US DMV WTF



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @bstorer said:

    Sure, tell that to the IRA. I'm sure they're really frightened of the unarmed police force.

    Oh no, the IRA was opposed by British military security forces carrying automatic rifles.  That doesn't count as an armed police force, though, right?

    So, in summary, the unarmed Irish police were such pansies they had to run to the British for help? Who was next on their list if the British had said no? The French?



  • @bstorer said:

    So, in summary, the unarmed Irish police were such pansies they had to run to the British for help? Who was next on their list if the British had said no? The French?

    The Care Bears, then the French. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @bstorer said:

    So, in summary, the unarmed Irish police were such pansies they had to run to the British for help? Who was next on their list if the British had said no? The French?

    The Care Bears, then the French. 

     

     

    The Care Bears, the Rugrats, Slovenia, then the French.



  • @mrJoe said:

     The real WTF is that the US of A, oldest and most powerful alliance of states in the world still requires you to get a driving license from your state of residence. This really should be a federal gov issued document. (IANA: I am not american)

     

     

    That's obvious.  By the way, you answered your own questions:  states' rights.  Look it up.



  • @bstorer said:

    [quote user="morbiuswilters"]

    [quote user="bstorer"]Really? Then how do you plan to stop crazed leprechauns? You can't just placate them with pots of gold.

    The whole damn country is crazed leprechauns.  Besides, they're all so weak from the frequent potato famines and ubiquitous alcoholism that there's no real threat of physical violence. 

    [/quote]Sure, tell that to the IRA. I'm sure they're really frightened of the unarmed police force.[/quote]

    The IRA were (and, well, are) in Northern Ireland - part of the UK with a very much armed police force.

    There's rather a lot of crap being spewed by my countryman here... US licences are valid here, for 12 months. We don't have national ID nor are we in the Schengen area so I'm not sure why he felt the need to go on about Schengen-area ones. EU national ID cards can be refused here, but rarely are. Generally people use their driving licence as photo ID.

    US licences are not any easier to forge than our ones - NOTHING is easier to forge than an Irish driving licence. Its tri-fold paper with one side laminated. Most of the rest of the EU has very difficult to forge licences, but so do most US states. Anyway, the real reason you can't swap a US licence here is that we don't regard your driving tests as good enough. Which is rather laugable as we have people who were issued licences without doing ours, including the head of the Road Safety Authority!

    People, clearly, aren't stopped by the police in the middle lane of a road - they're pulled to the shoulder or up on sidewalks (if empty). Taxi plates and licences are obscenely cheap and have been for some years, so people no longer share them - the addition of a card with the drivers photo to the inside of the car a few years ago ever so slightly killed that.

    I know Cork's behind the times but I never expected it to be THAT backward.



  • @Cian said:

    There's rather a lot of crap being spewed by my countryman here...

    Holy shit! A sober one!



  • @Cian said:

    ...Leprechaun-ese...

    You, sir, have restored my faith in the Irish people! 



  •  Florida: if you had a previous licence, go to the DMV and get a replacement for $12

    In FL but had out of state license and lost it: take the drivers test and sign a paper saying you approve the state of FL to access your records from the previous state's DMV. - Cost, around $24

     



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Yes, I'm aware Europe is a fascist hellhole.  In the US, we seem to do fine without national ID cards. 

     

     

    Keep in mind that Europe is not a single country. The United States is bordered only by Canada and Mexico, so there are only three countries to deal with. I can see how state ID's would make sense here. Hell, many US states are almost as big as or bigger than European countries. The EU has 27 member countries. Compare this to half the number of US states + Mexico + Canada. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that each member of the EU has 10 "states" within it. If each issued separate driver's licenses that were to be accepted as photo ID anywhere, then there would be 270 potentially different license designs, with different security features, etc. Even within the United States licenses vary greatly (or at least they did until a few years ago). My dad had an old-style non-photo driver's license from NJ until about 2 years ago. This was his primary form of ID. I could've printed it from any bubble jet printer and laminated it... See the problem? It would be foolhardy to accept that as a form of ID in a far away nation.

    Keep in mind that the European nations don't share the same form of government as the United States. We have such a large land mass here that it makes sense for certain powers to be retained by the states. There is a long history of politics behind the structure of our government, as well as behind those in Europe.

    I think it's perfectly reasonable for national ID cards to be issued in European nations. Let's say you live in London and you want to take the train to France for the day. Why should you need to carry a passport and have it stamped? This is also especially true of the European mainland... It should be trivial to cross borders on the European continent. A national ID system simplifies the procedure of validating ID at the border and expedites the process.

