Driver Licensing not about highway safety

On Sep 26, 7:43 pm, proffsl wrote:
Dave Smith wrote:
proffsl wrote:

You're being absurd. Licensing and Insurance IS NOT an inherent
part of Locomotion. You are grasping for straws.

We have the Right of Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel
on our public Right of Ways.

The Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel on our public
highways is Driving the Automobile.

Locomotion can be walking or riding a bicycle,

And, those are likely the Locomotion Ordinarily used on sidewalks and
on bike trails. But, the Locomotion Ordinarily used for personal
travel on our public highways is Driving the Automobile.

We have the Right of Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel on
our public highways.

Correct. And the "ordinarily used" way is by properly licensed
drivers. You cannot get past this by ignoring its reality.

or being a passenger in a vehicle driven by someone else.

Being a passenger in a vehicle driven by someone else IS NOT the act
of Locomotion.

Of course it is.

Merrian-Websters defines Locomotion as: "to move from place to
place". NOT "to be moved from place to place".

That does not contradict his example. Do you think that a person in
the passenger seat of a moving car, bus or plane is not moving? How
could that be?

Williams v. Fears (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/179/270.html#274)
defines Locomotion as: "to remove from one place to another according
to inclination". NOT "to be removed from one place to another
according to another's inclination".

When being moved from place to place by someone else, you are being
TRANSPORTED, and you are not exercising the power of Locomotion.

Those are not mutually exclusive. The person is doing both at the same
time.

And, you do not have a Right to be Transported from one place to
another according to your Inclination.

Sure you do. Unless you're on a terrorist watch list, perhaps.

On 9/25/2007 7:34 AM proffsl consulted a Magic 8 Ball and declared:
wrote:

proffsl wrote:

Dave, let me ask you two simple questions:

A) Do you agree we have the Right of Locomotion ordinarily
used for personal travel on our public highways?

Yes, as we went through last year.


b) What is the Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel
on our public highways these days?

Properly licensed and insured operators of motor vehicles, again
as your own cites have proven but you cannot seem to get beyond.


Gosh Dave, you've changed! Oh! Wait, you're not Dave. You're that
guy who thinks it's cute to "fix my posts".

No, the Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel on our public
highways these days is "Driving the Automobile".

Neither Licensing nor Insurance is a form of Locomotion.

We have the Right to Drive the Automobile for personal travel on our
public highways.

Driver Licensing serves no purpose to highway safety that laws against
endangerment didn't already serve.

Read about it at: http://proffsl.110mb.com/driver_licensing.php


Driving an automobile is not a right it is a privilege. There is no
Constitutional law that guarantees the right to drive.

I would agree that licensing serves no purpose were there no written or
road test. But since there are such tests it indicates that the new
driver meets certain levels of proficiency and is at least aware of the
basic laws governing driving.

We may have fewer violations, accidents and such if all drivers were
required to take a refresher course every so many years when renewing
their license.

--
________
To email me, Edit "blog" from my email address.
Brian M. Kochera
"Some mistakes are too much fun to only make once!"
View My Web Page: http://home.earthlink.net/~brian1951

- wrote:
proffsl wrote:

Packard v. Banton clearly recognized the fact that: "The
streets belong to the public and are primarily for the use of
the public in the ordinary way." -- Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S.
140 (1924) - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/264/140.html#144

Correct.


Williams v. Fears clearly recognized that: "Undoubtedly the right
of locomotion, the right to remove 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." - Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270
(1900) -http://laws.findlaw.com/us/179/270.html#274

Correct.


Even you have recognized the fact that we have the Right of
Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel on our public
highways.

Correct.


I fail to see why you object to me using two court cases that also
recognize our Right of Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel
on our public highways.

I don't object to your use of them; I object to your misuse of them.

I don't misuse them, as even the courts have stated: "Consequently,
the courts of this state must regard the right to drive a motor
vehicle on public highways as constitutionally protected." - STATE OF
IDAHO v. MARK WILDER - http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...033/wilder.pdf

But, as you'll see below, they attempt to weasel out of honoring this
Right by claiming a Police Power. Therefore, the purpose of this
thread is to demonstrate that this exercise of Police Power is
arbitrary or unreasonable, and is therefore invalid.


