This is topic I want my driver's license!!! in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=038154

---

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
I am so irked with the state of Illinois that I can barely sit still. Thank God for Zoloft, or I'd be writing this from prison.

Back in 1987, when I was 24 years old, I moved to Israel. I grew up in Chicago, and I was moving with someone else, who lived in Kansas City, Kansas. So prior to our move, I drove down to Kansas City to pick up the other person's stuff. I took my Mom's minivan.

Missouri already had 65 mph speed limits, which was cool. And the minivan had cruise control, so I set it to 69 (yeah, sue me) and settled in for the ride.

Until I saw the headlights behind me. Cop pulls me over and asks me if I know how fast I was going. "Sixty nine miles an hour, officer," I told him in all honesty. I mean, hell, if he was going to ticket me for 4 mph over the speed limit, fine.

But no. He told me I was going 77 mph. I explained about the cruise control. He explained about his radar gun. I asked him if he was aware that those things have been known to clock trees as going 60 mph. He didn't really care.

So he ticketed me. And since they'd just raised the speed limit there and hadn't updated the scale for tickets yet, it was as though I'd been going 22 miles an hour over the speed limit. A nice $85 ticket.

As soon as I got to Kansas City, I called my Mom and told her she owed me $85. <grin> She refused to believe that her speedometer could have been wrong, but about six months later, she did tell me that it turned out that her car had a problem with the speedometer.

Thanks, Ma.

Anyway, the court date on the ticket was August 1. I was due to leave for Israel on July 26, presumably for good. My Dad suggested that this being the case, and since I was utterly convinced, based on my Mom's confidence in her car and the fact that I was on cruise control, that the radar gun was wrong and that it was a bum ticket, that I should just blow it off.

Thanks, Dad.

So time goes by. I moved to California with my family so that our daughter could have two legal parents, and got a driver's license there. Afterwards, I went back to Chicago for a time, and turned my California license in for an Illinois one.

And that's when things started to get really crazy.

See, my name wasn't Lisa Liel when I left for Israel in 1987. But my Social Security number was the same. So shortly after I got my license, they realized that there were two people in the system with the same Social Security number, and a big red light went off in their offices, blinking "IDENTITY THEFT" in seven foot tall letters, while a red alert klaxon (like on Star Trek) started blaring.

Or something like that.

So it went to their fraud department, and they cancelled my license. And then they noticed that I'd marked on the application that I'd never had a driver's license suspended or revoked before. Which, to the best of my knowledge, was true.

Ah, little did I know that way back in 1987, Missouri had called Illinois after I didn't show up on August 1, and Illinois had suspended my license.

So now I was down for fraud of the identity theft persuasion and perjury, to boot. See, it doesn't matter in Illinois whether you know you're lying on a form or not. And the perjury bought me a 12 month suspension of my license. Which had already been cancelled. Yeah, don't ask. I don't get it either.

My sentence ended today, September 20, 2005. I went to work, called the Secretary of State (that's our version of the DMV), and asked exactly what I had to do. The nice lady told me that I had to pay a $70 reinstatement fee, and then pony up another $5 for the reissuance of my license. The nearest office was only half a mile from work, so I left at 11:15 for an early lunch. How long could this take, right?

So I pay my $70 to ransom my driver's license. And they tell me that the fraud department has a hold on it. They call the fraud department, and get told that I have to start from scratch. Real scratch. Never mind that I turned in my California license in Illinois and you don't have to take a driving test when you do that. My California license is now a year gone, and they don't care.

So I ask them where the nearest facility is. It's the State of Illinois building, and it's only a few long blocks away. So I go over there. By this time, my legs are screaming in agony (that elevator accident is still hurting me), but I go through the whole process. Take the written test, eye test, pay them $10 (not $5) for a license fee, but I don't have my car with me, because I'm in the Chicago Loop, and I took the train to work.

So I get back to work, do a little until the pain in my leg completely prevents me from concentrating on coding, and leave. I get back uptown, book on over to the only Secretary of State facility that does driving tests and is open until 7 pm, and go in. And even though it's about 5:20, they've got 15 cars waiting for the driving test, three testers, and they have to finish by 6 pm. So I'm SOL. Again.

Oh, btw? Here in Chicago, if you get pulled over and it turns out you're driving without a license? They don't even take you to the police station for booking. They just take you directly to the Cook County lockup. Not that I know this from personal experience. But so I'm told.

Personally, I'm a little concerned (in a detached sort of way) about how calm I seem to be about all of this. I should be bouncing off the walls. Even Zoloft isn't this good.

It's going to be a bad night.
 

---

Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
 
Wow. That's quite a story. I'll give my advice, if you'll have it. It's really quite simple.

Get a lawyer.

Your unique circumstances may get that blemish removed with the right legal advice.

EDIT: Oh, and try some Ativan.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Since driver licenses are a "gateway ID" to all sorts of things, the US government has urged states to really work hard at getting positive identification of people before issuing them.

In addition, social security numbers are the most sought-after personal data item by identity thiefs since having that allows access to all kinds of other information.

Add to that the fact that the newly indicted ex-Governor of Illinois was involved in a drivers license scandal as one of the earliest chinks in his armor.

Finally, yes, you ended up in one of the strictest traffic courts in the US. It is actually the busiest.

So...the bottom line is that post 9/11 in Illinois, and especially in Chicago, there isn't any way in heck that a person is going to get away with ignoring a speeding ticket and no way that person is ever going to get reinstated after a license suspension without jumping through hoops.

It's only partly in the name of anti-terrorism, but I figured that might make you feel a little better about all the hassles you're currently facing.

I'm glad that you aren't getting too upset about it. That wouldn't help anyway.

Good luck. It'll all be over soon.

Not sure about the lawyer thing. Just do what they ask you to do, and prove who you are, and it should be fine.

by the way, a lawyer cannot do much to force a change in the license issuance process, if there is a problem. You just have to go through the hoops until they are satisfied.
 

---

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
One of the things that really gets me is that there's a statute of limitations for armed robbery. But not for a 17 year old speeding ticket.

<sigh>
 

---

Posted by theCrowsWife (Member # 8302) on :
 
Contrast this to the Arizona DMV, which routinely gets confused and hands out driver's licenses instead of learning permits. I know of several people who got licenses that way. It's nice to know that there are drivers in Tucson who never had to take a driving test. Although that does explain a few things...

--Mel
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
sL: I guess that's probably because of the differences between Administrative processes and criminal law.

btw, I do hope you are refraining from driving entirely until this is cleared up.
 

---

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz:
sL: I guess that's probably because of the differences between Administrative processes and criminal law.

btw, I do hope you are refraining from driving entirely until this is cleared up.

---

Um... remind me again. Are you in Illinois? Are you a lawyer or government employee? If so, then of course I'm not. <grin>
 

---

Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
 
snicker... I AM in Illinois and I work for lawyers, does that count? (yeah, as if I'd do anything....)
 

---

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
I also work for lawyers. In the IT department of an enormous law firm. And I do take the train to work, because I live in West Roger's Park (about as north as you can go and still be in the city of Chicago), and work in the Loop.

How I get to the train station, however, is a bit of a mystery. <grin>

My brother is a patent attorney. When he found out about this, he was also like, "But you aren't driving, right?" Next, he tried, "But you aren't going even a single mile an hour over the speed limit, right? Ever, right?" Very anal, my bro. I love him, but he needs to learn how to relax.
 

---

Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
 
Oh, what an incredible headache. I hope you can get it straightened out soon.