    In the US the only border checks are at the Canadian and Mexican borders. I don't need to show ID at the toll plaza of the Lincoln Tunnel or the George Washington Bridge. This makes sense. Both NY and NJ are subject to the same federal government, of which I am a citizen. Therefore, when I set foot in NY state I am not a foreigner. There is no need for extradition treaties if I commit a crime, and if I move to NY then the same federal government is still collecting my taxes (nevermind state taxes).



  • @PerdidoPunk said:

    Keep in mind that Europe is not a single country. The United States is bordered only by Canada and Mexico, so there are only three countries to deal with. I can see how state ID's would make sense here. Hell, many US states are almost as big as or bigger than European countries. The EU has 27 member countries. Compare this to half the number of US states + Mexico + Canada. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that each member of the EU has 10 "states" within it. If each issued separate driver's licenses that were to be accepted as photo ID anywhere, then there would be 270 potentially different license designs, with different security features, etc. Even within the United States licenses vary greatly (or at least they did until a few years ago). My dad had an old-style non-photo driver's license from NJ until about 2 years ago. This was his primary form of ID. I could've printed it from any bubble jet printer and laminated it... See the problem? It would be foolhardy to accept that as a form of ID in a far away nation.

    Keep in mind that the European nations don't share the same form of government as the United States. We have such a large land mass here that it makes sense for certain powers to be retained by the states. There is a long history of politics behind the structure of our government, as well as behind those in Europe.

    I think it's perfectly reasonable for national ID cards to be issued in European nations. Let's say you live in London and you want to take the train to France for the day. Why should you need to carry a passport and have it stamped? This is also especially true of the European mainland... It should be trivial to cross borders on the European continent. A national ID system simplifies the procedure of validating ID at the border and expedites the process.

    In the US the only border checks are at the Canadian and Mexican borders. I don't need to show ID at the toll plaza of the Lincoln Tunnel or the George Washington Bridge. This makes sense. Both NY and NJ are subject to the same federal government, of which I am a citizen. Therefore, when I set foot in NY state I am not a foreigner. There is no need for extradition treaties if I commit a crime, and if I move to NY then the same federal government is still collecting my taxes (nevermind state taxes).

    I know how Europe is structured, that is not my point.  My point is that there is no authority that requires me to have an ID.  I am free to never have an ID if I want.  Certain things may require a particular type of license, like driving a car or possessing a gun.  Purchasing alcohol, prescription medications or tobacco also necessitates an ID, but you don't need one to consume those things.  The fact is, I don't have papers that the government requires me to carry.  That is what I am talking about. 



  • The European system sounds crazy...

    The whole concept of a national ID card keeps getting brought up over here in Australia as well. So far, common sense has prevailed and it hasn't been introduced.

    Here, drivers licences are issued by states but recognized nationally. I hold a Victorian licence (well, learners permit, I never bothered going to sit for a full licence) but that licence has served me well as photo identification, proof of age, etc. for nearly ten years across all states. I can't actually use it to drive interstate (if it was a full licence, I could), but it does everything else I need it to do. 

    Though I'm lucky enough to live in a country with no international land borders, so a lot of the Europe/US issues really don't apply here.



  • Mexico doesn't have a "national ID" card as such, but what is usually recognized as a "national ID" is the voter ID card. You are not forced to even have one of these, but you do need it to vote.

    The reasoning behind having a "voter ID" stems from the 1988 Electoral fraud, which led to the creation of the IFE (Federal Electoral Institute) as the General Elections were previously organized by the Secretary of the Interior (Federal Government) and thus, susceptible to tampering. One of the first things the IFE did was to issue an orange card that stated name, electoral district, address and such. However, this would require the voter to show both the orange card, and another ID, which would be a driver's license, for example. Back then, driver's licenses were easily forgeable; so the IFE knew they had to do better.

    By 1991, they came out with the "voter ID with photo", and made it pretty much tamper-proof: the card's plastic cover was actually fused into the card, in such a way that trying to peel off the cover would ruin the photo and the card itself. Thus it was considered pretty much unforgeable, and most banks/businessess started taking it as "the one and only" ID. This is how the simple voter's ID card became, in effect, the national ID.

    It isn't required, but then again, you can't vote without it.



  • @Becky said:

    Though I'm lucky enough to live in a country with no international land borders, so a lot of the Europe/US issues really don't apply here.

    However, you live in constant fear of kangaroo assaults so it doesn't seem that wonderful. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    My point is that there is no authority that requires me to have an ID.  I am free to never have an ID if I want.  Certain things may require a particular type of license, like driving a car or possessing a gun.  Purchasing alcohol, prescription medications or tobacco also necessitates an ID, but you don't need one to consume those things.  The fact is, I don't have papers that the government requires me to carry.  That is what I am talking about.

    That must be nice for you. Meanwhile, I have a driving license. I use it to buy motor insurance and open bank accounts. For everything else, there's Mastercard.



