Oppo poll: Driving - Right or Priviledge?

"Klaus Schmoll" (klausschmoll) 01/09/2014 at 16:11 • Filed to: None

0

41

In the FP discussion about the worst things you can do in winter, I chanced upon a commenter who wrote "I can't afford snow tires at the moment, though I know I need them. That doesn't mean I shouldn't have the right to drive though. [...]." He then went on to explain that a driver should know the limits of a car in any setup drive accordingly. And I really had to disagree. I didn't want to get into a FP mudfight, so I simply responded that driving is not a right but a priviledge and left it at that. But it got me thinking.

Maybe I am the elitist, middle-class Euro guy, living in a country with elaborate, and therefore expensive driver training, and mandatory winter tires if there is snow or ice on the road, who should get out of his ivory tower and see the real world as it is?

I will also take his words that he can't afford winter tires at face value, and not start questioning his budgeting skill, and whether he would have been able to afford a used set of steelies with some half-way decent winter tires if he had had other priorities, or not. Being a dyed in the wool Socialdemocrat, I am all against taking rights from the poor just because they are that, poor.

It is just that in my humble opinion, driving is not a right. I see it as a priviledge. You get this priviledge by going through driver training, and passing a test. It can be taken away again if someone prooves to be unworthy (DUIs, constant speeding with endangering others etc...). And driving on snow and ice on summer tires is not that much different from driving while being tipsy. It's just that the car behaves like a drunk, not the driver. The end result is the same.

What is your opinion on this?

Goshen, formerly Darkcode > Klaus Schmoll 01/09/2014 at 16:13

0

"elitist, middle-class"

Huh?

ddavidn > Klaus Schmoll 01/09/2014 at 16:17

0

I also believe it is a privilege. I am taking the bus to work right now because I can't afford to properly maintain my car occasionally. I have the right to own a car, and the right to apply for a driver's license. After that, it's up to me to make a judgement as to whether I can drive. If I'm drunk, my car is broken, or some other circumstance is revealed that would prevent me from being a safe and respectful driver, I don't feel that I have the right to drive anywhere. I have the privilege of taking public transportation, difficult as it is.

Not that it matters.

dogisbadob > Klaus Schmoll 01/09/2014 at 16:17

3

FP? Say no more.

Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs > Klaus Schmoll 01/09/2014 at 16:18

0

There is a fine line between the government being over involved and the roads being a safe place. Because that is what it comes down to, do we want to regulate driving to a point where it really is a privilege? I think a balance needs to be struck there, between freedom and a system of checks and balances. Neither should be excessive.

Jagvar > Klaus Schmoll 01/09/2014 at 16:19

2

Driving is your right as a 'Murrican!

Jagvar > Goshen, formerly Darkcode 01/09/2014 at 16:20

0

People who flaunt how much better they are than the lower class?

ttyymmnn > Klaus Schmoll 01/09/2014 at 16:22

0

Many Americans have a difficult time differentiating the two. I would agree with you, though, that it's a privilege. And one that can be revoked at any time. But rarely does social responsibility trump one's sense of entitlement.

Goshen, formerly Darkcode > ddavidn 01/09/2014 at 16:22

1

By your line of thought, it can be still thought of as a right. Like all rights, you must have the responsibility to know where you should stop.

Gamecat235 > Klaus Schmoll 01/09/2014 at 16:23

1

The right to movement and the privilege to drive are two very separate things. Period. Anyone who abuses one of those can lose both, but one is an assumed international right, and the other is governed and controlled.

BugEyedBimmer - back in the Saddle Dakota Leather > Klaus Schmoll 01/09/2014 at 16:23

0

It's a right. But the problem is a lot of people have the wrong idea about rights. Most people think they're always there even if you abuse them. However, traditionally, if you're act of exercising your rights steps on someone else's rights, then they are curbed for protection of the public. It's like the right to assemble, until you start breaking things. It is your right to drive on bad tires in the winter, but it's not your right to drive like an asshat on bad tires in the winter, because you could kill someone.

ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable) > Klaus Schmoll 01/09/2014 at 16:24

1

I agree wholeheartedly in principle.

However, here in "Murica! Fuck Yeah. most of the country has little to none public transport to speak of.

Driving is quite literally the only option for getting around.

That doesn't mean that our testing should be as lazy and half-assed as it is though. There is no reason that we couldn't raise our standards of driving without raising the cost of entry to a point where it keeps those who only have one option of travel off the road.

Sadly, I predict any attempt to improve driver education will be met with insane political protest about Communism/Class Warfare/Big Government/trendy internet conspiracy theories/Zombies/etc.

avens > Klaus Schmoll 01/09/2014 at 16:25

4

A right for me, a privilege for everyone else.

KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs > Klaus Schmoll 01/09/2014 at 16:25

1

Oh let's just crank his line of logic up to 11 then...

"I can't afford the insurance/registration/taxes on this car! But I shouldn't have the right to drive taken away."

Or even more absurd:

"I can't afford the purchase price for this car! But I shouldn't have the right to drive taken away."

Ahem....

Ah screw it. You aren't going to convince people they should be *responsible* for themselves and their actions...

You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much > Jagvar 01/09/2014 at 16:26

0

Shouldn't that be Henry Ford riding the Velociraptorraptor since we're talking about driving?

KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs > dogisbadob 01/09/2014 at 16:26

1

Explains everything doesn't it?

ddavidn > Goshen, formerly Darkcode 01/09/2014 at 16:27

0

True. I was trying to think backwards through my logic, but I may have gotten lost in some circular reasoning. I was basing it on what everyone has the opportunity to do. Everyone can apply for a driver's license, even if they are denied every time because they're blind. Anyone can buy a car, though in some places they would need a license to register it.

I'm not sure why I felt the need to chime in on this, except that I would like to know my own answer to the original question.

Hoccy > Klaus Schmoll 01/09/2014 at 16:27

0

I agree with you.

While it's necessary for many jobs and situations, it's not a right to drive. It's a right to be able to apply for a driving license. If you know your car is dangerous, don't use it on public roads. Use public transport and make the world a better place.

Shady Balkan Subject, Drives an Alfa > Klaus Schmoll 01/09/2014 at 16:30

1

Very interesting question. For us in Europe driving is more or less priviedge. Even in my crappy country I can do without a car, the public transport is decent and the distances are not huge. As is in most parts of Europe.

In the USA things are a little different, they think driving is right and this point is made even stronger by how easy they can obtain a driver's license. Heck even here in Bulgaria where corruption is widespread I passed my exam on the 4th try, because I screwed two time bad and once the examiner was an idiot.

Also in USA the distances are so much bigger then here, so the car is more or less neccessity if you want to do something. There is severe lack of good(or any) public transport in some areas.

Your idea that we must not take something for someone, because he is poor is right. But when there are lifes at stake I think there must be some sort of legislation. I don't know how expensive are winter tires in USA, but on both my Lada and the CLK I have a rather inexpensive tires that scored adequate ratings on the ADAC test in the year they were tested. And till now I haven't had any problems. For me even a low scoring winter tires are better then a summer tire.

Jagvar > You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much 01/09/2014 at 16:31

1

It's a Ford brand.

lonestranger > Klaus Schmoll 01/09/2014 at 16:36

1

Privilege, no question.

BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires > Klaus Schmoll 01/09/2014 at 16:38

0

Absolute privilege. There's plenty of public transport.

No public transport? Walk.

Takes hours to get where you need to go? Wake up early.

Takes longer than a day? Find somewhere to stay and go the day before.

A right is something that someone deserves just because they are a person. A convenience is not a right.

dogisbadob > Klaus Schmoll 01/09/2014 at 16:40

4

In the US, driving is a right and healthcare is a privilege.

Everywhere else, driving is a privilege and healthcare is a right.

duurtlang > Klaus Schmoll 01/09/2014 at 16:41

1

You've only got the right to drive something if you meet certain requirements. One of those many requirements is a vehicle that can be operated safely at that specific time. Summer tires on snow/ice are too unsafe, so given the circumstances you don't have the right to drive that car at that location.

Cost shouldn't really be a problem. I bought a set of winter tires that had been lightly used (bought them in summer, when prices are low) and a set of rough but desirable classic alloys for a combined total of about €200. Both sets were bargains, but if you want to save money you should expect to spend some time on Ebay/Craigslist/whatever anyway. If you can't afford that little on safety items you have no place on the road anyway. It spares your summer tires as well, so you'll save a bit there.

This is assuming a situation where people can expect snow/ice, and thus should be prepared.

Klaus Schmoll > Goshen, formerly Darkcode 01/09/2014 at 16:41

0

All I wanted to say is that:

a) A set of winter tires is relatively easily affordable for me.

b) I live in a country where they are mandatory anyway.

c) I might be wrong. I might be someone who thinks "Why can't they all be like me?"

The heck, it was just a figure of speech to spur on discussion.

Goshen, formerly Darkcode > Klaus Schmoll 01/09/2014 at 16:47

0

My point wasn't related to any of your arguments (if you care, I stated my opinion in reply to ddavidn). The expression sounded simply...wrong. Perhaps because I associate middle class with working class.

Klaus Schmoll > BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires 01/09/2014 at 16:49

1

Exactly my thinking! A "right" is unalienable, as in it can't be taken away. A priviledge is something like TV priviledges when we were kids. If we behave badly, they can be taken away.

