|
I like to think of driving as a right, but it really is probably more of a privledge. The question relies as much on a person's perception of what is a right or a privledge as it does on a person's perception of driving.
I suppose it boils down to whether you feel it is more important to facilitate more people being able to drive, or is it more important for driving to fit within the scheme of other priorities, such as safety, cost, or other aspects of life.
I'm not sure where I come down on it because it depends on the issue.
I don't support toll roads, car taxes, hefty administrative fees for licenses, registrations, etc. so that would make me a bit on the 'it's a right' side of things, but I do want to see greater driver education/performance demonstration requirements, as well as supporting environmental regulations on emissions, so that is more in the 'it's a privledge' camp.
Here is a test question... I'm interested to know what people think of this situation, and how it pertains to the right v. privilege discussion:
In Texas, if you are convicted of any of a number of violations, including DUI (the headliner for getting the law passed), but also driving without insurance or while suspended, in addition to any sentence or fine imposed by the court, additional surcharges are assessed annually for three years by the DPS (DMV in other states) on pain of license suspension. For example, the statute puts the maximum fine for driving while suspended at $1,000. After paying this sum, and satisfying whatever caused the original suspension, the driver will have to pay about $100 in reinstatement and relicensing costs to get their license back. Then they will have to pay $250/yr for three years or be suspended again. By the way, you can't just go without a license for three years to avoid this surcharge! Now if your license is suspended, its probable you don't have insurance either, so add another $1000 fine and another $250/yr.
The question is... if the statute states specifically that the maximum fine for a violation is $1,000, then forcing you to pay far in excess of that through administrative rules seems to me an end run around the statutory limit on punishment for a particular crime. If the $1,000 is deemd insufficient, then shouldn't the limit be raised, instead of an underhanded tactic like the surcharges?
Josh
|