A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Travel Regions » USA & Canada
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Driver Licensing not about highway safety



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old September 23rd, 2007, 02:36 AM posted to rec.travel.usa-canada
Dave Smith[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 329
Default Driver Licensing not about highway safety

proffsl wrote:


No, its a RIGHT that has been taken away by the government.


Feel free to provide a cite to some credible source that supports
the idea that driving is a right rather than a privilege.


Although, I do not base my arguments on court arguments, and I do not
consider any of today's courts as a credible source of anything except
bull****, there are always these two court rulings.


It seems quite obvious that you opinion is born out of disregard for the
laws of the land or the courts, as well as complete ignorance or total
disregard of accident statistics.


"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

"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

What is the Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel on our
public highways today? DRIVING THE AUTOMOBILE.


Christ. You don't even know what locomotion means. It does not mean driving
a car.
  #22  
Old September 23rd, 2007, 11:16 AM posted to rec.travel.usa-canada
proffsl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 106
Default Driver Licensing not about highway safety

Dave Smith wrote:
proffsl wrote:

That article is a crock. Driver licensing does ensure that drivers have
completed written and road tests to demonstrate that they understand
the traffic laws in their state or province and that they are capable of
handling a motor vehicle safely.


Well, of course they do. Just as being requited to take a test to see
if you can hold your breath for more than a minute will ensure that
you have demonstrated that you can hold your breath for more than a
minute. But, what you claim Driver Licensing tests do isn't what I
stated that Driver Licenses fail to do. My statement was that Driver
Licensing does NOTHING for highway safety that laws against
endangerment didn't already serve.


I already stated that driver licence testing ensures that people can
demonstrate knowledge of traffic law and the ability to drive safely.


Well, of course they do. Just as being required to take a test to see
if you can hild your breath for more than a minute will ensure that
you have demonstrated the ability to hold your breath for more than a
minuite. BUT, what you claim Driver Licensing test do isn't what I
stated that Driver Licenses fail to do.

My statement was that Driver Licensing does NOTHING for highway safety
that laws against endangerment didn't already serve.



Virtually everybody over the age of 12 CAN drive safely.


You might be surprised at the number of people who cannot
drive safely. That is cannot, as opposed to do not or will not.





The question isn't if they CAN drive safely, but rather if they WILL
drive safely. More than 98% of all highway accidents are due to
WILFULL acts of negligence, not due to an inability to drive safely.
Not having a driver licenses doesn't mean you're driving dangerously.
And, having a driver licenses doesn't mean you're driving safely.


Is that 90% a figure that you can provide a source for or just one that
you pulled out of the air?


"some 98 percent of the accidents reported involved a single
distracted driver" - http://www.mercola.com/2003/mar/26/car_accidents.htm

"Over 95% of motor vehicle accidents involve some degree of driver
behavior" - http://www.smartmotorist.com/acc/acc.htm

As for negligence being, by far and away, the leading cause of
automobile accidents, a simple Google search will most surely affirm
that fact.


I doubt that you will find a reliable source that deals with
an oxymoron like wilful negligence. Something can be done
wilfully or out of negligence, but the two are mutually exclusive.


To the contrary, negligence is always committed willfully. It's not as
if some force of nature, out of somebody's control, reaches out and
causes them to neglect their duties. They neglect their duties because
they WILL not apply themselves to their duties.

If someone is driving down the highway, and becomes destracted by the
volume control of their radio, they WILLFULLY choose to look toward
their volume control instead of the highway. If someone is driving
down the highway, and becomes destracted by a crying baby in the back
seat, they WILLFULLY choose to look toward the crying baby instead of
the highway. If someone is driving down the highway, and they begin to
rubber neck at an accident, they WILLFULLY choose to look toward the
accident instead of the highway.

