posted
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. I'm sure she realizes now that she should have just paid the ticket then. She was only upset because the reason they took her license was ridiculous! And now I'm going to duck out of the thread 'cause I'm afraid of the fallout!
Posts: 870 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many people have laws that we choose more or less to ignore, LadyDove.
Many laws are still on the books and are justly ignored, I believe. I think perhaps people are coming down pretty hard on starLisa-and for reasons besides this thread.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat, I thought that too. A teenager would have an excuse and I like for people to have an excuse.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Treason, we aren't coming down hard on her because of the incident, per se, but because of her attitude about the incident, and her whole "I have a right to drive no matter what the government says" thing. The first post only proved: 1)She had a bad attitude toward the cop. 2)She turned out to be wrong - the speedometer truly was off, and the cop was right 3)Instead of just mailing in the fine and getting it taken care of before she left the country, she purposefully chose to blow it off, figuring she would never have to make amends for it.
It caught up with her. And she has known, since she first went to get her Illinois license, that she was cancelled/revoked/suspended, whatever, and still she chose to keep driving.
And she keeps defending her "right" to break the law. That is why we are being hard on her. Because she still thinks she's in the right.
In my opinion, coming down hard on Lisa could very well save a life. I have come down much harder on this issue in print, but have restrained myself from the more eye-opening rhetoric that I would use when discussing the issue in a more generic sense.
(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. From a technical, legal sense, this crime does not meet the definition of attempted murder, it's more attempted manslaughter which doesn't exist as a category under the law in any of the states I know of. It's purely a rhetorical device, and thus not appropriate when discussing individual cases. But this is, to me, both a public safety/health issue and an issue of laws that need strengthening in important ways.)
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. 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. Whether or not she is currently behaving carefully and has failed to kill anyone yet, statistically, she is a problem driver and the state should come down on her like a ton of bricks.
The other thing that might help Lisa in all this is the excellent advice to STOP driving illegally until she has her situation fixed. I have seen lives derailed by the obstinate fighting against "the system" and continuation of the illegal driving behavior. But, a good steward of shared resources would not waste money needlessly on things like defense attorneys, remedial driving programs, and court costs if a bit of personal time to get the original problem fixed could avoid all that. So, I and others are advising wisely for the sake of her economic wellbeing and her partnership.
And lastly, I don't care who it was who was doing this nonsense, I would come down on them. I admit to some additional enjoyment of it in that Lisa has been particularly obnoxious in her opinions in some past threads and it has afforded me a chance to point out a glaring inconsistency in her logic. But I swear to you the following:
1) I hesitated to respond in Lisa's case more than I would've in the case of most other Hatrackers. Primarily because I figured she wouldn't listen and my screed would just anger her with no positive benefit to her, and no credit to myself either, and,
2) I deleted far more than I left in. After I had the cathartic experience of crowing about my own credentials and really tearing into the "evil doer" I went back through and toned it down and gave over to just doing facts and reasonable interpretation thereof. I was forceful to the same extent I would be with anyone who persisted in asserting their "rights" without acknowledging the right of the state to control the legal access to the driving experience in their jurisdiction.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
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
Treason, I don't remember even being in on that thread, nor did I remember anything about her views on the subject.
And I hope she gets her license back.
I still stand by what I said though, and I have been in similar situations...even the reason my license was revoked was bogus, as I did try to take the breath test, remember, but I kept coughing up phlegm...and every reading I did get was legal, so why would I have not wanted to take it?
My point is that the law doesn't need her permission to be enforced, and by ignoring it, then and now, she brings all sort of consequences on herself.
I think that if what she said was true about the purjury stuff then she has a right to be frustrated, but the root cause wasn't a stupid law, it was a very poor decision on her part.
One way or another sL, I hope it works out, living in MA I understand the pointlessness of fighting the DMV far too well.
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
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!
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
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 .
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
That's nonsensical. Not having a valid license doesn't make someone a bad driver. You really are a statistician, aren't you. I guess that duck hunting joke has more truth to it than I thought.
There is no greater chance of my harming anyone driving without a valid license than there would be if I had a valid license. All you can do is make a case that it's legitimate for cops or the government or whatever to treat me as though I was a dangerous driver, since they operate according to those statistics. If you honestly think that it makes me a dangerous driver, you need to find a new field, because this one has gotten to you.
On July 28 last year, I held a valid Illinois drivers license. On July 29, it was no longer valid. And you want to claim that my driving skills somehow, magically, changed overnight?
Particularly considering that it didn't become invalid because of a speeding ticket. It became invalid because I marked a box incorrectly on a form. The formal hearing I had took place after the ticket was paid and all was well with the State of Missouri. They made it very clear that the sole reason they were suspending my license for a year (plus) was that I marked that box incorrectly. I have that in writing.
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.
Again, Bob. I'd say this really slowly for you, but I'm not sure how to do that in writing. Let me try:
How was that? I regard being punished for answering a question in good faith, believing it to be the honest truth, to be a bad thing. But the size of the punishment made it intolerable. The hearing officer, in his ruling, stated that he acknowledged that I didn't know I was filling the form out falsely. But that the law just doesn't care.
The hearing was some 3 months after the pulled my license. You'd think that being without a valid license for three months for making two lines with my pen that I thought were truthful would have been enough for them. But the government wants to show that it's boss, and damn anyone who screws with the bureaucracy.
