Driving as a right (in the US)

Bald tires are only looked at here if you are stopped for something else, unless they are part of the inspections in some ares.
 
For once, I'll chalk that up as lost in translation. Traffic = Verkehr, control = Kontrolle, so traffic control = Verkehrskontrolle - cops checking up on traffic.
Control here means like controlling flow of traffic aka traffic lights, speed limits, etc.. Like gun control doesn't mean cops checking on guns but rather rules surrounding usage of said guns. I can see how it could be a little different between languages though.
Without cops checking up on traffic, how do you manage drunk drivers, unlit cars, bald tyres, etc.?
Cops can stop you for questioning if they have reasonable suspicion, a car weaving around is reasonable suspicion (much as it is now). Same goes for unlit cars, etc... The right to drive doesn't mean that you can't have police presence or that police can't stop drivers at all when observing dangerous behavior. Similarly if I'm walking around lunging at people with a baseball bat cops can stop me and I certainly have the right to walk places.

- - - Updated - - -

Bald tires are only looked at here if you are stopped for something else, unless they are part of the inspections in some ares.

They do inspect it in NY, though I don't remember ever hearing of cops caring about baldness of tires no matter what the circumstance.
 
Control here means like controlling flow of traffic aka traffic lights, speed limits, etc.. Like gun control doesn't mean cops checking on guns but rather rules surrounding usage of said guns. I can see how it could be a little different between languages though.

Cops can stop you for questioning if they have reasonable suspicion, a car weaving around is reasonable suspicion (much as it is now). Same goes for unlit cars, etc... The right to drive doesn't mean that you can't have police presence or that police can't stop drivers at all when observing dangerous behavior. Similarly if I'm walking around lunging at people with a baseball bat cops can stop me and I certainly have the right to walk places.

So what happens then, you lose your rights just because you're a bit tipsy? What if you get stopped driving drunk every day, should you at some point lose the right to drive?
 
So what happens then, you lose your rights just because you're a bit tipsy? What if you get stopped driving drunk every day, should you at some point lose the right to drive?

Revoking or reducing your rights requires a court of law judgement. We put people in jail (way more than we should) and restrict their rights all the time. However I would argue that once you served your time your full rights should be re-established.
 
Revoking or reducing your rights requires a court of law judgement. We put people in jail (way more than we should) and restrict their rights all the time. However I would argue that once you served your time your full rights should be re-established.

Well, taking your logic from page 1
Agree in principle however me driving anything at 200+mph doesn't actually infringe on anyone's rights until I *do* hit them with my coal rolling box.
driving drunk wouldn't be illegal either until you do hit someone? If so, there'd be nothing for that court of law to judge you upon. If there's no licensing, registration, etc. there'd be no way to enforce said judgement, no way to tell the drunk driver has served his time - unless you want to put drunk drivers in jail straight away first-strike instead of just banning them from driving :dunno:
 
Well, taking your logic from page 1

driving drunk wouldn't be illegal either until you do hit someone?
There are intoxication laws on the books already - http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.co.../new-york-public-intoxication-laws-drunk-publ, NY excludes alcohol but not all states do. DUI could and would easily fall under that umbrella.
If so, there'd be nothing for that court of law to judge you upon.
The judgement is upon a person not their license.
If there's no licensing, registration, etc. there'd be no way to enforce said judgement, no way to tell the drunk driver has served his time
How does it work with all other offenses or does everything in Deutschland have a license associated with it? You can still be fined and can still be put in jail if you fail to pay said fine, in fact I saw that happen in front of my very eyes. Running someone's ID through the DB will tell you if it's their first offense or not, same as all other crimes.
unless you want to put drunk drivers in jail straight away first-strike instead of just banning them from driving :dunno:
See above also there is community service, probation, etc... again just like any other crime. What's the point of banning them from driving? A drunk person is only a danger while they are actually drunk so once they are no longer drunk the punishment of not letting them drive doesn't quite make any sense.

P.S. DUI unlike moving violations is criminal not administrative so licensing is not a pre-cursor to punishment.
P.P.S. Your own government seems to think that driving 200+MPH on a highway is not an infringement on anyone's rights. Jussayin.
 
The judgement is upon a person not their license.

How does it work with all other offenses or does everything in Deutschland have a license associated with it? You can still be fined and can still be put in jail if you fail to pay said fine, in fact I saw that happen in front of my very eyes. Running someone's ID through the DB will tell you if it's their first offense or not, same as all other crimes.