Again, you cannot cobble together random sentences from the dicta of
unrelated court cases, and string them together in a Frankenstein type
creation of your own to fashion your own imaginary case law.

Yet still, you agree with that supposedly "Frankenstein type creation"
that "we have the Right of Locomotion ordinarily used for personal
travel on our public highways". And, so do our courts.


It does not work that way. You failed to answer my previous
challenges: One of the cases you cited in the thread last year
where I thoroughly dismantled all your claims was a Boise, Idaho,
case that you propped up to claim licensing was unconstitutional,
yet *that very case you cited* actually was *on point* about
licensing and *upheld it.* That case established that licensing was
legal and proper. Yet you ignored that, pulled out a quote you could
apply out of context and tried to make it say the opposite. Can you
not concede, even now in the face of this, that your tactic was highly
improper and in fact insulting to those who tried to make you see the
light last year?

First they recognize that Driving the Automobile IS A RIGHT:

"The Idaho Supreme Court, however, has held that the right to operate
a motor vehicle on public highways is a matter of constitutional
dimension. In Adams v. City of Pocatello , 91 Idaho 99, 101, 416 P.2d
46, 48 (1966), the Court declared that the right to drive "is a right
or liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of
the federal and state constitutions." Consequently, the courts of this
state must regard the right to drive a motor vehicle on public
highways as constitutionally protected." - STATE OF IDAHO v. MARK
WILDER - http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...033/wilder.pdf

Then they weasle out by claiming "police power":

"The state of Idaho may subject this right to reasonable regulation,
however, in the exercise of its police power. Id. ; Gordon v. State ,
108 Idaho 178, 179, 697 P.2d 1192, 1193 (Ct. App. 1985). Therefore,
the question before this Court is whether the requirement that one
obtain a driver's license before driving upon the highways and, in the
process, provide one's social security number, is a reasonable
regulation in furtherance of the state's police power." - STATE OF
IDAHO v. MARK WILDER - http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...033/wilder.pdf

But, then they go on to provide the very grounds on which to
invalidate such police powers:

"Under the broad authority of the police power, a state legislature
may enact laws concerning the health, safety, and welfare of the
people so long as the regulations are not arbitrary or unreasonable."
- STATE OF IDAHO v. MARK WILDER - http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...033/wilder.pdf

Which brings us back to the subject of this thread, that being "Driver
Licensing is not about highway safety", such that this Police Power is
arbitrary and unreasonable.

Driver licensing serves no purpose to highway safety that laws against
endangerment did not already serve. Driver licensing only presumes to
determine if one CAN drive safely. But, virtually everybody over the
age of 12 CAN drive safely. Virtually everybody who applies for a
driver license eventually obtains one. The question isn't if they CAN
drive safely, but rather if they WILL drive safely. The vast majority
of highway accidents are due to WILLFUL acts of negligence. Driver
licensing CAN NOT determine if someone WILL drive safely.

Driver Licensing does not presume to prevent someone from driving, but
instead it only presumes to give someone permission to drive. If
someone is driving safely, there is no cause to stop them to see if
they are driving safely without a drivers license. And, If someone is
driving dangerously, there is no need for them to have a driver
license in order to prosecute them for endangerment.

And, when someone proves they WILL NOT, or even that they CAN NOT,
drive safely, Due Process of Law can be used to deny them of their
Right to Drive just as easily as it can be used to deny them of their
Right of Liberty. And, the courts can just as easily keep a record of
one's Endangering exercise of their Right to Drive as they can keep a
record of one's Endangering exercise of their Right of Liberty.

And, that is the grounds upon which I claim this Police Power to
require Driver Licensing is arbitrary and unreasonable.

Read about it at: http://proffsl.110mb.com/driver_licensing.php

- wrote:
proffsl wrote:

Packard v. Banton clearly recognized the fact that: "The
streets belong to the public and are primarily for the use of
the public in the ordinary way." -- Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S.
140 (1924) - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/264/140.html#144

Correct.


Williams v. Fears clearly recognized that: "Undoubtedly the right
of locomotion, the right to remove 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." - Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270
(1900) -http://laws.findlaw.com/us/179/270.html#274

Correct.


Even you have recognized the fact that we have the Right of
Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel on our public
highways.

Correct.


I fail to see why you object to me using two court cases that also
recognize our Right of Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel
on our public highways.

