Is driving a privilege?

[olefty]

At this point I won't say where I stand on this topic. I just
want to get a feel of where enlightened people fall on this.
The full question is:

Is driving a right or a privilege? Please explain your
position either way.

Thanks, O'Lefty

[benburch]

1. A privilege.

Has to be since it is a compelling interest of the state to keep unsafe drivers from driving. As an extreme example, a narcoleptic.

Owning a car is a right. Travel is a right, And you can always HIRE a chauffeur or a taxicab if you are an unsafe driver, so your right of travel is not impeded by your loss of the privilege to drive.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

2. A privilege.

But I guess you have the right to apply for that privilege.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

3. Legally it is a privilege

The theory that the roads are owned by the people, all the people, and that you have no inherent claim to access them. You must demonstrate that you can use them without being a threat to others who also use the road.

Arguable, the standard to qualify for such is not real high.

[tedd]

35. I think you've got something backwards

Freedom_from_Chains:

The theory that the roads are owned by the people, all the people, and that you have no inherent claim to access them.

If the roads are owned by all the people, and I'm one of the people, that implies that I have an inherent claim to access them. It's exactly the same principle as applies to public parks. The public roads are in the public domain, ergo the public (of which I am part) has the right to use them.

Now, also because they are public domain, my use of them may conflict with use by others. Therefore, just as with parks, sidewalks, air, the EM spectrum, and everything else in the public domain, my use of them is constrained by how that use would affect the rights of others to use them. But those constraints are defined by the right, not the other way around.

[the other one]

4. Ooh thats a can of worms.

Legally, it is a privelage. That is, it is a right that requires a person to meet certain obligations.

The state holds all the cards when it comes to driving. A person must have a license, the car must be inspected, registered, titled and insured. The state even controls the transfer of automobiles through titleing. You never really "own" your car, you are merely given title to it. You cannot transfer your car to another person without the cooperation of the state via the titling process.

That said, the energy and automobile industries are considered vital to our economic security. For that reason the process is very much simplified. A person only needs the barest of skills to qualify for a license, and unsafe cars are routinely allowed on the roads.

So I would say that driving is a privelage that the powers that has such low barriers as to ALMOST be considered a right.

[question everything]

5. Yes, it is

Several weeks ago I posted a story about a driver in Orange County, CA, where there are very wide bike lane, killed a cyclist and injured a companion. The driver apparently was reaching into his glove compartment.. That post generated a heated debate about drivers vs. cyclists, never mind that we are talking about a machine of thousands of pounds vs. a human flesh.

These days, when drivers' minds are occupied by million tasks except driving we need to remind drivers that driving should occupy their full attention. No, it is not like brushing one's teeth where - most of us, at least - just do this by rot, not really concentrating on what we are doing but planning our day ahead or just listening to the radio.

It is not just changing channels on the radio or gabbing on the phone or trying to control the kids in the back seat. It is thinking of other things.

So, yes, driving is a privilege that should be taken seriously by drivers, or they should lose that privilege.

(You did not think you'd hit a hot button with me on this, right?)

[electron_blue]

6. Privileges can be taken away, rights cannot. So I say driving's a privileg

Of course, this is ignoring the fact that Bush is taking away our rights all the time, but in theory, that's how I see the difference.

[deadparrot]

7. I feel it's a privilege.

We don't just hand every kid a driver's license on their 16th birthday, and with good reason. You're not entititled to it just because you're old enough to have one. You have to show that you know how to operate and control your vehicle safely. Of course, everyone should have the right to test for their permit/license, but until one knows the material at a satisfactory level, they're a hazard (heck, I know some people with licenses that are a hazard).

[William769]

8. It is a privilege.

A privilege is something that can be taken away, aright is not.

And yes there are people out there that should not be driving.

[lumberjack_jeff]

13. "A privilege is something that can be taken away, a right is not."

What about voting? Convicted felons lose their right to vote.

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are our inalienable rights. Those rights can be taken away (with somewhat more due process) just like the privilege of a drivers license.

[electron_blue]

14. voting is a privilege, too. Not a right.

[Sinistrous]

15. Voting is neither a right nor a privilege.

Voting is an obligation of citizenship.

Sinistrous

[electron_blue]

16. I get your point, nonetheless it is something that can is earned by

good behavior, basically. Rights are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

[lagged_variable]

23. What?

Have you read the Constitution? There are at least 5 Amendments in the Bill of Rights (XVI, XV, XIX, XXIV, XXVI) that add up to say "unless you are a traitor or a felon, if you're over 18 you MUST be allowed to vote". Voting is the first right of a citizen. I see what you're saying about felons, and I disagree with the fact that previously convicted felons can't vote. But it's pure silliness to say that the right to vote is not in the Bill of Rights.