  • @_moz said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    My point is that there is no authority that requires me to have an ID.  I am free to never have an ID if I want.  Certain things may require a particular type of license, like driving a car or possessing a gun.  Purchasing alcohol, prescription medications or tobacco also necessitates an ID, but you don't need one to consume those things.  The fact is, I don't have papers that the government requires me to carry.  That is what I am talking about.

    That must be nice for you. Meanwhile, I have a driving license. I use it to buy motor insurance and open bank accounts. For everything else, there's Mastercard.
    PRICELESS.



  • @_moz said:

    That must be nice for you. Meanwhile, I have a driving license. I use it to buy motor insurance and open bank accounts. For everything else, there's Mastercard.

    Who says I don't have an ID?  The point is that I am not required by law to have one.  Police cannot demand to see my license if I am not driving.  I can do damn near anything without having to have or show a government-issued ID. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:



    @_moz said:
    That must be nice for you. Meanwhile, I have a driving license. I use it to buy motor insurance and open bank accounts. For everything else, there's Mastercard.


    Who says I don't have an ID?

    I haven't looked back through the thread, but I don't remember anyone doing it. Why do you ask?

    @morbiuswilters said:
    The point is that I am not required by law to have one.  Police cannot demand to see my license if I am not driving.  I can do damn near anything without having to have or show a government-issued ID.

    I appreciate that. My point was simply that there are some countries where the bulk of the population do not carry any government-authorised identity documents with them on a regular basis.



  • @_moz said:

    I haven't looked back through the thread, but I don't remember anyone doing it. Why do you ask?

    That seemed like the rational inference to make given your "that must be nice for you" comment in response to my assertion that the US does not have a mandatory government-issued ID.  I have no clue how you meant for it to be taken.

     

    @_moz said:

    I appreciate that. My point was simply that there are some countries where the bulk of the population do not carry any government-authorised identity documents with them on a regular basis.

    This seems even more confusing.  I said that US citizens aren't required to carry government-issued ID.  Most do, to obtain privileges like driving on public roads or purchasing controlled substances, but it's not required.  Are you implying that you don't have to have your driver's license with you when driving?



  • <FONT face=Calibri size=3>I don’t know about the other European countries but in Denmark, where I live, we are not required to carry any ID unless we are driving (or similar). So the at least here it’s more or less the same as in the US. </FONT>

    <FONT size=3><FONT face=Calibri>Just because a country issues a national ID to its citizens does not necessarily make it mandatory to carry it, contrary to popular belief the EU is not yet a police state… :)</FONT></FONT>

     



  • @larsro said:

    <font face="Calibri" size="3">I don’t know about the other European countries but in Denmark, where I live, we are not required to carry any ID unless we are driving (or similar). So the at least here it’s more or less the same as in the US. </font>

    <font size="3"><font face="Calibri">Just because a country issues a national ID to its citizens does not necessarily make it mandatory to carry it, contrary to popular belief the EU is not yet a police state… :)</font></font> 

    You probably should require national IDs, if only to stop all of your kings and princes from being assasinated with poison-tipped swords and regular, old poison-tipped poison.

     

    Yeah, I'm not really familiar with the country-by-country requirements for carrying ID in Europe.  I am uneasy with any government that would demand its citizens have to have an ID and carry it with them all the times.  I know that European countries are usually not as concerned with government control of everyday life, as they lack the liberal history of the United States (and to a lesser degree, Britain). 



  • @morbiuswilters said:



    @_moz said:
    I haven't looked back through the thread, but I don't remember anyone doing it. Why do you ask?


    That seemed like the rational inference to make given your "that must be nice for you" comment in response to my assertion that the US does not have a mandatory government-issued ID.  I have no clue how you meant for it to be taken.

    I see. You really should try not to read so much into what people write.
    @morbiuswilters said:
    @_moz said:
    I appreciate that. My point was simply that there are some countries where the bulk of the population do not carry any government-authorised identity documents with them on a regular basis.


    This seems even more confusing.  I said that US citizens aren't required to carry government-issued ID.  Most do, to obtain privileges like driving on public roads or purchasing controlled substances, but it's not required.  Are you implying that you don't have to have your driver's license with you when driving?

    To be honest, I'm finding it hard to think of another way to understand my original statement. That I have a car I never use? That I habitually break the law? That I have some special exemption?

    In any case, I realise that some people really do need things to be spelt out for them from time to time. The answer to your question is "yes".



  • @_moz said:

    I see. You really should try not to read so much into what people write.

    Are you a native English speaker?  Your comment certainly seemed to imply the conclusion I reached.

     

    @_moz said:

    To be honest, I'm finding it hard to think of another way to understand my original statement. That I have a car I never use? That I habitually break the law? That I have some special exemption?