I don't object to your use of them; I object to your misuse of them.

I don't misuse them, as even the courts have stated: "Consequently,
the courts of this state must regard the right to drive a motor
vehicle on public highways as constitutionally protected." - STATE OF
IDAHO v. MARK WILDER - http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...033/wilder.pdf

But, as you'll see below, they attempt to weasel out of honoring this
Right by claiming a Police Power. Therefore, the purpose of this
thread is to demonstrate that this exercise of Police Power is
arbitrary or unreasonable, and is therefore invalid.


Again, you cannot cobble together random sentences from the dicta of
unrelated court cases, and string them together in a Frankenstein type
creation of your own to fashion your own imaginary case law.

Yet still, you agree with that supposedly "Frankenstein type creation"
that "we have the Right of Locomotion ordinarily used for personal
travel on our public highways". And, so do our courts.


It does not work that way. You failed to answer my previous
challenges: One of the cases you cited in the thread last year
where I thoroughly dismantled all your claims was a Boise, Idaho,
case that you propped up to claim licensing was unconstitutional,
yet *that very case you cited* actually was *on point* about
licensing and *upheld it.* That case established that licensing was
legal and proper. Yet you ignored that, pulled out a quote you could
apply out of context and tried to make it say the opposite. Can you
not concede, even now in the face of this, that your tactic was highly
improper and in fact insulting to those who tried to make you see the
light last year?

First they recognize that Driving the Automobile IS A RIGHT:

"The Idaho Supreme Court, however, has held that the right to operate
a motor vehicle on public highways is a matter of constitutional
dimension. In Adams v. City of Pocatello , 91 Idaho 99, 101, 416 P.2d
46, 48 (1966), the Court declared that the right to drive "is a right
or liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of
the federal and state constitutions." Consequently, the courts of this
state must regard the right to drive a motor vehicle on public
highways as constitutionally protected." - STATE OF IDAHO v. MARK
WILDER - http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...033/wilder.pdf

Then they weasle out by claiming "police power":

"The state of Idaho may subject this right to reasonable regulation,
however, in the exercise of its police power. Id. ; Gordon v. State ,
108 Idaho 178, 179, 697 P.2d 1192, 1193 (Ct. App. 1985). Therefore,
the question before this Court is whether the requirement that one
obtain a driver's license before driving upon the highways and, in the
process, provide one's social security number, is a reasonable
regulation in furtherance of the state's police power." - STATE OF
IDAHO v. MARK WILDER - http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...033/wilder.pdf

But, then they go on to provide the very grounds on which to
invalidate such police powers:

"Under the broad authority of the police power, a state legislature
may enact laws concerning the health, safety, and welfare of the
people so long as the regulations are not arbitrary or unreasonable."
- STATE OF IDAHO v. MARK WILDER - http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...033/wilder.pdf

Which brings us back to the subject of this thread, that being "Driver
Licensing is not about highway safety", such that this Police Power is
arbitrary and unreasonable.

Driver licensing serves no purpose to highway safety that laws against
endangerment did not already serve. Driver licensing only presumes to
determine if one CAN drive safely. But, virtually everybody over the
age of 12 CAN drive safely. Virtually everybody who applies for a
driver license eventually obtains one. The question isn't if they CAN
drive safely, but rather if they WILL drive safely. The vast majority
of highway accidents are due to WILLFUL acts of negligence. Driver
licensing CAN NOT determine if someone WILL drive safely.

Driver Licensing does not presume to prevent someone from driving, but
instead it only presumes to give someone permission to drive. If
someone is driving safely, there is no cause to stop them to see if
they are driving safely without a drivers license. And, If someone is
driving dangerously, there is no need for them to have a driver
license in order to prosecute them for endangerment.

And, when someone proves they WILL NOT, or even that they CAN NOT,
drive safely, Due Process of Law can be used to deny them of their
Right to Drive just as easily as it can be used to deny them of their
Right of Liberty. And, the courts can just as easily keep a record of
one's Endangering exercise of their Right to Drive as they can keep a
record of one's Endangering exercise of their Right of Liberty.

And, that is the grounds upon which I claim this Police Power to
require Driver Licensing is arbitrary and unreasonable.