[Solon]

32. Actually, those amendments combined basically say...

That you cannot be denied a vote because of race, sex, and if you are 18, THAT'S IT! All other bets are off, states, and the Federal Government, can put any other restriction in that they damned well please, income requirements, need to own land, and many other methods are Constitutional. Federal laws do further restrict states from many restrictions(Poll taxes are one example), but those are Federal laws, can be overturned on a whim, unlike Amendments.

[Art_from_Ark]

38. Actually, the Voting Rights Act of 1965

laid it out in full legal terms that voting is a right. You cannot be denied the right to vote in any jurisdiction of the United States based on what property you own or don't own. Period. Every citizen who is at least 18 and is not a convicted felon is automatically entitled to register and vote in all public elections in their electoral district or ward.

[PavePusher]

52. Silly Fifteenth Amendment...

and Nineteenth... and Twenty-Fourth... and Twenty-Sixth.

[rman]

9. For many people it's a necessity

Why do you think it's either a right or a privilege, and what would be the consequences of either?

[Quantess]

25. If it is a necessity,

that's all the more reason to take the privilege seriously, respect the privilege, and not do anying to get that privelege taken away.

[izzie]

10. Yes a privilege

Not a thing in Constitution on personal travel equipment. So I think the state may set up laws on who can use what in some reasonable way but can not makes laws that would go against the free faith and credit etc. and passing between states. That is just sort of what I think and I may be way off. Frankly I always told my children it was not a right as it made a point for me with them driving .

[We_Have_A_Problem]

54. There isnt a thing in the Constitution about eating pizza either.

Doesn't mean you cant or that you dont have a right to if you so choose.

The Constitution is not a list of what the people may do. It is a definition of what government is permitted to do.

[meti57b]

11. It's a right, like any other right that the gov't can take away from you

under certain conditions.

[Sinistrous]

12. Driving is, of course, a right.

The roads are ours: we authorize their construction (through our representatives, and we pay for them through our taxes and tolls). We have as much right to drive on them as we do on our own driveways. We have the right to move about by driving a motor vehicle just as we have the right to move about by walking, riding a bicycle, a coaster wagon, or an ox cart.

I grant that the right to drive must be carefully and cautiously restricted by the state to protect the general public from those who abuse or who might abuse this right. However, driving remains a right.

The driver license issued by the states is merely a certification by the state that the recipient of the license has demonstrated such competence as can be measured by the state in the skills and knowledges needed to operate a vehicle without undue danger to others.

To consider this license as a permission slip is to assert that the state has some amorphous reservoir of "privileges" that it may dole out to the deserving or to the favored few. I do not acknowledge the existence of such a pot of goodies.

[electron_blue]

17. Try not taking the driver's test the next time you move to a new state,

and see if they dole one out to you.

[Sinistrous]

19. As I said above.....

"The driver license issued by the states is merely a certification by the state that the recipient of the license has demonstrated such competence as can be measured by the state in the skills and knowledges needed to operate a vehicle without undue danger to others."

The drivier's tests are the mechanism employed by the state to determine competence.

Sinistrous

[electron_blue]

21. It's more than competence. You have no "right" to drive w/o a license

Anything you could conceivably land in jail for doing is not a legal right in this country. Sounds like you disagree with the laws - maybe you're thinking of God-given rights or some other kind of right, other than legal rights??

[Sinistrous]

22. Freedom of movement is a right inherent in our status as

sentient social beings, regardless of the means chosen to move about. The right to drive a motor vehicle is constrained by the state because of the state's legitimate role in preserving public order and safety. However, the state is constraining our right, not granting it.

Sinistrous

[Solon]

31. And?

Look, you have the absolute right to go from one place to another, just not in a car, there are innumerable other methods in which to travel(Bicycle, Legs, Horse, whatever), automobiles aren't necessary for that.

[tortoise1956]

39. And?

You have freedom of movement without a driver's license (bus, train, plane). However, there is no inherent right to drive on public roads, which is why the state can force you to undergo testing before they issue you a license.

As for the whole sentient social being thing, try that in Iran or North Korea and let me know how it works. Those rights you speak of so blithely are only as good as the society we make.

[Broken_Hero]

26. I didn't have to take a drivers

test, when I went from my Alaska st drivers liscense to my current Missouri liscense...? Maybe both states, are lax...all I had to do, was pass an eyesight test...to get my MO drivers liscense....