There is only a very short instant in which one's reflexes to
something unexpected overtake their willfullness, and after that
instant (the blink of an eye), their WILL then comes back into play.
If a driver is paying attention to their duty of driving safely, the
possibility that something will happen in the blink of an eye to send
the situtation out of their control is completely neglectible. How
many times have you blinked while driving? I'm sure the number of
times for just one trip to work would count in the hundreds. We have
all blinked hundreds of thousands of times while driving. After that
initial blink, if you choose to keep your eyes closed, you do so
because of your own WILL.


Imagine what it would be like if they did not have to
get a licence.


I'd prefer to stick with reason instead of imagination.


What prevents people from doing things that endanger the lives
of others? Their sure prosecution for Endangerment if they do is
what prevents them from doing it to begin with. As I said, Driver
Licensing does nothing for highway safety that laws against
Endangerment didn't already serve.


I also said that enforcement of traffic laws is a second means of
dealing with traffic safety. You may be surprised to see the number
of people with clean driving records. Then there are those with horrible
records. Licence suspensions allows the government to (try to) keep
those people off the road.


Here you seem to presume that the absence of a license, in and of
itself, somehow prevents someone from driving. Without the threat of
prosecution, there is nothing in the mere absense of a license that
prevents someone from driving. One doesn't have to have even acquired
a driver license for it to be later become suspended in order to keep
them off the highways, any more than one has to have a License to
Liberty issued and later suspended in order to keep them from
venturing to places they've been ordered by law not to go (restraining
orders). It's the threat of sure prosecution if they do those things
that keeps them from doing them.

As I have said, and demonstrated numerous times: Driver Licensing does
nothing for highway safety that laws against endangerment didn't
already serve.


Enforcement of rules of the road is a way to try to force
compliance with the law, and liability suits are yet another
means of forcing compliance. Unfortuneatley, too many
people think only of themselves and refuse to accept that
they could be caught in violation or get into an accident.


See! Even there, in the back of your mind, you recognize this
fact. It isn't driver licensing that ensures that people drive safely,
but instead the enforcement of rules against behavior that
endangers others.


OTOH... we could have weekly, monthly or annual driver tests
if you think that may be a better way to instil safe driving habits
in people.


Now you're just being absurd. I can only assume you are being so as a
sort of knee jerk reaction to a truth you wish to willfully neglect.
I've told you what I think instils safe driving habits. The
enforcement of rules against behavior that endangers others instils
safe driving habits, along with safe habits in the exercise of all our
other Rights.


As I said. The question isn't if they CAN drive safely,
but rather if they WILL drive safely. And, driver licensing
CAN NOT determine that. Driver Licensing does NOTHING
for highway safety that laws against endangerment didn't
already serve.


And as I said, you can repeat your silly mantra all you want
but it doesn't make it so.


And, you can ignore the facts before your eyes all you want, but that
doesn't make them false or go away.


Driver licensing has improved road safety. Graduated licensing
has reduced accidents i new drivers. Motorcycle licences have
reduced motorcycle accidents and classified licences has
reduced commercial vehicle accidents.


From my research on this issue, the primary cause for any reduction in

the number of accidents is safer automobiles, automobiles which handle
highway conditions better, and ABS systems being at the top of that
list.

You know, if Driver Licensing had remained as it was when I first
began driving where, at that time, they only tested one's knowledge of
the rules of the road, and their ability to handle an automobile, even
though I still consider it a mostly useless act, I would never have
made this into an issue, and would have just let things go as they
were. But, today, driver licensing has become a much broader issue
that simply testing one's ability to drive, and instead has become a
means of reaching into people's wallets for money, money and more
money. Through the years, retaining one's Right to Drive their
automobile on public highways has evolved from an expense of maybe
only $12 a year, to one more around a figure of $1000 or more a year.


Some people should not be allowed behind the wheel of a car.


True. That's what the courts, and Due Process of Law are for.
Through this process, people are denied of all sorts of their Rights,
such as their Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and sometimes their
Right of Liberty.