And not to sound paranoid, but really watch the driving without a license thing. My ex got into trouble with unpaid tickets years ago, got caught driving without a license and now almost 10 years later still does not have a license thanks to the high fines and the trouble he got into for driving without one.

space opera
 

---

Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
 
Hmm. I got caught speeding when I was 19. Way over the limit, I was just being stupid. But I was polite and honest with the officer, who reduced it to a lesser offense ($100 instead of $200), which I promptly went and paid the next week by walking over to the town clerk's office and handing them a check.

I agree that it's a bizarre and lousy chain of events that's befallen you, but your blame-the-government attitude and your grins over continuing to break the law are sort of puzzling.
 

---

Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
 
Why would anyone go to court anyway? I was trying to figure out what that had to do with anything.
 

---

Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
 
It's been a really long time since I've gotten a speeding ticket, but it at least used to be that in the State of Illinois, you could appear on your appointed court date and request supervision. If you weren't pulled over for any moving violations during your suspension time (including things like lights, seat belts, plates, etc.), then the speeding ticket is completely wiped from your record. Court cost was about $80 at the time, but compared to $200 or more for the speeding ticket plus a jump in your car insurance for the next five years, it's really worth the time to go sit in a courtroom.

You may actually want to bounce this situation off one of the bosses and see if they have ideas on how to get you through this. They won't be able to force a license issue, but maybe they can help point you in the right direction to get it resolved. (I assume that by "enormous firm" you're talking something on the level of K&E, Sidley, Jenner...)
 

---

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
Zeugma, I didn't do anything wrong. I mean, okay, I took bad advice about the ticket 18 years ago, but the insanity that's happened because of that is so totally out of proportion and mindless.

As far as driving is concerned, everyone keeps saying that "Driving is not a right; it's a privilege". I don't accept the idea that the government is entitled to strip me of my rights and ladle them back to me as they see fit. I pay the same taxes as everyone else. I own my car.

Did you ever read Oliver Twist? If so, do you remember what Mr. Bumble said to the magistrate when he was told that the law says he was responsible for the actions of his wife? That's pretty much my attitude here.

And Theaca, going to court would have been to contest the ticket.
 

---

Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
 
At 24, I think you're old enough to know that you need to pay the fine when you get caught speeding. Which you knew you were doing, even if you didn't quite realize how MUCH you were speeding. :shrug:
 

---

Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
 
Oh, I understand that it is to contest the ticket. But most adults don't have the luxury of taking the time off from work or missing class or finding a babysitter to go to court. Especially since it is just a chance to get out of the ticket, and especially if there might be court costs too. I'm shocked your dad told you not to pay it and I'm not surprised by the result. Or had you not planned on returning to America?
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Find that right. I am serious...if you are going to get all worked up about this, when it is really all your own fault, find that right listed in any state, or the Constitution.


They paid for the roads...using tax money to be sure, but if you think you have paid even a tenth of the cost of one small road in all your years...even leaving out the years you weren't in the US....then you are wrong. They have the right, and the responsibility to make the rules that help keep us safe...and if you think the rules don't apply to you, guess again.


You have NO right to drive, nor did you ever have one, what you had a license that showed you had been given the privlige of being allowed to drive.


Providing you follow the law..which you didn't....and that you show respect to the system that exists to keep drivers safe, the court process that is there for legal disputes regarding traffic infractions- which you ignored 17 years ago.


I don't mean to be harsh, but you have admitted blowing off court about this, so while I hope you get your license back I don't feel too bad that you lost it in the first place. You made a choice, a choice that you knew was wrong even at the time, and this is a direct consequence of that choice.


And even now you seem to think that they should care what you think of that "right", and continue to drive illegally, not to mention blaming you FATHER for this, because he gave you bad advice.


YOU chose to act on it, right?


That makes it your responsibility, in addition to you being the one who was speeding in the first place.


I just hope you don't get pulled over now, you might never get that "right" back if you get caught. Trust me, I have been there, I know it sucks, but taking responsibility for what happened to me when something similar happened to me was one of the best things that I ever did. I stopped making excuses why the rules shouldn't apply to me, and now I am a step 9...tehy lowerst possible insurance rate allowed in MA.

Not bad for a guy who was a step 26 five years ago.


Stop blaming the system, and you father, and accept that YOU made the bad choice, and are paying for it now.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
You MIGTH be able to get out of the purgury charge using a lawyer though....in order to meet the legal definition of purgury, in court, it has to be a lie....and in order to me a lie you have to know about it. A mistake is just that...a mistake., not a lie, and not purgury.


If you can prove you were living outside of the US for that time you might make a case that you never got a court date, and so were unaware that the licence was suspended.


Good luck either way.
 

---

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Theaca:
Oh, I understand that it is to contest the ticket. But most adults don't have the luxury of taking the time off from work or missing class or finding a babysitter to go to court. Especially since it is just a chance to get out of the ticket, and especially if there might be court costs too. I'm shocked your dad told you not to pay it and I'm not surprised by the result. Or had you not planned on returning to America?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwea:
Find that right. I am serious...if you are going to get all worked up about this, when it is really all your own fault, find that right listed in any state, or the Constitution.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwea:
They paid for the roads...using tax money to be sure, but if you think you have paid even a tenth of the cost of one small road in all your years...even leaving out the years you weren't in the US....then you are wrong. They have the right, and the responsibility to make the rules that help keep us safe...and if you think the rules don't apply to you, guess again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwea:
You have NO right to drive, nor did you ever have one, what you had a license that showed you had been given the privlige of being allowed to drive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwea:
Providing you follow the law..which you didn't....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwea:
And even now you seem to think that they should care what you think of that "right", and continue to drive illegally, not to mention blaming you FATHER for this, because he gave you bad advice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz:
sL,
According to the best studies to date, people who drive without a valid license are statistically 4x as likely as validly-licensed drivers to cause a fatal crash.

So, as Kafka-esque at it may seem, it also helps states identify the worst of the worst drivers and sanction them severely for driving illegally. Because, as a group, they've earned it.

Statistically, I fear people in your group far more than I fear terrorists. You've joined an elite group of people who are disproportionately destructive of lives and property. You group is responsible for high insurance rates, shattered lives, and vast costs for law enforcement, DMVS, and the courts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz:
My advice, again, is to jump through the hoops and be as pleasant as you possibly can. Get it done quickly and with a minimum of complaining and go forth and be a safe driver here on out.

---

I am a safe driver, Bob. I've been driving for 26 years, and have gotten two traffic tickets. One of which was for driving too slowly on an almost empty and unlit highway in California, which was overturned because the cop who gave it was an idiot. The nonsense I'm going through with the Secretary of State's office has nothing to do with tickets. It has to do with a far worse crime: filling out a form incorrectly.
 

---

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
(finds it extremely funny that starLisa is telling Bob that "statistics don't work that way" when that is what he does for a living and has a phD .......)



[ September 22, 2005, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
You realize, of course, that it's your responsibility to know if your speedometer is inaccurate, even if it's not your car, right? Your belief that you weren't breaking the law doesn't change the fact that you were breaking the law. You say that there was nothing unsafe about setting the cruise control, but it is unsafe if you set the cruise control above the speed limit. The fact that you didn't know doesn't let you off the hook.
 

---

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Farmgirl:
(finds it extremely funny that starLisa is telling Bob that "statistics don't work that way" when that is what he does for a living and has a phD .......)

---

quote:

---

I had not planned on returning to America.

