We need to start suspending licenses more. amirite?

People just drive without them and rarely get caught unless they are well known in the system unfortunately.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

I could've driven without a license for the last 15 years and no one would have known.

by Character-End-6150 1 week ago

Jesus would

by Spinkaanya 1 week ago

Luckily Jesus doesn't issue tickets

by Anonymous 1 week ago

That's Saint Peter's job at the pearly gates

by Spinkaanya 1 week ago

Better rare than never

by Sofia62 1 week ago

Easily solved with license plate reading software and cameras on all the highways

by Anonymous 1 week ago

But not having a license doesn't make it illegal for your car to be operated on the roadway by a legal driver.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

No, but if the owner doesn't have a license, it will pop up in the cop car's screen. If they pull the driver over and he presents a valid license, everything is fine.

by AssumptionCurious840 1 week ago

They aren't pulling people over due to the plate indicating the owner is unlicensed. Not happening.

by wildermanfred 1 week ago

100% they are. I've seen it happen I don't know if the driver didn't have a license but they scan for suspended and expired registration. And you can't get registration without a license most places if any.

by margiehegmann 1 week ago

Sounds like some kind of defaultism. I've been pulled over for this exact reasion.

by AssumptionCurious840 1 week ago

They would just borrow cars from a family member or partner.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Already exists and is irrelevent. My wife can legally drive the car I own.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

I imagine this does already exist. I have heard of cops at least having this feature on their dashcam, which will flag nearby cars to pull over.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

That's usually if the registered owner has warrants, or the car comes back as unregistered, not if the owner has a license or not.

by Douglasboris 1 week ago

A fascist police state solves some problems to create a mountain of worse ones. No thank you.

by Particular-Star 1 week ago

True, but is stricter traffic law enforcement a fascist police state?

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Depends on who wields the power and what they use it for. An automated license plate scanning system can easily be used my a fascist regime to prevent anyone from driving they don't want for any reason. I am against creating infrastructure that can be used to build a totalitarian surveillance state.

by Particular-Star 1 week ago

Ah good, even more of a nanny state that wouldn't even solve the problem. Good idea.

by Consistent_Row8929 1 week ago

Yeah, but having one system of surveillance isn't an investigation to make another

by Foster24 1 week ago

Tbh this probably already exists in some places and is already slowly rolling out It might actually be pretty popular as well, as people hate bad drivers and public roads are already heavily policed Plus safety is always used to justify losing our privacy.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Oh definitely. I'm just saying I don't like it

by Foster24 1 week ago

Well such a system would be evidence you were operating a vehicle. Especially if it has facial recognition

by Anonymous 1 week ago

One of the issues is that people rely on their cars to live their daily lives. So, even if their license is taken away, they might still choose to drive. They need to do something important, the car is there, so they just go. And once they've done it without facing any consequences, it no longer seems like a big deal the next time. It's also a difficult crime to get a conviction for. Unlike most offenses, jurors can easily imagine themselves in the defendant's position thinking, "There but for the grace of God go I." It only takes one moment, one bad decision, and someone could find themselves in court, with their life potentially ruined.

by Serious-Bus 1 week ago

I agree with some of your points. However, people can receive sentences where they're allowed to go to work and go home. They might also be able to go to their place of worship. I'm not sure about that. As far as paying bills, getting groceries, etc., more of that is moving online. If I were on a jury, I could certainly see your point of view on "the sun was in my eyes," or "I swerved to avoid that box falling off the truck" or "The logs on that semi were going to kill me(shout out to Final Destination)." However, if someone is filming a TikTok or texting, that's not one moment. That's a deliberate choice.

by Angela11 1 week ago

Okay, but that kind of defeats the purpose of the suspension they're still driving, and quite possibly to the same places that got them suspended in the first place. Either they're too dangerous to be on the road, or they're not. Some jurors have probably done similar things themselves: reading a message at a red light, answering an important work call, or even just changing the music. The only difference is, they haven't had an incident yet.

by Serious-Bus 1 week ago

Found this via Google: "If your driver's license is suspended, you may still be able to go to work if you obtain an occupational driver's license (ODL), also known as a hardship license or essential need license, which is a restricted license allowing you to drive specifically for work, school, or essential household duties. Driving with a suspended license without an ODL is illegal and can result in further penalties and legal complications." It doesn't defeat the purpose because it doesn't include visiting family, taking a road trip, going out to dinner, going on dates. It's for essentials. So if you have an ODL and get into an accident at Disneyland or a baseball game, there will be consequences. I guess the second part is up to you as an individual. If someone causes an accident and it's similar to something you've done, I guess you're within your right as a juror, but that doesn't change the fact that it did result in a crime/trial in their case.

by Angela11 1 week ago

As far as paying bills, getting groceries, etc., more of that is moving online. This is heavily dependent on your situation. Grocery delivery costs more and you are not guaranteed to get the right things. Some people can only buy clothes in-person. People in rural areas would be screwed.