The courts are retroactive. It doesn't help much if an unlicensed driver
kills someone and goes to jail or pays a fine. It is too late.


Do you presume that you can somehow punish people for driving without
a license BEFORE they actually drive without a license? No, you sitll
have to wait until they actually commit the act before you can punish
them. I don't know if you're doing this deliberately, or merely due to
brainwash programming, but you are attempting to employ baffling
bull****.


Better to have that person demonstrate ahead of time that they
can drive....


Virtually everybody over the age of 12 CAN Drive an automobile
safely. If they CAN drive safely isn't the question, but rather the
question is if they WILL drive safely. And, driver licensing CAN NOT
determine that. As I have pointed out, some 98% of all highway
accidents are caused by WILLFUL acts of negligence. And, not even the
remaining 2% of the accidents belong mostly to any inability to drive
safely.


and to have them know that their *privilege* to drive
can be suspended or revoked.


There is no need to issue a Liberty License in order to impose
restraining orders on people, or to outright deny them of their Right
of Liberty by placing them in jail. Likewise, there is no need to
issue a Driver License in order to temporarly suspend one's Right to
Drive, or to outright deny them of their Right to Drive, by Due
Process of Law.


"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


If you can't beat them baffle them with bull**** eh. That article says
nothing about driver licences.

"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


Nor does this one.


Nothing baffling or bull**** about it. Combined in their meaning: We
have the Right of Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel on
our public highways.

What is the Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel on our
public highways these days? Driving the Automobile, of course.

Nothing baffling about that. No bull**** either. Just a simple FACT.


Our public highways were built on our property with our money for the
purpose of enhancing and increasing the exercise of our Right of
Liberty. But, as our public highways are being made more and more
unusable by anything but the Automobile, the more this LIE that
Driving is a Privilege makes us ALL Prisoners of Privliege behind bars
of blacktop.


Perhaps you can find the section of the Constitution that provides for the
right to drive a car.


Perhaps you can find the section of the Constitution that provides for
the Right to "write articles about our Right to Drive safely". No?
Would you then presume I don't have this Right?

Have you ever read the 9th Amendment to the Constitution?

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

But, isn't that EXACTLY what you're are attempting to do, to construe
it to deny or disparage other Rights retained by the people? YEP!!!

The Constitution isn't intended to define the limit of Rights retained
by the people, but instead it is intended to define the limits of
Powers delegated to government.

Perhaps you can find the section of the Constitution that delegates to
government the authority to deny people of their Right of Locomotion
ordinarily used for personal travel on our public highways?



  #23  
Old September 23rd, 2007, 11:33 AM posted to rec.travel.usa-canada
proffsl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 106
Default Driver Licensing not about highway safety

Dave Smith wrote:
proffsl wrote:

No, its a RIGHT that has been taken away by the government.


Feel free to provide a cite to some credible source that supports
the idea that driving is a right rather than a privilege.


Although, I do not base my arguments on court arguments, and I
do not consider any of today's courts as a credible source of
anything except bull****, there are always these two court rulings.


It seems quite obvious that you opinion is born out of disregard for
the laws of the land or the courts, as well as complete ignorance
or total disregard of accident statistics.


Disreguard presumes I pay no attention to them. I seem to be paying
quite a bit attention to these laws. I think a better word would be
DISRESPECT. And, I fully admit with great patrotic pride that I have
a great Disrespect for Laws that are contrary and offensive to our
Rights. I consider that my duty as a U.S. Citizen. I also consider it
YOUR duty as well.


"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


"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


What is the Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel on our
public highways today? DRIVING THE AUTOMOBILE.


Christ. You don't even know what locomotion means. It does not mean
driving a car.


I know full well what Locomotion means. I have studied this issue for
several years now. Locomotion is the act of removing one's self from
one place to another according to their own inclination.

The court case sited just above defines the act of Locomotion as "to
remove from one place to another according to inclination".