---

So, basically, the next time you decide to leave the country, we should all be on the lookout for a crime spree? I mean, apparently, if you think you are about to leave the country permanently, you don't think you have to follow the rules. That's nice to know.
 

---

Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
 
Lisa, the tide of public opinion is turning against you.

Courage!
 

---

Posted by Astaril (Member # 7440) on :
 
Or, you know, you could forget courage and go for common sense instead and listen to the logic of what everyone is saying...
 

---

Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
 
<Sigh>

Those wacky Objectivist Libertarians...
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
If it makes you feel any better, Lisa, there's this guy named Tom Bailey -- another Objectivist Libertarian -- who hangs out on the Ornery site, has run for Congress, and has been jailed at least twice for driving on a suspended license because he refuses on principle to recognize the government's ability to require him to license his car.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
I do find it sort of odd she proclaims the libertarian title, yet supports the use of oppressive government action against individuals who have not been subject to any sort of judicial judgement or the like.
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
What you have to remember is that Bob is Lawful Good, and has taken just a crazy number of ranks in knowledge: traffic safety.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Noem, you have been playing way too many MPORGs. (Did I spell that right? They're not massive, neh?)
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
It'd be MORPG, since it's not massive.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Ah. I knew it didn't look quite right. Google was no help - too many geeks can't spell.

But shouldn't it still be Multi-Player Online Roleplaying Game? You seem to be implying that it is Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by starLisa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Farmgirl:
(finds it extremely funny that starLisa is telling Bob that "statistics don't work that way" when that is what he does for a living and has a phD .......)

---

That is funny. A statistician confusing correlation and causation? Bet that's never happened before.

---

Now you are showing YOUR ignorance....at no point sis he say you were going to do that...what he said was that people who HAVE done the same thing...lose their license, for whatever reason....cause FAR more harm than others.


As a group. Even including people who whine about having the law apply to them. Even including those who only lose their license for traffic violations.


Bob should know, as HE is the one who supplies the DOT with those stats, you know.

I know you lost your license for perjury...hell, I even said that if you sued them (or threatened to...I know that's what I was implying, anyway) you might get that part of it rescinded. By legal definition they are wrong....in order for it to be perjury you have to have LIED.


However, perhaps they don't feel like trusting the word of someone who admits to leaving the country not caring what the rules were...without paying it THEN.


THAT'S the root cause of all this...not your dad, or mom's car, but the fact that you knowingly and willingly blew off this ticket...becasue after all the rules don't apply to YOU, right?

Plain and simple, you don't have the right to drive, hence the licensing process, and for some reason...perhaps the same reason that lead you to believe that you were above the law (because after all it is THEIR fault you were driving too fast, even though it was you behind the wheel and even if the speedometer was right you were speeding with eh full knowledge of it at the time)....you feel as every single state government in the USA is wrong and you are right.


The courts have consistently agreed with the states, btw, as does the the DOT.

Perhaps we should call them and tell them you think they are wrong.
 

---

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
Well, she turned any sympathy from me off clear back at:

quote:

---

Missouri already had 65 mph speed limits, And the minivan had cruise control, so I set it to 69 (yeah, sue me)

---

yeah, laws aren't important. Stretch them as far as you can get by with........

FG
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
That didn't bother me, I do it, most people do it....


But the whole "I have the right to drive illegally" pissed me off.

I belong to the group of people Bob said was #1...I got a DWI on the night of my 29th birthday.


Sure, I thought I had a ride home. Sure, I thought I would be fine. I had not had a drink in 3 hours, after all....Sure, my recollection of that night was different than my friends, but we were all drinking so who knows what really happened....


I chose to drive, end of discussion. I wasn't drunk any more, but I still should have chose to sleep in my car if that was my only option. I had spent my entire life being the designated driver, so I knew better.


I couldn't pass the breath-a-lizor...not because or drink, but because I couldn't get enough good readings in a row to count...I had pneumonia, certified from the doctors and all. Every single reading I did get (you have to get 3 out of 5 attempts, 2 in a row basically, in order for it to count) was BELOW the DUI level let alone the DWI limit...but I couldn't get enough breath to count for the attempts, so they put it down as a failure to comply, meaning I had refused to take the test at all, of all things.

I got out of it with a continued w/o a finding, so technically I am NOT in that group ( ), but still, believe it or not....


It was probably one of the best things that ever happened to me.

I was also unregistered and uninsured, although I didn't know it at the time. I had been pulled over in a friends car...twice...for the same thing. It was HIS car, so why should I be held accountable, right?


Wrong...I was the driver.


I finally figured out that the rules were there for a reason, and that they applied to everyone...me included.


THAT is why listening to her pissed me off...I understood what she meant from the get go, but all the excuses in the world can't hide the fact that SHE is responsible for her actions, and until she realizes it nothing will help her.


Trust me, I know.


Kwea
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
StarLisa,

I can sympathize with your circumstances. Not being able to drive is an enormous hassle almost anywhere in America, especially if it came suddenly.

But I really don't understand why you're arguing about it. Yes, laws are sometimes Byzantine and contradictory and mangled and hard to understand and yes, people stretch little laws such as speeding all the time, and sometimes an honest mistake on a form can lead to a foul-up disproportionately inconveniencing to the magnitude of the foul-up...

But you got caugh, starLisa. You've broken the law, and you were caught, and the state obligated you to make amends.

Isn't that the end of the story, for a law-abiding citizen who has a fundemental and abiding respect for civilization? It's like the difference between a little white lie and a big whopper. Sure, in my opinion at least if you tell a white lie you're not really a LIAR...but if you're caught in it, `fess up, grin and bear it. The situation is the same here.

What you're doing here more or less is analogous to someone who was caught in a little white lie who weaves ever more elaborate deceptions to avoid admitting it. I don't understand your position of blithely ignoring the law in this situation. I have a difficult time reconciling it with other things you've written, most especially your posts detailing how strictly you adhere to your religious law.

Is that strict adherence only applicable to agreements made with G-d?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

Isn't that the end of the story, for a law-abiding citizen who has a fundemental and abiding respect for civilization?

---

quote:

---

Jewish Law requires (in most circumstances) that secular laws be followed: Dina d'malchuta dina.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

You guys are coming down harder on Lisa than you would most people, you know. I'm not sure that's very fair. You're angrier at her than you would be at me, for instance, because she has said some things to annoy you in the past

---

---

quote:

---

just as an aside, I make the case that people who drive anyway when they do not have a valid license are committing a deliberate act of attempted murder on some random person "out there" every time they do it.

---

Bob, in all fairness, that's ridiculous. You're confusing causation with correlation.

That Lisa's license was suspended does not make her more likely to kill someone while driving; it merely puts her in a class of people who are more likely to kill someone while driving. There's a HUGE distinction -- and I'm speaking here as someone whose license was suspended, myself, for driving a car with expired plates.

In my defense, I was visiting family over Christmas when my car broke down and I was forced to use a second car that I'd passed down to my brother two years earlier. He had moved to Florida without the car a while back, and it had simply sat on the property. Sadly, the license plate design changed while the car sat, and so it was pretty obvious to the police as I pulled out of the lot -- heading to NAPA to buy parts for my actual car, mind you -- that it wasn't registered properly. Let me tell you, THAT was a furball of epic proportions.

Does that mean that I, personally, am a bad driver, or someone who's literally putting everyone else on the road at risk when I choose to drive? Of course not. It merely means, at most, that I belong to a group of people who are more likely than the average to be bad drivers.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Tom, and you'll note I do not talk this way in the specific cases, as I said.