Read about it at: http://proffsl.110mb.com/driver_licensing.php

Brian K wrote:
proffsl wrote

Gosh Dave, you've changed! Oh! Wait, you're not Dave. You're that
guy who thinks it's cute to "fix my posts".

No, the Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel on our public
highways these days is "Driving the Automobile".

Neither Licensing nor Insurance is a form of Locomotion.

We have the Right to Drive the Automobile for personal travel on our
public highways.

Driver Licensing serves no purpose to highway safety that laws
against endangerment didn't already serve.

Read about it at:http://proffsl.110mb.com/driver_licensing.php

Driving an automobile is not a right it is a privilege. There is no
Constitutional law that guarantees the right to drive.

Actually, the courts have recognized that there is indeed a Right to
Drive:

"The Idaho Supreme Court, however, has held that the right to operate
a motor vehicle on public highways is a matter of constitutional
dimension. In Adams v. City of Pocatello , 91 Idaho 99, 101, 416 P.2d
46, 48 (1966), the Court declared that the right to drive "is a right
or liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of
the federal and state constitutions." Consequently, the courts of this
state must regard the right to drive a motor vehicle on public
highways as constitutionally protected." - STATE OF IDAHO v. MARK
WILDER - http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...033/wilder.pdf

But, they weasle out by trying to claim Police Power allows them to
require Driver Licensing anyway.

"Under the broad authority of the police power, a state legislature
may enact laws concerning the health, safety, and welfare of the
people so long as the regulations are not arbitrary or unreasonable."
- STATE OF IDAHO v. MARK WILDER - http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...033/wilder.pdf

But, I maintain that this Police Power IS INDEED arbitrary or
unreasonable, such that Driver Licensing serves no purpose to highway
safety that laws against endangerment didn't already serve.


I would agree that licensing serves no purpose were there no written
or road test. But since there are such tests it indicates that the new
driver meets certain levels of proficiency and is at least aware of the
basic laws governing driving.

Driver Licensing presumes only to determine if one CAN drive safely.
But, virtually everybody over the age of 12 CAN drive safely. The
question isn't if someone CAN drive safely, but rather if they WILL
drive safely. Virtually ALL highway accidents are caused by WILLFUL
acts of negligence. Driver Licensing CAN NOT even pretend to presume
to determine if one WILL drive safely.

Driver Licensing does not presume to prevent someone from driving, but
instead it only presumes to give someone permission to drive. If
someone is driving safely, there is no cause to stop them to see if
they are driving safely without a drivers license. And, If someone is
driving dangerously, there is no need for them to have a driver
license in order to prosecute them for endangerment.

And, when someone proves they WILL NOT, or even that they CAN NOT,
drive safely, Due Process of Law can be used to deny them of their
Right to Drive just as easily as it can be used to deny them of their
Right of Liberty. And, the courts can just as easily keep a record of
one's Endangering exercise of their Right to Drive as they can keep a
record of one's Endangering exercise of their Right of Liberty.


We may have fewer violations, accidents and such if all drivers
were required to take a refresher course every so many years when
renewing their license.

I would dare say that many people who have got years of proven safe
driving habits would fail such tests, and that others who have got
years of proven unsafe driving habits would pass such tests.

Frankly, I do not agree with your "may".

On Sep 27, 6:29 am, proffsl wrote:
- wrote:
proffsl wrote:

Packard v. Banton clearly recognized the fact that: "The
streets belong to the public and are primarily for the use of
the public in the ordinary way." -- Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S.
140 (1924) -http://laws.findlaw.com/us/264/140.html#144

Correct.

Williams v. Fears clearly recognized that: "Undoubtedly the right
of locomotion, the right to remove 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." - Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270
(1900) -http://laws.findlaw.com/us/179/270.html#274

Correct.

Even you have recognized the fact that we have the Right of
Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel on our public
highways.

Correct.

I fail to see why you object to me using two court cases that also
recognize our Right of Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel
on our public highways.

I don't object to your use of them; I object to your misuse of them.

I don't misuse them...

Yes you do. Of course you do. It is prima facie true that you have
misused them, as I more than adequately outlined. In fact, in one
case, you actually cited dicta from a court case that UPHELD licensing
as evidence licensing was NOT legal.

This is prima facie proof that you have misused them.

