strictly a punishment that doesn’t cost the state any money. ---
**Author:** ![Realhoops](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8dc957/32.png) [@Realhoops](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Realhoops)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2003, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-driving-a-privilege-and-not-a-right/146237/25 "2003-01-02T21:39:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Debaser \* > > What I meant was the government taking away driving rights/priviledges strictly as a punishment. This is the case when someone is caught with marijuana in ones home and looses their driving license as a punishment, IMO. Where does this happen? I’ve seen lots of cases where _vehicles_ are taken away from people caught distributing drugs, but I’ve never heard of _licenses_ being taken away for possession of drugs anywhere. Do you happen to have a link or anything? Additionally, in the forfeiture scenario the courts consistently take pains to try to distinguish between “punishment” and “forfeiture”; punishment is considered a criminal term and forfeitrue is a civil term, usually. The actual difference between the two is perhaps more semantic than anything else, but … ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2003, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-driving-a-privilege-and-not-a-right/146237/26 "2003-01-02T21:42:26Z")
**HH,** the due process question is not the implied consent issue, but whether the cop must demonstrate to a court that the driver refused to submit to the BAC test before the license is yanked. Normally speaking, the cop would have to get up on the stand and say, “yep, I told her to take the breathalyzer, but she refused,” and the court would have to determine whether or not that actually happened. Without due process, the cop could take the license from the driver on the spot. And whether that is allowed is what I’ve heard some stories about, but admittedly I know little about this issue. Sua ---
**Author:** ![X\_Slayer\_ALE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/bbe5ce/32.png) [@X\_Slayer\_ALE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/X_Slayer_ALE)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2003, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-driving-a-privilege-and-not-a-right/146237/27 "2003-01-02T21:46:05Z")
Well think of it this way then, Privilege is a right granted with more restrictions. Constitutional rights are inalienable, which means no one can take them away from anyone. Everyone has constitutional rights but not everyone are allowed to drive. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2003, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-driving-a-privilege-and-not-a-right/146237/28 "2003-01-02T21:58:17Z")
That don’t work, either, **X.** Constitutional rights most certainly can be taken away from people. In many states, for example, felons cannot vote - even if their crime did not involve election fraud. Sua ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2003, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-driving-a-privilege-and-not-a-right/146237/29 "2003-01-02T22:00:14Z")
Well, **IzzyR** , that confirms my suspicion that we view and define rights quite diffeently, so it makes little sense for me to quibble with you over whether driving should be considered a “right”, since your use of that term is so much broader than my own. “A right to eat pretzels” trivializes what should be fundamental. ---
**Author:** ![X\_Slayer\_ALE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/bbe5ce/32.png) [@X\_Slayer\_ALE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/X_Slayer_ALE)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2003, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-driving-a-privilege-and-not-a-right/146237/30 "2003-01-02T22:14:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > \*\*That don’t work, either, **X.** Constitutional rights most certainly can be taken away from people. In many states, for example, felons cannot vote - even if their crime did not involve election fraud. > > Sua \*\* May i hazard an opinion that voting is not a right but a privilege as well. It is a privilege granted to law abiding property owning citizens. If it were inalienable (such as our right to life, liberty and the persuit of loose women …er happiness) then anyone can vote, including aliens, illegal or otherwise. [http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/political\_reform/right\_to\_vote.html](http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/right_to_vote.html) ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2003, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-driving-a-privilege-and-not-a-right/146237/31 "2003-01-02T22:16:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi \* > “A right to eat pretzels” trivializes what should be fundamental. I disagree. Not that I think pretzels are all that important. But the right to eat pretzels is not a distinct right in and of itself. It is part of a larger right to essentially do mind my own business and do whatever I want. Pretzels are merely one example. If the government would start telling you what you can or can’t eat (without some enormously compelling interest) I would see this as an infringement on your basic freedom to make your own decisions about yourself. It would take a much more compelling interest for the government to interfere with this right than it would to decide not to give you some sort of privilege. