Notices
Vehicular Cycling (VC) No other subject has polarized the A&S members like VC has. Here's a place to share, debate, and educate.

The Real Issue

Old 02-14-11, 12:57 AM
  #26  
earth2pete
Newbie
 
earth2pete's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Denver, Colorado, USA
Posts: 61

Bikes: Greenspeed GT3

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked 4 Times in 1 Post
ever since our country was founded on basic principles of the equality of every individual with 'inalienable rights,' that idea has been tested over and over again.

it would seem that what is written on paper as a 'right' often has to be claimed, or it can still be denied by those who are already comfortable with their own rights and don't see any need to protect the rights of small groups who they may not understand.

in fact, even one single person should have the same rights, regardless of whether he/she belongs to a minority group with power, or not.
earth2pete is offline  
Old 02-14-11, 11:31 PM
  #27  
Chris516
24-Speed Machine
 
Chris516's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wash. Grove, MD
Posts: 6,058

Bikes: 2003 Specialized Allez 24-Speed Road Bike

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by mikeybikes
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't all states explicitly already give bicyclists the right to ride on roads?

Where is our "right to travel" being infringed?
It is being infringed by the those in authority that think 'FRAP' means bikes being 100% chummy with the side of the road, regardless of the existence of debris.
Chris516 is offline  
Old 02-21-11, 06:53 AM
  #28  
Schwinnhund
Gearhead
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Chatsworth, Ga.
Posts: 236

Bikes: 1982 Schwinn Sidewinder, Sun EZ-1 Recumbent, Cannondale R-400

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times in 8 Posts
It's being infringed by the Powers-That-Be not providing a safe riding environment for bicyclists, even though they use our tax money. It would not cost that much to redesign roads to where a person could cycle safely. I am not advocating that bikes replace cars, only that we get get fair consideration in the design and maintenance of public roads and facilities. It's been done in other places.
Schwinnhund is offline  
Old 02-21-11, 10:04 AM
  #29  
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times in 3,158 Posts
Originally Posted by njkayaker
This isn't the Constitution. I'm trying to figure where "bicycles" are mentioned in the Constitution.
right there next to the passage about automobiles.
genec is offline  
Old 02-28-11, 08:23 AM
  #30  
Schwinnhund
Gearhead
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Chatsworth, Ga.
Posts: 236

Bikes: 1982 Schwinn Sidewinder, Sun EZ-1 Recumbent, Cannondale R-400

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times in 8 Posts
You might try actually reading the document, specifically, the 14th Amendment, and then researching pertinent case law such as U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), and Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969). US case law has established that there is an unconditional right to travel, except in cases where an individual may be under investigation, under an indictment, or a fugitive from justice. Tax money is spent to try to make roads safer for drivers, therefore under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, tax money must also be spent on other modes of transportation such as walking, and bicycling, to make it safe as well. This is not being done in most places.

Originally Posted by genec
right there next to the passage about automobiles.
Schwinnhund is offline  
Old 02-28-11, 07:27 PM
  #31  
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times in 3,158 Posts
Originally Posted by Schwinnhund
You might try actually reading the document, specifically, the 14th Amendment, and then researching pertinent case law such as U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), and Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969). US case law has established that there is an unconditional right to travel, except in cases where an individual may be under investigation, under an indictment, or a fugitive from justice. Tax money is spent to try to make roads safer for drivers, therefore under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, tax money must also be spent on other modes of transportation such as walking, and bicycling, to make it safe as well. This is not being done in most places.
I was being quite sarcastic as there is nothing in the 14th amendment regarding automobiles... However you do bring up an interesting point regarding the Equal Protection Clause... I wonder if that has ever been brought before the courts with regard to walking and cycling? I have to admit I am not a legal beagle, so I have no idea where to look.
genec is offline  
Old 03-03-11, 10:12 AM
  #32  
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times in 8 Posts
the right to travel is buttressed by the privileges and immunities clause in the articles of the constitution, not the 14th amendment.

