Mobility penalty
August 15th, 2008 11:21 am · 10 comments
Hm. Via Atrios, a story of how Massachusetts teenagers are losing their licenses faster than ever before because of a 2007 state law that suspended teens’ licenses for 90 days after a single speeding ticket; teens must also pay a $500 fee to have the license reinstated.
Draconian? Teens - and their parents - think so:
They complain about the new junior operator penalties. They contend that the $500 reinstatement fee is too stiff and the suspension harsh. Living without a license, especially in the suburbs, leaves youths stranded, said student James Dexter, 18, whose license has not been suspended.
“Kids have to work,” said Dexter, who will be a senior at Danvers High School this fall. “It’s just wrong. They should be able to do that. They should be able to give you a warning first.”
Notes Atrios:
I have no opinion about whether licenses should be suspended after one speeding ticket, but I do think more families should consider what it means to have their kids grow up in a place where their mobility is severely limited unless they have a license.
Very interesting point, though in a place like Lancaster County where so many kids grow up in the country this would be even more controversial, I’d think.
But this all goes back to the broader point we’ve been making here across several different threads - the streetcar thread, the threads about the future of surburbia. The way we have ordered our society is entirely dependent upon individual motor vehicle ownership; and we just sort of perpetuate that without ever really thinking - is that the way our society should be structured? Or, just because we have structured it that way, does it require us to continue to do so?
But now we’re beginning to have those conversations. As we must.
Share and Enjoy:
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Tags: Economy · Suburban sprawl · Oil
There are currently 10 comments on this blog postView Topic | Comment on this blogdragonrider
8/15/08
12:33 PM | QUOTE(Lancaster Online @ Aug 15 2008, 11:25 AM) [snapback]424554[/snapback]
Post your thoughts and comments about this blog post. hey if they loose their car license they can always drive a horse and buggy. |
CUBSFAN3150
8/16/08
7:34 PM | IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THESE PEOPLE WHO ARE CRYING ABOUT THE PENALTIES ARE FORGETTING ONE VERY IMPORTANT ASPECT.
DRIVING IS A PRIVILEDGE, NOT A RIGHT! THEY ARE AWARE OF THE REPONSIBILITIES OF OPERATING A VEHICLE WHEN THEY TAKE THE TESTS. THEY AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE LAWS OF THE ROAD AS SOON AS THEY SIGN THEIR LICENSE. IF YOU WANT TO PLAY. YOU'VE GOT TO PAY.
WE ALL DISOBEY THE TRAFFIC LAWS AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER, BUT HAVE TO ACCEPT THE CONSEQUENCES WHEN CAUGHT.
IT'S CALLED ACCEPTING RESPONSIBILIY. SOMETHING THAT IS SEVERELY LACKING IN TODAYS SOCIETY. NO ONE WANTS TO OWN UP TO THEIR WRONG DOINGS. IT CAN START WITH SOMETHING AS LITTLE AS A TRAFFIC VIOLATION AND JUST KEEP SNOWBALLING INTO BIGGER ISSUES.
|
Mikerob
8/16/08
8:53 PM | CUBSFAN3150, your right having a drivers license is a priviledge according to government and the and the powers that be called law makers, but under common law, people have the right to drive because the difference between a tree and people is, a tree has roots, therefore cannot move, but people have legs and can move to any place so this being said, people have the right to move or travel using any means necessary.
But while all the people were sleeping the government was implementing a different Law called Admiralty Law which is a law based on contracts and is oceanic law which was devised for the high seas, to which the government brought this law onto the land and are now using this law in court rooms etc.The laws that the people of the United States Of America (the country) are suppose to go by is Common Law, but the government imposed this Admiralty Law so they can make slaves out of the people and get money out of them. The reason the government doesn't want to use Common Law is because it gives to much freedom, meaning under Common Law people have the right to do what they want as long as they don't hurt anybody or damage anybodies property, and they have the right to look their accuser in the face and question them in the court of law.
But like I said the powers that be felt they need to do away with Common Law, but they really can't because it's in the Constitution Of The United States, and they had to make a clause in their Laws that fall under the Uniform Commercial Code, which is Admiralty Law, and the passage is UCC 1-207 which is, when stated in the court of Law the courts are suppose to run whatever law they are using in that court room, in harmony with Common Law, but you and I aren't suppose to know this.
If you want to tick off an attorney just ask him what's this UCC 1-207 then watch his face, or he might just turn and walk away from you and not answer your question, because like I said your not suppose to know this little bit of information I just taught you.