Meriam-Websters defines Locomotion as: "an act or the power of moving
from place to place"

We have the Right of Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel on
our public highways. What is the Locomotion ordinarily used for
personal travel on our public highways these days? DRIVING THE
AUTOMOBILE is, by far and away, the Locomotion ordinarily used for
personal travel on our public highways these days.


  #24  
Old September 23rd, 2007, 02:11 PM posted to rec.travel.usa-canada
Dave Smith[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 329
Default Driver Licensing not about highway safety

proffsl wrote:


The question isn't if they CAN drive safely, but rather if they WILL
drive safely. More than 98% of all highway accidents are due to
WILFULL acts of negligence, not due to an inability to drive safely.
Not having a driver licenses doesn't mean you're driving dangerously.
And, having a driver licenses doesn't mean you're driving safely.


Is that 90% a figure that you can provide a source for or just one that
you pulled out of the air?


"some 98 percent of the accidents reported involved a single
distracted driver" - http://www.mercola.com/2003/mar/26/car_accidents.htm

"Over 95% of motor vehicle accidents involve some degree of driver
behavior" - http://www.smartmotorist.com/acc/acc.htm

As for negligence being, by far and away, the leading cause of
automobile accidents, a simple Google search will most surely affirm
that fact.


But you said "WILFULL acts of negligence". Your first cite led to a page
that doesn't even open without signing up for something, and the second is
an incomplete quotation that goes on to say that it is combined with
something else. Fer crissakes, your cites do not support what you claimed
and you don't even quote them accurately.



To the contrary, negligence is always committed willfully. It's not as
if some force of nature, out of somebody's control, reaches out and
causes them to neglect their duties. They neglect their duties because
they WILL not apply themselves to their duties.


Then they are negligent, not wilful.


If someone is driving down the highway, and becomes destracted by the
volume control of their radio, they WILLFULLY choose to look toward
their volume control instead of the highway. If someone is driving
down the highway, and becomes destracted by a crying baby in the back
seat, they WILLFULLY choose to look toward the crying baby instead of
the highway. If someone is driving down the highway, and they begin to
rubber neck at an accident, they WILLFULLY choose to look toward the
accident instead of the highway.


No. They negligently allow themselves to be distracted.

Imagine what it would be like if they did not have to
get a licence.


I'd prefer to stick with reason instead of imagination.


In that case, it is about time that you started to use some.


I also said that enforcement of traffic laws is a second means of
dealing with traffic safety. You may be surprised to see the number
of people with clean driving records. Then there are those with horrible
records. Licence suspensions allows the government to (try to) keep
those people off the road.


Here you seem to presume that the absence of a license, in and of
itself, somehow prevents someone from driving. Without the threat of
prosecution, there is nothing in the mere absense of a license that
prevents someone from driving. One doesn't have to have even acquired
a driver license for it to be later become suspended in order to keep
them off the highways,


Indeed. One can have a suspended driver licence without being license. Thus
it would appear that some people are going to drive without a licence no
matter what.


any more than one has to have a License to
Liberty issued and later suspended in order to keep them from
venturing to places they've been ordered by law not to go (restraining
orders). It's the threat of sure prosecution if they do those things
that keeps them from doing them.



It works for most people. Most people will go through the process of
learning to driving, getting a licence and showing some degree of
compliance with traffic laws. A small minority disregard those
requirements.


As I have said, and demonstrated numerous times: Driver Licensing does
nothing for highway safety that laws against endangerment didn't
already serve.


You have said it many times. What you have not done is demonstrated it.


OTOH... we could have weekly, monthly or annual driver tests
if you think that may be a better way to instil safe driving habits
in people.


Now you're just being absurd. I can only assume you are being so as a
sort of knee jerk reaction to a truth you wish to willfully neglect.


think of it more as a knee jerk to your absurdity.

I've told you what I think instils safe driving habits. The
enforcement of rules against behavior that endangers others instils
safe driving habits, along with safe habits in the exercise of all our
other Rights.