Packard - You have consistently misused this case, which doesn't even
have the word "license" in it, as evidence that licensing isn't legal.
That's *on its face* proof that you have misused this.

Sorry. It's like you're standing unprotected in a driving rainstorm
and trying to claim you're not all wet.

, as even the courts have stated: "Consequently,
the courts of this state must regard the right to drive a motor
vehicle on public highways as constitutionally protected." - STATE OF
IDAHO v. MARK WILDER -http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/idahostatecases/app/1033/wilder.pdf


HOLY COW!!!! Did you even READ this cite of yours? Lemme help you,
from the very first section:

"Judgment of conviction for driving without a license, affirmed."

AFFIRMED.

That means Wilder's appeal of his conviction for driving without a
license - AND his claim in his appeal that licensing was a violation
of his constitutional right to drive, as you mistakenly claim - were
REJECTED and his conviction STANDS. Man, can you not understand this?

Further, from the ruling YOU cited:

"Mark Wilder appeals from his judgment of conviction for driving a
motor vehicle without a valid license, arguing that the magistrate
lacked jurisdiction and that the requirement that Wilder provide his
social security number in order to obtain a driver's license violates
his constitutional right to travel. We affirm."

And even more dismantling and destruction to your position FROM YOUR
OWN CITE:

"Wilder argued that the denial of a driver's license deprived him of
his right to travel, which he characterized as "an inalienable right
given by God." The magistrate denied the motion. Wilder thereafter
filed a motion to dismiss the charge for lack of jurisdiction,
contending that "he is not subject to any Court wherein the Supreme
law of the land cannot be argued or applied in his defense." The
magistrate implicitly denied this motion by proceeding with a jury
trial and, following a guilty verdict, entering a judgment of
conviction. Wilder appealed to the district court, which affirmed the
conviction."

HOLY COW!

And yet mo

"A state law does not impermissibly infringe on this right unless
impeding travel is the law's primary objective, the law actually
deters such travel, or the law uses a classification that serves to
penalize the exercise of the right." Soto-Lopez, 476 U.S. at 903."

You are nothing if not consistently wrong in your cites. They all have
supported MY end of this argument. Checkmate!

But, as you'll see below, they attempt to weasel out of honoring this
Right by claiming a Police Power.

Wrong. They use the Constitution. Properly. As courts since Hendrick
in 1915 have applied it and without challenge from the people's
representatives.

Therefore, the purpose of this
thread is to demonstrate that this exercise of Police Power is
arbitrary or unreasonable, and is therefore invalid.

In that, you have failed as you did last year.

Courts have considered all your claims, repeatedly over the decades,
in challenges from others such as you and they have ALL been rejected.
Stare decisis!

Again, you cannot cobble together random sentences from the dicta of
unrelated court cases, and string them together in a Frankenstein type
creation of your own to fashion your own imaginary case law.

Yet still, you agree with that supposedly "Frankenstein type creation"
that "we have the Right of Locomotion ordinarily used for personal
travel on our public highways". And, so do our courts.

Yep. And the ordinarily used way is with licensed drivers in
registered vehicles. No problemo.

It does not work that way. You failed to answer my previous
challenges: One of the cases you cited in the thread last year
where I thoroughly dismantled all your claims was a Boise, Idaho,
case that you propped up to claim licensing was unconstitutional,
yet *that very case you cited* actually was *on point* about
licensing and *upheld it.* That case established that licensing was
legal and proper. Yet you ignored that, pulled out a quote you could
apply out of context and tried to make it say the opposite. Can you
not concede, even now in the face of this, that your tactic was highly
improper and in fact insulting to those who tried to make you see the
light last year?

First they recognize that Driving the Automobile IS A RIGHT:

"The Idaho Supreme Court, however, has held that the right to operate
a motor vehicle on public highways is a matter of constitutional
dimension. In Adams v. City of Pocatello , 91 Idaho 99, 101, 416 P.2d
46, 48 (1966), the Court declared that the right to drive "is a right
or liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of
the federal and state constitutions." Consequently, the courts of this
state must regard the right to drive a motor vehicle on public
highways as constitutionally protected." - STATE OF IDAHO v. MARK
WILDER -http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/idahostatecases/app/1033/wilder.pdf

Yes, you have the right to qualify for a license to do all of this.