United States v. Wheeler 1920

Originally Posted by Chief Justice White, supreme court decision, United States v wheeler, 1920
In all the States from the beginning down to the adoption of the Articles of Confederation the citizens thereof possessed the fundamental right, inherent in citizens of all free governments, peacefully to dwell within the limits of their respective States, to move at will from place to place therein, and to have free ingress thereto and egress therefrom, with a consequent authority in the States to forbid and punish violations of this fundamental right.

Last edited by Bekologist; 03-03-11 at 10:26 AM.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 03-03-11, 11:24 AM
  #33  
chipcom 
Infamous Member
 
chipcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360

Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Schwinnhund
It's being infringed by the Powers-That-Be not providing a safe riding environment for bicyclists, even though they use our tax money. It would not cost that much to redesign roads to where a person could cycle safely. I am not advocating that bikes replace cars, only that we get get fair consideration in the design and maintenance of public roads and facilities. It's been done in other places.
How is it not safe? While I have no doubt that safety could be improved, in over 40 years of cycling on the roadways I've had no cause to consider them unsafe for cycling. My point...if you want to claim that the government or "they" are infringing upon your right of movement by not providing a safe riding environment, you best have some factual data to back up your assertion.
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
chipcom is offline  
Old 03-03-11, 01:42 PM
  #34  
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times in 3,158 Posts
Originally Posted by chipcom
How is it not safe? While I have no doubt that safety could be improved, in over 40 years of cycling on the roadways I've had no cause to consider them unsafe for cycling. My point...if you want to claim that the government or "they" are infringing upon your right of movement by not providing a safe riding environment, you best have some factual data to back up your assertion.
Does it have to be proven beyond the fact that most Americans consider riding a bike on the street unsafe, and use that (and a host of other excuses) to avoid cycling altogether... that perception of "unsafe" is enough.
genec is offline  
Old 03-03-11, 02:04 PM
  #35  
chipcom 
Infamous Member
 
chipcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360

Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by genec
Does it have to be proven beyond the fact that most Americans consider riding a bike on the street unsafe, and use that (and a host of other excuses) to avoid cycling altogether... that perception of "unsafe" is enough.
If you want to influence political types, perception is your huckleberry, but from a legal standpoint, as the OP seems to be railing over, it has no relevance.
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
chipcom is offline  
Old 03-05-11, 06:06 PM
  #36  
sudo bike
Bicikli Huszár
 
sudo bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 2,116

Bikes: '95 Novara Randonee

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by genec
Does it have to be proven beyond the fact that most Americans consider riding a bike on the street unsafe, and use that (and a host of other excuses) to avoid cycling altogether... that perception of "unsafe" is enough.
That people consider it unsafe does not mean it is unsafe, nor that the government is being negligent in providing for our equal safety. The question would be whether the government actually is being negligent to our safety; people's ignorance has nothing to do with it.

I think it would be a very difficult case to prove, even in the most unsafe areas. You'd have to show that it's the government that is responsible for unsafe conditions rather than drivers. In all but very few cases, I don't think this could really be done, as the infrastructure itself isn't usually the cause for an unsafe situation and the law (depending on the state) grants us the protections we need (at least on paper).

$.02
sudo bike is offline  
Old 04-11-11, 08:30 PM
  #37  
silmarillion
Senior Member
 
silmarillion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Posts: 720

Bikes: 2012 Cinelli Mystic Rat, Nashbar CX

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by randya
As cyclists, we have neither the voting majority nor the lobbying clout required to oppose lobbying giants like the auto, oil, and highway construction industries.
This is the case in Atlanta. The suburban areas only intent is to move single-occupancy vehicles through their jurisdictions. In the county I live in, it is easier to get permits for 20 gas stations, and a corner full of car dealerships, then to get a few bike lanes and sidewalks.
silmarillion is offline  
Old 04-18-11, 04:52 AM
  #38  
Schwinnhund
Gearhead
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Chatsworth, Ga.
Posts: 236