    In any case, I realise that some people really do need things to be spelt out for them from time to time. The answer to your question is "yes"

    This is what is known as a lead-in.  I was indirectly seeking out the why behind your statement.  Requiring a license to drive but not requiring it when actually driving is kind of pointless, no?



  •  I know this thread is old, but there is a lot of ignorance that needs to be cleared up.

    Every state in the USA issues their own drivers license.  A police officer in any state can validate a license from any other state by running the license through Nlets in Arizona.  A police officer in a foreign country can validate an American license through Interpol.  This system is automated and doesn't take as long as a phone call.



  • @tster said:

    A police officer in a foreign country can validate an American license through Interpol.  This system is automated and doesn't take as long as a phone call.

    Thanks for clarifying that.  We already concluded that Americans can use their licenses to drive in Blighty, but it helps reaffirm the reasoning behind that.  I think I'm going to fly to Ireland next month, rent a car and drive up and down Hitsuji's street just to rub it in.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Requiring a license to drive but not requiring it when actually driving is kind of pointless, no?

     

    In some US states this is actually the case.  Failure to display drivers license is not a citable offense in Missouri or Texas to name a couple.  They might write you a citation, but if you can prove later that you were a licensed driver at the time of the incident, the citation will be thrown out.  This is not on a case-by-case basis, it is the law.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @tster said:

    A police officer in a foreign country can validate an American license through Interpol.  This system is automated and doesn't take as long as a phone call.

    Thanks for clarifying that.  We already concluded that Americans can use their licenses to drive in Blighty, but it helps reaffirm the reasoning behind that.  I think I'm going to fly to Ireland next month, rent a car and drive up and down Hitsuji's street just to rub it in.

     

    Just to be clear.  I did not state that it is legal to drive in other countries with only a US Drivers license.  This would be up to the laws of each individual country.  I would assume it would be illegal in most.



  • @tster said:

    Just to be clear.  I did not state that it is legal to drive in other countries with only a US Drivers license.

    I know, but we already established it was fine and dandy in the UK awhile ago.  You just added further information to support that.


    @tster said:

    This would be up to the laws of each individual country.  I would assume it would be illegal in most.

    Actually, the US has reciprocal driving agreements with a surprising number of countries.  You can Google it pretty easily, but it looks like this MA license is good for more than buying booze for underage kids! 



  • @morbiuswilters said:



    @_moz said:
    I see. You really should try not to read so much into what people write.


    Are you a native English speaker?  Your comment certainly seemed to imply the conclusion I reached.

    I wonder why you feel this way... Could it be something like the following:
    You think that your country is one which allows its residents a great deal of freedom. As such, you imagine that any positive comment about your freedom from a foreigner is written with a mixture of admiration and envy.

    I'm not sure how much of my first post you understood, so the next bit is a bit sketchy.

    You were either aware that the freedoms you described are not that impressive from an international perspective, or that they were no better than the ones I described rather sketchily (and inaccurately - I can be ordered to take my driving license to a police station, within a week if practical).

    Because you didn't think the situation you described was admirable, but still thought that a foreigner cannot fail to admire it, you naturally concluded that I had misunderstood your post and imagined that you possessed no ID documents at all, not even a birth certificate.

    This is all a guess, of course, but all I have from you is a couple of assertions.
    @morbiuswilters said:
    @_moz said:
    To be honest, I'm finding it hard to think of another way to understand my original statement. That I have a car I never use? That I habitually break the law? That I have some special exemption?

    In any case, I realise that some people really do need things to be spelt out for them from time to time. The answer to your question is "yes"


    This is what is known as a lead-in.  I was indirectly seeking out the why behind your statement.

    So what [i]did[/i] you find confusing about my previous statement?
    @morbiuswilters said:
    Requiring a license to drive but not requiring it when actually driving is kind of pointless, no?

    No. Requiring a license to drive discourages those who are incapable of doing it safely from trying to do so.

    The license itself is of no real use in detecting unqualified/disqualified drivers as a policemen cannot tell whether you one while you are driving. What it is useful as is as an identity card. The police like identity cards.

    Our basic method of detecting such drivers is to prevent the illegal driver from making his vehicle appear legal, and to go after the drivers who fail to do this.



  • @_moz said:

    You think that your country is one which allows its residents a great deal of freedom. As such, you imagine that any positive comment about your freedom from a foreigner is written with a mixture of admiration and envy.

    Not so much admiration or envy as confusion.  That is what I am accustomed to encountering with foreigners.  To be fair, the United States is arguably the most free nation on the planet, and I do not see any rational basis for disagreeing with that.

     

    @_moz said:

    So what did you find confusing about my previous statement?

    Well, mostly that you would not be required to carry a license while driving.  Government-issued ID is useful in my country, even if it is not necessary.  Without it, I could not drive or purchase booze or cigs.

