Car liberty not licence
Posted: 12 Nov 2005, 9:52am
Helen's interesting remark re car licence:
The only people with a legal right to use the roads are pedestrians, cyclists and horseriders. Motorists are allowed to use roads under licence.
may be slightly wide of the mark but very interesting in its thought about the use of words,
ie that a motorist does not have the FREEDOM or LIBERTY to use the roads but merely a
Licence something the three other classes of user do not need!
I know that they do have the right to use the roads with a licence, but I suspect that it is a play on words, a very effective one nonetheless.
I wonder when the car road fund licence was first introduced, whether it was back in the days
of the flag carrying walkers in front of the horseless carriage? If it was, then the meaning of the word is exactly what it says it is.... a licence giving a right to use the road for a certain limited period of time.
Unofrtunately the rights of the licence holder whilst he has got it are in infinite excess
of the rights of the three other classes of user,
which is frequently the case in modern law.
If a pedestrian knocked down and killed another pedestrian it would be manslaughter; if a licence holder does the same using his licence it is an accident.
Perhaps a licence holder should pay an up front fee of several thousand pounds for his first licence, refundable at the end of his driving career, whether his own choice,or that of a judge .... refundable to any victim along the
way, and with no further right to hold such a licence in the latter instance.
The government has become keen on such answers to problems of recompense through natural justice, and economic ones too.
If the driver thought he would lose £20,000
if he knocked somebody down, which would otherwise go to his bank account when he
needed it most, he would be far less likely to
transgress, especially against those whom Helen points out have a natural Right to the road without payment of any sort.
Somebody who became impecunious for any reason would then be able to say "Well I've got my car licence which I can surrender and get £20,000 for, so I will just have to give up driving!"
In the same way as the Milk quota for farmers it could be inflation proofed to provide a useful nest egg and a flat rate over the years for newcomers to the scheme, and a bigger loss to
traffic law transgressors.
It would be very effective indeed.
That SHOULD be the measure of the licence even now but it is quite the opposite.
Let's mention it to Ken of the London Mayor fame. That is his kind of solution!
The only people with a legal right to use the roads are pedestrians, cyclists and horseriders. Motorists are allowed to use roads under licence.
may be slightly wide of the mark but very interesting in its thought about the use of words,
ie that a motorist does not have the FREEDOM or LIBERTY to use the roads but merely a
Licence something the three other classes of user do not need!
I know that they do have the right to use the roads with a licence, but I suspect that it is a play on words, a very effective one nonetheless.
I wonder when the car road fund licence was first introduced, whether it was back in the days
of the flag carrying walkers in front of the horseless carriage? If it was, then the meaning of the word is exactly what it says it is.... a licence giving a right to use the road for a certain limited period of time.
Unofrtunately the rights of the licence holder whilst he has got it are in infinite excess
of the rights of the three other classes of user,
which is frequently the case in modern law.
If a pedestrian knocked down and killed another pedestrian it would be manslaughter; if a licence holder does the same using his licence it is an accident.
Perhaps a licence holder should pay an up front fee of several thousand pounds for his first licence, refundable at the end of his driving career, whether his own choice,or that of a judge .... refundable to any victim along the
way, and with no further right to hold such a licence in the latter instance.
The government has become keen on such answers to problems of recompense through natural justice, and economic ones too.
If the driver thought he would lose £20,000
if he knocked somebody down, which would otherwise go to his bank account when he
needed it most, he would be far less likely to
transgress, especially against those whom Helen points out have a natural Right to the road without payment of any sort.
Somebody who became impecunious for any reason would then be able to say "Well I've got my car licence which I can surrender and get £20,000 for, so I will just have to give up driving!"
In the same way as the Milk quota for farmers it could be inflation proofed to provide a useful nest egg and a flat rate over the years for newcomers to the scheme, and a bigger loss to
traffic law transgressors.
It would be very effective indeed.
That SHOULD be the measure of the licence even now but it is quite the opposite.
Let's mention it to Ken of the London Mayor fame. That is his kind of solution!