Bikes: 1982 Schwinn Sidewinder, Sun EZ-1 Recumbent, Cannondale R-400

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times in 8 Posts
The 14th Amendment addresses the Equal Treatment under the law principle. Our tax money is used for automobiles, not bikes. I am not saying that bikes should replace cars. I just want them to use a very small portion (and that's all it would take) to make real cycling (going to the store, library, groccery stores, etc...)safer, and more convenient. There is no reason that this can't be done. It just hasn't been. More attention needs to be placed on pedestrian facilities and mass-transit as well.

Originally Posted by Bekologist
the right to travel is buttressed by the privileges and immunities clause in the articles of the constitution, not the 14th amendment.

United States v. Wheeler 1920
Schwinnhund is offline  
Old 05-07-11, 11:25 AM
  #39  
Walter
SLJ 6/8/65-5/2/07
 
Walter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: SE Florida, USA aka the Treasure Coast
Posts: 5,399
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked 20 Times in 7 Posts
1. The identification of a right does not guarantee the safety of exercising that right. I have the right to many activities that could or should be considered unsafe.

2. Considering death and injury rates as well as destruction of property you could easily argue that operating a motor vehicle is unsafe. Where is the Constitutional remedy for that?
__________________
“Life is not one damned thing after another. Life is one damned thing over and over.”
Edna St. Vincent Millay
Walter is offline  
Old 11-10-15, 11:43 AM
  #40  
Schwinnhund
Gearhead
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Chatsworth, Ga.
Posts: 236

Bikes: 1982 Schwinn Sidewinder, Sun EZ-1 Recumbent, Cannondale R-400

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times in 8 Posts
Being Gay is not mentioned specifically, either, yet the courts have ruled that you have a 'right' to be that way. The Constitution does not spell out each and every right there is. However, "Freedom of Travel" would imply that in order to exercise this right, it stands to reason that you will have to have a certain degree of "Freedom to Choose the Method".
Schwinnhund is offline  
Old 11-10-15, 11:58 AM
  #41  
Schwinnhund
Gearhead
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Chatsworth, Ga.
Posts: 236

Bikes: 1982 Schwinn Sidewinder, Sun EZ-1 Recumbent, Cannondale R-400

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times in 8 Posts
Operating a Motor Vehicle is considered inherently unsafe, hence the licensing requirements. They claim the authority to license drivers because of Public Safety.
Originally Posted by Walter
1. The identification of a right does not guarantee the safety of exercising that right. I have the right to many activities that could or should be considered unsafe.

2. Considering death and injury rates as well as destruction of property you could easily argue that operating a motor vehicle is unsafe. Where is the Constitutional remedy for that?
Schwinnhund is offline  
Old 11-24-15, 03:05 PM
  #42  
bikinglife
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Posts: 50

Bikes: OPUS Dual Sport 2.0 2014

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Bottom line: in society as we live in it, driving without a license will give you legal problems and cost you a lot of money.
If you're down for that, then have fun!

I speak from personal experience having had a DUI about 18 months ago. Besides for the guilt and shame associated to the act, I had to live with a long-term license suspension. After a few months, I was tempted to drive without a license, but I realized that that would only make life worse if caught.

I guess it's worse to drive without a license after a DUI than to simply drive without a license, but in the end, they're both punishable by vehicle seizure and heavy fines pretty much all around the globe.

Last edited by bikinglife; 11-24-15 at 03:08 PM.
bikinglife is offline  
Old 11-28-15, 02:11 PM
  #43  
tandempower
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,355
Mentioned: 90 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8084 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 14 Times in 13 Posts
Originally Posted by earth2pete
ever since our country was founded on basic principles of the equality of every individual with 'inalienable rights,' that idea has been tested over and over again.

it would seem that what is written on paper as a 'right' often has to be claimed, or it can still be denied by those who are already comfortable with their own rights and don't see any need to protect the rights of small groups who they may not understand.

in fact, even one single person should have the same rights, regardless of whether he/she belongs to a minority group with power, or not.
Ideally, the law should address free practices that grow to interfere or hinder other freedoms. Motor-travel, along with air-travel, are obvious examples of freedoms that need to be regulated to prevent people from harming themselves and others, and undermining each others' freedom.