     

    @_moz said:

    No. Requiring a license to drive discourages those who are incapable of doing it safely from trying to do so.

    Uh, what?

     

    @_moz said:

    The license itself is of no real use in detecting unqualified/disqualified drivers as a policemen cannot tell whether you one while you are driving. What it is useful as is as an identity card. The police like identity cards.

    Our basic method of detecting such drivers is to prevent the illegal driver from making his vehicle appear legal, and to go after the drivers who fail to do this.

    You do realize that vehicles are drivers are separate entites, right?  A vehicle may be legal while a driver may not be.  Police will usually only pull you over if you are driving poorly but a license is proof that you have the right to drive.  I'm not sure what is so confusing about this.


  • :belt_onion:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Not so much admiration or envy as confusion.  That is what I am accustomed to encountering with foreigners.  To be fair, the United States is arguably the most free nation on the planet, and I do not see any rational basis for disagreeing with that.
     

    The US are incredibly free when it comes to ID cards and gun control. (too free in my personal opinion, but that's probably because I'm used to the European system). As such I never understood why things like the DMCA and Guantanamo are considered acceptable by the American public opinion. To a certain degree I can see why they are there, but don't they take things too far?



  • @bjolling said:

    As such I never understood why things like the DMCA and Guantanamo are considered acceptable by the American public opinion. To a certain degree I can see why they are there, but don't they take things too far?
     

    Where have you ever seen an American stand up for either?



  • @tster said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Requiring a license to drive but not requiring it when actually driving is kind of pointless, no?

     

    In some US states this is actually the case.  Failure to display drivers license is not a citable offense in Missouri or Texas to name a couple.  They might write you a citation, but if you can prove later that you were a licensed driver at the time of the incident, the citation will be thrown out.  This is not on a case-by-case basis, it is the law.

    It's pretty much the same in the UK. The law is that you should be able to show your driving licence, proof of vehicle insurance and MoT certificate (if any) to a police officer on demand.

    However, if you haven't got them on you, they give you a 'producer', and you take them to a police station within 7 days, and you're 'let off' (they COULD prosecute you for not having them on you, but the case WOULD be thrown out, so they obviously don't bother).

    It's happened to me, and the police really don't expect you to have the documents on you.



  •  So, TRWTF is that the US DMV thinks you need to have had a job to drive, right?

     Because, apart from taxi/bus drivers, I've never seen such a requirement elsewhere...



  • @shepd said:

    So, TRWTF is that the US DMV thinks you need to have had a job to drive, right?

    Because, apart from taxi/bus drivers, I've never seen such a requirement elsewhere...

    Check my theory stated before.  I think it might be because the state doesn't want to hand out licenses to someone who might be violating the terms of their visa, if the OP's father was here on a work visa.  Just a theory, but it probably has to do with the fact that he is not a US citizen and the state doesn't want to hand out ID if it doesn't know he is legit.  Anyway, TRWTF is that the wife got a license when he didn't. 



  • @bjolling said:

    As such I never understood why things like the DMCA and Guantanamo are considered acceptable by the American public opinion.

    I don't think most people even know about the DMCA and very few support it.  As far as Guantanamo, no US citizens are being held there, it holds only enemy combatants.  I'm willing to entertain the claim that we need a place like Guantanamo to deal with terrorists and the like, but I do wish there was more transparency and that the court cases would move faster.  However, it is not an infringement of my rights and it technically isn't unconstitutional, even if it is a bit sketchy. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:



    @_moz said:
    You think that your country is one which allows its residents a great deal of freedom. As such, you imagine that any positive comment about your freedom from a foreigner is written with a mixture of admiration and envy.


    Not so much admiration or envy as confusion.  That is what I am accustomed to encountering with foreigners.  To be fair, the United States is arguably the most free nation on the planet, and I do not see any rational basis for disagreeing with that.

    Nothing you says here surprises me. Except for one thing. I made that statement in an attempt to understand why you assumed that I misinterpreted what you wrote in my first post. Do you no longer wish to discuss this?
    @morbiuswilters said:
    @_moz said:
    So what did you find confusing about my previous statement?


    Well, mostly that you would not be required to carry a license while driving.

    So why didn't you appreciate it when I went to so much effort to make it clear?
    @morbiuswilters said:
    @_moz said:
    No. Requiring a license to drive discourages those who are incapable of doing it safely from trying to do so.


    Uh, what?

    What problem are you suffering from [i]this[/i] time?
    @morbiuswilters said:
    @_moz said:
    The license itself is of no real use in detecting unqualified/disqualified drivers as a policemen cannot tell whether you one while you are driving. What it is useful as is as an identity card. The police like identity cards.

