Originally posted by Hongkongphooey
Dave is your perfect example of how a little knowledge is dangerous!
I'm afraid you are a perfect example of why assumed or no knowledge is even more dangerous.
Dave does not understand that the law he cites is from times before the motor vehicle was invented and has now been superceded by newer more
appropriate laws. Whilst, I do think freedoms have been limited unneccessarily in many instances, this is not one of them!
First of all there is no Law, there is only statute and that statute applies only to those who are engaged in commercial activities, and we have been
fooled into confessing to engaging in commerce on the road for which you need licences, taxes and appropriate paperwork... As proof of what I say,
look up the legal definition of the word "Traffic", it means Commerce, buying and selling i.e. Drug Trafficking; so unless you are a taxi driver or
a bus driver, do you really think that the Road Commerce Act applies to you?
There are very good reasons for making people have a license to drive, pay road tax, MOT and insurance.
Yes there are... Money, a great deal of money.
A driving license is required to show that you have acquired proficiency in controlling what in untrained hands is a dangerous weapon that can injure,
maim and kill. As long as you take the test and pass you are freely allowed to drive!
We are meant to think that a driving license is a certificate of competancy but it's not, it's a contract, one that you sign to waive your natural
right to travel for the benefit privilege of being a driver... When was the last time that YOU had to sign a certificate?
Normally, someone else certifies that you are qualified to do something, so why would you have to sign it?
Does your ability to control a car expire every 10 years when your license expires? If so, then why don't you have to take your test again every time
A car is not an inherrently dangerous device... Listen to this at 7:58 www.youtube.com...
(in fact watch the whole thing)
Road tax is required to pay for the construction and usage of 'public' roads. If he was using them as he was, then he is entitled to contribute to
the building, upkeep and maintainence of the 'public' roads.
Road Tax was abolished in 1937 (Please do some research before making apparently authoritative statements)
What you are paying is Vehicle Excise Duty, a general tax that goes nowhere near the roads, the tax on petrol is what pays for road maintenance.
MOT's are required to prove the car is roadworthy and not a danger to himself or anyone else, this is understandable and not a big expense as long as
the car is roadworthy. If the car is not then you have the option to correct the situation.
MOT's are only valid for the day of the test. According to the DVLA response to a FOI request in February 2010: "The annual MOT test is a minimum
check of the main safety related components on the vehicle, but each motorist is responsible for keeping their vehicle in a roadworthy condition
throughout the year through regular maintenance and servicing according to their use of the vehicle."
Insurance, is required for the safety of yourself and others, damage caused to other vehicles or your own and the same said people's health. I wonder
what his opinion would be if his car was damaged by another car and he was injured, with the other driver stating 'sorry I have no insurance, driving
license, MOT or Road Tax?'
If it was undeniably due to the other chap's negligence and I had suffered injury or loss, then I would ask him how he intended to make restitution
and if he acts dishonourably then I would take him to court... otherwise... ACCIDENTS HAPPEN!
As to whether Insurance being a big scam, I have had traffic accidents, even had a car 'witten off', I have been hospitalised for emergency
operations and I have come to regard insurance as a necessity. If you want to have the freedom to drive, you have to have responsibility!
You miss the point of the entire exercise, I was travelling with full responsibility for my actions and in the 25 years that I have been behind the
wheel of a car I have had one accident which may have cost perhaps £1000 offset that against 25 years of insurance premiums, its a business scam and
you are its forced customers
In my opinion, Dave should have the book thrown at him for the full extent of the law.
Your opinion is an ill educated one and is, as such, irrelevant
I was in absolute disgust at his demands to see Police Government Issued I.D. when he had none to show himself,
As a Public Servant he is required to have and produce on demand his identity, as a man in my private capacity I am not.