Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think a better tact would be changing the idea of driving from a right to a priviledge. Far too many people on the road with no real busines being behind the wheel. Just look at Germany and what they need to go through to EARN their license. If people would obey and follow the simple "rules" that exist now, the roads would be a much safer place.
Ughh, grass is greener in Germany again. Yes, it's true but it comes at cost:
- police is everywhere and can stop you without a reason, you'd better have all your ID's, mandatory vehicle equipment and you'd better not be from eastern country. Have you ever removed the reserve during 0 F to show it to the police?
- police can use civilian vehicle and no uniforms to drag you somewhere for detailed checks. Vehicle search, belonging search and pocket search follows.
- you need to pee to cup while still on the road in order to check alcohol/drug level in your system (I am not even kidding)
- tons of similar police state controls and freedom abuses 24/7
Do you want to waive your freedoms for it?
Of course Germany is extreme and there are gray areas countries, but basically all those driving "paradises" you see in Europe (GER, SWI, NED, AUS etc.) are police states like from Orwell novel. And the sad part that majority of people there are supporting it. Well, to each its own..
I drive for a living, and it seems that most of the problems occur driving on the highway when a slow person is in a fast lane, and people have to avoid them.
What if, for example, you were on I-95 - 4 lanes on each side.
The configuration was like so:
l 75 l 70 l 65 l 60 l
This way, the senior who says "I can drive 55 where ever I want," finally understands they have to do 60, and only in the right lane.
The truck driver understands he's gonna be in the 65 or 70 lane.
The young drivers who aren't on their phones would be in the 75 doing a little over that - maybe 80, but without the jeopardy of grandma doing 60 in the 70, or 75.
The older people are only getting on or off the highway, the trucks only have to get over one lane at most, and the expert drivers are the only ones who would have to phase over three lanes - which is easy, as he/she slows down incrementally for the exit.
Why can't this be some kind of law?
They'd have to use an overhead sign to indicate which lane gets which speed, but it would be way too difficult to enforce. What happens when the number of lanes reduce or increase? Then what? Even so, you only need one uniform speed limit for certain sections of the entire highway. The only thing you need to know is that the left-most lane is for passers or those driving at higher speeds.
Because a commercial truck is simply slower in passing than most other vehicles?
Take note this would be a three lane interstate,commercial vehicles would have the use of two lanes.
This is an actual problem on the autobahn, where you might be cruising at, say, 100 mph (160kph) in the left lane, and a truck will pull out to pass another truck doing about 60 mph (100kph) right in front of you. it's rather common and the cause of a number of accidents (most recently, the destruction of a Bugatti Veyron where a slow car pulled out to pass a slow truck).
Lack of lane discipline is one of the reasons people are using to try to shut down the unlimited speed areas of the autobahn, since environmental reasons didn't work.
You don't "earn" the right to drive? Last I checked you had to be a certain age at which time you needed to pass a series of tests to determine your competency. Assuming you pass the tests you then pay a fee for the "right".
And when did that start? Long after we got cars. That's the point, We have MADE it a situation to "earn" the right, that didn't exist before, say, the mid '20s. Somewhere, we converted the "Right" to a "priviledge" in order to gain revenue or some other control.
Up until then, you had the Right, at any age, to freely transport yourself by any means you had on public roads. Kids drove horse drawn wagons with no license and the only time they got in trouble, as did anyone, was when they actually harmed someone. So when and why did that change?
Quote:
What I am advocating for if anything is fighting back against the feeling that every Tom, Dick and Harry has a RIGHT to drive. It is a priviledge and comes with responsibility.
Sorry, but Responsibility comes with Rights, too. That's why you can own a gun, but you can't shoot anyone with it. Owning a gun IS a "right" just like voting is. You can own and shoot guns on a range when you are just a child, but you can't vote until you are 18. But you and I both know voting is a Right. And those Rights can be taken away by due process if you abdicate Responsibility (i.e if you shoot someone, you can lose the Right to own a gun, correct? if you kill someone, you lose the Right to Liberty and Freedom, correct?)
Quote:
What we need is more aggressive and comprehensive driver training.
I completely agree, as with any Right comes the Responsibility to be the most informed and most skilled that you can be. That doesn't stop it from being a Right, or that the Right can't be taken away for abdicating Responsibility.
"Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable." 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.
"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." [emphasis added] II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135.
"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
"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 or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579
"The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business." Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784;
"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125
"The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.
................
"...For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways...as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of this state, but it is a privilege...which the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion..." State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073.