[We_Have_A_Problem]

55. No problem.

Done it repeatedly. What's your point?

In many states, surrendering the license from your previous state of residence is all that is needed to obtain a new one.

[olefty]

18. I think we are closely aligned on this Sinistrous

We are told from the age of 16 that driving is a privilege, the mantra is repeated so often that we accept it.

My question to those in the privilege camp, what is a comparable privilege that the government can take away, apparently in your opinions, at will?

Thanks, O'Lefty

[Sinistrous]

20. And I believe that accepting the idea that the state is in the position

to grant "privileges" diminishes us. I have placed that concept on the shelf, right next to "the divine right of kings."

Sinistrous

[Solon]

30. I disagree...

You don't need to take a test to be allowed free speech, freedom to assemble, or to be secure with your personal effects, etc. However, with driving, you MUST take a test to drive on public roads, this to me seems to be for the argument privilege.

For example, many rights, such as privacy, etc. can be taken away, however, you are GIVEN those rights once requirements are met. You have freedom of speech, outside of the odd soap in mouth from mom, since you were born. Most rights can only be taken away with a direct court order, and most of them are temporary at that.

Now, driving is different, if you fail the driver's exam, you can't drive a car on public roads, period. Now, if you already have a driver's license, then many states do require a court order to take said license away, however, they can do so on a PERMANENT basis.

[Ostanes]

50. You just flamboyantly said that driving is a circumstantial right.

AKA a privilege.


Meet X standards. Receive right to do X. = Privilege.

[imandrewmurphy]

24. This one

I don't know where it stands today legally, but I believe we ought to simply drop the idea of our personal actions being privliges. I believe this is an issue of control for a lot of people and I think the less control 'they' have, the better.

[SlipperySlope]

27. I hold it to be a right

It doesn't matter to me how many times the State or the courts tell you it is a privilege. It remains a right, and you don't let someone take away your rights be telling you that they are only privileges.

That doesn't mean that this right couldn't be removed from someone who committed a crime. Heck, we do that (take away rights) all the time to criminals. You lose the right to vote, the right to bear arms, and sometimes (via the death penalty) you lose everything.

[57_TomCat]

28. Driving is driving.

There are no laws that I know of restricting the age or operation of my vehicles on my property. I do NOT have to have permission of the state to tool about on my families farm property nor the property of others with permission. In fact I often drove farm equipment to include trucks and tractors when growing up and well below the "legal" driving age.

If I want to drive about on the public roadways then I have to pay a tax. The state get that tax by fees for drivers licenses, tag and registration fees, safety inspections and other rules of the road. As a side effect they hopefully improve the abilities and safety of the drivers and equipment.

Is it a privilege or right? Seems to me it is both. No restrictions on private property, I.E. a right. Limited access and prior restraint on public roads, I.E. a privilege.

[Tenseiga]

29. somewhere in the middle

to be issued a driver's liscence is privildge granted by the state (and occasionally taken away for reasons regulated by the state) , but you always have the right to apply for said privilidge. This falls in the grey area.

Much like you will always have the right to, to use someone else's term, hold title to a car. They can't refuse you the right to title based on immutable factors such as race, sex, etc etc, only based on your ability to buy said title thru cash or approved credit.

[tedd]

33. The View from Canada

A few years ago the Supreme Court in Canada ruled on a related question. The case involved someone who's license was revoked when he failed to pay a fine (or perhaps fines). In Canada, mobility rights are explicit in the Constitution (as well as protected in common law), and the court ruled that this included driving. Your driver's license can be revoked for a demonstrated lack of competence, but not for an administrative purpose, such as failing to pay fines.

My reading of this is that, in Canada, driving is a right. But, as with other rights, the state places limitations on that right where it impinges on the rights of others. (I.e., everyone's right of mobility is compromised when an incompetent driver is on the road.) I think that's a reasonable position.

By the way, there is also an argument that, under British common law, the requirement for a driver's license is a violation of a person's mobility rights. Obviously, that argument has never gained much traction. But it's interesting to speculate what would transpire if driver's licenses were ruled unconstitutional.

[truebrit71]

34. It is a right. My taxes pay for the roads, ergo they are mine..

...it is illegal to prohibit my freedom of movement...If they wish to take that "privilege" away they should refund my tax money...

It is a RIGHT.

