Fair or Not? No driver's license for dropouts!

reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic


We have had that law here in Florida since I was in high school (back in the 1400"s.) I think it has its good points and its bad points.I think the government has to realize that in todays day and age that driving should be a RIGHT and Not a Privilege.
As for drug testing welfare recipients- Im all for that. If you want to sit around and get high all day and not be a productive human being you shouldnt be doing it on my tax dollar.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


Well Sherlock you sure don't seem to know very much about the law but I will give you that automobiles were invented after 17776!

Originally posted by MessOnTheFED!
I had my "hardship" DL when i was 14. I learned to drive a standard when i was 8. Ive never had a wreck. Whos responsible?

MOTF!

What about the other child who learnt to drive at 8, passed their driving test at 14, and then proceeded to cause a fatal accident because they are still a child who is not ready to drive a car or ride a motorbike on public highways ?

Who's responsible for the above tragedy ?

reply to post by Adyta


I'm sorry but you seem to be confused...

"Your" tax dollars only go to pay the interest on the Fee's charged by the Federal Reserve for printing the "Fiat" currency well are all forced to use. Each time congress makes a budget more "Money" is created out of thin air so much so that as it stands now America spends 56k a second.

2nd. "You" had nothing to do with the wages received by any Citizen from their Labor. Money set aside for "unemployment benefits", taken out of "their" paycheck has NOTHING to do with you.

get off your high horse..

Also as far as OP's topic ...

Everyone needs to travel to and from work. Hindering dropouts from being able to find work will only increase crime... dumb idea..

Hopkins' skepticism was echoed by officials in other districts.
Harriet Jaworoski, associate superintendent of instruction for Rock Hill schools, questioned the "unintended consequences" of taking away a student's license could have.
"They may be students in a family where the student has to work for the family to survive," she said. "There may be situations where that's necessary for them to do what they need to do in terms of school and activities."
Jaworowski pointed to a 1997 study called America's Process that outlined the four main reasons that students drop out: They are pushed out, fade out, fall out or choose out.
"While a driver's license might be a nice incentive, it doesn't address any of those reasons," she said.

Area educators: taking driver's licenses won't help dropout rate

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
Well Sherlock you sure don't seem to know very much about the law but I will give you that automobiles were invented after 1776!

What part of the law do I not ''know very much about'' ?

I'm from the UK, so I don't profess to know about the old-fashioned and bizarre laws of the USA and the states that make up that union.

However, as I say, the ''right to travel'' is something that is pretty clear... I'm sorry if you or others can't be bothered to use your feet and legs to utilise this right that was clearly defined within your Constitution.

Of course, if you want to twist the intent and words of the motley bunch of reprobates that were your founding fathers, then we have to believe that these people were prescient...

Yes, they obviously defined the ''right to travel'' having seen the motorcar 125 years in the future !

I think people feel driving is a right, not a privilege...

It is a privilenge, and if it wasn't, you wouldn't need a license in order to do it. the law says you can be unhindered in your travel. get a horse and ride it, or walk. As xoon as you get into a regulated vehicle, you are enjoying a privilege, and therefore aren't entitled to squat about it.

So, I have no issue with this. if a GED waives this requirement, then that's great. Either way, school does serve a vital purpose, and the more we put pressure to stay there, the better.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


Could have been anyone. I think we should blame the man who paved the road. Why not? If a child has a need to drive at a young age and can pass BOTH the written and driving exams whats the difference? What about the older man or woman who cant keep with one steady speed. Instead they drive like a roller coaster. What about when then plow into a farmers market? Are old people not responsable now? Can we blame the farmer?

MOTF!

reply to post by MessOnTheFED!


Good point what also bothers me about this topic is it paves a way socially for them to take other rights of ours away at the discretion of politics and standards - again NANNY STATE!

First it is our licenses, then our AR-15's, then our right to drink, then our right to social security (if it still exists at that point) so on and so forth.
This form of conditioning scares me!

reply to post by AnteBellum


This is a very bad idea!

I friend of mine in Florida was raped at 14 and due to religious reasons kept her child. She had to drop out of school to raise her child and these laws affected her greatly. A blanket law for everyone in this situation is not a good idea, there are also kids with dead beat, drug addict parents that need to work to survive.

reply to post by AnteBellum


Before long all we will be able to do is got to work, go home, sit on couch, watch survivor zimbabwe, drink coke, go to doctor, sleep, repeat.

I would like to think that we have evolved enough to not have to be "looked over" on a constant basis. I , for one, most deffinately do not need a back seat driver to my life.

MOTF!

all of these "failsafes" are ruining the gene pool.

reply to post by MessOnTheFED!


I think the difference is that the elder man or woman had already passed their test and had already proved their road competency...

A 14-year-old child, on the other hand, knows nothing of road safety, and they haven't even got a fully-grown brain to adapt to the requirements of driving an automobile.

Originally posted by Adyta
reply to post by MessOnTheFED!