Checking German federal IDs works fine, but I don't remember the US having any IDs. Given the spirit of this thread I'm not even going to suggest you should get mandatory federal IDs in the US...
If you get caught driving drunk, your license physically gets taken away and there'll be an entry in some database. As a result, you can't for example rent a car even though the rental agency doesn't have the ability to look you up in that database.

See above also there is community service, probation, etc... again just like any other crime. What's the point of banning them from driving? A drunk person is only a danger while they are actually drunk so once they are no longer drunk the punishment of not letting them drive doesn't quite make any sense.

P.S. DUI unlike moving violations is criminal not administrative so licensing is not a pre-cursor to punishment.

The point of taking away someone's right to drive is to take away the danger they pose to others when driving.

P.P.S. Your own government seems to think that driving 200+MPH on a highway is not an infringement on anyone's rights. Jussayin.

If you read back, my 200mph example was about balancing rights of the individual with the rights of others.
Doing 200mph in a school zone - the right of others to not get run over wins.
Doing 200mph in a fairly controlled environment without pedestrians, intersections, parked cars, construction sites, etc. - the driver's right to go vrooom wins.

Technical note: It's not "not an infringement on anyone's rights". That'd require things to be black and white only, it's actually varying shades of grey. The key part is to weigh rights and infringements against each other, that's how the same execution of one's rights (doing 200mph, shooting a gun, whatever) is okay in one setting (derestricted Autobahn, gun range) and not okay in another (school zone, suburban front yard).
 
Last edited:
Checking German federal IDs works fine, but I don't remember the US having any IDs. Given the spirit of this thread I'm not even going to suggest you should get mandatory federal IDs in the US...
US has state level ID's, in most cases it's a driver's license but you can get a non-driver ID (my mother in law has one) if you don't want to deal with getting a license. You can also use a US passport as a form of ID, there are plenty of laws about ID btw.
If you get caught driving drunk, your license physically gets taken away and there'll be an entry in some database. As a result, you can't for example rent a car even though the rental agency doesn't have the ability to look you up in that database.
They can gain access to a db if needed, after all buying a gun gets you looked up in a DB. Also licenses are per state you can get more than one, only one will get revoked.
The point of taking away someone's right to drive is to take away the danger they pose to others when driving.
But they only pose that danger when driving drunk, when they are not driving drunk they pose as much danger as anyone else on the road, so again what is the point?
If you read back, my 200mph example was about balancing rights of the individual with the rights of others.
Doing 200mph in a school zone - the right of others to not get run over wins.
Doing 200mph in a fairly controlled environment without pedestrians, intersections, parked cars, construction sites, etc. - the driver's right to go vrooom wins.
If you also read back I already said that the actual right to drive doesn't preclude traffic control, aka speed limits, traffic lights, stop signs, etc... just that they are all not enforceable in current form. Also if you hit someone with your car there will be an investigation no matter what and you can still be convicted of a crime even if you were within speed limit and had right of way. e.g. it was raining heavily and you should have been going much slower than the actual speed limit (you can get a ticket for unsafe speed too even if you are within limit if the cop decides you were too fast for conditions).
 
US has state level ID's, in most cases it's a driver's license but you can get a non-driver ID (my mother in law has one) if you don't want to deal with getting a license. You can also use a US passport as a form of ID, there are plenty of laws about ID btw.

None of those are mandatory, and hardly anyone would have one if there were no driver's licenses. The outcry over a mandatory federal ID can probably be heard from over here.

They can gain access to a db if needed

That would be highly questionable from a privacy rights point of view.

Also licenses are per state you can get more than one, only one will get revoked.

Why should only one get revoked? If you already propose that access-anywhere-DB above, linking that between states should be a doddle after connecting up every rental agency everywhere.

But they only pose that danger when driving drunk, when they are not driving drunk they pose as much danger as anyone else on the road, so again what is the point?

Someone frequently driving drunk poses a greater danger even when currently not driving drunk, just like a repeat criminal poses a greater danger even when currently not committing a crime.
Using that logic, "I'm not committing X any more, can I go now?" should get you out of anything.

If you also read back I already said that the actual right to drive doesn't preclude traffic control, aka speed limits, traffic lights, stop signs, etc... just that they are all not enforceable in current form.

What's the difference? Unenforceable regulation might as well not exist. Besides, there's no speed limit :)lol:) on speech, is there?