Just like you have the right to apply for a parks permit to reserve a
PUBLIC pavilion in a PUBLIC park for your church picnic.

Then they weasle out by claiming "police power":

There is no weaseling involved at all. It is all perfectly
straightforward, fully briefed and litigated and decided.

"The state of Idaho may subject this right to reasonable regulation,
however, in the exercise of its police power. Id. ; Gordon v. State ,
108 Idaho 178, 179, 697 P.2d 1192, 1193 (Ct. App. 1985). Therefore,
the question before this Court is whether the requirement that one
obtain a driver's license before driving upon the highways and, in the
process, provide one's social security number, is a reasonable
regulation in furtherance of the state's police power." - STATE OF
IDAHO v. MARK WILDER -http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/idahostatecases/app/1033/wilder.pdf

Well, there you have it. You lost.

But, then they go on to provide the very grounds on which to
invalidate such police powers:

"Under the broad authority of the police power, a state legislature
may enact laws concerning the health, safety, and welfare of the
people so long as the regulations are not arbitrary or unreasonable."
- STATE OF IDAHO v. MARK WILDER -http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/idahostatecases/app/1033/wilder.pdf

Ensuring public safety is not unreasonable. Trying to ensure some
minimal level of competency on the part of the people operating three-
ton masses of mobile metal on the public rights of way, to protect me
from you, is not arbitrary.

Which brings us back to the subject of this thread, that being "Driver
Licensing is not about highway safety", such that this Police Power is
arbitrary and unreasonable.

I retitled it so that it is truthful.

Driver licensing serves no purpose to highway safety that laws against
endangerment did not already serve.

False. Society is not required to wait upon the day you run over my
child to start ensuring public safety. This all has been argued and
litigated ad nauseum because folks like you continue to raise these
invalid arguments in courts across the land, and losing.

Driver licensing only presumes to
determine if one CAN drive safely.

Bingo! Thank you for establishing that it is not arbitrary.

But, virtually everybody over the age of 12 CAN drive safely.

Are you back to advocating that infants, dogs and amoebas be allowed
to drive up until the point where they actually have an accident?

Virtually everybody who applies for a
driver license eventually obtains one. The question isn't if they CAN
drive safely, but rather if they WILL drive safely.

And that's where the system of licensing, revocation, etc all fit in.
They are essential cogs in the wheels of public welfare and safety,

I can't charge you with "endangerment" if I don't know who you are.

The vast majority
of highway accidents are due to WILLFUL acts of negligence.

False. We proved you wrong on this last year, and in this very thread
I reminded you of your error yet you repeat it. That makes me wonder
about your seriousness.

You simply MUST deal with your factual errors.

The study you cited was NOT of all accidents, as I proved to you 18
months ago. It was ONLY of distracted driving-caused accidents. It was
a small subset of the whole. Your continued citing of it shows willful
failure to adhere to the known facts.

Driver
licensing CAN NOT determine if someone WILL drive safely.

So what. That isn't the point and certainly not a reason to abolish
it.

Driver Licensing does not presume to prevent someone from driving, but
instead it only presumes to give someone permission to drive. If
someone is driving safely, there is no cause to stop them to see if
they are driving safely without a drivers license. And, If someone is
driving dangerously, there is no need for them to have a driver
license in order to prosecute them for endangerment.

Yes there is. You might not have stopped them at the scene. Without
licensing and registration, you have no clue who that person was who
ran over your child and fled.

And, when someone proves they WILL NOT, or even that they CAN NOT,
drive safely, Due Process of Law can be used to deny them of their
Right to Drive just as easily as it can be used to deny them of their
Right of Liberty. And, the courts can just as easily keep a record of
one's Endangering exercise of their Right to Drive as they can keep a
record of one's Endangering exercise of their Right of Liberty.

Not if they never knew who it was.

And, that is the grounds upon which I claim this Police Power to
require Driver Licensing is arbitrary and unreasonable.

And those grounds have shifted form under you and your argument has
collapsed and failed.

Read about it at:http://proffsl.0mb.com/I_am_wrong_about_everything.bs

I fixed your link!

On Sep 27, 6:31 am, proffsl wrote:

(see my prior post for duplicate reply to your redundant duplicate
post)

On Sep 27, 6:47 am, proffsl wrote:
Brian K wrote:
proffsl wrote

Gosh Dave, you've changed! Oh! Wait, you're not Dave. You're that
guy who thinks it's cute to "fix my posts".