Oh By the way there are only 3 Laws Common Law. Admiralty Law, and Equity Law, the first 2 carry criminal ramafacations, while Equity is strictly Civil. |
CUBSFAN3150
8/17/08
7:57 AM | QUOTE(Mikerob @ Aug 16 2008, 08:53 PM) [snapback]425041[/snapback] CUBSFAN3150, your right having a drivers license is a priviledge according to government and the and the powers that be called law makers, but under common law, people have the right to drive because the difference between a tree and people is, a tree has roots, therefore cannot move, but people have legs and can move to any place so this being said, people have the right to move or travel using any means necessary.
But while all the people were sleeping the government was implementing a different Law called Admiralty Law which is a law based on contracts and is oceanic law which was devised for the high seas, to which the government brought this law onto the land and are now using this law in court rooms etc.The laws that the people of the United States Of America (the country) are suppose to go by is Common Law, but the government imposed this Admiralty Law so they can make slaves out of the people and get money out of them. The reason the government doesn't want to use Common Law is because it gives to much freedom, meaning under Common Law people have the right to do what they want as long as they don't hurt anybody or damage anybodies property, and they have the right to look their accuser in the face and question them in the court of law.
But like I said the powers that be felt they need to do away with Common Law, but they really can't because it's in the Constitution Of The United States, and they had to make a clause in their Laws that fall under the Uniform Commercial Code, which is Admiralty Law, and the passage is UCC 1-207 which is, when stated in the court of Law the courts are suppose to run whatever law they are using in that court room, in harmony with Common Law, but you and I aren't suppose to know this.
If you want to tick off an attorney just ask him what's this UCC 1-207 then watch his face, or he might just turn and walk away from you and not answer your question, because like I said your not suppose to know this little bit of information I just taught you.
Oh By the way there are only 3 Laws Common Law. Admiralty Law, and Equity Law, the first 2 carry criminal ramafacations, while Equity is strictly Civil. |
CUBSFAN3150
8/17/08
8:16 AM | That was a pretty good dose of mumbo jumbo that you laid out on the table. However, it still doesn't pertain to the main point of my position, which is personal responsibility. It was a typical response when someone doesn't want to own up to the fact that they did something wrong, intentionally or not.
I blame lawyers as much for this crisis(as some would call it). To many of them,(not all} are just out to make a fast dollar and use the court sysrem to do it.
I'LL SAY IT AGAIN. DRIVING IS A PRIVILEDGE! NOT A RIGHT!
Without the laws and regulations we have(right or wrong} the streets and highways would be more chaotic then they are now. Believe me this comes from experience. I drive 300-500 miles a day and everytime I think I've seen it all, someone pulls another bonehead move. 
|
citizen-too
8/17/08
9:31 AM | If 1000 drivers in this city were checked, probably 250 don't comply with licensing laws. License, insurance, LEGAL INSPECTION, registration. If any aren't up to snuff they will have priviledges revoked. Big deal, they'll still drive - they do now. |
AngelFace
8/17/08
10:22 AM | First, there has been a bus running from E-town, through Mount Joy, etc. to Lancaster for as long as I can remember. Miniscule ridership. MINISCULE. You can stick us with big bills for trolleys, more mass transit, etc etc etc, but you cannot FORCE people to ride it.
Second, the purpose for the "draconian" traffic law on teen drivers is because of the HIGH incidence of teens KILLING THEMSELVES in one-car, speed related accidents, and the high incidence of them taking other people with them!
Don't like the law? Work to change it. Meanwhile, educate your little darlings that it is a ONE STRIKE system, and that you, as their parent, are NOT going to pay their fines and fees. Personal responsibility time. |
podunk
8/17/08
11:51 AM | The person mentioned this in their post:
"people have the right to do what they want as long as they don't hurt anybody or damage anybodies property"
hence why your driving privileges can be revoked
not to mention the whole UCC code has to do with contracts - you can not simply cross something out of a contract that you don't like and have it hold up in court - both parties must agree - hence why the driver's license center should not issue you a license if you insist on signing your card with the UCC 1-207 clause
|
Mansfield
8/19/08
12:05 PM | [img]http://um-smart.org/images/figure5.gif[/img]
Figure 5 – Accessibility is the Goal. Transportation is a derived demand. We use transportation to meet our needs – to achieve accessibility. This diagram shows that accessibility can be achieved in a number of ways – through transportation, through proximity (wise land use and urban design) and through connectivity (telecommuting, teles-hopping, tele-medecine, tele-education etc).
Luckily, it AIN'T, as they say, Rocket Science.
Its getting people out of their Hummers and out for a (attempted) stroll or bike ride, or streetcar ride.
And Buses can't compare to the ride of an electric transit vehicle
(whether trolleybus, streetcar or light rail)
Luckily, $4 and higher gas is going to FORCE people to change, (while all along planners just wanted to provide CHOICE!) unless they want to go broke.
Then they come crying, begging, bellyaching to the planning community, as if its OUR fault they can't currently get anywhere without driving!
|
View Topic | Comment on this blog