That wouldn't be confusing correlation with causation, btw, but it would be making an unwarranted prediction about an individual versus the heightened risk posed by members of the group n general.

That's why I don't do it.

 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
PS: I was serious -- the use of that "attempted murder" line is purely a rhetorical device to get people's attention. It's nothing I would say in court or when addressing a specific situation.

It's an attempt on my part to get people in the legislature to think a bit more about the consequences of watered-down laws and to get prosecutors and judges to treat unlicensed driving more seriously -- like the change that has taken place in treatment of drunk driving.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
I wnet from a step 14...a good driver, although not the best...to a step 28...in one incident.


Now I am a step 9, the lowest you can be.


Not every person who make a mistake is trying to kill someone, Bob, nor does it mean that they are a bad driver per se.


Now, if I had continued driving that way, rather than using these experiences to change my entire attitude about the whole thing, you may have been right. Those people, the habitual offenders, are very dangerous, because at some point they will try to avoid getting caught and place others at risk, perhaps by fleeing.


But people can make a mistake and not be atempting murder.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
<cough>rhetorical device</cough>

I know! I get it. Believe me.

In the area of public opinion, however, one of the things that has to happen is an attitude change. Sometimes, to get that to happen you have to get people's attention focused on the issue.

Ask stephen -- he does this for a living.

I repeat -- I don't say that stuff in relation to specific cases. I never said it about Lisa (or Tom or you). And I wouldn't. It'd be incorrect and unnecessarily cruel.

But the fact is that those deaths come from somewhere. They aren't accidents -- they are the result of deliberate acts that are predictable in nature. Sure...no-one intended to kill someone. They just engaged in risky behavior and it resulted in a death. The group has the characteristic of being responsible for more death per driver than any other short of drunk/drugged individuals.

So...WHEN I use that rhetorical device, it is to change the nature of the debate from our current "oh these folks have just probably had a bit of bad luck" to something a bit more serious. I don't advocate treating unlicensed drivers as if they'd attempted a murder. I advocate treating the crime more seriously so that we can reduce the risk and avoid the death and injury the group is causing.

I gave serious thought to a new bit of rhetoric. If we had a way to deport everyone we catch driving without a valid license, we would save LOTS of lives. Somewhere between 20% and 50% of highway deaths might be avoided if we could send all these folks "somewhere else."

The problem is, however, that this is exactly what states do now. By failing to share full driver histories (or failing to look them up in the "new" state) we make it possible for someone to flee their past and continue to deny the facts of their own misbehavior. That loophole is closing, but up until very recently, all someone had to do to get a clean driving record was move to the right state. "License washing" is a serious problem.

Illinois, by the way, is not such a state.

Nor are most states these days, now that 9/11 showed us how crucial a piece of paper a drivers license is. Positive identification of people means that the states can also look you up to see if you've ever had a license somewhere else, even if you lie and say you didn't.

And, once they take the time to positively identify you, they can see if you'd been suspended or revoked elsewhere as well. Naturally, they take a dim view to people who lie about those past problems too. Even if the "lie" is just a "mistake on a form."

How are they to know? 'Cuz you have an honest face and aren't dark-complected or speak with an accent? 'Cuz you're a mom and drive the kids to soccer?

Nope. They have to treat everyone the same. And they do. And that's why it's not a good idea to fight it. They can prove they are being fair, and even-handed. The net they cast is wide. It catches some people who are probably otherwise upstanding citizens. But it also catches a good number of ne'er-do-wells. And that's the whole point.

This is how administrative law works, as I've been told repeatedly. It's a whole different realm. And it's there by necessity.

Anyway, you found that out. And you got "right" with the state and in your driving attitude. So, you're back in the fold of "the normal driver." One who obeys the laws of the state, and doesn't have a hostile attitude about the enforcement of laws.

In short, you are no longer part of the group. And thus the state has no reason to focus on you.

That's how it works. It saves you money to act this way. And you get to spend that money doing things other than defending yourself. And life is peace and tranquility as a consequence.
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 

quote:

---

Sometimes, to get that to happen you have to get people's attention focused on the issue.

Ask stephen -- he does this for a living.

---

Not very successfully though--I mean, no one here is really eating any more shellfish than they were 6 months ago, and if anything organ meat consumption has gone down in recent months.

Oh, stephen! My mistake!
 

---

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
Noemon!
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 

quote:

---

Zeugma, I didn't do anything wrong. I mean, okay, I took bad advice about the ticket 18 years ago, but the insanity that's happened because of that is so totally out of proportion and mindless.

---

starLisa do you really not see that refusing to pay the ticket before you went out of the country was more than just "taking bad advice?"

I'm asking that honestly, do you not see that? Because it's so obvious to me, as it is to others, I 'm sure - that you should have done the right thing and paid the ticket before you left and had you done so - you wouldn't be going through this now.
 

---

Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
 
I agree with Belle. If you were going to be around to fight the ticket, that's fine. I understand that. But since you knew you would be gone, you should have paid it. You left me with the feeling that you decided since they couldn't catch you, you didn't have to pay the fine.
 

---

Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 
Bob,

While reading this thread, your hyperbole and logical fallacies have annoyed me far worse than the snottiness of starLisa. Admitting its just rhetoric doesn't make it any less repugnant.

And considering how much I like and respect you, and am generally annoyed by starLisa, that pains me to say .

Anyway, I myself have had my own problems with being a good driver in the past. I ended up getting my license suspended for not paying my own speeding tickets. How did I get those tickets? By having an attitude toward driving that I now recognize as being quite stupid. Why did I not pay them? I was in a time of pretty severe depression, and I've always had a self-destructive habit of ignoring my problems when I am depressed. Not a valid excuse, but the reason nonetheless. Again, my own stupidity. To this day I regret both the attitude which earned me the tickets, and the decision (by inactivity) not to pay them.

I admit that I did continue driving. I'm not proud of that fact, but my choices were very limited. I lived eight miles from 1) the nearest places of employment 2) the nearest food markets and 3) my university. The nearest buss stop? Six miles in the opposite direction of my work and school.

You can't walk or bike eight miles to work in the upstate New York winter without freezing to death. Or to school. Or to the grocery store. I was downright poor at the time, and on my own. Not working meant not having the money to buy food. I suppose I could have made the choice to starve to death, but the money I made from working and the student loan money from attending university was also buying food and clothes for my little brother. My father had recently passed away, and we wouldn't recieve his life insurance until about five months later.

For the sake of completeness, lets consider my other options. A taxi from where I lived to the city my school was in costed 25 dollars each way, so I couldn't even come close to affording that. My friends and older brother lived eight miles away as well, so getting them to drive sixteen miles out of their way two times a day in the upstate New York winter would have been laughable, and at times even life endangering. I couldn't just up and move closer, since I was living in the house which was passed down to me and my brothers when my Dad died. I suppose I could have sold the house and moved to the nearest city with my little brother, but by the time the house sold I probably would have starved or froze to death. Are there any options I am forgetting? If so, they didn't occur to me at the time.

So while I regret the stupidity that led to my license problems, I have little regret as to continuing to drive when my license was suspended. I suppose now you see me as something as "worse than a terrorist" and generally an awful human being, but somehow I think I will still be able to sleep at night.

Anyway, continuing my license saga, soon after the life insurance money came, I moved to San Diego and lived there for eight months without a car. This wasn't difficult in San Diego, thanks to public transportation and weather warm enough to ride a bike. I paid off my tickets in New York, I paid my suspension fees, jumped through every hoop imaginable (which included literally 30+ phone calls and over a dozen visits to the DMV), and got my license back.