[robertdaluz]

36. Driving is a right. ... Period.

In this democratic society we pay for every service that we recieve. We pay taxes. This means that we pay for the up-keep and construction of the roads, road signs, and traffic lights. We pay for the car that we drive and the insurance, as required by law. Some of our rights can be revoked or suspended if we are not good citizens. The right to vote, for a time, is not available for people convicted of a felony. The right to bear arms is subject to similar restriction. Should not driving be a right also? Since we, the tax payers, pay for every aspect of the activity, including safety infractions.
I believe that the right to drive should be suspended for saftey infractions and other irresponsibities deemed to be unlawful.
Furthermore, I believe we need to be careful and be aware that the state can not and should not serve as our masters. To say something is a privelege is to say that we are fortunate to have such a choice. This is our land, and whether by direct or by indirect contributions to the development of our society, we all have a right to be here and move freely within our land.

[NikRik]

37. If its a right ,my rights have been denied !

I have a out of state hold on my driver license from a 1982 DUI ! I was staying in Ill. for awhile and out of work ,I did not even own a car ,however was using someones car. I went downtown in Chicago where the bars stay open and serve till 4:00AM, on my way back to where I was staying I was pulled over and arrested for a DUI. Spending one night in Cook County Prison was enough to know I would never survive a stint in that prison. I left the state and went back to Ca.to train for a job I never held a Ill. driver license yet they list a Ill. driver lic # on my case, must be the state IC card # I had. I tried a few times to fill out their "out of state hearing" papers which is the size of a novel, and each time it was rejected and no hearing granted. At $50 a pop to have them send me another set(book)of the application its very frustrating. I cannot believe that even though I never drink at all stopped drinking over 16 years ago,never had a accident.The CA. DMV said I can get my CA. license anytime after the out of state hold is lifted. If I get stopped for any reason the car Iam now driving will be impounded at a cost of $2000 to get back after 30 days, plus about a $500 fine for a unlicensed driver ticket.I have two children I must drive to work, yet when talking to Ill.its like talking to brain washed people that just dont care that losing my car would cost me my job and put a family off four in the streets. Is'nt there any limitation on how long Ill. can continue to hold me back from getting my California driving lic ? If I was rich I would of course have my lic, however at a cost of about $5000 hiring a lawyer in Ill.is somthing I cannot afford! When does the punishment end for me in this very old case ?
No Lic NikRik

[Shagbark Hickory]

40. Please CLARIFY. Driving what and driving where?

If you're talking about driving a car on a public road, most people say (and they teach you in traffic school) that this is a privilege.

I'm not so sure.
The argument that a driving license can be revoked makes it a privilege doesn't hold up when compared to driving a bike or snow machine on public roads or public lands. There are laws regulating these activities.

Furthermore, doesn't everyone have the right to apply for a driving license? Is the approval process merely what makes it a privilege?

Good question. Lets discuss.

[saras]

41. Not being kept in a cage is a privilege

As "extraordinary rendition", and Bradley Manning, demonstrate.

In theory, riding in a car, or walking, is a right. Driving a motor vehicle is a privilege.

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.
Attributed to Yogi Berra

[Superliberty]

42. Driving Privilege is a fraud

Reading through the replies, everyone says, driving is a privilege cause the state has an obligation to ensure safety. That is a bunch of bull. The state can ensure safety without calling driving a privilege. What happens now in all the states is that you can lose your license for everything and anything and it doesn't have anything to do with safety. In fact most of it doesn't have anything to do with anything criminal. Most of the suspensions that now occur are a result of collecting on civil cases. Just ask a father who maybe fell behind on his child support due to a loss of job or income, or a person who made a mistake on his taxes and is having a hard time paying it back. Hey, let's suspend his license! That'll teach ya! In fact, the same logic used to issue driver's licenses are also used now to license every profession you can think of from doctors to florists! And those people are losing their licenses for things that have nothing to do with their qualifications to perform their duties in that profession as well. Guess what folks, we have taken our rights to travel and work in a profession of our choosing and thrown them down the drain for a sense of security and safety that does not come from having a license. Maybe before you have kids you should have to get a parent license, or maybe before you can buy a house you need to get a home owners license, or maybe before you can go buy food for your family you need a food handlers license. And the list can go on and on and on and on. How far are we willing to allow our rights to be converted into crimes?