by Significant-Sir-4950 1 week ago

I've lived in rural areas. I could always call and get groceries delivered for a fee, but I'm sure that might not apply everywhere. As far as clothes, I'll agree that there may be isolated people with no support systems, but there are unavoidable consequences to a license suspension.

by Angela11 1 week ago

This. When I was younger, I was in the car with my parents going to dinner and we got rear ended by a young elementary school teacher who couldn't see because the sun was in the way. She was putting down the visor and our car was just suddenly there. Nobody was hurt. She doesn't deserve to have her license suspended because of the sun!!

by Anonymous 1 week ago

It only takes a single lapse in concentration or the sun being in your eyes to cause an accident. I separated those parts to say the first is why you revoke the privilege... it's part of the duty being licensed The second is of course you want the whole story. I lived near a bad merger where every single day there was a wreck when the sun came up. If you don't have an excuse though at fault contact with someone is just way too ignored for everyone's safety.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

But what does that have to do with the privilege of being a licensed driver?

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Holy entitlement.

by Lumpy_Rule9290 1 week ago

It's simply unrealistic. Are you telling me you have never been operating something and made a mistake? Obviously we all have, and given that all humans are imperfect in this way, nobody should have a driver's license under your idealistic rules.

by Armstrongterrel 1 week ago

How about first we break free from car infrastructure and car necessity so that people don't need to operate a car every day to earn a living wage. For a lot of people, losing their license could mean losing their job and possibly home. Im down for making roads safer, but let's start with making cities walkable and public transit usable.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

I hate all these ideas. There may be a few isolated areas where any of this could help. I'm in a rural area and typically the goal is to keep trees away from the roadway to reduce the chances of storms knocking out power lines. Narrower streets in cities sounds like a nightmare too.

by Agitated_Aide 1 week ago

Narrower streets in cities sounds like a nightmare too. Tell me you've never been to Europe without telling me you've never been to Europe. But seriously, if you're interested I can send you some videos about American vs European urbanism and why car infrastructure is deeply hurting American cities.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

America and Europe are so different. The scale of America makes it impossible to remove or greatly reduce the car infrastructure. How do you get to work every day? How far from work do you live? And how long does it take you to comute? I drive 29 miles (46 km) each way to work and it takes me 35 minutes. Where I live most people typically drive 15 minutes to an hour each way to work. There is no public transport and it wouldn't be feasible as everything is spread out.

by Agitated_Aide 1 week ago

I'm talking about urban city design, not rural chaps getting to work from 50km away. America and Europe are so different. The scale of America makes it impossible to remove or greatly reduce the car infrastructure. This is simply not accurate. The US used to have more urbanist projects before the 1960s when super highways began to reign supreme. Tram systems have been shut down, train service has been cut down tremendously, and roads take up much more space than they used to. These same projects happened in parts of Europe and were reversed, and everything improved. Again, if you'd be willing to watch a video about this I have many to recommend.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Also makes it more dangerous

by Sofia62 1 week ago

This. Some people who shouldn't drive know they shouldn't, but they just don't have a better option.

by Significant-Sir-4950 1 week ago

Get an uber

by Sofia62 1 week ago

You think most people can afford to take an Uber every day to and from work? Some people live an hour away from work.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Well I mean it's supposed to be a punishment. If you crash your car you're much worse off.

by Sofia62 1 week ago

The punishment isn't supposed to be becoming homeless, Jesus christ mate. This is why I'm advocating for less reliance on cars.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

So if your car goes to the mechanic for a week you become homeless? You can't be that poor that it's literally impossible to get to work somehow.

by Sofia62 1 week ago

You can't be that poor that it's literally impossible to get to work somehow Depends on where you live and how good the public transportation is. Which is the exact thing I'm advocating. I agree, it shouldn't be this way. You shouldn't end up homeless just because you don't have a car. So why are you arguing against getting rid of car reliance?

by Anonymous 1 week ago

They'd just drive without one. A lot already do

by Icy_Statistician 1 week ago

Actions have consequences. You drive 3500 lbs of steel on public roads, you have certain obligations to the citizens who also use and share that road. Obligations like paying taxes to license your vehicle annually. Obligations to insure your vehicle should you cause harm to other's life or property. Obligations to obey the codes that dictate speed and basic common driving tasks. Obligations to keep your license and the information on the license up to date.

by WillingnessFew 1 week ago

I agree. Anytime you drive recklessly, you should get suspended. This could be dangerous / aggressive lane switching, speeding over 100mph, etc. Cars are killing machines, we need to treat them as such. To all the people against this because of "car infrastructure". These are not mutually exclusive ideas. We should build up our cities so we can have better train, bus, and biking systems in place. If you need to rely on your car for your job TODAY, then drive safely. A license is a privilege, not a right. You don't deserve to have a license just because you need to drive to work. You need to prove that you deserve the privilege by passing your license exam. You need to continue proving that you deserve the privilege by being a safe driver.