    Our basic method of detecting such drivers is to prevent the illegal driver from making his vehicle appear legal, and to go after the drivers who fail to do this.


    You do realize that vehicles are drivers are separate entites, right?  A vehicle may be legal while a driver may not be.

    Of course. There is, however, a positive correlation between illegal drivers and illegal vehicles for the reason I stated above. I'm sure the police have methods for identifying disqualified drivers in legal cars, but I don't know the details.
    @morbiuswilters said:
    Police will usually only pull you over if you are driving poorly but a license is proof that you have the right to drive.

    In this country they also stop people because they believe the vehicles they are driving to be illegal. They'll even impound an illegal vehicle which they find parked by the roadside.

    A license may prove that you have a right to drive, but so may calling the people who issue driving licenses to ask them. This has the added benefit of not leaving me being forced to carry around a government-authorised identity card.



  • @_moz said:

    Nothing you says here surprises me. Except for one thing. I made that statement in an attempt to understand why you assumed that I misinterpreted what you wrote in my first post. Do you no longer wish to discuss this?

    @_moz said:

    So why didn't you appreciate it when I went to so much effort to make it clear?
     

    @_moz said:

    What problem are you suffering from this time?


    That's it -- I'm going to throw myself off of a very tall building onto a group of children.

     

    @_moz said:

    Of course. There is, however, a positive correlation between illegal drivers and illegal vehicles for the reason I stated above. I'm sure the police have methods for identifying disqualified drivers in legal cars, but I don't know the details.

    They check their licenses when they pull them over.  This is how you identify if someone has a valid license.  This is the purpose of a license.  It is why a license exists.

     

    @_moz said:

    In this country they also stop people because they believe the vehicles they are driving to be illegal. They'll even impound an illegal vehicle which they find parked by the roadside.

    Obviously.  The US does this as well.  What does this have to do at all with licenses and illegal drivers?

     

    @_moz said:

    A license may prove that you have a right to drive, but so may calling the people who issue driving licenses to ask them.

    Obviously a fool-proof method as the officer has no photo ID to verify.  Here licenses are scanned (most have magstripes or barcodes) and a check is done to make sure you have a valid license, that there are no warrants outstanding for your arrest and in some states to make sure you have up-to-date insurance for your vehicle.  The vehicle registration is also checked to make sure it is up-to-date, valid and that the car is not flagged for involvement in a crime.  I don't see how an officer can possibly verify that you are legally allowed to drive without a photo ID.



  • @morbiuswilters said:



    @_moz said:
    Nothing you says here surprises me. Except for one thing. I made that statement in an attempt to understand why you assumed that I misinterpreted what you wrote in my first post. Do you no longer wish to discuss this?


    That's it -- I'm going to throw myself off of a very tall building onto a group of children.

    I'll take that as a "yes", then.

    @morbiuswilters said:
    @_moz said:
    Of course. There is, however, a positive correlation between illegal drivers and illegal vehicles for the reason I stated above. I'm sure the police have methods for identifying disqualified drivers in legal cars, but I don't know the details.


    They check their licenses when they pull them over.

    I'm sure the police have methods for identifying those disqualified drivers in legal cars whose driving is unremarkable when they're sober. There are some places (Mogadishu, say, or Baghdad) where the police stop so many motorists each day that a motorist is likely to be stopped from time to time even if they do nothing suspicious, but I do not live in any of them.
    @morbiuswilters said:
    @_moz said:
    In this country they also stop people because they believe the vehicles they are driving to be illegal. They'll even impound an illegal vehicle which they find parked by the roadside.


    Obviously.  The US does this as well.  What does this have to do at all with licenses and illegal drivers?

    I'm sorry, I thought that you meant that the "police will usually only pull you over if you are driving poorly" when you wrote it. Don't worry about it.
    @morbiuswilters said:
    @_moz said:
    A license may prove that you have a right to drive, but so may calling the people who issue driving licenses to ask them.


    Obviously a fool-proof method as the officer has no photo ID to verify.  Here licenses are scanned (most have magstripes or barcodes) and a check is done to make sure you have a valid license, that there are no warrants outstanding for your arrest and in some states to make sure you have up-to-date insurance for your vehicle.  The vehicle registration is also checked to make sure it is up-to-date, valid and that the car is not flagged for involvement in a crime.  I don't see how an officer can possibly verify that you are legally allowed to drive without a photo ID.

    Policemen are usually pretty good at working out when people are lying to them. I don't understand why you expect this to be foolproof, though. As I've said, the police like identity cards.



  • @_moz said:

    I'll take that as a "yes", then.

    Maybe I just like killing children.

     

    @_moz said:

    I'm sure the police have methods for identifying those disqualified drivers in legal cars whose driving is unremarkable when they're sober. There are some places (Mogadishu, say, or Baghdad) where the police stop so many motorists each day that a motorist is likely to be stopped from time to time even if they do nothing suspicious, but I do not live in any of them.