I was at the Secretary of State office this morning. There's an information guy. To get to the information guy to ask where you need to go, you have to go through a rope maze like they have at the airport. Back and forth six times.
There was no one in line. Just one guy talking to the information guy. Since I've already learned that what they want more than anything else is obedience, I, like a good drone, walked back and forth. Six times. And stood there in line. A couple of minutes later, a woman walked in. She looked at the ropes. She looked at the information guy. She looked at me. Then back at the ropes. Then she went to unhook the rope, step through, and hook it back up. Why? Because why on earth should she have to walk back and forth. Six times.
Well, that got the information guy's attention. He stood up, and called out to her sharply. He made her unhook it again, go back out, rehook it, and then walk back and forth. Six times.
Gosh... our government just makes me swell with pride. Who needs a government by, for and of the people, anyway. It's good to be king.
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.
It most certainly is not. Having my license cancelled didn't change my reflexes or eyesight. Maybe it does in topsy-turvey land. Send us a postcard and let us know.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: <cough>rhetorical device</cough>
You wrote:
quote:She is among the worst of the people who get behind the wheel
It can be taken more than one way. You can claim that you meant that I'm among -- a member of a group of -- the worst people who get behind the wheel.
Or it can be exactly what it sounds like. That I'm one of the worst people who get behind the wheel.
Maybe read your screeds (good description, incidentally) over before posting them, if you really want anyone to believe you weren't engaging in a personal insult.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
starLisa, you're not understanding anything in this thread. We understand that the reason is that small box wherein you didn't know you were "lying." We also understand that the core problem is that you didn't pay a ticket.
Do you feel at all bad about [edit: not] paying that ticket aside from the later inconvenience it caused you?
Bob's point is that no matter what your reasons for becoming a statistic, you are one. You will be treated like one. If you continue to drive unlicensed, you will go to jail. And you will deserve it for breaking the law, which states that you must pay your tickets or you will lose your license. And if you lose your license and continue to drive, you will go to jail. Whatever the reasons, there is a law, and you are now willfully breaking it. You have willfully broken it in the past.
That makes you that much more likely to break other laws, such as speed limits. That is why there is a statistic. Not everyone who drives unlicensed is a bad driver, so you may be one of the ones who isn't. But you are in the group, and you will be treated as the most dangerous member of the group by the law. And I think that is fair.
Also, do you need to be so accusatory and downright mean all the time? It's not helping your case.
Posts: 1903 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 169 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 .
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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. Posts: 870 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 870 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Belle: Okay, starLisa now I'm going to type real slow.
Really slowly.
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.
My right to go straight back to the Secretary of State facility and get a drivers license was suspended for a year because I marked the wrong box.
You want to argue with facts, fine. It just demonstrates that you're more interested in coming down on me now that I've given you the opportunity than being honest.
According to the Secretary of State, that's what the suspension was for.
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.
Had the automobile never been invented, I never would have been speeding. Are you seriously that dense? The box would still have been there on the form. I marked it as I did in good faith.
quote:Originally posted by Belle: THAT is what we're trying (unsuccessfully it seems) to point out.
No, Belle. It's what you're trying to claim. YOu can't point out something that isn't there. The people who suspended the license have a different view of why they did it.
This was not a delayed punishment for having exceeded the speed limit. That's an issue for the State of Missouri. Illinois isn't interested in why I was ticketed.
This was not a punishment for having blown off the ticket. They dealt with that when they suspended my license back in 1987. The only thing they suspended my license for was giving false information (despite the fact that I thought it was true) on that document.
They say that everyone is entitled to an opinion. That doesn't mean an opinion based on ignorance has any value. It does not.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
I'm still covered by insurance. I mean, I haven't read the policy, and maybe it won't pay if I'm driving without a license. I don't know. But the fact that I've driven for 14 months without being pulled over once for anything suggests that maybe I'm a damn good driver.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
If I was in the habit of speeding, I assure you that I would have wound up in jail sometime over the last year. You want to bust on me for going 4 miles an hour over the posted speed limit on an interstate highway, with 95% of the vehicles passing me continuously? Fine, I hope it makes you feel good. But I intentionally set the cruise control to ensure that I would not rip down the highway.
So no, getting that ticket was no sort of warning to me. If the speedometer says I'm going 69, and I'm getting passed by everyone, I'm not going to suspect that I'm actually going 77. And I still have doubts about that radar reading.
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.
Are you kidding me? I lived on the other side of the planet for a third of my life, and I assure you that I had completely forgotten about it within weeks of emigrating. I had plenty of other things to occupy my attention.
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
quote: All of this, every little bit of it, could have been avoided if you had had any sense of responsibility for your actions.
You know, guys, I'm distinctly uncomfortable with the way we're jumping on Lisa, here.
Yeah, she's full of pride. Yeah, she gets really defensive when called on inconsistencies, and yeah, it's hard to avoid pointing out inconsistencies to someone who is downright egotistical about the inflexibility of her worldview.
But she made a very minor bureaucratic mistake years ago when she thought she was leaving the country forever, and is facing some major consequences now as a result. 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.
Cut her some slack, 'k? She's stiff-necked, but that doesn't mean she's calling out to our axes.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 870 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Noemon!
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
. 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 ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
.
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