by Nienowelsie 1 week ago

Ok so how do you expect anyone to get to their jobs if no one has a license?

by Extension_Avocado 1 week ago

Dude would see that everyone in florida, utah, iowa, and ohio lose their licenses.

by Careless_Thought 1 week ago

Can confirm, fellow ohioan here

by Extension_Avocado 1 week ago

This is too vague. Suspension for what? A speeding ticket?

by Proper-Object-1253 1 week ago

I'm 99% don't get your license taken away until you've committed your fourth DUI, at least in California. Probably start there I'd think.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Six months suspension for a first offense here. Can OLED in court after 3 to get an E license that lets you on the roads during your normal work hours

by vito54 1 week ago

Maybe if reckless and proven. Better than paying $500, show on the record they weren't allowed to drive a day or two. I'm thinking way more for collisions. Lots of bad collisions around here, dumb driving.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

I would agree if cars weren't a necessity in most parts of America.

by Significant-Sir-4950 1 week ago

Fully agree even if that means I'll lose mine.

by abernathylina 1 week ago

Anybody who drives as part of a corporate fleet lives under this threat.

by Holly72 1 week ago

Wait, if you make dash cams a requirement, shouldn‘t it make sense to also make sunglasses a requirement? The sun blinding people wouldn‘t nearly be as much as an issue.

by Damoreeverett 1 week ago

They would drive anyway. Right now, 9% of drivers on the road don't have a license. Some never had one, a few simply expired, and the rest are suspended. That's about 25 MILLION people (USA). Maybe they would drive much more carefully for fear of getting pulled over? Maybe they're also more likely to run if they do? Either way, we have a heavily car centric society so if they obeyed the law and didn't drive then they wouldn't just lose their sense of freedom, which is huge, but also risk losing jobs (among other things).

by Gerlachschuyler 1 week ago

Chicago, Milwaukee, Atlanta, or DFW

by Anonymous 1 week ago

I think it would need to depend highly on the incident if you wanted to do that. There are roads that are known to be poorly designed and cause an excessive amount of accidents so even overly cautious drivers can have an incident. Then there is mechanical failures that can not be prevented. Then weather conditions that can cause a problem that even going very slow couldn't prevent. We should be more strict but slapping someone with a suspension because their tire blew up and they hit another car is completely unfair. A car going 20 under the speed limit hitting black ice and spinning out.btge list goes on but we should be more strict in general but such strict guidelines is just not how it should be done

by KeyConcern 1 week ago

Suspension is more about money than it about safety driving. Like someone who isn't a bad driver gets caught with no insurance… they can't afford the fines or the insurance. Drivers Id gets suspended… they keep driving because they need the money they get at work to even think about paying the fine. The whole ordeal was never about safety it was about money for the state. Personally I don't think fines should be a thing. If you drove and hurt someone or put someone in physical danger you should serve the time. You shouldn't be able to pay your way out and driving itself shouldn't be about how can afford the fees from the state it should be about wether or not you can drive without hurting anyone haha

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Need nore scrutiny with issuing licenses. Also charge significantly more for driver's license and ensure a significant portion of the fees go to public transportation infrastructure.

by Holiday_Occasion2943 1 week ago

Why? Police don't care if you are driving while suspended. Police can't just randomly pull you over and do a license check. Dude was ticketed 5 times, in 5 counties, in 4 weeks for driving while suspended/never having a license. Not arrested, not jailed. His family (siblings) went to the 4th court date. They watched him get in a car and drive away. Family informed a nearby cop and the cop threatened to arrest them. Dude missed all 5 2nd court dates. All 5 counties issued arrest warrants for failure to appear. No agency was willing to enforce the arrest warrants. He was finally arrested for something unrelated and the sheriff for 1 of the 5 counties was waiting for him when he was released from jail on that charge. When he was released from that jail, another sheriff was waiting for him, and so on until all 5 counties had him. He spent 6-7 months in jail total. And he left the last jail, got in the car and drove away. Then there was the friend arrested for driving while suspended, not just ticketed. Went to trial and the judge sentenced her to 5 years for driving while suspended. He suspended 2 years, but wanted her to serve 3 years in county jail. County held her in jail for 3-4 days while they set up house arrest/ankle monitor. Judge found out a couple months later she wasn't in jail, and had her arrested, and brought before the court. Judge demanded the county put her in jail. The sheriff refused saying they aren't housing anybody for 3 years. If the judge wants 3 years, he needs to send her to prison. The judge relented and let her do 3 years on house arrest. Is it obvious the 1st guy is white and the 2nd is not?

by Anonymous 1 week ago

I feel driving should be taken as a privilege more than a right. Too many people forget they're driving 2 tons of death machines while they watch Netflix on their drive to work.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

It already is a privilege, not a right.

by Comfortable-Storm22 1 week ago

Too many people treat it as a right is what I was getting at.

by Anonymous 1 week ago