The right of the citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus." State vs. City of Spokane, 186 P. 864.
[SIZE=2]"...We are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for examination on the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his Constitutional Rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life, liberty, and property. His Rights are such as the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his Rights are the refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.
"Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that the State, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not in exercise of its sovereignty inquire how those franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of corporate books and papers for that purpose." Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75.
"...Based upon the fundamental ground that the sovereign state has the plenary control of the streets and highways in the exercise of its police power (see police power, infra.), may absolutely prohibit the use of the streets as a place for the prosecution of a private business for gain. They all recognize the fundamental distinction between the ordinary Right of the Citizen to use the streets in the usual way and the use of the streets as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business for private gain. The former is a common Right, the latter is an extraordinary use. As to the former the legislative power is confined to regulation, as to the latter it is plenary and extends even to absolute prohibition. Since the use of the streets by a common carrier in the prosecution of its business as such is not a right but a mere license of privilege." Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 657l, 168, p.516.
.........................
"American citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. Government -- in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question -- is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law right to travel."
Again, the issue is not with it being a "Right" but with people not following through with the necessary Responsibilities that come with any Right. I do agree with oz in SC that it's part of a sense of entitlement that means people believe they have Rights without any Responsibilities. That's what needs to be addressed.
I have a law enforcement officer friend who stopped and warned an old lady once for driving too slow in the left lane and holding up traffic. She thought that she was being a safe driver and was watching her speed. And she said that everyone is in such a darned hurry. The officer told her that the left lane was for going faster than the slower traffic and that slower traffic needed to get over to the right lanes so as not to hold up the faster traffic. I think my friend the officer left even more frustrated than her.
- police is everywhere and can stop you without a reason, you'd better have all your ID's, mandatory vehicle equipment and you'd better not be from eastern country. Have you ever removed the reserve during 0 F to show it to the police?
- police can use civilian vehicle and no uniforms to drag you somewhere for detailed checks.
That sounds more like pre-1945 or pre-1989 Germany.
I drive for a living, and it seems that most of the problems occur driving on the highway when a slow person is in a fast lane, and people have to avoid them.
What if, for example, you were on I-95 - 4 lanes on each side.
The configuration was like so:
l 75 l 70 l 65 l 60 l
This way, the senior who says "I can drive 55 where ever I want," finally understands they have to do 60, and only in the right lane.
The truck driver understands he's gonna be in the 65 or 70 lane.
The young drivers who aren't on their phones would be in the 75 doing a little over that - maybe 80, but without the jeopardy of grandma doing 60 in the 70, or 75.
The older people are only getting on or off the highway, the trucks only have to get over one lane at most, and the expert drivers are the only ones who would have to phase over three lanes - which is easy, as he/she slows down incrementally for the exit.
Why can't this be some kind of law?
Hah, hah, hah! I'll blow you off the road you young whipper snapper!!
I have a law enforcement officer friend who stopped and warned an old lady once for driving too slow in the left lane and holding up traffic. She thought that she was being a safe driver and was watching her speed. And she said that everyone is in such a darned hurry. The officer told her that the left lane was for going faster than the slower traffic and that slower traffic needed to get over to the right lanes so as not to hold up the faster traffic. I think my friend the officer left even more frustrated than her.
An officer I knew gave a ticket to a woman who was driving too slow on a four lane road during rush hour. She got all ticked off and he told her to use the side streets or he'd ticket her again.
I drive for a living, and it seems that most of the problems occur driving on the highway when a slow person is in a fast lane, and people have to avoid them.
What if, for example, you were on I-95 - 4 lanes on each side.
The configuration was like so:
l 75 l 70 l 65 l 60 l
This way, the senior who says "I can drive 55 where ever I want," finally understands they have to do 60, and only in the right lane.
The truck driver understands he's gonna be in the 65 or 70 lane.
The young drivers who aren't on their phones would be in the 75 doing a little over that - maybe 80, but without the jeopardy of grandma doing 60 in the 70, or 75.
The older people are only getting on or off the highway, the trucks only have to get over one lane at most, and the expert drivers are the only ones who would have to phase over three lanes - which is easy, as he/she slows down incrementally for the exit.
Why can't this be some kind of law?
The problem is that the YOUNGER drivers who are going 80 miles per hour are the most inexperienced of the entire group. You are asking for trouble. Why not just build a SEPARATE, parallel road for people who want to drive like a bat out of hell. Let them all run into each other and be done with it! Good riddance I say. LOL
20yrsinBranson
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
