- Joined
- Jan 25, 2008
- Messages
- 41,582
- Reaction score
- 31,198
- Location
- Southern England
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
and if the vehicle was being driven by someone without the owner's permission, then it would be stolenBy allowing an unlicensed driver to drive his car, the owner is aiding or abetting the offence. Don't lend your car to people not licensed or insured to drive it, and you won't have it towed.
Ok so before sending your 16 year old son out to pick up stuff from the store you should take him to the DMV and request a current driving abstract?By allowing an unlicensed driver to drive his car, the owner is aiding or abetting the offence. Don't lend your car to people not licensed or insured to drive it, and you won't have it towed.
Ok so before sending your 16 year old son out to pick up stuff from the store you should take him to the DMV and request a current driving abstract?
My point was that teenagers often try to hide the fact that they have gotten in trouble from their parents. Here in Illinois, I believe 3 moving violations in a 12 month period can result in a suspension of a driver's license and only the driver gets notified... NOT their parents. Further I can envision a situation where a teenager in this situation may risk driving as opposed to admitting to their parents that their license is in fact suspended. THUS, the only absolute way a parent (or anyone for that matter) can actually KNOW unequivocally that someone is legal to drive is by obtaining a current abstract from the DMV. Sure... its definitely possible to do this each and every time you want to allow someone to borrow your car.... just unreasonable.a better approach would be to make sure he had both a valid drivers license and the ability to drive the vehicle properly
But is such a hard arse draconian approach effective and fair ?
As far as "illegals" are concerned, its way past high time that the law makers did something here.
This... regarding illegal immigrants... I agree with completely.I know it is harsh but we have to set limits. If an illegal is identified during a routine legal matter, such as driving without a license, we should put him/her into the deportation process immediately.
Sure, it happens all the time.Is there a way a vehicle owner can "quit claim" a vehicle title and just let them keep it?
What happens to the passengers in the vehicle, easy peasy?How many "driving without a license" citations actually get a jury trial every year? None, that's how many. Either you have a valid driver's license, or you don't. If you don't, you're given a ticket, go before a judge and pay a fine. Or in some cases, mail in the fine without seeing a judge. The car gets towed, and whoever owns the car will have to come to the impound lot to pick it up, and pay the fees. :shrug: Easy peasy.
I don't see why so many people have their shorts in a bunch over this. It's a road safety issue. No license, no drivey, no exceptions.
You'd make a good cop.Everyone also knows that family men are generally responsible enough to carry their licenses with them.
If there is a safety issue (driver was pulled over on an interstate highway or other highway outside of town, with no way for the driver and passengers to seek shelter and/or contact someone to pick them up, pulled over late at night, etc.) I would allow another licensed driver in the vehicle to drive the car after citing the offending driver.
My point was that teenagers often try to hide the fact that they have gotten in trouble from their parents. Here in Illinois, I believe 3 moving violations in a 12 month period can result in a suspension of a driver's license and only the driver gets notified... NOT their parents. Further I can envision a situation where a teenager in this situation may risk driving as opposed to admitting to their parents that their license is in fact suspended. THUS, the only absolute way a parent (or anyone for that matter) can actually KNOW unequivocally that someone is legal to drive is by obtaining a current abstract from the DMV. Sure... its definitely possible to do this each and every time you want to allow someone to borrow your car.... just unreasonable.
Should unlicensed drivers have their vehicles towed when pulled over for an offense?
:shock: Are you serious? That's even more reason for Junior to be caught, and the vehicle towed. Parents need to know why their insurance has dropped them, or their rates have skyrocketed. As a parent myself, my kids were only allowed to drive after they had a valid license. If they had gotten tickets or suspensions they didn't tell me about, I'd have learned anyway when my rates went through the roof, and the kids would have been grounded. If they were driving on a suspended license and my car got towed, I'd learn a heck of a lot quicker and every penny it cost me to pay the impound would come out of THEIR pocket... after which they would hand their suspended license over to me and I'd remove them as a legitimate driver from my insurance. The next time they legally got behind the wheel of a car would be after their 18th birthday, with a fresh DL and a car they paid for by themselves.
Jesus, to whine that poor kids who drive recklessly and get their licenses suspended should be given a break so their parents don't find out is beyond ridiculous; it's bat**** insane. Parents would rather ground their kids than scrape them off the pavement as roadkill. Oh... and NOBODY "borrows" my car unless they are listed as legal drivers on my insurance. If I found out any of my kids let their friends drive my car, I'd burn their DL in front of them and ground them until they were old enough to enlist in the military.
What happens to the passengers in the vehicle, easy peasy?
For example, California Constitution Article 1 Section 7(a) says, ‘a personal may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law…’How is due process being denied?
Individuals get due process when it comes to their property (car).Cars don't get due process. People without licenses cannot legally drive. Cars cannot be left on the side of the road. Do the math.
An officer on the side of the road is not due process…due process must happen before property is taken.We are talking due process. Illegal driver is arrested and car taken away. The court decides if she/he is guilty of driving without a license. If guilty, idiot driver pays substantial fees or losses car if illegal driver was also the proud owner of a DUI. Driving is a priviledge and not a right ....abuse the priviledge and you will get your arse kicked.
For example, California Constitution Article 1 Section 7(a) says, ‘a personal may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law…’
So, an officer on the side of the road is due process of the law?
An officer on the side of the road is not due process…due process must happen before property is taken.
I disagree…driving/traveling is my right. I have the right to travel all public highways. US Court decisions confirm this.
Where did he claim that we have a right to "drive"? All I see is a claim to a right to "travel"... I myself do not know the court cases he is referring to however this link discusses the idea of the right to travel and includes some case references which have been used to support the claim that U.S. Citizens have a general "Right to Travel".please cite the court decisions which have given us the right to drive
i will emphasize it for youWhere did he claim that we have a right to "drive"? All I see is a claim to a right to "travel"... I myself do not know the court cases he is referring to however this link discusses the idea of the right to travel and includes some case references which have been used to support the claim that U.S. Citizens have a general "Right to Travel".
EDIT: Some specific judicial opinions:
"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 179.
"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to move from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the 14th amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." Schactman v. Dulles, 96 App DC 287, 293.
An officer on the side of the road is not due process…due process must happen before property is taken.
I disagree…driving/traveling is my right. I have the right to travel all public highways. US Court decisions confirm this.
Ohh,,,, mea culpa... yes you are correct.... I missed that at first glance... serves me right for skimming.i will emphasize it for you
Should unlicensed drivers have their vehicles towed when pulled over for an offense?
Yes,but only if they can not find licensed driver to drive the vehicle home.
Yes,regardless if they can find a licensed driver to drive the vehicle home.
No
other
I say yes regardless if they can find a licensed driver to drive the car home.They are driving without license,they should have their car towed when pulled over for a traffic offense.Just letting some other guy tow the car will just mean the individual will go back to driving unlicensed.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?