Now I am the very model of an obedient driver, and get nervous if I catch myself going even five miles over the speed limit, much to the annoyance of my girlfriend . I can't wait until my driving record is completely clean. I think my last ticket was about two years ago, and most insurance companies look back three years. That will be a happy day indeed .
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Xav,

I think I've been fairly careful to separate the hyperbole (which I did acknowledge to be hyperbole and used expressly for the shock value) from the fact.

I've also tried to point out that the state is not equipped to deal with each individual story and still maintain a legal basis for its administrative law and procedings. Many states, however, do allow for hardship licenses, and after a period of "hard time" suspension will often grant even the most demonstrably bad drivers a limited permit so that they can get to and from work and/or meet specific obligations (such as attending AA meetings ordered by the court).

I haven't actually said what things I'd like to see changed in the laws, so I'm still not sure where the legal hyperbole comes in. But perhaps if I clarified a bit what my position is, I'd bounce back into your good favor.

The things we really need in this country are effective punishments and incentives to keep people from driving while suspended or revoked (or basically unlicensed). The reason we need this is because the data very clearly show that these people, as a group, are much worse drivers than everyone else. Knowing nothing else about them, we have to take some action at the group level, and it has to be fairly administered so that the whole thing doesn't drag through the courts while these people drive on temporary licenses awaiting their day before the judge.

On the other side, extending a suspension after a person has already been suspended is rarely effective. Some of these people have suspensions totalling much longer than the average human lifespand. That's not meaningful. There's no hope for such a person to ever get their license back, so why bother ever trying to comply with the laws and reinstate?

Instead, I favor a rapid reinstatement process with a graduated relicensing. Your first suspension should be treated as a serious but, one hopes, one-time event. The DMV should hold you to it for 30 days hard suspension and another 60 days (if you had a 90 day suspension) in which you should be required to be evaluated by a certified instructor and have a hearing with a DMV driver control specialist. During this latter period, you should be allowed to drive to/from work and other required activities, but any moving violations incurred during this probationary period should result in immediate loss of privileges and placement in a more serious status. If you make it through the period with no troubles, you should get your license back with all privileges and, in 3 years, the suspension should go off your record entirely.

Upon 2nd or subsequent suspension, the hard-time component should increase, and the return of your driving privileges should be conditional for at least a year. When you are issued a new license, it should be distinctive in color or orientation on the card so that law enforcement and others (rental car agencies, employers, etc) could see at a glance that you are under a special status. You should not be given a license for more than 1 year at time and you should have to retest with a certified examiner each year. That status should last a few years. If you make it through that period with a clean record, you go back into the regular license category and eventually that suspension falls off your record.

If you ultimately still can't get it right and fall into the state's habitual offender category, the state should bar you from obtaining a license for a good long time and, if you are caught driving without a valid license, the vehicle you are driving should be impounded. Fines and jail time may be required.

Lists of the names and addresses of such habitual offenders should be given to local law enforcement so that they can be specifically on the lookout for such drivers.

At present, there are no states that have this complete set of laws in the manner I've described. The reason I think the current laws are too lax is that we are faced with a problem that is growing, not shrinking. While we've made significant progress in reducing drunk driving deaths, the number and proportion related to driving without a valid license are on the rise.

There are myriad problems that would account for this, but the most basic one is attitudinal, I believe. It is the attitude that says "I will starve if I don't drive, so it doesn't matter that I broke the law, the state should find a way to make sure I can still drive."

To me, the lack of good alternatives is a reason to bend over backwards for the first timers -- get them back into driving legally quickly and then make them be safe or lose the privilege again.

But if someone is caught driving in violation of the restrictions (either during hard time components of the suspension or outside of the allowed time/area during the probationary period), then they have demonstrated a disregard for that 2nd chance that they received, and they should be in trouble for it.

The other things we need are better educated judges and prosecutors. Charges for driving without a license are often plea-bargained away or offered up in trade for a guilty plea for what are viewed as more serious offenses. That means that many of the people who ARE eventually suspended should be on their 2nd or 3rd suspension instead of their 1st. That should end.

The best case is catching people and getting them to take the licensing laws seriously as early as possible.

Please don't take the comparison to "terrorism" too seriously. Honestly, it really is a rhetorical device to open people's eyes to the statistics. In traffic safety we often face a rather blase attitude about these things. The deaths are distributed across the entire nation and the entire year. It's rare that something so horrific happens that it makes the evening news outside of the traffic reports (and then only if it happens during a rush hour period).

The fact is, however, that numerically this problem is larger than terrorism is or likely ever will be. From a health and safety perspective, it is an order of magnitude larger problem.

And the people whose lives are affected -- the injured and the families of those killed -- are just as blasted by these untimely deaths as when a person is killed in some senseless act of violence.

I have tried, repeatedly, to impress on people here that I don't make this case in terms of specific people, but I do say that for the group they are responsible for more deaths than a group we all fear and loathe.

The fact is, I'm much more likely to suffer a tragedy because of some person who is driving when he has no legal right to than I am to suffer at the hands of any terrorist or murderer...

Knowing the statistics, I fear the group of unlicensed drivers much more than I do the group of people who hate America.

.
.
.
Now, the nice thing is that most of the people in that group will never actually cause a crash. Nor will they suffer the consequences of their illegal behavior. They'll drive without getting caught and they'll figure out a way to reinstate before anyone catches up with them, and before the law of averages catches up with them.

And they'll never let it happen again because the reinstatement process is such a royal pain. And driving illegally is fairly nerve-wracking.

Right?

So, I'm pretty sure my advice to Lisa is the correct advice too. While I chewed her out, I didn't advise her to go commit ritual suicide either. I just told her to get herself down to the DMV and straighten it out.

Same as you eventually did.

As for actually accusing individuals of being worse than terrorists (or even "bad people")... I'm really not that cruel or stupid.

I probably shouldn't have used my "attempted manslaughter" comparison. It is something I've used rarely (once actually) and it was clear in that context that I was trying to make a point about unintended consequences.

I won't edit it out since it would now make this thread into total nonsense. But I will say that the attitude I expressed is one that I used once in a context where I felt the deliberately inflammatory language was necessary to get people to change a mindset.

It really isn't necessary here, and I apologize for the misunderstanding that I've caused.
 

---

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz:
(just as an aside, I make the case that people who drive anyway when they do not have a valid license are committing a deliberate act of attempted murder on some random person "out there" every time they do it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz:
One possibility is that Lisa's life is the one to be saved. That would be good for her, her partner, and the kids. no? And what it might take is an attitude change about driving. The first step is for her to learn and admit that she is NOT a good driver in the eyes of the state.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz:
She is among the worst of the people who get behind the wheel and her willingness to do it illegally is sufficient evidence of that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz:
<cough>rhetorical device</cough>

---

quote:

---

She is among the worst of the people who get behind the wheel

---

quote:

---

I have tried, repeatedly, to impress on people here that I don't make this case in terms of specific people

---

I'm sorry Bob, but I don't buy it. I could compile a list of quotes in this thread that quite clearly demonstrate that you believe starLisa to be a terrible driver, and that her continuing to drive is putting the lives of other drivers and herself at risk. Her specifically.

Why? Because she belongs in a group of people who, statistically are worse drivers.