GTI MkVII > dogisbadob 01/09/2014 at 16:54

1

This. x1,000

Fed(oo=[][]=oo)uken > Klaus Schmoll 01/09/2014 at 16:57

0

Since a car is something you have to buy, and a driver's license is something you have to earn, I would sway towards privilege.

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > Klaus Schmoll 01/09/2014 at 16:58

0

Even just a pair of snows on the drive wheels are better than nothing (assuming you have a 2WD vehicle)

Fed(oo=[][]=oo)uken > Goshen, formerly Darkcode 01/09/2014 at 16:59

0

Oh, it's a thing, especially since the middle class is the new upper class and the upper class are the new $100 dollar bill rolling paper plutocrats.

IMissTheOldInternet > Klaus Schmoll 01/09/2014 at 16:59

0

It's a privilege. There may be some argument about owning a car and driving it around your private property, but once you're out on public roads (or private roads) your right to drive ends where everyone else's right not to deal with unsafe drivers begins. Which is to say everywhere on those roads.

Casper > Klaus Schmoll 01/09/2014 at 17:08

0

I'm torn. Logically I know there need to be restrictions to what people can take onto public roads, but also that you shouldn't be able to take someones money to build it if they can't use it.

It all goes back to why road funds needed to be specially marked and sourced in the first place. The worst thing they ever did was let cities and counties start sourcing money for roads from income and other tax methods. It muddied the issue greatly. If they were still fully funded by gas tax, federal profits, and car registration fees/taxes, it would be simple.

Casper > Klaus Schmoll 01/09/2014 at 17:11

0

You seem confused. All rights can be taken away... you start with ultimate freedom and unlimited rights, then forfeit rights in order to establish social regulation.

ihm96 > KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs 01/09/2014 at 17:15

0

I heard a similar line of reasoning the other day that is unrelated about how certain churches want provisions in the new government budget that provide them with free contraceptives and such because it is against their beliefs to "pay for contraceptives". I was shocked that it was being taken seriously. If you don't believe you should have to pay for it then either make it yourself do without. I think it should be the same with snow tires and possibly an inclement weather driving course in places where they often have dangerous snowy conditions. You either get snow tires or dont drive

Klaus Schmoll > Casper 01/09/2014 at 17:16

0

I see your point!

But your tax-paying money doesn't only pay for the roads, it also pays for public transport. If public transport sucks where you live, you have the right to vote for a person that might change that. Should that become too much of a long con game, you are also free to move anywhere else. These are your "rights".

Stef Schrader > Klaus Schmoll 01/09/2014 at 17:16

2

Privilege. We need to revoke it more often, too.

Klaus Schmoll > Casper 01/09/2014 at 17:24

0

I wouldn't call it "confused", it's just a different definition. I go with the American constitution where it says "unalienable". But that is nit-picking.

Casper > Klaus Schmoll 01/09/2014 at 17:33

0

No, again, those are choices, not rights. I have the right to do anything I want. The regulatory authority established by the society I belong to will enforce regulations upon my rights to limit them to specific choices to which I agree to by being a member of said society.

Tax money is ear marked to specific functions. It isn't a big pool for grabs by whatever department wants it. The money for public transit is not the same as road maintenance and development. Just because someone decided to run a bus route and fund it with a bond measure does not diminish ones level of public ownership of another paid resource.

Casper > Klaus Schmoll 01/09/2014 at 17:36

0

Well the Constitution of the US outlines rights which may not be infringed upon, not the totality of rights and specifically outlines where the boundaries of power for said regulation lie. The acknowledgment of a social constitution is that the person has unlimited rights, but is forfeiting control of xyz rights in favor of unified regulation for the greater good and reserving specific rights that may not be regulated. It's really the difference between a defined right and natural right and protected right, which all gets very murky depending on the legal or philosophical point of view.

Philbert/Phartnagle > Klaus Schmoll 01/11/2014 at 04:19

0

IMO, If you pay taxes to support streets and highways, and you can pass the driving exam and test, then it is a right, that should be extended to you for paying those taxes and passing the tests.

However, if you are caught driving drunk or doing something else that is equally or even more stupid or dangerous, then you should lose that right for as long as the law determines, if/when you are caught.

DianeDisney > Klaus Schmoll 02/02/2014 at 15:30

0

I agree driving is your right....as long as YOU prove you are responsible for this right. My complaint in this discussion is age. Once your birthday hits 65 I firmly believe you have to take visual & driving test. I have witnessed and read about way too many accidents involving older drivers who get confused or don't have the reflex responses that they should. My brother & I had to take my mother's keys away from her. It wasn't easy on anyone, but I would much rather cause a little heartache than a death!