 

No, it is not. Unemployment isn't your "reward" for working. Unemployment is there as a safety net for the people who have worked, but lost their job. It's money given to keep you on your feet while you LOOK for another job. It's not "Finally, I worked for 2 years now I can retire and claim unemployment!".

If you can afford to buy drugs, then you clearly do not need unemployment. If you buy drugs with unemployment, they you do not deserve it.

I'm fine with my tax dollars being used to keep you above water while you look for work. I am not okay with my tax dollars being used so you can buy a bag of weed, and sit at home and watch Springer.

this has already been addressed by others, but I will try to clarify it a liitle more for you..
first off, your taxes do not pay for the first twenty six weeks of benefits..
all employers must contribute to the state fund..
your taxes come into play through federal government extensions, past the intitial period, that is all..
secondly, it is unemployment INSURANCE.. in case you are layed off, or terminated through no fault of your own..
thirdly, I was layed off from my job, THROUGH NO FAULT OF MY OWN..
I have a right to that check, and my employer has an obligation to pay into the state to pay me..
and I also have a right to spend that money in ANY way I see fit..
you are wrong..

if its welfare you are talking about then thats different, but my unemployment check is my right..
any extensions have further requirements that you have to fulfill.. and I have..
I have replaced my job.. albeit at four dollars an hour less..

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


So by your way of thinking it is perfectly OK for an elderly person to run through a farmers market at full speed but not ok for a youngster drive for fear of their puny brains not being able to comprehend "hit the brakes". Both have passed the required tests. Granted accidents do happen, but thats why we call them accidents. I believe you should have to pass both tests every so many years. Maybe every 10 untill you are a senior citizen then every 5 years after that.

MOTF!

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

A 14-year-old child, on the other hand, knows nothing of road safety, and they haven't even got a fully-grown brain to adapt to the requirements of driving an automobile.

A Farm Husbandry Permit authorizes the operation of farm husbandry equipment. Farm husbandry equipment is defined as off road vehicles designed for agricultural, horticultural or livestock-raising operations or for lifting or carry an implement of husbandry. Minimum age 13 if you live on a farm or 14 if employed on a farm for compensation.

DMV
So it's OK if the state makes an exception to these cases but not others.
This is a stupid idea our country is falling apart by the seams and more and more the rights of true US citizens are losing the battle against there liberties and rights.
My god soon they will take away our right to procreate!

reply to post by Adyta


if a person tests positive, is it definate proof that he has used taxpayer money for drugs???
didn't think so, it would prove nothing really considering how often there are false positives....
maybe denying them a liscense till they are 18 or 19, but if they are denying them forever, this is a really dumb idea!! it's hard enough to support yourself in this economy, it's even harder for those without high school diplomas....and it would be even harder without a way to get to work!
ya, that's all we need, more people sitting idle!! or worse, just taking what they want or need...

Originally posted by MessOnTheFED!
So by your way of thinking it is perfectly OK for an elderly person to run through a farmers market at full speed but not ok for a youngster drive for fear of their puny brains not being able to comprehend "hit the brakes"

LOL.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2fcf2546ea24.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by MessOnTheFED!
Granted accidents do happen, but thats why we call them accidents. I believe you should have to pass both tests every so many years. Maybe every 10 untill you are a senior citizen then every 5 years after that.

MOTF!

Yes, and - of course - accidents will happen more if you let a child take the wheel of a motorcar...

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

wonder how many accidents we can prevent if we take the driving priviledge away from everyone??
no, just taking them away from the kids will not eliminate accidents, decrease them some, ya, but well, take any group of people according to whatever standards, and do this, and you are gonna decrease accidents somewhat.
the last person that nearly plowed into me was more around my age than a kid, chatting on her cellphone and didn't see my care as she ignored the stop sign and proceeded into the intersection......this was my coworker....
now, I am more careful going home if I know she has left work at the same time...

*shakes furry little fist
Damn ye, the inventor of the wheel! Look at the damage ye has wraught!

Carrot and stick, people. They want to use carrot and stick. And ignore the fracking problem.

Which is a poor education system.

Originally posted by dawnstar
wonder how many accidents we can prevent if we take the driving priviledge away from everyone??

Sorry to repeat myself, but...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2fcf2546ea24.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by dawnstar
no, just taking them away from the kids will not eliminate accidents, decrease them some, ya, but well, take any group of people according to whatever standards, and do this, and you are gonna decrease accidents somewhat.

This strawman argument has got to stop.

Nobody is suggesting that accidents will be eliminated if you prevent children from driving cars or riding motorcycles.

The fact of the matter is that the roads will be safer if you legally define the minimum age that you can drive as 17 or 18+.

Originally posted by dawnstar
the last person that nearly plowed into me was more around my age than a kid, chatting on her cellphone and didn't see my care as she ignored the stop sign and proceeded into the intersection......this was my coworker....
now, I am more careful going home if I know she has left work at the same time...

Yes, and the last time I nearly got into a fistfight was with a 60+ year-old.

Let's interpret that as 60- 70-year-olds being the main cause of public disturbance...