You are applying general statistical trends to a specific person. But you don't know how good a driver she is. You only know that she is in a statistical group which are worse drivers than the national average. That does NOT mean she is a worse driver than you are. That does NOT mean that starLisa, as an individual, is more likely to cause a fatal accident.

Note that I am not saying that the state shouldn't be allowed to treat her as if she was more likely to cause a fatal accident. You're right, as far as they know, she is. Insurance companies are allowed to give better rates to females than males, because as a group, females are less likely to be an insurance risk. But that does NOT mean my girlfriend is less likely to get in a fatal accident than I am.

I will attempt an analogy.

Suppose there is a statistic that people who play video games are statistically far more likely to shoot up their school. I play video games, so I am in a group who statistically is far more likely to shoot up a school. But that does NOT mean that I myself am more likely to shoot up a school than anyone else.

Its hard for me to articulate this thought. Do you understand what I am trying to say though?

Edit: And another thing. starLisa belongs to a statistical group which has a higher rate of traffic fatalities than the average because she drives without a license. But looking at starLisa as an individual, you will see that she also belongs to the group of people who have driven for 26 years with only two tickets and no accidents. I would bet that statistical group has far lower number of traffic fatalities than average. Examining her as an individual, she may be a member of all sorts of statistical groups that have lower fatality numbers than the average. You don't know what groups she happens to be a member of, so you can't say that she, herself, is a bad driver.

Take my analogy. I am in one group who is more likely to shoot up their school: those who play video games. But I am ALSO in a statistical group who is far LESS likely to shoot up their school: those who were on the honor roll. Unless you know everything there is to know about me, you don't actually know that I am more or less likely to do it than anyone else.
 

---

Posted by Kettricken (Member # 8436) on :
 
StarLisa I’ve been trying to stay out of this thread but your latest defence is one two many and I’m jumping in. Getting a speeding ticket for most people would be a warning that they are driving too fast. I would never consider not paying a fine I was given, I’d be ashamed, I might not tell people about it, but I’d make sure I’d pay it.

The fact that you decided you could avoid it is what makes me concerned. The ticking a box on a form is just a red herring, I accept you didn’t know you were suspended, but you have spent a long time knowing you broke the law, got caught and tried to get away with it. Nothing you have said makes me think you would think twice about breaking traffic laws now. That is what would make me wonder if you were quite as good as a public road driver (which means safe to me, not able to complete a racing circuit well, which is a different kind of good driver) as you claim.
 

---

Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
 
As for your ideas for new laws for license suspension...

Speaking as someone who drove for a considerable amount of time with a suspended one, I don't think they may have had any effect.

A thirty day suspension would have been just as impossible to obey as a six month one. It simply wasn't an option not to drive, for the reasons I listed above. Nothing short of the death penalty could have deterred me. As melodramatic as it may sound, it was either drive, or die.

Harsher punishments may have influenced me into paying the tickets on time in the first place, but I don't see how they would effect me once I recieved the suspension.

Driving may not be a "right", but in certain parts of the country, and under certain circumstances, its a necessity.

Edit: Though I don't claim that it is for starLisa, not knowing anything her or her situation.

And also, let me add, that I am not denying that you are giving starLisa good advice. My advice to her would be the same. Thats not the part of your posts I took issue with .
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Bob, I type slow...my last response was written before you posted, sorry about that, I didn't mean to beat a dead horse.


I think Bob has cleared up what I objected to, and apologized for his sue of rhetoric where it may have been a little over the line....


And I do respect his ideas, as he is one of the people who is charged with dealing with the data that these accidents cause.


I still think that she may have had a case against the suspension for perjury, but overall I think the problem was more than just a wrongly checked box.


sL, I can spell it out for you, like you did for Bob, if it would help.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Given all we have to go on are the groups we can place her in and her own protestations, starLisa is more likely to be a worse driver. Or, more accurately, we have a higher confidence that starLisa is a worse driver.

Until we see evidence to the otherwise, she remains an unmeasured sample, with all that implies about confidence based on group membership.
 

---

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 

quote:

---

That's nuts. I don't need permission to walk down the street, and I don't need permission to operate my own vehicle. The fact that they've labeled it a "privilege" doesn't make it so.

---

You are simply dead wrong. Driving a car on the public roads is a privilege not a right and there are good reasons for that. The car maybe yours, but the roads belong to all of us. An automobile is a deadly weapon and if you don't operated it responsibly, you severly endanger the lives and property of the other users of the road. Because of that, we, as a society, have established certain standards which you must meet to receive the privilege of operating your car on the public roads.
 

---

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
I know nothing about starlisa's driving skills. But she has told us that she has been driving without a license for a year. If she doen't have a license, then she isn't covered by insurance. For that reason alone it is irrisponsible for her to drive.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
Okay, starLisa now I'm going to type real slow.

Your license was not taken away because you didn't check a little box. It was taken away because you were speeding and didn't pay the ticket.

Had you either A) not been speeding or B) paid the ticket when you should have the little box would never have come up.

THAT is what we're trying (unsuccessfully it seems) to point out.

I absolutely, positively think you deserved to lose your license. Why? Because you deliberately broke the law by not paying a ticket and the only reason you did it was because you didn't think you'd get caught. Not exactly an admirable attitude you have there - the laws don't apply to you so long as you can't be punished and when the state tries to enforce its laws it's wrong because you're inconvenienced.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
You're quite right, you don't need permission to operate your own vehicle. You can drive without a license all you like on property you own or have permission to use (even implicit permission to use. note, though, that permission to use toll roads is dependent on possession of a drivers license).

Unfortunately for you, that does not include public roads. The Drivers License is somewhat misnamed; its really a Road license and Identification Card.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
You know, starLisa did say it was her father that told her not to pay it.
I think we can safely say

1) don't take dumb advice even if it's from your parents
2) character flaws often are perpetuated from parents to children
 

---

Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
 
"you have spent a long time knowing you broke the law, got caught and tried to get away with it. "

She wasn't trying to get away with breaking the law at this point. Maybe when she thought she was never coming back (and I do think that was a mistake, but I'd like to know honestly, how many of you would do the same thing?) but not now. She stated very clearly that she paid the ticket as soon as she found out it was there. Seriously people, have you never done a stupid thing when you were younger? She made a mistake 17 years ago and did not pay her ticket. When they told her she had an unpaid speeding ticket, she paid it immediately! The only reason she is in trouble now is because she checked the wrong box on a form!
This thread is getting ridiculous.

 

---

Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
 

quote:

---

Many people have laws that we choose more or less to ignore, LadyDove.

---

Rakeesh,
sL wrote in another thread that love was no excuse for marrying outside the Jewish faith. She said something to the effect that if the Jewish person had been properly educated, he would never have fallen in love. To me, this indicates that she takes an "ignorance of the law is no excuse" approach to her beliefs.

If that is her approach, I can respect it as long as she uses it consistently rather than conveniently.

My problem isn't that she chose to ignore an outdated law, or that she didn't know that she had broken the law. My problem is that she is using two very different criteria; one for the person she responded to and another for herself.

It seems absurd to me that a person of sL's obvious intelligence would feel confident in condeming a person's choice of spouse because they fell in love instead of reading the law; while whining with righteous indignation for being caught trying to evade a law of which she had full knowledge.

(editted to correct spelling and syntax)

[ September 24, 2005, 02:26 AM: Message edited by: LadyDove ]
 

---

Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
 
Treason,

Though I disagree with your take, I admire your loyalty to your perspective and sL.
 

