dman@homxa.UUCP (#D.ANDERSON) (05/05/84)
I have a gripe about the licensing system in the United States that has caused me grief in the past (or at least pseudo-grief): Why isn't there a National Driver's License? I cannot see the advantage of each state duplicating the task of keeping track of violators, inspections and testing, while it could be done much more uniformally from a central point. It would mean that if I moved to another state before my license ran out, I would not have to pay another licensing fee, and all the paperwork that is necessary to transfer my driving record from state A to state B would go away. I would not be able to run away from a bad driving record. I could buy a plate for my car once, when I got it and never worry about one from a different state. Differences in inspections from state to state would not exist. Standards in safety and road rules would become uniform. Granted, the states would fight this hard. Money from the issue of plates and licenses would no longer come into the state. But a driver would only need to be licensed once, with a re-test every X years and ridiculous local driving regulations would go away in favor of a standardized (safer) set of rules. In short, this would be more convenient for everyone, and it would make everyone happier, except possibly traffic violators or the advocates of stronger "state-control". I am not a big-government advocate. But I do think that a system that is naturally uniform could be better run in a centralized way. It just doesn't seem reasonable to do a job 50 times in 50 different ways when it could be done right once. Dave Anderson 201-949-5552
rh@mit-eddie.UUCP (Randy Haskins) (05/07/84)
A US driver's license? I don't know, but for some reason, I don't think it's a good idea. Probably just my cynicism in looking at the way the Fed. Govt. runs Social Security and the Welfare/foodstamp program... Seriously, though, I don't see the current scheme as that big an inconvenience. I've used my FL driver's license to rent a car in Boston with no difficulty. I think most states have liberal enough rules letting you drive with other driver's licenses unless you somehow become a resident (or somesuch). As far as the suspension aspect of this discussion, I think that the "information age" should be able to deal with that by putting all the data so that it's accessible by everyone. -- Randwulf (Randy Haskins); Path= genrad!mit-eddie!rh
claus@inuxd.UUCP (David Claus) (05/07/84)
I agree with your idea about a national driver's license, but I believe that cars should be licensed every year instead of just once. Let me explain why. A person can drive with a suspended driver's license for an extremely long time without being caught, but a car license is a different story. It is easier to spot and can be checked for quicker. I think that a person should have to renew his car license once a year and would have to show a valid driver's license and have prepaid insurance for that year. This would help eliminate unisured motorists and keep bad drivers off the road. I think if this was done on a national level, it could help in a number of other legal matters. One example is a person leaving the state to avoid debts. Dave Claus AT&T Consumer Products/Indy
scw@cepu.UUCP (05/07/84)
Why isn't there a National Driver's License?
Because 'those powers not directly reserved for the Federal government, are
reserved to the states'. This is also why we have such a crazy quilt of
Alcoholic beverage laws.
--
Stephen C. Woods (VA Wadsworth Med Ctr./UCLA Dept. of Neurology)
uucp: { {ihnp4, uiucdcs}!bradley, hao, trwrb, sdcsvax!bmcg}!cepu!scw
ARPA: cepu!scw@ucla-locus location: N 34 06'37" W 118 25'43"tierney@fortune.UUCP (05/08/84)
#R:homxa:-19700:fortune:29600002:000:1070
fortune!tierney May 8 11:01:00 1984
***** fortune:net.legal / homxa!dman / 7:49 am May 5, 1984
I have a gripe about the licensing system in the United States that has
caused me grief in the past (or at least pseudo-grief):
Why isn't there a National Driver's License?
I cannot see the advantage of each state duplicating the task of keeping
track of violators, inspections and testing, while it could be done much
more uniformally from a central point....
. . . . .
I am not a big-government advocate. But I do think that a system that is
naturally uniform could be better run in a centralized way. It just doesn't
seem reasonable to do a job 50 times in 50 different ways when it could
be done right once.
Dave Anderson 201-949-5552
----------
Arrgh!!
NEVER!
A National Drivers License -- This will become the litmus test for
freedom, to oppose federal slavery!
I refuse to further permit myself to slide into the chasm of
a National Identification Card -- WHATEVER form it takes!!