And you have been told that driving is not a right.

And as I said, you can repeat your silly mantra all you want
but it doesn't make it so.


And, you can ignore the facts before your eyes all you want, but that
doesn't make them false or go away.


I would suggest that we differ on who is ignoring the facts.



Driver licensing has improved road safety. Graduated licensing
has reduced accidents i new drivers. Motorcycle licences have
reduced motorcycle accidents and classified licences has
reduced commercial vehicle accidents.


From my research on this issue, the primary cause for any reduction in

the number of accidents is safer automobiles, automobiles which handle
highway conditions better, and ABS systems being at the top of that
list.


Do you call those bull**** cites "research"?



True. That's what the courts, and Due Process of Law are for.
Through this process, people are denied of all sorts of their Rights,
such as their Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and sometimes their
Right of Liberty.


The courts are retroactive. It doesn't help much if an unlicensed driver
kills someone and goes to jail or pays a fine. It is too late.


Do you presume that you can somehow punish people for driving without
a license BEFORE they actually drive without a license? No, you sitll
have to wait until they actually commit the act before you can punish
them. I don't know if you're doing this deliberately, or merely due to
brainwash programming, but you are attempting to employ baffling
bull****.



Have you misled yourself into thinking this is the type of question
rational human asks?


Perhaps you can find the section of the Constitution that delegates to
government the authority to deny people of their Right of Locomotion
ordinarily used for personal travel on our public highways?



Perhaps you missed the part about locomotion not meaning driving a car.
  #25  
Old September 23rd, 2007, 04:32 PM posted to rec.travel.usa-canada
proffsl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 106
Default Driver Licensing not about highway safety

Dave Smith wrote:
proffsl wrote:

The question isn't if they CAN drive safely, but rather if they
WILL drive safely. More than 98% of all highway accidents
are due to WILFULL acts of negligence, not due to an inability
to drive safely. Not having a driver licenses doesn't mean you're
driving dangerously. And, having a driver licenses doesn't mean
you're driving safely.


Is that 90% a figure that you can provide a source for or just one that
you pulled out of the air?


"some 98 percent of the accidents reported involved a single
distracted driver" -http://www.mercola.com/2003/mar/26/car_accidents.htm


"Over 95% of motor vehicle accidents involve some degree of driver
behavior" -http://www.smartmotorist.com/acc/acc.htm


As for negligence being, by far and away, the leading cause of
automobile accidents, a simple Google search will most surely affirm
that fact.


But you said "WILFULL acts of negligence". Your first cite led to a page
that doesn't even open without signing up for something, and the second
is an incomplete quotation that goes on to say that it is combined with
something else. Fer crissakes, your cites do not support what you
claimed and you don't even quote them accurately.


You're deliberately trying to avoid what's right there before your
eyes. Here is the entire chapter:

"Over 95% of motor vehicle accidents (MVAs, in the USA, or Road
Traffic Accidents, RTAs, in Europe) involve some degree of driver
behavior combined with one of the other three factors. Drivers always
try to blame road conditions, equipment failure, or other drivers for
those accidents. When the facts are truthfully presented, however, the
behavior of the implicated driver is usually the primary cause. Most
are caused by excessive speed or aggressive driver behavior." -
http://www.smartmotorist.com/acc/acc.htm

Every accident due to an act of negligence is going to be combined
with something. If you're looking at the zipper on your paints while
driving, and you colide with an oncoming vehicle, well, that's
negligence combined with an oncoming vehicle. DUH.

Bottom line is that it goes on to say that Drivers always try to blame
something else other than their own negligence. And, that when the
facts are truthfully presented, it is the negligent behavior of the
driver that is the primary cause.


To the contrary, negligence is always committed willfully. It's not as
if some force of nature, out of somebody's control, reaches out and
causes them to neglect their duties. They neglect their duties because
they WILL not apply themselves to their duties.


