ExpertLaw.com Forums

Driver's License Suspension and the Right to Travel

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst Previous 1 2 3
  • 10-07-2016, 09:19 AM
    puppybreath
    Re: Driver's License Suspension and the Right to Travel
    Several years ago I looked very deeply into what motor vehicles could legally be operated on the road without a license. Pretty much the only vehicle that can be legally operated without a license without question on city streets is a gas or electric powered mobility scooter. Other vehicles include self propelled farm vehicles like (tractors, combines etc) but then typically only from field to field, which rules out a shopping run.

    The reason I looked into it is because I went through a 10 year period where my license was getting suspended all the time for no apparent or verifiable reason. Neither the police or my aunt who worked in DMV could find anything other than 'suspended', no date, reason or department listed, which according to them it was extremely unusual because without knowing who or why, it couldn't actually be cleared.

    The requirement for a license is not a major hit for poor people, typically a license is $20-$30 and good for 3 years in most states. ID is required for any major transaction, renting, cashing a check etc, so may as well make it a driver's license. The biggest impact on poor people is the requirement for auto insurance, that often puts them in a position where they have to choose between paying insurance or paying rent.
  • 10-07-2016, 10:29 AM
    KBoy420
    Re: Driver's License Suspension and the Right to Travel
    There's one sure way to handle this OP - in order to try and fix it, you need to get cited first so that you can then go to Court and set the precedent for everyone else. Have at it!
  • 10-07-2016, 05:47 PM
    dscrox
    Re: Driver's License Suspension and the Right to Travel
    Quote:

    Quoting KBoy420
    View Post
    There's one sure way to handle this OP - in order to try and fix it, you need to get cited first so that you can then go to Court and set the precedent for everyone else. Have at it!

    So you first have to go to criminal Court for breaking a law to appeal it on those grounds through the courts however far that can go. While in order to appeal you have already been found guilty of said crime. That really blows. Lol
    I started this researching and interest into the whole topic bc of my own personal situation, which I realize makes me grossly biased but I'm fine with admitting many things are right, but beyond my personal case, and the licenses, fees taxes etc. Don't infringe on the right of right of travel bc it only affects one means of travel. Which is completely true, and in my case I could never personally fight this point bc I broke a safety law so completely inapplicable. For someone else however with the funds or knowledge would they have any case whatsoever to make. You guys have all said and the court has already ruled just a license doesn't but I'm not asking about that im asking to look at it from this view. Again if a court even has the ability to.
    All of the fees, regardless if Constitutional by themselves or not, compounded by the safety laws restricting access to the roadways to basically only an automobile bc of public safety. since driving in the courts decisions can be taken away with said licensing. or unobtainable to the poor bc of costs associated with owning an automobile. It's not that any one of these by themselves are unconstitutional or discriminatory but when these factors come together a citizen who is trying to better themselves and work to make an income is now unable to get to the location they need to get to follow every law without breaking a law.
    Example a poor person who doesn't have a license who obtains gainful employment must have reliable transportation I can't think of one occupation in this county that that isnt a requirement. They can't afford a car let alone the fees I know it's only 30-40 bucks to get a license but when u compound that with the tax on the car the requirement of insurance, the registration, some states inspection and emission standards that all vehicles on a roadway must maintain. Can those be considered an unbearable hindrance or (whatever it's called) discriminatory? The poor may not have their right to travel infringed upon by all the regulations bc being poor doesn't entitle them to not have to pay the same fees as others, but when those exact same fees and costs are the reason an individual is in poverty and unable to better themselves doesn't that constitute what is necessary as recognized by the courts?
    Without the ability to obtain reliable transport in this day and age it is impossible to work to secure an income. Unless an individual lives in a city with public transportation they have no other means of travel bc access to the interstate is restricted to only motor vehicles, and most noninterstate roads in general. If you try to argue the fact that they have the choice to walk or ride a bike or a horse on the roadway try to do anything other than driving a car on an interstate. The way at least my states law is written someone can't even ride a bicycle on a non interstate road that has an electric assist on it without having a driver's license and adhering to almost all the same requirements that a vehicle has.
    As a matter of fact the auto industry has made it this way for the express reason the only thing they want on these roads is their product. Its so bad they have a made it a monopoly for their product by manipulating policy that law makers pass to ensure it stays this way.
    When seen through this lense an individual has been denied his right to travel by cutting off his access to the public roadway. and the only other means of travel afforded him is nonpublic roadways which means traveling on private property which is illegal. Public transportation can only be used in locations that have them namely cities so saying that everyone has access to them is not correct only the people who choose to live in them have access.
    I've never heard of anyone making the case to judges citing more than one law acting together are unconstitutional or discriminatory, (Haven't really looked either) or if that's possible at all either. In your guys professional and intellectual experience does that have any merit at all. You're obviously retired cops and lawyers and people well versed in the law and judiciary process. And I have at this point conceded I'm wrong in my own personal experience but on the broader case I just outlined could it even be presented for judgement.
    If again that answer is no can you think of any scenario it would? I believed and was taught that the judiciary branch was designed to right the wrongs that the legislature have made into law. If that can only apply to one law at a time then we can lawed into servitude and have no rights at all as long as no one law implicitly takes them away.
    Thanks all for reading and indulging my interest which at this point is bordering on completely selfish.
  • 10-07-2016, 06:32 PM
    Taxing Matters
    Re: Driver's License Suspension and the Right to Travel
    Quote:

    Quoting dscrox
    View Post
    Example a poor person who doesn't have a license who obtains gainful employment must have reliable transportation I can't think of one occupation in this county that that isnt a requirement. They can't afford a car let alone the fees I know it's only 30-40 bucks to get a license but when u compound that with the tax on the car the requirement of insurance, the registration, some states inspection and emission standards that all vehicles on a roadway must maintain. Can those be considered an unbearable hindrance or (whatever it's called) discriminatory? The poor may not have their right to travel infringed upon by all the regulations bc being poor doesn't entitle them to not have to pay the same fees as others, but when those exact same fees and costs are the reason an individual is in poverty and unable to better themselves doesn't that constitute what is necessary as recognized by the courts?

    Even added together the license & registration costs (which are those imposed by the government) are not all that much, at least in most states. There are states that impose a property tax also on automobiles, but as those taxes are based on the value of the car, the tax typically isn’t much if the car is not worth a whole lot — like many older cars that a poor person might possibly afford. For most people the biggest mandatory cost of having a car is the auto insurance, and it is the insurance companies that set the rates for that, not the government. These costs are low enough that the vast majority of the public can afford them, indicating that these fees do not pose an unreasonable burden the right to travel nor is there a violation of any other constitutional right. And considering that the fees are necessary to help defray the costs of providing the roads and the various necessary services that go along with it, there isn’t any argument to be made here that the government is simply acting in an effort to prevent citizens from using the roads.

    At its heart, your argument basically is that the poor ought to have a right to have their transportation subsidized by the government (and thus paid for by all the other taxpayers). Whether they should have such a right or not is something people can debate but the fact is that the Constitution does not provide any such right. Being poor limits a person in many ways, but it is not the responsibility of the government to cure all the difficulties the poor face. If a person is too poor to afford a car, there are other ways to get around.

    You seem to have the mindset that cars are the only realistic mode of transport. Many people think that way because a car is certainly the most convenient mode of transport for most people and, as they can afford it, they don’t really think about alternatives. But the alternatives are there. It may require some effort or some change for the person to utilize those methods, but it can be done. If you live in city, there may be public transportation available. While only a few cities have subways, a number of large and medium size cities have bus systems, light rail, or other mass transit systems available at low cost. They also have extensive sidewalks that can be used to walk places, and many city streets may be used by bicycles as well as cars. Indeed, a number of cities have now started setting up specific bike lanes on the streets to encourage people to bike. In small cities and towns it is quite easy in fact to walk or bike most any place. When I was in high school I lived in a town that quite literally I could walk anywhere in an hour or less; by bike I could get anywhere in very little time. What this means is that if one is too poor to afford a car, he or she has to look at the alternatives and make use of them. Move close to where the jobs are so you can walk or bike to them. Move to a city with public transport. Join a car pool and split the gas cost with other people. Buy a bike and bike to where you need to go. Even a skate board can work. Out in the country you can still use horses or other beasts to get around. The Amish, after all, still do that — not out of necessity, but by choice. Yes, all those things may be more inconvenient and time consuming than getting into a car and driving yourself to where you wish to go. But the Constitution does not guarantee us that we get the most convenient and fastest way to travel if we can’t afford it. Want to go across the country but can’t afford airfare? Take a train or a bus. Or ride a bike. Or even walk. If you think hard and have the will to do it, you likely can find a way. Sure, it may take you a lot longer to do it using some of those methods. But it can, and has been, done.
  • 10-07-2016, 07:46 PM
    dscrox
    Re: Driver's License Suspension and the Right to Travel
    Quote:

    Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    Even added together the license & registration costs (which are those imposed by the government) are not all that much, at least in most states. There are states that impose a property tax also on automobiles, but as those taxes are based on the value of the car, the tax typically isn’t much if the car is not worth a whole lot — like many older cars that a poor person might possibly afford. For most people the biggest mandatory cost of having a car is the auto insurance, and it is the insurance companies that set the rates for that, not the government. These costs are low enough that the vast majority of the public can afford them, indicating that these fees do not pose an unreasonable burden the right to travel nor is there a violation of any other constitutional right. And considering that the fees are necessary to help defray the costs of providing the roads and the various necessary services that go along with it, there isn’t any argument to be made here that the government is simply acting in an effort to prevent citizens from using the roads.