    No methods, but a person not willing to obtain a license is the type of person who will most likely drive less than carefully and will find themselves pulled over one day.  That's simple human behavior.  The license isn't even so much to prove you are a good driver as to allow the officer to identify a driver who made an error as the type who is chronically irresponsible.  So the system kind of works in the inverse way most people assume, but it achieves the same result.   You don't have to pull over every driver, you just let the bad ones reveal themselves and then impose strict punishment because they are obviously so irresponsible they will drive without a license.

     

    @_moz said:

    Policemen are usually pretty good at working out when people are lying to them. I don't understand why you expect this to be foolproof, though. As I've said, the police like identity cards.

    Now I'm baffled.  My point was that requiring a license to drive but not requiring it to be presented when pulled over is stupid.  You have no additional freedom.  When I speak of the freedom to be without government-issued ID, I don't mean free from the burden of carrying ID (which is obviously minimal) but the authority which a government must assert to force everyone to be identified and traceable.  If a license is a requirement to drive not requiring it to be produced when pulled over only makes it a less efficient tool for detecting irresponsible drivers.  This means the burden on law-abiding citizens is greater.  Thus is the often counter-intuitive nature of freedom.



  • @bjolling said:

    I never understood why things like the DMCA and Guantanamo are considered acceptable by the American public opinion.

     

    I've never understood why people who have never lived in (and in many cases have never even visited) a country feel qualified to be the arbiters of its public opinion, or its sociopolitical issues in general.



  • @Aaron said:

    @bjolling said:

    I never understood why things like the DMCA and Guantanamo are considered acceptable by the American public opinion.

     

    I've never understood why people who have never lived in (and in many cases have never even visited) a country feel qualified to be the arbiters of its public opinion, or its sociopolitical issues in general.

    Having lived in the US, I do feel there are things that I think are just wrong over there, like the Electoral College system; the fact of being considered an adult at 18 but you're still not allowed to drink 'till 21; the DMCA; the backwards charging scheme for cellphones, among other things.

    But there are other nice things the US has, like free speech (unless you actually say something like "I'm gonna kill the President", which would land you in jail) so some stuff does balance out.



  • @danixdefcon5 said:

    like the Electoral College system;

    Meant to keep direct-election of the chief executive out of the citizen's hands.

     

    @danixdefcon5 said:

    the fact of being considered an adult at 18 but you're still not allowed to drink 'till 21;

    Very, very stupid.  In fact, all of our drug and alcohol laws are very, very stupid.

     

    @danixdefcon5 said:

    the DMCA

    Agreed, but it hasn't actually affected that many people.  Also, most countries have some version of a DMCA as well.

     

    @danixdefcon5 said:

    the backwards charging scheme for cellphones

    Uh, what?  I have no idea what you mean.

     

    @danixdefcon5 said:

    like free speech (unless you actually say something like "I'm gonna kill the President", which would land you in jail)

    Obviously making a threat or inciting violence is not free speech.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @danixdefcon5 said:

    the backwards charging scheme for cellphones

    Uh, what?  I have no idea what you mean.

    Ah, forgot to explain that.

    In the EU, there is something called "caller-pays" and "termination fees". When you call a cellphone from a landline, you pay a "termination fee" which is basically the mobile carrier's cost for the mobile call.

    In the US, a mobile phone call is the same as a regular landline call, but whoever gets the incoming call will pay the airtime (or have it deducted from his plan), so basically the mobile user is being charged for both making and answering calls.

    Over here in Mexico, the "caller-pays" scheme applies, but unlike some other countries, the cellphone number has the same area code as the city I live in/leased the mobile line; however dialling from a landline requires dialling a 044 (caller pays local) or 045 (caller pays, long distance) prefix.

    Nextel does use the "mobile user pays" scheme, but they also have a "nobody pays" plan where you pay $10/month, and all mobile-specific charges for receiving calls are dropped.



  • @danixdefcon5 said:

    In the US, a mobile phone call is the same as a regular landline call, but whoever gets the incoming call will pay the airtime (or have it deducted from his plan), so basically the mobile user is being charged for both making and answering calls.
    In EU you pay for receiving a mobile phone call if you're roaming.



  • @danixdefcon5 said:

    In the EU, there is something called "caller-pays" and "termination fees". When you call a cellphone from a landline, you pay a "termination fee" which is basically the mobile carrier's cost for the mobile call.

    In the US, a mobile phone call is the same as a regular landline call, but whoever gets the incoming call will pay the airtime (or have it deducted from his plan), so basically the mobile user is being charged for both making and answering calls.

