In this state, because of the lobbying power of the Tavern League.
If driving is so dangerous, why are people allowed to drive after they DO get a DUI?
See my answer, above. But you may also want to review your DUI laws. MADD also has quite a bit of influence in the fines and penalties after a DUI, and all subsequent DUI's.
If driving is so dangerous, why am I allowed to keep my license my entire life without retesting?
Not exactly. Here, your eyes have to be tested every time you renew. If you have been unconscious, have a seizure disorder (like my brother-in-law and niece) and for other medical reasons, your license is lifted for months, or your driving is severely restricted. If you are uninsured and have an accident, they can lift your license. They can lift your license for failure to pay child support. I could go on & on, but the privilege to drive is not absolute.
If driving is so dangerous, why don't you have to piss in a cup when you get pulled over?
If they think you're under the influence, giving them probable cause (and the "I just had a couple beers" is reason enough) they won't make you piss in a cup or blow into a tube. They'll draw your blood, tying you down, if necessary (and if you refuse, it's another ticket, plus the state presumes you were drunk because of your refusal).
All these things are far more significant than me getting in a car and simply driving.
That's driving without a license, right?
I am not saying the roads should be lawless, nor that driving rights cannot be taken from you.
I'm curious, Prism: when you drive unlicensed, do you obey traffic laws? For example, do you go the speed limit? Do you drive with a BAC under .08%? Do you stop at stop signs and stop lights? If you are, you are tactically acknowledging that the state has the right to regulate and control public roads and those who drive on them.
Driving without a license is, in and of itself, lawless. I just want to know where you draw the line, or if laws a Chinese menu, allowing you to pick one from Column A and two from Column B, ignoring rest of the laws that you don't like.
Absolutly, but with a few caveats. One, I believe that, on certain offenses, to a certain degree... =)
...that the police do not have the right to execute 'standing orders': Arrest everyone that does X.
This comes from the fourth amendment 'sworn complaint' idea, so in this arena, it would mostly apply to 'moderate speeding', or 'rolling stops'. On the other hand, police do have the right and duty to arrest people who are blatently endangering others- blowing a stop sign, traffic light, etc.
For more on this see - Lawful Arrest FAQ
Ask yourself- If driving is a privilege, how much may the state restrict it? Could it, to fight smog or congestion, reduce your ability to drive? Could it put tolls on the interstates? Could it make driving available to persons over 21 only? Could it not allow children as passengers on motorcycles (they are working on that in PA)? Can they require you to have a SS#? Take your fingerprints? Scan your face? How about a monitor on your car, a little black box from the government? How about denying drug offenders the privilege? Felons?
Who knows huh =)
Sorry to pick on you, but it just seems like a convenient place to jump in. Let's assume that I take a driver's ed course, get months and months of practice without tickets or accidents, take the test and pass it. All okay so far? Then when it's time to renew, I decide not to pay the fee, and since in all my time behind the wheel, I have been a good and safe driver with no tickets or accidents - I just don't have the current receipt for paying to travel on the roads in my state - why are you or others like you assuming that I am an unsafe driver? My record is good, just no paperwork. In fact, my insurance carrier is still covering me, because they have no reason not to, because I'm a good driver with no claims.
So, with the above scenario, is the issue safety or money? Just because a person does not have a current receipt [you call it a license], does that really mean they are unsafe?