This apparently happens to you a lot, James. I view it as a non-issue. If you are unlicensed and driving a vehicle with a licensed driver in the car, the licensed driver should be permitted to drive your car to your home or his/hers as agreed upon.
What you seem to be suggesting is that by refusing a licensed passenger to drive the car, you would have the unlicensed driver punished in advance for something you THINK he/she will do in the future. That's draconian and rather big government of you.
The car did not commit the offense the driver did.
Towing the car is punishment, nothing more, nothing less. And this punishment is yet another proof that "innocent until proven guilty" is a myth in our society. We say it to make ourselves feel more superior to other societies, but when it comes time to walk the walk, it doesn't even register as a concern.
Like I give a flying #### about an unlicensed driver's feelings.
That's the best response you could come up with? Really?
If that were done, and the driver were not eventually convicted... who pays for the impound?
How about this scenario as a good reason why I highly disapprove of towing every "unlicensed" driver's car just because?
Guy is driving his car, with licensed passenger, and they get pulled over for some minor infraction. Guy has valid license, but due to a case of identity fraud, it also shows up that he had a license suspended in another state (that he never lived in) because of a DUI. Now, the cops don't automatically accept that this guy has been a victim of identity fraud, but need to clear the case up. Passenger drives car until necessary legal measures are made to take care of identity fraud case and he can prove that his current driver's license is valid.
This happened to someone I know how I described it. The idea given for this thread would have cost the person a lot of money for something that was not their fault.
If that is the case the person should get a refund after clearing everything up.
ID fraud is a big thing but that fact alone cannot undermine good and valid legal constructs...
We either believe in the Constitution and due process, or we don't... even when it's a formality.I am seriously confused... even more than normal. If a person does not have a license and they are driving (illegally) then how are they not guilty?
You're seriously confused... even more so than normal. I never said, nor did I imply, "they are victims".I think it goes along perfectly with your silly "they are victims" post, actually.
Driving is a privilege, yes, but due process is a right... or is supposed to be a right... and the government should not be in the business of requiring people to preemptively waive their government rights in order to take part in an otherwise legal activity.I still stand by his assertion of an implicit right to travel...... but NOT a right to drive.. I stand corrected sir, my most sincere of apologies.
It's a waste of money. The city really wouldn't be making money off of towing the person's car, even if there is an impound fee because the impound fee is not likely to be high enough to make up for the cost of the impound (paying the guard, the property needed to stow those cars) and put a lot of extra money into the coffers too. The cops would be wasting time waiting for the tow truck when someone who could drive the car home is already right there. And every time someone had an incident like I described, where they were in the right, the city would have to pay them back the impound fee plus the tow truck fee.
People make mistakes. Heck, my husband forgot his wallet today when we drove up to the dentists' office. It would be complete bullcrap if we would have had to pay for a tow fee for the car when it could have easily been parked for 15 min in the parking lot while either him or I walked back to the house and back to it with his wallet to prove he had a valid license (and yes, we could have easily walked from the dentists' office to our house and back in 15 min, in fact, he probably could have ran it in 5 or less). He wasn't putting anyone's safety at risk by just not having his on him.
You're seriously confused... even more so than normal. I never said, nor did I imply, "they are victims".
But I do note that you agree his response was silly.
It's a waste of money. The city really wouldn't be making money off of towing the person's car, even if there is an impound fee because the impound fee is not likely to be high enough to make up for the cost of the impound (paying the guard, the property needed to stow those cars) and put a lot of extra money into the coffers too. The cops would be wasting time waiting for the tow truck when someone who could drive the car home is already right there. And every time someone had an incident like I described, where they were in the right, the city would have to pay them back the impound fee plus the tow truck fee.
People make mistakes. Heck, my husband forgot his wallet today when we drove up to the dentists' office. It would be complete bullcrap if we would have had to pay for a tow fee for the car when it could have easily been parked for 15 min in the parking lot while either him or I walked back to the house and back to it with his wallet to prove he had a valid license (and yes, we could have easily walked from the dentists' office to our house and back in 15 min, in fact, he probably could have ran it in 5 or less). He wasn't putting anyone's safety at risk by just not having his on him.
Given your response to this post, and your lack of response to my previous post (#84), I have no choice but to conclude that you do not support, nor give one whit about, our Constitution or due process. Duly noted and filed away for future reference.Clever boy!
you - ""innocent until proven guilty" is a myth in our society."
...is a "victim" post. It obviously is not a myth.
Oh the poor people being taken advantage of by Big Brother having their rights trampled... victim.
Wait a minute DM. This thread is about a driver that is not licensed. It's not about uninsured drivers. Which, I might add, lack of insurance does not endanger one's life. Jogging ten miles home when you're 10 years old, on the other hand, probably does.The passengers quickly learn that their driver is an asshole who put their lives at risk by driving while uninsured.They also learn the healthful excitement of a jog home.
Just by the way you phrase the question, and considering that there have been many reasons already stated in this thread, it's obvious that nobody has anything that you would accept as a reason.If you don't have a license and its your car I can't think of a reason why you car shouldn't be towed.
Nothing that is of merit and a huge impact in reality anyway. Does anybody have anything?
No, that's socialism. We're not allowed that here.Perhaps it's different here. Is everyone in the US with a licence to drive also automatically covered by insurance to drive any car, whether owned by them or not?
Just by the way you phrase the question, and considering that there have been many reasons already stated in this thread, it's obvious that nobody has anything that you would accept as a reason.
Pittsburgh, sure. Mayberry, not so much.uhm ive been pulled over and i did not have my license or insurance and they verified both? :shrug:
just saying, I mean in todays age is there a police department around that cant do this?
Pittsburgh, sure. Mayberry, not so much.
Everything beyond this is moot. Read the whole thread before you start making blanket implications that there have been no valid reasons given, and creating the (most likely false) impression that you can be swayed in your opinion.not true at all I havent read the whole thread...
In the US, the vehicle is insured, not the driver. Though rates are generally calculated with the driver's driving record in mind. Generally, of course, there are exceptions to the general rule.Perhaps it's different here. Is everyone in the US with a licence to drive also automatically covered by insurance to drive any car, whether owned by them or not?
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?