A Patriot
Charlie Tierney
{ihnp4,[ucbvax|decvax!decwrl]!amd70,hpda,harpo}!fortune!tierneyron@brl-vgr.UUCP (05/10/84)
Just remember in many states like Maryland, DC, Colorado, etc...unlike NJ we do have to reapply for plates every year and stick color coded stickers to the plate to make expired plates noticable. Another subject: Selective Enforcement. The State of Maryland has a requirement that you must have insurance. To get your plates you are obligated to state that you have insurance (big deal, you don't have to show anything). Last month I got a letter from the MVA saying that they are instigating a random sampling of insurance. I had less than one month to get a special form filled out by my insurance company and mailed to the MVA or else my registration was going to be suspended. Doesn't seem overly fair. I only ever received one notice, so if I had not received that one, I could be today running around without a valid registration due to failure to submit to this random survey. Doesn't seem overly legal. Right up there with the summary intoxication checks that the police run here at three in the morning. Pull you over on the flimsiness of excuses to check your sobriety. Harumph. Comments anyone? -Ron
scw@cepu.UUCP (05/13/84)
If they didn't send you the letter as a registered letter, they *CAN'T* prove
that you recieved their notice and I suspect that their pulling of your
registration would not hold up in court.
All they need to pull you over is 'reasonable cause (you were bobbing and
weaving all over the road)'. Be glad that you don't live elsewhere, I
understand that in Canada (at least some provences) the provincal Police can
set up a road block and stop anyone at whim (which is much like gunpoint but
nonleathal).
--
Stephen C. Woods (VA Wadsworth Med Ctr./UCLA Dept. of Neurology)
uucp: { {ihnp4, uiucdcs}!bradley, hao, trwrb, sdcsvax!bmcg}!cepu!scw
ARPA: cepu!scw@ucla-locus location: N 34 06'37" W 118 25'43"jss@sjuvax.UUCP (Jonathan Shapiro) (05/14/84)
<<Eat Me...>> On the topic of Driver's Licenses compared to Social Security. I recently put forth the opinion in a discussion with a friend that the Social Security cuts were not bad, merely ill administered. I presented this argument on the grounds that I do not approve of my taxes going to pay for some of my classmates' drug habits. Some of my aquaintainces at school (not Saint Joseph's University - I am using their facilities out of their courtesy and wish to be careful about whom I disparage implicitly). The response I got, which after consideration I realized to be right, was: The social security system was initially envisioned as a mandatory insurance program which could be run for approximately 50% the cost of regular insurance, because approximately 50% of your insurance money goes to pay salesman that the Social Security people don't have to pay. It was never a form of welfare. It was intended that a person reaching the age of retirement or becoming ill should be able to take social security without feeling that he was being given a handout. The system worked, with no deficit (actually about 3 weeks behind itself) for years, until the federal government decided to dip into the SS pot rather than raise taxes (I dont recall the year this individual cited). The point of this is, don't cite the social security agencies for a problem that was created by politicians acting outside the law. For the same reason, don't criticize the federal government for the problems of Social Security, but rather for not making reparations for its former illegalities. Jonathan Shapiro Haverford College
mam@rabbit.UUCP () (05/14/84)
(eat this!) Charlie Tierney objects to a national driver liscense on the grounds that it is a form of "National Identification Card". This seems a little strange because I believe that that is waht a passport is. The government of the United States issues them just like every other government does. While American citizens are not required to have them unless they travel abroad, many people do have them. Is there any objection to the government issueing passports? If they do issue passports, then why is there an objection to them also issueing driver ,liscenses? Meredith Morris rabbit!mam
fish@ihu1g.UUCP (Bob Fishell) (05/15/84)
(oo)
Enough, already. A national driver's licence is extremely unlikely
because of the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which guarantees
the States rights to regulate things that aren't the Federal Government's
business. Since most drivers are not involved in interstate commerce
with the use of their vehicles, there is no need for the Federal Government
to get involved. The only exception to this would be interstate truckers
and salesmen, etc., who use their cars for interstate business. However,
the only thing that would make sense here is for these individuals to
have an additional interstate license on top of their local license. What
a bureaucratic hairball that would be!
What I wish is that they'd just make a driver's license easier to renew.
I've got to get mine renewed this year and I dread it; it's a whole
afternoon off work and those looooooong lines. There seems to be a
state law here in Illinois stating that there shall be no more than one
ill-tempered clerk for every 200 people in a driver's license facility.
--
Bob Fishell
ihnp4!ihu1g!fish