No, the Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel on our public
highways these days is "Driving the Automobile".

Neither Licensing nor Insurance is a form of Locomotion.

We have the Right to Drive the Automobile for personal travel on our
public highways.

Driver Licensing serves no purpose to highway safety that laws
against endangerment didn't already serve.

Read about it at:http://proffsl.110mb.com/driver_licensing.php

Driving an automobile is not a right it is a privilege. There is no
Constitutional law that guarantees the right to drive.

Actually, the courts have recognized that there is indeed a Right to
Drive:

"The Idaho Supreme Court, however, has held that the right to operate
a motor vehicle on public highways is a matter of constitutional
dimension. In Adams v. City of Pocatello , 91 Idaho 99, 101, 416 P.2d
46, 48 (1966), the Court declared that the right to drive "is a right
or liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of
the federal and state constitutions." Consequently, the courts of this
state must regard the right to drive a motor vehicle on public
highways as constitutionally protected." - STATE OF IDAHO v. MARK
WILDER -http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/idahostatecases/app/1033/wilder.pdf

As I showed you above, this very case YOU cite UPHOLDS licensing and
REJECTS all of the arguments you made.

- wrote:
proffsl wrote:

But, then they go on to provide the very grounds on which to
invalidate such police powers:

"Under the broad authority of the police power, a state legislature
may enact laws concerning the health, safety, and welfare of the
people so long as the regulations are not arbitrary or unreasonable."
- STATE OF IDAHO v. MARK WILDER -http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/idahostatecases/app/1033/wilder.pdf

Which brings us back to the subject of this thread, that being "Driver
Licensing is not about highway safety", such that this Police Power is
arbitrary and unreasonable.

I retitled it so that it is truthful.

Why do you continue to behave like a child?


Driver licensing serves no purpose to highway safety that laws
against endangerment did not already serve.

False. Society is not required to wait upon the day you run over
my child to start ensuring public safety.

No such requirement is made. The moment one exhibits any behavior that
endangers others, they can be stopped at that point, BEFORE they
actually cause any harm.


Driver licensing only presumes to determine if one CAN drive safely.

Bingo! Thank you for establishing that it is not arbitrary.

But, it is arbitrary, as it is FALSELY presumed.

Driver Licensing NEVER WAS about highway safety. And, still IS NOT
about highway safety.

I've added some information to my page at:

http://proffsl.110mb.com/driver_licensing.php
http://proffsl.110mb.com/driving.php



But, virtually everybody over the age of 12 CAN drive safely.

Are you back to advocating that infants, dogs and amoebas be
allowed to drive up until the point where they actually have an
accident?

I'm looking. I see no such advocation. Why, on top of behaving like
a child, do you constantly lie?


Virtually everybody who applies for a driver license eventually
obtains one. The question isn't if they CAN drive safely, but
rather if they WILL drive safely.

And that's where the system of licensing, revocation, etc all fit in.
They are essential cogs in the wheels of public welfare and safety,

And, here you pretend as if Due Process of Law was not already in
place to revoke any of our Rights once we have demonstrated we will
not exercise them without endangering others.


I can't charge you with "endangerment" if I don't know who you are.

Hog Wash! Even if someone didn't know who they them self were, and
neither did anybody else, and they took a baseball bat and began to
swing it so near your head as to constitute endangerment, you can
still charge their criminal ass with endangerment, and they can be
prosecuted for such by Due Process of Law in our courts.


The vast majority of highway accidents are due to WILLFUL acts
of negligence.

False.

You are flat out wrong. Go do yourself a Google search on "Primary
Cause of Automobile Accidents", and educate yourself.

I've added some information to my page at:

http://proffsl.110mb.com/driver_licensing.php
http://proffsl.110mb.com/driving.php

Go read it, and educate yourself.

proffsl wrote:



Why do you continue to behave like a child?


The same might be sad of you. You repeatedly roll out this nonsense about
driver licensing having nothing to do with road safety, ignore all the
evidence and logical argument and misinterpret your own cites, and then you
just go own arguing the same crap over and over as if it were true. Grow
up and get a life. Maybe one day you will pass your driver exam.