Consider the example of what would happen if stop signs and traffic signaling were absent from busy roads, or if anyone was allowed to operate any aircraft in any way they want. In order to facilitate free use of public roads (and air space), certain rules need to be made, respected, and/or enforced; and ideally care should be taken not to overextend regulation to the point of limiting freedom unnecessarily, e.g. limiting the freedom of some for the benefit of others.

That said, the question is when the overall volume of motor-traffic and expansion of sprawl within an area becomes harmful and/or undermines the freedom to utilize either non-motorized forms of travel or driving itself. Imagine if a given city not only failed to accommodate and encourage non-motorized forms of transportation, but even failed to restrict development to the point that traffic gridlock became inevitable.

It's one thing to allow growth with the option of using transit and/or biking in bike lanes that circumvent motor-congestion. It would be something else entirely if bikes had to wait in congested traffic jams with cars and the overall level of service in an area was deteriorating to the point no one could get to practically any destination within a reasonable time. At that point, I would think municipalities and/or private communities could be sued and/or otherwise legally disciplined for failing to regulate and facilitate forms of traffic that prevent congestion and gridlock.
tandempower is offline  
Old 12-01-15, 10:30 PM
  #44  
B. Carfree
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 7,048
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 509 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times in 8 Posts
Originally Posted by bikinglife
Bottom line: in society as we live in it, driving without a license will give you legal problems and cost you a lot of money.
If you're down for that, then have fun!

I speak from personal experience having had a DUI about 18 months ago. Besides for the guilt and shame associated to the act, I had to live with a long-term license suspension. After a few months, I was tempted to drive without a license, but I realized that that would only make life worse if caught.

I guess it's worse to drive without a license after a DUI than to simply drive without a license, but in the end, they're both punishable by vehicle seizure and heavy fines pretty much all around the globe.
Stop making us Yanks jealous. Hereabouts, a license isn't suspended until the third drunk driving conviction. Also, a "hardship" waiver is almost automatic. It allows the drunk to keep driving to work and shopping (they are always shopping). Also, there's essentially no penalty for driving while suspended anyway, so it's the norm. In fact, my postal carrier was nearly killed on her way to work by a drunk driver who was driving while suspended. Yes, she was drunk at 6:30 AM. (The drunk left the scene, but since she lives in my carrier's route it was a pretty easy identification to make.)
B. Carfree is offline  
Old 01-24-16, 04:17 AM
  #45  
Ekdog
Senior Member
 
Ekdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Seville, Spain
Posts: 4,403

Bikes: Brompton M6R, mountain bikes, Circe Omnis+ tandem

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 146 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by B. Carfree
Stop making us Yanks jealous. Hereabouts, a license isn't suspended until the third drunk driving conviction. Also, a "hardship" waiver is almost automatic. It allows the drunk to keep driving to work and shopping (they are always shopping). Also, there's essentially no penalty for driving while suspended anyway, so it's the norm. In fact, my postal carrier was nearly killed on her way to work by a drunk driver who was driving while suspended. Yes, she was drunk at 6:30 AM. (The drunk left the scene, but since she lives in my carrier's route it was a pretty easy identification to make.)
That's terrible.
Ekdog is offline  
Old 01-25-16, 01:09 PM
  #46  
enigmaT120
Senior Member
 
enigmaT120's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Falls City, OR
Posts: 1,965