Then they are negligent, not wilful.


They are negligent of their duties because they WILL NOT apply
themselves to their duties. Negligence is a behavior exhibited by
people, a behavior for which they can be prosecuted. If negligence
were not a Willful Act, it would be doubtful people could be held
responsible for their negligence.


If someone is driving down the highway, and becomes destracted by the
volume control of their radio, they WILLFULLY choose to look toward
their volume control instead of the highway. If someone is driving
down the highway, and becomes destracted by a crying baby in the back
seat, they WILLFULLY choose to look toward the crying baby instead of
the highway. If someone is driving down the highway, and they begin to
rubber neck at an accident, they WILLFULLY choose to look toward the
accident instead of the highway.


No. They negligently allow themselves to be distracted.


No, they willfully allow themselves to be negligent of their duties.

  #26  
Old September 23rd, 2007, 04:39 PM posted to rec.travel.usa-canada
proffsl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 106
Default Driver Licensing not about highway safety

Dave Smith wrote:
proffsl wrote:

I also said that enforcement of traffic laws is a second means of
dealing with traffic safety. You may be surprised to see the number
of people with clean driving records. Then there are those with horrible
records. Licence suspensions allows the government to (try to) keep
those people off the road.


Here you seem to presume that the absence of a license, in and of
itself, somehow prevents someone from driving. Without the threat of
prosecution, there is nothing in the mere absense of a license that
prevents someone from driving. One doesn't have to have even acquired
a driver license for it to be later become suspended in order to keep
them off the highways, any more than one has to have a License to
Liberty issued and later suspended in order to keep them from
venturing to places they've been ordered by law not to go (restraining
orders). It's the threat of sure prosecution if they do those things
that keeps them from doing them.


It works for most people. Most people will go through the process of
learning to driving, getting a licence and showing some degree of
compliance with traffic laws. A small minority disregard those
requirements.


Irrelivant.

Do you agree that, ultimately, it is the threat of prosecution that
prevents people from exhibiting undesireable behavior?

Do you agree that people's Rights can be curtailed by Due Process of
Law without having to convert them into privileges requiring a
license?


  #27  
Old September 23rd, 2007, 04:45 PM posted to rec.travel.usa-canada
proffsl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 106
Default Driver Licensing not about highway safety

Dave Smith wrote:
proffsl wrote:

True. That's what the courts, and Due Process of Law are for.
Through this process, people are denied of all sorts of their
Rights, such as their Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and
sometimes their Right of Liberty.


The courts are retroactive. It doesn't help much if an unlicensed
driver kills someone and goes to jail or pays a fine. It is too late.


Do you presume that you can somehow punish people for driving
without a license BEFORE they actually drive without a license?
No, you sitll have to wait until they actually commit the act before
you can punish them. I don't know if you're doing this deliberately,
or merely due to brainwash programming, but you are attempting
to employ baffling bull****.


Have you misled yourself into thinking this is the type of question
rational human asks?


You're avoiding the question with a question.

Do you presume that you can showhow punish people for driving without
a license BEFORE they actually drive without a license?



  #28  
Old September 23rd, 2007, 05:05 PM posted to rec.travel.usa-canada
proffsl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 106
Default Driver Licensing not about highway safety

On Sep 23, 8:11 am, Dave Smith wrote:
proffsl wrote:

"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


If you can't beat them baffle them with bull**** eh. That article
says nothing about driver licences.


"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


Nor does this one.


Nothing baffling or bull**** about it. Combined in their meaning:
We have the Right of Locomotion ordinarily used for personal
travel on our public highways.


What is the Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel on
our public highways these days? Driving the Automobile, of course.


Nothing baffling about that. No bull**** either. Just a simple FACT.


I noticed you cut this portion out. We have the Right of Locomotion
ordinarily used for personal travel on our public highways. What is
the Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel on our public
highways these days?