The idea that you cannot use a vehicle on a public road without state permission is absurd. It is literally illegal to use a car on a public road. But you can get a license to use a car on the public roads which then gives you an immunity to the ban on cars on the roads. Why is the use of a car on the roads illegal? Are they dangerous? Can the state give licenses to folks to use a dangerous car???? Or are people dangerous?? Can a state give dangerous people licenses? The assumption by the state is that either you are dangerous or your car is or both.... either way, you have been found guilty of a crime against the safety of others before you have even ventured out in the world. You are required to prove to the state that both you and your car are safe, but yet, oops you owe money.... uh well now you can't use the road anymore. Hey, wait a minute, I thought you wanted me to get a license to prove I can be a safe driver, but now I can't drive cause of a civil matter? Seems really funny to me. Let's face it folks, licenses are a fraud and does not ensure safety on the roads and highways, only people can act safe or not safe... licenses don't guarantee anything. How many accident happen every year by licensed drivers?? Why is the state not responsible for the deaths and damages these folks have caused? Didn't the state allow these folks to drive? Are they the one's claiming the right over the roads and being the granter of privileges to only those they trust with this responsibility? But hey, guess what the state wants the right to control who uses the roads, but not the responsibility that goes along with being that entity that decides. What if I let someone drive on my property and they ran over someone else I allowed on my property? I would be ultimately responsible for the safety and welfare of all the folks on my property. I couldn't say, hey go after the guy that ran you over, I have nothing to do with the actions of that guy. Bull, my property, my responsibility. So, driving is in fact a right because you hold all the responsibility of your actions while you conduct yourself on that road or highway, no if and or buts about it. The state holds no responsibility of the actions of their licensed drivers because it is all based on fraud! They just want the money, that's all... they really don't care about your safety. Wake up folks. It's not their problem, it's yours. Time to take responsibility back and tell the state to mind their own business when it comes to your own personal affairs. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? More like, life, liberty and the pursuit of a license...or many licenses.

[Rabblevox]

43. Access to public roads is a right. Operating a motor vehicle is a privilege...

There is no more "Right" to drive a car than there is a "right" to fly a plane or perform surgery. You apply. You pay a fee. You meet basic requirements. You pass a test. You are then given the privilege of driving or flying or cutting.

And if you screw up, your privileges will be taken away. (DUI, malpractice, etc...)

Rights, on the other hand, cannot be removed, by anyone, no matter how bad you screwed-up. Even a serial-killer is entitled to due process and the writ of Habeas Corpus. (and those are rights)

[Jmaxfie1]

44. privilege n/t

[King_David]

45. Privilege nt

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[libguy_6731]

47. definitely a privilege.

[SteveM]

48. Privilege.

One can argue that Americans have the right to movement/transportation because it is highly implied in the Constitutionally-protected right to assemble, petition, speak; in fact most of the rights are contingent on physical movement. The constitution does not guarantee which mode of transportation is protected.

States are left with the power to regulate transportation if such occurs on its infrastructure. But a state cannot arbitrarily allow one person to drive, but not another unless that disallowed person has had due process and equal protection of the law. In other words, if someone is denied the "privilege" to drive and is in all ways qualified to drive, then the privilege must be curtailed for all.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

51. Just to clarify

A right need not be defined or even implied in the Constitution to exist. The Constitution also does not need to specify all the ways in which a right may be exercised.

[WAFS]

49. Privilege

Since the government can give or take away the privilege, it can't be a right.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

53. I would consider it a right

After all, travel is most assuredly a right.

Does this mean local governments cannot enact regulations to safely control movement? Of course not. It also does not mean you cannot have the right restricted when you demonstrate your inability to exercise it responsibly.

[chunter]

56. No, we all have a right to drive

we have the right to liberty, which includes all sorts of things, including driving. The government cannot get in the way to interfere with our rights.

[Shotglass]

57. Hmm

The fundamental right is for the right of travel. Even the US Supreme Court has ruled that "travel is a right and may not be restricted."
Each person has the right to travel from one place to another, which includes on the roadways.
However, how that person travels on said roadways may be regulated by the State for the public welfare.
Every State has determined that the operation of a motor vehicle involves an inherent danger to the public and therefore has enacted regulation for the public welfare. If you are denied a driver's license by the state then the state IS NOT restricting your right to travel. The state has determined one of two different things: 1. You have not developed the skill set required of driving a motor vehicle that demonstrates an ability to avoid endangering your fellow travelers; or 2. You have acted irresponsibly and endangered other travelers (DUI, reckless driving, etc.) You may still travel as a passenger in a bus or car. You may walk or ride a bike or even a horse if that's what you choose to do.
Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958) is often case law that is cited by those that attempt to prove that driving is a right that may not be rescinded. This case is taken out of context in that the issue was a denied passport; not a driver's license. In my limited knowledge, I cannot recall any case in which this was viewed as a valid defense.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.