---

Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
 
"Treason,

Though I disagree with your take, I admire your loyalty to your perspective and sL."

Thanks, LadyDove.

People may think I am only defending her because I have stated before that I like her very much and think she is extremely intelligent and witty. (I'm not speaking of you, LD- it's just a general statement and your post made me think of it) I don't always agree with her-however, this time I think that most people are being way too hard on her. Seems more like glee at trying to take her down and it makes me sad.
 

---

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle:
Okay, starLisa now I'm going to type real slow.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle:
Your license was not taken away because you didn't check a little box. It was taken away because you were speeding and didn't pay the ticket.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle:
Had you either A) not been speeding or B) paid the ticket when you should have the little box would never have come up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle:
THAT is what we're trying (unsuccessfully it seems) to point out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rabbit:
I know nothing about starlisa's driving skills. But she has told us that she has been driving without a license for a year. If she doen't have a license, then she isn't covered by insurance. For that reason alone it is irrisponsible for her to drive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kettricken:
StarLisa I’ve been trying to stay out of this thread but your latest defence is one two many and I’m jumping in. Getting a speeding ticket for most people would be a warning that they are driving too fast.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kettricken:
I would never consider not paying a fine I was given, I’d be ashamed, I might not tell people about it, but I’d make sure I’d pay it.

The fact that you decided you could avoid it is what makes me concerned. The ticking a box on a form is just a red herring, I accept you didn’t know you were suspended, but you have spent a long time knowing you broke the law, got caught and tried to get away with it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by starLisa:

I strongly suspect that all the riders of high horses here, if faced with a ticket they thought was unjust that could only be contested by cancelling major life plans that would screw them up for years to come, and knew that they were going to be living in another country for the rest of their lives, would have done the same thing I did.

---

Actually, in your situation, I would have just paid the ticket and gotten on with my life - exactly what I did when I got a parking ticket while visiting a foreign country to which I will not be returning for a very long time, if ever.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
sL, hate to break it to you, but if you get into an accident, even if it isn't your fault, you are not covered, and if anyone comes to harm you could be facing serious jail time. Not to mention possibly losing all your worldly good...as house if you have one, your car for sure, and whatever you may have saved up to this point.

Insurance can't by law cover anyone in the US (or rather they won't, as they had a hand in formulating the law), so you are automatically "at fault".

SO...we are all out to get you, and dislike you because of your unpopular views?


Bull$hit.


I wasn't involved in that thread...or those threads...not that I can remember. I could care less what you think about any of this other crap, what I am disputing is you attitude in here, about this issue.

You were in the wrong. Stop trying to blame others. It isn't the states fault, your families fault, your mothers cars fault, or the stupid forms fault. Nor the cops fault for pulling you over, even if you had been only going 4 MPH over...which you weren't.

It is yours.

All of this, every little bit of it, could have been avoided if you had had any sense of responsibility for your actions. THIS time you were suspended for lying, and to be honest after seeing your attitude about these issues I can't say they were wrong to do so, but the root cause of this was your irresponsibility and avoidance of a very small issue.


You felt like you didn't have to worry about it, because who cared, you were gone. The rules didn't apply to YOU, because you felt that you could outsmart the system...by speeding, protesting, and ignoring the possible consequences of your actions (or lack of action).


Guess what....it doesn't work like that.


Welcome to the real world.


All the dodging and placing blame doesn't change the fact that you deserved what happened, and whatever happens in the future you will deserve that too..although I am sure you would probably try and blame others for that as well.


After all, if they hadn't suspended you in the first place, none of this would have happened.



One way or another, I wish you luck getting it back, even if I don't agree with your "interpretation" of the events that caused you to lose it. I have been in a similar situation, and I know it sucks.


Kwea
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

All of this, every little bit of it, could have been avoided if you had had any sense of responsibility for your actions.

---

quote:

---

Her decision to drive while suspended is regrettable, but I can certainly understand it; the initial suspension, again, is one of those quirks of fate that I suspect we'd be consoling any other poster about.

---

Tom, I was thinking the same thing, but I believe that any other poster who had her attitudinal history would be getting the same treatment.

Please forgive me, but since you have such a strong personality, I was wondering what would have happened if you had made this post. But you wouldn't have. You have strong opinions about what others should do and you take responsibility for those things within your control. I concluded that you may whine about the baby keeping you up at night or Bush's policies, but you'd never whine about something as petty as being caught avoiding a traffic ticket.

Maybe it's the whole "glass houses" thing and she's walking to the bathroom naked.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
One more time, at least in my case this has nothing to do with any othe post or thread. It comes from my being in a similar situation years ago..although a worse situation to be honest, and one of my own making.


I use to say a lot of the same things about my situation, but none of it got any better until I began playing by the rules.

I hope it works out for her, I really do, but thinking you are above the rules is not a step in the right direction, IMO.


I understand why she is still driving, but I made the same choices and got called on it. More than once.

If she thinks THIS sucks, just wait.
 

---

Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
 
Tom said : "...I suspect we'd be consoling any other poster about."

Thank you!
I don't even think everyone would be consoling another poster but I do think there wouldn't be this level of hostility.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
I said I hoped she got it back. I said that she could get in a lot of trouble, and maybe lose everything, so I hope she would reconsider. I also said, more than once, that I hoped it would all work out for her, and even suggested that she try to overturn this particular part of the DMV's case.


If this is hostile then I guess I will remain so, because other than that I don't think she has much of a leg to stand on. She can complain, but it won't do any good, and won't address a lot of other isues at the root of this.


I know I came on strong, but that was because she came on so strong as well.


I also think that other posters might have been a little more willing to accept a little bit more of the blame, and that would have led to a lot more understanding on from the people here in this thread.


Whatever.


sL, good luck with this, and be as careful as you can, of course.

But if you get caught....


Nevermind

[ September 25, 2005, 03:04 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
 

---

Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
 
It actually was not you I was thinking of when I wrote that.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
1. I am still surprised that you are not a teenager. Teenagers are often scornful of authority, rejecting of self-responsibility, and so desperate to prove themselves that they deal with the people around them like bit players in their own heroic comic strip.

I don't even think it is a character flaw when teenagers do this, because they'll grow out of it. They are lacking accomplishments - of course they act like they have something to prove. They haven't proven anything yet. Even amazing teenagers are largely bundles of potential, and taking them seriously takes an act of faith. You remind of someone who is not being taken seriously, and so invents Downtrodden Hero stories.

You say you are not - that you are in your forties. I am not convinved.

2. She has been chastised. More words won't make a difference, and now it is just feeding her persecution myth. And making it less of a myth.

3. I have at least three tickets in my life that I have ignored completely. I know it's immature, and not remotely responsible. When I get caught, I'll accept the consequences. I ignored them because (1) I didn't have any cash earmarked to throw away, and (2) I get so tired of being so darn civilized all the time.

In my father's defence, he told me to pay them. The state is very good at catching minor offenses, and it's just not worth it to take a stand over such a minor thing. Use that fighting energy for good, instead.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Treason:
It actually was not you I was thinking of when I wrote that.

---

I realized I may haev been jumping the gun on that...it is 3 am here, and I am tired.


Not that I didn't come on strong...I know I did. I just hoped I had also made it clear that while I thought she may hae deserved some of what happened I still hoped she would have it all work out OK.


On that note...a b flat, I think , I am off to bed.


Night!


