The Real Issue
02-02-16, 09:58 PM
#51
Banned.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: south of the Great Lakes
Posts: 195
Bikes: The Kona
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Schwinn, we have a man who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. who's a constitutional lawyer. Unless you can show me equivalent credentials, I think you need to shut it about what's unconstitutional.
The "public safety" caveat of driver's licenses is legitimate; a century or so ago, when cars were unlicensed, as were drivers, the RATE of vehicular deaths was APPALLING. Cyclists, pedestrians killed, property damage in the extreme...they could have been doing dress rehearsal for Mad Max.
You want parity on the roads? Campaign for strict liability.
The "public safety" caveat of driver's licenses is legitimate; a century or so ago, when cars were unlicensed, as were drivers, the RATE of vehicular deaths was APPALLING. Cyclists, pedestrians killed, property damage in the extreme...they could have been doing dress rehearsal for Mad Max.
You want parity on the roads? Campaign for strict liability.
05-15-16, 02:31 PM
#52
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 885
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 150 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Choice is irrelevant. If I travel, it necessarily follows that I will have to 'choose' some form of mobility. Since I don't have wings, flying is out. And without using a motor vehicle, or other mode requiring licensing and jumping through hoops, or mass transit, which may not be available, my choices are walking, running, horseback, or a bicycle. All of these modalities were addressed in Swift v. City of Topeka, 43 Kan 671, 23 P 1075, 8 LRA 772 (Kan 1890). The ruling was "Each citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric car, or by bicycle, or astride of a horse, subject to the sole condition that he will observe all those requirements that are known as the ‘law of the road.". The case further established that "It may be said of bicycles with greater force, as was said of the first use by railroads of public streets, that they are not an obstruction to, or an unreasonable use of, the public streets of a city, but rather a new and improved method of using the same, and germane to their principal object as a passageway. ..."
This is but one of many, many court cases involving bicycles, or other self-powered modes of transportation on public roads. The precedent has been well established, even if it is not vigorously enforced.
This is but one of many, many court cases involving bicycles, or other self-powered modes of transportation on public roads. The precedent has been well established, even if it is not vigorously enforced.
05-15-16, 03:32 PM
#53
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
I am a writer and a journalist. CrippledKonaBoy- Show us where your statistics are to prove your claim. The first US drivers licenses were issued in New York City in 1903, to professional drivers only, and it had nothing to do with safety. It was a revenue=raising measure, and was also designed to discourage people from driving as it caused congestion, and conflicts with horse-draw carriages. It raised so much revenue that other states quickly followed, and by 1910, NY started requiring all drivers to get a license. It's been a cash cow ever since. North Dakota did not require a license until 1954. Licensing has nothing to do with safety or accidents, as the joke of a written and driving test indicates. Compare that to a written test and check ride for a Private Pilots license, and you will immediately see the difference. The drivers license testing is simply a token, and has little to do with actual driving. They just say it is for safety because otherwise, they would not have the authority to require one, and even at that, it is questionable. It is an assumed power, and the sheeple..er people that is....simply have gone along with it, just like they do on everything.
09-15-16, 11:30 AM
#55
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,489
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7652 Post(s)
Liked 3,473 Times
in
1,834 Posts
A few random responses---I am GLAD that states issue drivers' licenses, and my only wish so regarding would be that they would be harder to get--basically anyone who can make a three-point-turn and parallel-park (given unlimited attempts) can be a licensed driver. The ability to say, react rationally in a situation demanding immediate rational response is never tested. That's why so many people slam on the brakes and skid into whatever is in front of them when they could actually steer around potential accidents.
Also, in states where severe inclement weather is the norm, there is no separate test for handling low-traction conditions, which is why so many people plow into each other at stop lights at the start of winter in so many Northern states (anecdotal experience only.) The old-school, "Go into an empty parking lot and do doughnuts and learn to steer into a skid" routine seems to be lost.
Still, licensing drivers at least provides a modicum of responsibility after the fact, in that it is easier to track down an offending driver via registration which is based on license.
And seriously ... no matter why drivers' licenses exist, is debating them going to help cyclist and cycling? Not at all. If we take that debate to the government, the response will be, "Yes, we should also require licenses for people who cycle on public roads." Hoist on our own petards, we'd be.
Also ... the idea (the "perception") that cycling is not safe is belied by the number of people who safely cycle (you'd almost think there would be enough of them to populate a web forum, there seem to be so many) and I have never seen any numbers showing that per mile, cycling is more or less deadly than driving. Driving has killed 30-40,000 per year since 1960, about, and considering the vastly lower number of cyclists, .... well, can anyone prove via real and reasonable statistics that cycling is more dangerous per mile traveled than driving? That would be interesting, and sort of cogent to the debate.
Also, I did a lot of cycling in cities which had Zero cycling infrastructure and survived. In fact for many cities it has only be the last couple decades where cycling was even recognized as a valid transport option.