Our public highways were built on our property with our money
for the purpose of enhancing and increasing the exercise of our
Right of Liberty. But, as our public highways are being made
more and more unusable by anything but the Automobile, the
more this LIE that Driving is a Privilege makes us ALL Prisoners
of Privliege behind bars of blacktop.


Perhaps you can find the section of the Constitution that provides
for the right to drive a car.


Perhaps you can find the section of the Constitution that provides
for the Right to "write articles about our Right to Drive safely". No?
Would you then presume I don't have this Right?


Since our Constitution doesn't spicifically recognize my Right to
"write articles about our Right to Drive safely", do you presume I
don't have this Right?


Have you ever read the 9th Amendment to the Constitution?


"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."


But, isn't that EXACTLY what you're are attempting to do, to construe
it to deny or disparage other Rights retained by the people? YEP!!!


The Constitution isn't intended to define the limit of Rights retained
by the people, but instead it is intended to define the limits of
Powers delegated to government.


Perhaps you can find the section of the Constitution that delegates
to government the authority to deny people of their Right of Locomotion
ordinarily used for personal travel on our public highways?


Perhaps you missed the part about locomotion not meaning driving a car.


I know full well what Locomotion means. Locomotion is the act of
removing one's self from one place to another according to their own
inclination.

The court case in Williams vs. Fears defines the act of Locomotion as
"to remove from one place to another according to inclination".

Meriam-Websters defines Locomotion as: "an act or the power of moving
from place to place"

We have the Right of Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel on
our public highways. What is the Locomotion ordinarily used for
personal travel on our public highways these days?


  #29  
Old September 23rd, 2007, 08:45 PM posted to rec.travel.usa-canada
proffsl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 106
Default Driver Licensing not about highway safety

"Alohacyberian" wrote:
"proffsl" wrote:

Driver Licensing serves no purpose for highway safety that laws
against endangerment did not already serve, and instead only serves
fiscal greed.


I don't agree, but, driver licensing is here to stay. Might as well get
used to it.


There were two people. Both of them had a stain on their carpet. One
of the persons always said: "Yes, there is a stain on the carpet, but
it's there to stay. Might as well get used to it." The other person
said: "Yes, there is a stain on the carpet, but the carpet cleaner
will be taking it out tomorrow."

It's time we clean our carpets, before they have to be ripped up and
thrown out.

  #30  
Old September 23rd, 2007, 10:20 PM posted to rec.travel.usa-canada
Carole Allen[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 485
Default Driver Licensing not about highway safety

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 09:05:33 -0700, proffsl
wrote:
I know full well what Locomotion means. Locomotion is the act of
removing one's self from one place to another according to their own
inclination.

The court case in Williams vs. Fears defines the act of Locomotion as
"to remove from one place to another according to inclination".

Meriam-Websters defines Locomotion as: "an act or the power of moving
from place to place"

That's what feet are for.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Driver Licensing serves no purpose for highway safety proffsl USA & Canada 0 September 17th, 2007 09:50 AM
Become an Activist for Better Health! Join Bio Pro's Company to promote the Safety Wireless Initiative! safety for Cell Phones & Bio Pro Technology! research Its a WIN WIN! [email protected] Asia 0 July 27th, 2007 03:41 AM
Safety for Cell Phones-Mobile Hazards-Cell Phone Safety-Bio Pro Universal Cell Chip, Purchase from a Bio Pro Consultant, Destress EMF Radiation in Australia, South Africa, United States, New Zealand, and Canada!! [email protected] Europe 0 June 6th, 2007 03:47 AM
Smart Card BIO PRO, Purchase products from Bio Pro Consultant,Australia,New Zealand,South Africa,Canada,A New Generation of wellness and safety, Safety for Electronics with Bio Pro [email protected] Europe 0 May 6th, 2007 06:07 PM
Licensing tellys [email protected] Europe 2 October 12th, 2004 03:23 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.