Bikes: 2012 Salsa Fargo 2, Rocky Mountain Fusion, circa '93

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Liked 6 Times in 4 Posts
Originally Posted by Ekdog
That's terrible.
It is. But it's not as bad as what happens to people who kill others with a car without being drunk or having a suspended license. Nothing.
enigmaT120 is offline  
Old 02-01-16, 09:40 AM
  #47  
Schwinnhund
Gearhead
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Chatsworth, Ga.
Posts: 236

Bikes: 1982 Schwinn Sidewinder, Sun EZ-1 Recumbent, Cannondale R-400

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times in 8 Posts
That is not exactly correct. Here in Georgia, your license is automatically suspended for a DUI, even the first one, for at least 3 months, and you have to go to court to get a hardship waiver, which is only granted in extreme circumstances (going to the doctor for life-threatening conditions, etc...). The 2nd offense is 11 months and 29 days in jail, and a $2000.00 fine. The 3rd offense is a felony, and is permanent suspension, and 5 years in the State Penitentiary. If you cause an accident while drunk, or on a suspended license, it is a felony, and if anyone dies, it is Vehicular Manslaughter. Georgia will suspend your Drivers License for fishing without a license, getting behind in child support, or contempt, both civil and criminal. Any excuse for them to take your license will suffice. In addition, any law enforcement officer can confiscate your license and have it suspended on the spot for any reason they deem fit. You have to go to court to get it back, and it will cost you a $150.00 re-instatement fee, on top of court costs, to get it back, even if you have done nothing wrong. In Georgia, Driving on a Suspended License is a minimum of $500.00 fine and 10 days in jail, which will start as soon as they stop you. You will go directly to jail, and they will impound your vehicle. You cannot get it back until you show that you have a valid license, tags, and insurance, and pay the storage fees of $100.00 per day, + the towing fees, which start at $75.00.. Otherwise, after 30 days, it will be sold, along with anything in it, at a public auction. The only other state with laws as Draconian as Georgia is Texas.

Originally Posted by B. Carfree
Stop making us Yanks jealous. Hereabouts, a license isn't suspended until the third drunk driving conviction. Also, a "hardship" waiver is almost automatic. It allows the drunk to keep driving to work and shopping (they are always shopping). Also, there's essentially no penalty for driving while suspended anyway, so it's the norm. In fact, my postal carrier was nearly killed on her way to work by a drunk driver who was driving while suspended. Yes, she was drunk at 6:30 AM. (The drunk left the scene, but since she lives in my carrier's route it was a pretty easy identification to make.)
Schwinnhund is offline  
Old 02-01-16, 09:46 AM
  #48  
Schwinnhund
Gearhead
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Chatsworth, Ga.
Posts: 236

Bikes: 1982 Schwinn Sidewinder, Sun EZ-1 Recumbent, Cannondale R-400

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times in 8 Posts
The problem with letting the government issue a Drivers License (which is unconstitutional, by the way....) is that they use it as an instrument of oppression, especially for those of limited financial means.
Schwinnhund is offline  
Old 02-01-16, 01:56 PM
  #49  
mr_bill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,529
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2111 Post(s)
Liked 663 Times in 443 Posts
Originally Posted by Schwinnhund
The problem with letting the government issue a Drivers License (which is unconstitutional, by the way....) is that they use it as an instrument of oppression, especially for those of limited financial means.
Uh, state issued driver's licences are very constitutional.*

-mr. bill

*Be careful when you conduct "research" on the internut. Free advice is worth every penny.**
**I fully understand that this free advice is worth every penny.
mr_bill is offline  
Old 02-01-16, 02:29 PM
  #50  
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Posts: 14,240
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4221 Post(s)
Liked 1,320 Times in 915 Posts
Originally Posted by Schwinnhund
The problem with letting the government issue a Drivers License (which is unconstitutional, by the way....) is that they use it as an instrument of oppression, especially for those of limited financial means.
The constitution (more or less) provides for a general "right of travel" but there is no consitutional right to a particular form of travel.
njkayaker is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.