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2003, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-driving-a-privilege-and-not-a-right/146237/32 "2003-01-02T22:32:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by X~Slayer(ALE) \* > \*\*May i hazard an opinion that voting is not a right but a privilege as well. It is a privilege granted to law abiding property owning citizens. If it were inalienable (such as our right to life, liberty and the persuit of loose women …er happiness) then anyone can vote, including aliens, illegal or otherwise. > \*\* Um, all three of those ‘inalienable rights’ can be taken away: Life by capital punishment, liberty by imprisonment, and pursuit of hapiness by, well, by capital punishment or imprisonment. And voting most certainly is a constitutional right, not a privilege. Sua ---
**Author:** ![asterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2003, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-driving-a-privilege-and-not-a-right/146237/33 "2003-01-02T22:33:12Z")
Actually, Polycarp, since it is agreed that there should be a lower age limit on driving, I think there could be an upper one as well. I’m not saying revoke all licensces from people over 70 or whatever, but I’ve had too many run-ins with incompetent old people to not make me believe that there needs to be more rigorous testing when you get older. I’m not saying all old people suck at driving, nor do all teenagers, and I’ve run into plenty of incompetent people of all ages. However, I still think that since we restrict driving of the young due to age because of various physical characteristics and mental capacity, we should also start doing this for the older people. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2003, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-driving-a-privilege-and-not-a-right/146237/34 "2003-01-03T00:26:24Z")
> [@](#): > > Where does this happen? I’ve seen lots of cases where vehicles are taken away from people caught distributing drugs, but I’ve never heard of licenses being taken away for possession of drugs anywhere. Do you happen to have a link or anything? [NY Vehicle and Traffic Law](http://http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/nycodes/c128/a39.html) S510 > [@](#): > > (v) For a period of six months where the holder is convicted of, or > receives a youthful offender or other juvenile adjudication in > connection with, any misdemeanor or felony defined in article two > hundred twenty or two hundred twenty-one of the penal law, any violation > of the federal controlled substances act, any crime in violation of > subdivision four of section eleven hundred ninety-two of this chapter or > any out-of-state or federal misdemeanor or felony drug-related offense; > provided, however, that any time actually served in custody pursuant to > a sentence or disposition imposed as a result of such conviction or > youthful offender or other juvenile adjudication shall be credited > against the period of such suspension and, provided further, that the > court shall determine that such suspension need not be imposed where > there are compelling circumstances warranting an exception ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2003, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-driving-a-privilege-and-not-a-right/146237/35 "2003-01-03T00:38:35Z")
I just skimmed through it and couldn’t find it, but does it say anywhere in the [US Constitution](http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.text.html) that citizens have the right to free and unhindered travel through the country? ---
**Author:** ![Farmer2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Farmer2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer2)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2003, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-driving-a-privilege-and-not-a-right/146237/36 "2003-01-03T00:40:45Z")
## Quote happyheathen: ## The law is “implied consent” - by operating an automobile on a public road, you are consenting to BAC testing on demand. By refusing to take a test, one breaks the terms of the license, whereupon it ceases to exist. That sucks. It’s like I don’t have a choice ya’ know? You can have this, that, and this too, but if you do, you _have_ do this and you _have_to that. That’s Effed up. ---
**Author:** ![Pottery\_Accumulator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@Pottery\_Accumulator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pottery_Accumulator)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2003, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-driving-a-privilege-and-not-a-right/146237/37 "2003-01-03T00:59:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Realhoops \* > \*\*. . . and I would imagine that before there can be impoundment the authorities must demonstrate that the car being impounded was used in the solicitation of prostitution at issue, sort of like civil forfeiture of the fruits of drug dealing, etc. I also can’t imagine off-hand how license suspension could be rationally related to prostitution. \*\* [tangent]Actually, Reallhoops, the government on every level-city, county, state, and federal-can impound or confiscate your car without any proof whatsoever. Do a Google search for the subject with “louisiana” included. Many jurisdictions have a great desire to confiscate vehicles for damned near any reason you can imagine…without any practicable recourse. [/tangent] ---
**Author:** ![Pottery\_Accumulator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@Pottery\_Accumulator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pottery_Accumulator)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2003, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-driving-a-privilege-and-not-a-right/146237/38 "2003-01-03T01:08:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > \*\*The answer is rather simple - but for the simplicity to be, er, simple, one must remember that the privilege is not driving, but instead driving **on public roads.