Given that it was safe and possible to travel by bike way back then, and given everything from bike lanes to "Share the Road" programs to bikes on trains and racks on buses ... It is safer and more convenient to bike on public roads now than then.
As has been noted, it is not numbers, but lobbying effort which secures changes in government planning and execution. We can argue over the interpretation of language forever, or we can look at Why anything has improved for cyclists, and it almost always because of organization, partnership, and pressure on governments at the most local level, where it is often easiest to make changes which can then be replicated on larger scales.
I know these threads are often more an explanation of posters' pet peeves than any serious constructive attempts to improve the situation ... but should we actually want to improve the situation, the path is fairly simple ... just not at all quick or easy.
Also, in states where severe inclement weather is the norm, there is no separate test for handling low-traction conditions, which is why so many people plow into each other at stop lights at the start of winter in so many Northern states (anecdotal experience only.) The old-school, "Go into an empty parking lot and do doughnuts and learn to steer into a skid" routine seems to be lost.
Still, licensing drivers at least provides a modicum of responsibility after the fact, in that it is easier to track down an offending driver via registration which is based on license.
And seriously ... no matter why drivers' licenses exist, is debating them going to help cyclist and cycling? Not at all. If we take that debate to the government, the response will be, "Yes, we should also require licenses for people who cycle on public roads." Hoist on our own petards, we'd be.
Also ... the idea (the "perception") that cycling is not safe is belied by the number of people who safely cycle (you'd almost think there would be enough of them to populate a web forum, there seem to be so many) and I have never seen any numbers showing that per mile, cycling is more or less deadly than driving. Driving has killed 30-40,000 per year since 1960, about, and considering the vastly lower number of cyclists, .... well, can anyone prove via real and reasonable statistics that cycling is more dangerous per mile traveled than driving? That would be interesting, and sort of cogent to the debate.
Also, I did a lot of cycling in cities which had Zero cycling infrastructure and survived. In fact for many cities it has only be the last couple decades where cycling was even recognized as a valid transport option.
Given that it was safe and possible to travel by bike way back then, and given everything from bike lanes to "Share the Road" programs to bikes on trains and racks on buses ... It is safer and more convenient to bike on public roads now than then.
As has been noted, it is not numbers, but lobbying effort which secures changes in government planning and execution. We can argue over the interpretation of language forever, or we can look at Why anything has improved for cyclists, and it almost always because of organization, partnership, and pressure on governments at the most local level, where it is often easiest to make changes which can then be replicated on larger scales.
I know these threads are often more an explanation of posters' pet peeves than any serious constructive attempts to improve the situation ... but should we actually want to improve the situation, the path is fairly simple ... just not at all quick or easy.
09-27-16, 11:24 PM
#56
What happened?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Around here somewhere
Posts: 7,927
Bikes: 3 Rollfasts, 3 Schwinns, a Shelby and a Higgins Flightliner in a pear tree!
Mentioned: 57 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1835 Post(s)
Liked 292 Times
in
255 Posts
Ummmmm, yeah. It didn't SEEM that easy. I did get docked for one thing on the driving test.
__________________
I don't know nothing, and I memorized it in school and got this here paper I'm proud of to show it.
11-01-16, 03:25 PM
#57
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Stephenville TX
Posts: 3,697
Bikes: 2010 Trek 7100
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 697 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
And yet while I was sitting out an expired registration ticket, the next guy brought into the holding cell was in for DUI arrest #12, with 9 convictions already, and one pending. Apparently, he got bailed out shortly after, and caught driving again before conviction #10 finally got him life in prison.
"Court records indicated that Eberhardt was convicted of four DWI offenses in Travis and Tarrant counties in the 1980s and 1990s. He also spent time in prison for DWI offenses in Parker, Tarrant and Runnels counties. He was also convicted of DWI offenses in Colorado in 2010 and 2015.
Swain said Eberhardt will be eligible for parole after 15 years of his sentence, but he can receive good conduct credit toward reaching that number." (He'll be 77 in 15 years, so maybe he won't be able to find his keys if he gets out.)
IMO, first time they're picked up driving drunk after suspension/revocation for DUI, keep them locked up. They've already proven that they not only won't drive, but won't even stay sober to do it.
"Court records indicated that Eberhardt was convicted of four DWI offenses in Travis and Tarrant counties in the 1980s and 1990s. He also spent time in prison for DWI offenses in Parker, Tarrant and Runnels counties. He was also convicted of DWI offenses in Colorado in 2010 and 2015.
Swain said Eberhardt will be eligible for parole after 15 years of his sentence, but he can receive good conduct credit toward reaching that number." (He'll be 77 in 15 years, so maybe he won't be able to find his keys if he gets out.)
IMO, first time they're picked up driving drunk after suspension/revocation for DUI, keep them locked up. They've already proven that they not only won't drive, but won't even stay sober to do it.