    Over here in Mexico, the "caller-pays" scheme applies, but unlike some other countries, the cellphone number has the same area code as the city I live in/leased the mobile line; however dialling from a landline requires dialling a 044 (caller pays local) or 045 (caller pays, long distance) prefix.

    Nextel does use the "mobile user pays" scheme, but they also have a "nobody pays" plan where you pay $10/month, and all mobile-specific charges for receiving calls are dropped.

    I think the US method is better.  The EU method forces the originator to know what type of phone the recipient has.  I think that is a much more complex way of doing things.  If someone wants to use the wired telco system yet have the convenience of making and receiving calls while mobile, that person should pay the cost.  It's the person who owns the mobile phone that receives most of the benefit of the mobility.


  • @DogmaBites said:

    I think the US method is better.  The EU method forces the originator to know what type of phone the recipient has.  I think that is a much more complex way of doing things.  If someone wants to use the wired telco system yet have the convenience of making and receiving calls while mobile, that person should pay the cost.  It's the person who owns the mobile phone that receives most of the benefit of the mobility.

    Well, I think the EU actually uses some kind of "special area code" for mobiles, or at least in the UK they do this.

    We use the "home-city" area code, but...

    @danixdefcon5 said:

    dialling from a landline requires dialling a 044 (caller pays local) or 045 (caller pays, long distance) prefix.

    Direct-dialling will only give you a recording that you have to dial 044 (045 long-distance) to reach this phone, thus warning you that its going to cost you. Incoming international calls are free to receive, don't know who pays those termination fees though.

    Oh well, if I'm outside my "home-city", I do get charged for roaming ($0.25 USD/minute) but I'm already expecting that anyway.

    The system has the added benefit of causing WTF employers to actually call you for real emergencies, as opposed to 3am ringers asking for some inane server configuration. (This is the same reason I refused to be issued a Nextel in an older job. I do not want to be the company's 24/7 "Tech Support" line.)


  • :belt_onion:

    @Aaron said:

    I've never understood why people who have never lived in (and in many cases have never even visited) a country feel qualified to be the arbiters of its public opinion, or its sociopolitical issues in general.

    Oooh, I know this one! Guantanamo has been extensively covered in the European media, especially since the US locked up some Brits in there. I suspect that our coverage would have been less biased as Guantanamo is a reaction to 9/11. And the DMCA has been been widely discussed on the internet. Hey, we Europeans DO have access to your intarwebs, you know.

    BTW, if you were following my posts, you'll see I didn't pursue the topic because I know I don't understand every detail. But I'm sure you don't either.

     



  • @bjolling said:

    Guantanamo has been extensively covered in the European media, especially since the US locked up some Brits in there.

    It's been extensively covered here as well.

     

    @bjolling said:

    I suspect that our coverage would have been less biased as Guantanamo is a reaction to 9/11.

    Every European news source I have ever encountered was just as insanely biased and agenda-pushing as Fox News is in the US.  Hey, at least we have other news sources that are a lot less skewed.

     

    @bjolling said:

    BTW, if you were following my posts, you'll see I didn't pursue the topic because I know I don't understand every detail. But I'm sure you don't either.

    Which is the point he was making.  You not only do not understand the issue, but you don't even live here.  Why are you weighing in on American politics?  Do you think any of us care or are going to listen?  You do realize that most Americans see Europe as pleasant and benign but that European-style policies are very unpopular here, right?  If anything, European support of a particular action is probably going to make Americans more wary of it.


  • :belt_onion:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Which is the point he was making.  You not only do not understand the issue, but you don't even live here.  Why are you weighing in on American politics?  Do you think any of us care or are going to listen?  You do realize that most Americans see Europe as pleasant and benign but that European-style policies are very unpopular here, right?  If anything, European support of a particular action is probably going to make Americans more wary of it.
     

    To put some more context to my post: you stated that the USA is probably the most free country in the world.I didn't want to respond with just "[citation needed]" but I replied with the first two examples I could think of where civil liberties are more restricted in the USA than for example in the EU. 

    The "why..." part is easy to answer: I'm very intrigued by the way the American system works and anything you post sheds some light on that. I think I got some decent response to my previous posts until Aaron decided to question my motives.I have no intention of lecturing anybody.

    I don't blame you for being suspicious of European politicians. They have made some bad calls in the past



  • @bjolling said:

    To put some more context to my post: you stated that the USA is probably the most free country in the world.I didn't want to respond with just "[citation needed]" but I replied with the first two examples I could think of where civil liberties are more restricted in the USA than for example in the EU.

    Guantanamo has nothing to do with civil liberties.  It is a holding place for enemy combatants.  The DMCA may be absurd, but Europe has plenty of similar copyright laws.  IIRC, Germany just passed some absurd intellectual property law. 


Log in to reply