** If you own a chunk of land, you may cruise across it to your heart’s content, license or no. That is your right. It is only the use of public roads that is the privilege. > > OK, back to simplicity - the government provides the roads. As provider of the roads, it may choose to regulate their use as it sees fit - so long as such regulation is non-discriminatory, etc., etc. > It’s the same principle that allows the government to close down public parks at night, or charge admission to national parks. > > Sua \*\* Um, It’s not that I hate to be contrary, it’s just that I am. Sua, the government doesn’t provide a damned thing that we don’t pay for, at least in this instance. In my state and county, gasoline in selling for around $1.40/gallon. Of that, $0.445 is taxes…taxes levied to pay for roads and maintenance. Which adds up to one hell of a lot of cash. Whenever I have to pay for something, it is no longer a privilege, it is my damned right. But with the Supremes eroding our rights as citizens and land owners, I can see how one might get confused. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2003, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-driving-a-privilege-and-not-a-right/146237/39 "2003-01-03T01:10:44Z")
The "right to travel’ is not guaranteed anywhere in the text of the Constitution, but it is one of the few rights that have been explicitly found in the unenumerated rights of the Ninth Amendment (and hence protected from unnecessary state abridgement by the Fourteenth). The material quoted below is taken from [a website](http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#travel) which suggests that it is _not_ found in the Constitution, but cites the lead case, _Shapiro v. Thomson_, which suggests that it is a Ninth Amendment right. > [@](#): > > The Right to Travel > > As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, the Constitution does not contain the word “travel” in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel. The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, the Court noted, “It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized.” In fact, in Shapiro v Thomson, Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that “it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, … it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.” It is interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. [This site](http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment14/33.html) discusses the validity of durational residency requirements vis-à-vis the constitutional right to travel. (I searched with several useful search engines for an online cite of the Shapiro case, with no results. Maybe one of our legal eagles can come up with material on it.) ---
**Author:** ![X\_Slayer\_ALE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/bbe5ce/32.png) [@X\_Slayer\_ALE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/X_Slayer_ALE)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2003, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-driving-a-privilege-and-not-a-right/146237/40 "2003-01-03T01:12:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > \*\*Um, all three of those ‘inalienable rights’ can be taken away: Life by capital punishment, liberty by imprisonment, and pursuit of hapiness by, well, by capital punishment or imprisonment. > > And voting most certainly is a constitutional right, not a privilege. > > Sua \*\* well true enuf that certain rights are removed as punishment for unlawful behaivior but they were inherant to any person before a crime was commited. The old adage still holds, your rights end where your fist hits my nose. You actually forfeited those rights, not have them taken away. In the case of voting and driving, you apply for these rights. There are set rules and regulations you must follow to maintain these rights and certain restrictions that must be followed to use these rights, making them both a privilege. The constitution has ammendments to prevent descrimination from voting and desinfranchisement but nowhere does it affirmatively say that all people have a right to vote. It mentions it is the duty of every citizen to vote but not a right. Now I did mention in the beginning that privilege is a **right** with more restrictions in it. 🙂 I may have overstepped the bounds of logic by saying _no one can take a right away from anyone._ I was trying to express the difference between having a right which is what all people have and a privilege where only the qualified has the right. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-driving-a-privilege-and-not-a-right/146237.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-driving-a-privilege-and-not-a-right/146237.md?page=3)