Kwea
 

---

Posted by Mr.Funny (Member # 4467) on :
 
[derail]

quote:

---

1. I am still surprised that you are not a teenager. Teenagers are often scornful of authority, rejecting of self-responsibility, and so desperate to prove themselves that they deal with the people around them like bit players in their own heroic comic strip.

I don't even think it is a character flaw when teenagers do this, because they'll grow out of it. They are lacking accomplishments - of course they act like they have something to prove. They haven't proven anything yet. Even amazing teenagers are largely bundles of potential, and taking them seriously takes an act of faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Cut her some slack, 'k?

---

quote:

---

I think that this outlook on teenagers serves to perpetuate the stereotype and make it come true. Adults tend to not take teenagers seriously, which drives them to try to prove themselves all the more, and perpetuates this cycle.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by starLisa:
... I'm still in moderate and periodic pain from that elevator falling a month and a half ago, and a good brawl helps keep my mind off of it.

...

I enjoy debating when the people I'm debating with are honest. Even if I disagree with them, I can respect that. Some of the people in this thread are extremely dishonest, and that makes me feel free to pull my punches a bit less.

---

As I expected.

I enjoy a heated debate, but not so much as a participant as a spectator. I've even been known to fan the flames a bit when things are dying down just so that people can sputter and get all self-righteous for my amusement.

I'm a little stinker, aren't I?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Yes.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Using people is not attractive.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Is it terrible that I want a little bit of chastisement and advice about what to do about my blown-off tickets? I would sort of like to take care of them, but I just spent my first child's inheritance in Spain. Translation: no money, not kidding. I don't suppose they ever have amnesty programs, like the library?
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
Do you remember where they were from? And how much they were? I'd set aside money from each paycheck to pay them off top priority when you get back. At this point, there's not much else you can do. You might find out, when you send in money, that there are additional interest charges and/or late fees.

And I do think that, like starLisa, you should have paid them in the first place. And that if there are now additional consequences because you did not, you should accept them with good grace.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
One I know - I still have some paper for it. I think there are more, and almost surely from Texas, but they are from years ago now, and I don't know what city. Cities. I am not even sure they exist - there's just sort of a feeling of unfinished business that arises when I think about it.
 

---

Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
 
Well, then start with the one you know. Then I bet there's a web site that'll search for the others for you.
 

---

Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
 
Lord.

I'm a born-again Hatracker, so I'm not particularly sure who Lisa is or what she's done to merit this kind of antagonism -- but I do remember that we're better than this.

She made a mistake, and not a particularly consequential one to my eyes. Yeah, she needs to take care of it, and yeah, the responsibility's hers, but does it really deserve the quiet fury represented in half the responses here?

I'm sure she's annoyed most of you with conservative orthodoxy, but it's not as though others -- including myself -- haven't been giant pains in our collective ass when it comes to political disagreements. Let go, kids.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
That's a good idea.

I still like the idea of an amnesty program. Criminals cut deals all the time by offering to give themselves up. I'd love to do the same.

I think this is what my dad meant by the small offenders being toasted. There is more bueracracy than a human face of justice, and bueracracy is inexorable.
 

---

Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
 
I think people are reacting to her attitude far more than they are to her actual predicament.
 

---

Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
 
A cavalier attitude toward a an unpaid speeding ticket deserves this level of hostility? Or is it finding humor in the labyrinth of bureaucracy she has to find her way through to get her driver's license back?

I was just scanning the "Changeable God" thread and I'm reading some of her religious views. I disagree, emphatically, but orthodoxy's nothing new -- and nothing worth lowering my esteem of some of Hatrack's best for the sake of petty snarkiness. I say again, let go, kids. You're better than this.
 

---

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
In defense of my attackers, I am arrogant and opinionated, at least in areas where I feel justified in being arrogant and opinionated.

I don't particularly think that arrogance is a bad thing, if you really do know what you're talking about, but in my experience, it can rub certain people the wrong way. Particularly those who are used to having better rhetorical skills than most of the people they come across.
 

---

Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
 
I think there's certainly a difference between being arrogant and confident.
 

---

Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
 
And in my case, being honest.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lalo:
A cavalier attitude toward a an unpaid speeding ticket deserves this level of hostility? Or is it finding humor in the labyrinth of bureaucracy she has to find her way through to get her driver's license back?

I was just scanning the "Changeable God" thread and I'm reading some of her religious views. I disagree, emphatically, but orthodoxy's nothing new -- and nothing worth lowering my esteem of some of Hatrack's best for the sake of petty snarkiness. I say again, let go, kids. You're better than this.

---

Lalo...please stop calling me kid.


One thing hasn't changed at all...we all still have our opinions, regardless of your opinions of them, and are not likely to respond well to patronizing.


I had a bigger problem with her refusal to accept that society had a right to restrict who drives based on actual statistical dadt than I had with what happened with the ticket...and with her idea that she wasn't to blame, really.


She clarified, and she is doing what she can to fix it now, so it is all good.

As long as she realizes that she is humped if she gets caught again, and if she does it is no ones fault but her own. All the complaining in the world won't change that, not one bit.


As far as her other vies, I am sure I will run into them at some point, and if I have a problem with them I will handle it then....but her attitude in other thread had nothing to do with my stance in this one. I ahve no idea if that is the truth for others here....but unlike you, I have confidence in their ability to distinguish between reasonable arguments and unreasonable ones.

Even sL admits that she LIKES being arrogant, so that is pretty much her fault as well, IMO.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Kat...check with the states you lived in, and tell them why...if they don't have a record of it then there is no record...they don't exist. All unpaid tickets go tot eh State DMV for suspensions...if they aren't paid all admin action has to go through that.


Just tell them you want to make sure...don't call your states DMV, they could suspend you for having them if they found out.


If you have renewed your license lately there probably isn't anything on your record at this point. It would have come up at renewal, most likely.
 

---

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
I didn't exactly say I like being arrogant. I said that I am, and that I don't see anything wrong with it in certain cases.
 

---

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwea:
akt...check with the states you lived in, and tell them why...if they don't ahve a record of it then there is no record...they don't exist. All unpaid tickets go tot eh State DMV for suspensions...if they aren't paid all admin action has to go through that.

Just tell them you want to make sure...son't call your states DMV, they could suspend you for having them if they found out.

---

I'm curious, Kwea. Why do you think that would be a bad thing? The impression I've gotten here is that most people seem to feel that if you have an unpaid ticket, you should have your license suspended. Even if you're willing to pay now.

Or is it just me that deserves that?
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
No, I wouldn't wish that on anyone. It sucks. Now if there was another, better reason for a suspension, that is a different story.


However, if Kat said that her license had been suspended for this, and it was the states fault, or her cars fault, and that the state didn't have the right to do this anyway, then I would tell her to buck up and deal...just like I did with you.


It wasn't just what happened to you, sL, it was what I thought was your entire attitude about it.


Once you explained that you were "just" being sarcastic about your comments about your mom and dad, I felt a little better about it.


But you still didn't have a leg to stand on saying it wasn't "really" your fault.


Sarcasm is hard to distinguish on line at times, and I had no real idea how old you were...and I have heard a lot of people here at Hatrack blame all sorts of other people for a lot of things that were really their fault, so I wasn't sure when you did it that it was sarcasm...I could tell it was sarcastic, at least a bit, but I thought you really blamed them.

My bad.

If you had managed to pay before getting caught up with the rest of this, and it worked out to your benefit, I would have been glad, although i would probably asked you if you knew how lucky you were.
A lot of people don't realize that this crap can really mess you up...so at the very least, anyone reading this can't say they didn't know.
 

---