    At its heart, your argument basically is that the poor ought to have a right to have their transportation subsidized by the government (and thus paid for by all the other taxpayers). Whether they should have such a right or not is something people can debate but the fact is that the Constitution does not provide any such right. Being poor limits a person in many ways, but it is not the responsibility of the government to cure all the difficulties the poor face. If a person is too poor to afford a car, there are other ways to get around.

    You seem to have the mindset that cars are the only realistic mode of transport. Many people think that way because a car is certainly the most convenient mode of transport for most people and, as they can afford it, they don’t really think about alternatives. But the alternatives are there. It may require some effort or some change for the person to utilize those methods, but it can be done. If you live in city, there may be public transportation available. While only a few cities have subways, a number of large and medium size cities have bus systems, light rail, or other mass transit systems available at low cost. They also have extensive sidewalks that can be used to walk places, and many city streets may be used by bicycles as well as cars. Indeed, a number of cities have now started setting up specific bike lanes on the streets to encourage people to bike. In small cities and towns it is quite easy in fact to walk or bike most any place. When I was in high school I lived in a town that quite literally I could walk anywhere in an hour or less; by bike I could get anywhere in very little time. What this means is that if one is too poor to afford a car, he or she has to look at the alternatives and make use of them. Move close to where the jobs are so you can walk or bike to them. Move to a city with public transport. Join a car pool and split the gas cost with other people. Buy a bike and bike to where you need to go. Even a skate board can work. Out in the country you can still use horses or other beasts to get around. The Amish, after all, still do that — not out of necessity, but by choice. Yes, all those things may be more inconvenient and time consuming than getting into a car and driving yourself to where you wish to go. But the Constitution does not guarantee us that we get the most convenient and fastest way to travel if we can’t afford it. Want to go across the country but can’t afford airfare? Take a train or a bus. Or ride a bike. Or even walk. If you think hard and have the will to do it, you likely can find a way. Sure, it may take you a lot longer to do it using some of those methods. But it can, and has been, done.

    Thank you I can't find any arguments for your response and I completely agree. Can anyone help me in my personal case I got a DUI and when sentenced I'm losing my license. I know I broke the law and I have to pay the price. But you were correct when you said that I can't think of another means other than personal automobile. I can't find on or think of one that anyone in my situation could use in a long term sustainable manner that didn't either break the law or completely jeopardize my employment. I live in a rural area in pa the closest city is 15 miles away I can't move bc I'm renting and under lease I have no public transportation here my wife also works and we need both our incomes to just barely survive as we are. I'm not trying to get around or cheat the system but I legitimately can't find a legal way to travel in a daily way that doesn't either break the law or is too far out of my financial capabilities ie a horse. The only means I found that could work is a bicycle aided by a small electric motor that meets the states requirements, but I'm finding conflicting information and want to be sure I'm not breaking the law by doing so. If that one isn't legal is there any means in my situation anyone can think of that doesn't involve on completely relying on another person and would be comparable to the price of a personal vehicle of which I only pay gas and insurance since I own mine currently? I though about finding a different job but I don't have any place that's above min wage ie a gas station or very small store close enough to walk or bicycle to in under an hour. Mind I have 3 kids and I don't currently have a terrible paying job. I know I'm a dumbass and the obvious answer is don't drink and drive but I have no idea what I'm going to do please help.
  • 11-17-2016, 11:37 AM
    floorguy
    Re: Driver's License Suspension and the Right to Travel
    Scratching my head over here....seeing people in some cases trying to debate the costs of a license or registration....how do said person afford to buy a car if they cannot afford a couple of 10's or 20's to get a license??? I am not an attorney, just observing, and thought this an interesting discussion. So, if people can afford the car, they should have no problem affording the license. Man, you have to spend money to operate a car....gas, oil changes, tires, wiper blades....and so on and so on.
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst Previous 1 2 3
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:49 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4
Copyright © 2023 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2004 - 2018 ExpertLaw.com, All Rights Reserved