Also if you hit someone with your car there will be an investigation no matter what and you can still be convicted of a crime even if you were within speed limit and had right of way. e.g. it was raining heavily and you should have been going much slower than the actual speed limit (you can get a ticket for unsafe speed too even if you are within limit if the cop decides you were too fast for conditions).

True, but sane regulations and enforcement thereof reduces the probability or severity of said crash. So does taking unfit drivers (frequent drunk drivers for example) off the road until deemed fit again.
 
None of those are mandatory, and hardly anyone would have one if there were no driver's licenses. The outcry over a mandatory federal ID can probably be heard from over here.
They are not de jure but de facto, if you cannot prove your identity police can detain you until your identity is established, it may not hold up in court afterwards but it's not going to matter much to you after spending time in custody rather than being on your way.

That would be highly questionable from a privacy rights point of view.
Doesn't stop it from happening when you are buying a gun so unless you agree that buying guns should not come with a background check...
Why should only one get revoked? If you already propose that access-anywhere-DB above, linking that between states should be a doddle after connecting up every rental agency everywhere.
As it stands right now states are very bad at talking to each other, for example my insurance company knows more about my NJ driving record than NY does, yet they are both supposed to share that kind of info. If I get a license from like MD then forget it NY would literally never know.

That DB would only have to exist if licenses don't, hence no license would ever be revoked.

Someone frequently driving drunk poses a greater danger even when currently not driving drunk, just like a repeat criminal poses a greater danger even when currently not committing a crime.
And that is why we have higher sentences for repeat offenders.

Using that logic, "I'm not committing X any more, can I go now?" should get you out of anything.
Yet again your opinion on what is logical and what isn't is at best interesting. Or you don't care to read what I write? I said that once you pay for your crime you should have all your rights restored, so if you have driven drunk then did w/e court ordered for you to do you can freely drive again. Also keep in mind that driving is the only right I can currently think of that can be revoked PRIOR to a court case. Even if accused of murder you have a chance to post bail.
What's the difference? Unenforceable regulation might as well not exist. Besides, there's no speed limit :)lol:) on speech, is there?
I really think you don't read, or don't understand what you read. Like I said not enforceable IN CURRENT FORM as they are tied to your license. We have plenty of enforceable laws that are not tied to a driver's license.

True, but sane regulations and enforcement thereof reduces the probability or severity of said crash. So does taking unfit drivers (frequent drunk drivers for example) off the road until deemed fit again.
Sure, which is why no court has ruled that traffic control is unconstitutional. You can see above about drunk drivers, they can be treated like all other criminals.
 
They are not de jure but de facto, if you cannot prove your identity police can detain you until your identity is established, it may not hold up in court afterwards but it's not going to matter much to you after spending time in custody rather than being on your way.

If everyone actually had some kind of ID, all that voter ID hubbubb would not have been a thing.

Doesn't stop it from happening when you are buying a gun so unless you agree that buying guns should not come with a background check...

I don't agree with buying guns, so that's a moot point :p
The real point is who can have access to the database though, not the database itself. LEOs already can query our driver's licenses DB anyway, and individuals can ask for their own status, points level, etc. - it's just direct access from others that's the privacy issue.

And that is why we have higher sentences for repeat offenders.

Even after a repeat drunk driver, say an alcoholic, has served their criminal sentence they're still not necessarily fit to drive.
For first-time offenders, a one-month driving ban is quite an effective measure. Cheaper than prison time, directly related to the crime committed, fairly immediate in case of short suspensions, etc.

Yet again your opinion on what is logical and what isn't is at best interesting. Or you don't care to read what I write? I said that once you pay for your crime you should have all your rights restored, so if you have driven drunk then did w/e court ordered for you to do you can freely drive again. Also keep in mind that driving is the only right I can currently think of that can be revoked PRIOR to a court case. Even if accused of murder you have a chance to post bail.

Paying for the crime and being then fit to drive are two different things. You can be unfit to drive without ever having violated any law at all, say if you're blind to cite an extreme and hopefully irrefutable example. Similarly, an alcoholic might have paid his criminal dues but shouldn't get his license back if it's deemed likely he'll keep drinking and driving.

I really think you don't read, or don't understand what you read. Like I said not enforceable IN CURRENT FORM as they are tied to your license. We have plenty of enforceable laws that are not tied to a driver's license.

...and the license is tied to you. How does that distinction matter much? :?
 
Top