Mink: people drive without licenses due to limited resources

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with this is it ends up raising your auto insurance.

Those that cannot afford a license cannot afford auto insurance. Everyone's rates go up from uninsured motorist accidents.

People that cannot afford a license and cannot afford auto insurance should be taking the bus or biking to work.

Nobody said that it's ok to drive without a license. Merely that higher fines will not deter people from doing so.

How about jail time, would that defer people?

Unlikely. As posters on DCUM keep repeating, in many parts of Montgomery County, it's hard to get around without a car. Compare the urgency of "if I get caught, I might go to jail" to "if I don't get to work, I will lose my job".

If that’s the case, they shouldn’t live in a place where they need a car to get around.

I agree, there needs to be lot more housing in places where you don't need a car to get around, and there also needs to be a lot more focus on making it possible in more places for people to get around without a car (for example, with buses, on bikes, on e-scooters, or walking).

[Anonymous]

What a load of BS. if you can afford a car you can afford a license. People are getting away with it because they can. I didn’t own a car until my forties. You can bus, train, Uber, bike, walk, yes even in the suburbs. She is completely nuts and this mentality is ruining the dmv. Everyone has to follow the same rules or anyone with means is going to get out of dodge asap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If people can’t afford a license, how are they going to afford to obtain and maintain a car and pay for gas?

Have you ever been poor?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What a load of BS. if you can afford a car you can afford a license. People are getting away with it because they can. I didn’t own a car until my forties. You can bus, train, Uber, bike, walk, yes even in the suburbs. She is completely nuts and this mentality is ruining the dmv. Everyone has to follow the same rules or anyone with means is going to get out of dodge asap.

I think you're yelling at the wrong people. The people you should be yelling at are the people who are upset that the county is repurposing a car lane here or there to build a bike lane or bus lane, because according to them, you have to have a car to be able to get around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What a load of BS. if you can afford a car you can afford a license. People are getting away with it because they can. I didn’t own a car until my forties. You can bus, train, Uber, bike, walk, yes even in the suburbs. She is completely nuts and this mentality is ruining the dmv. Everyone has to follow the same rules or anyone with means is going to get out of dodge asap.

This is the thing that gets me. I've spent half of my adult life living without a car, because I could not afford one. I do agree there needs to be more effort to ensure there is good public transportation, and in MoCo, I think it's important to plug these transportation gaps where people may have trouble reaching certain jobs without a car because public transit only gets them half or three-quarters of the way there.

But driving a car is a privilege, not a right, and if you have managed to get ahold of a car somehow, then you should have the resources and skill to go fill out some paperwork, pay a fee, and take a test. If you don't have those resources and skills, there are actually a lot of community programs designed to help you get them. The answer is not driving unlicensed and in such a manner that you wind up harming others or getting pulled over.

Do people like Mink understand that this BS is actually NOT compassionate? Compassion would be holding people accountable for dangerous behavior, directing them towards existing services that can help them, and also giving a damn about the people endangered by the behavior. Compassion is not just shrugging you're shoulders and saying "oh well, they can't help it."

[Anonymous]

The expression on the face of that policeman says it all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What a load of BS. if you can afford a car you can afford a license. People are getting away with it because they can. I didn’t own a car until my forties. You can bus, train, Uber, bike, walk, yes even in the suburbs. She is completely nuts and this mentality is ruining the dmv. Everyone has to follow the same rules or anyone with means is going to get out of dodge asap.

This is the thing that gets me. I've spent half of my adult life living without a car, because I could not afford one. I do agree there needs to be more effort to ensure there is good public transportation, and in MoCo, I think it's important to plug these transportation gaps where people may have trouble reaching certain jobs without a car because public transit only gets them half or three-quarters of the way there.

But driving a car is a privilege, not a right, and if you have managed to get ahold of a car somehow, then you should have the resources and skill to go fill out some paperwork, pay a fee, and take a test. If you don't have those resources and skills, there are actually a lot of community programs designed to help you get them. The answer is not driving unlicensed and in such a manner that you wind up harming others or getting pulled over.

Do people like Mink understand that this BS is actually NOT compassionate? Compassion would be holding people accountable for dangerous behavior, directing them towards existing services that can help them, and also giving a damn about the people endangered by the behavior. Compassion is not just shrugging you're shoulders and saying "oh well, they can't help it."

Notice that she did NOT say that it's ok to drive without a license.

When I say, "Drivers run red lights because they don't want to wait," that doesn't mean I think it's ok for drivers to run red lights.

[Anonymous]

Ultimately, she supported the bill because she would’ve been The only one who didn’t.

The bill wants to address is people who allow non-licensed drivers to operate their vehicles. It’s in direct response to the officer who was run over and who lost his leg. One of the parents of the man who ran them over, knowingly let them drive the car. Basically, the parents provided a lethal weapon for that man.

[Anonymous]

Why have rules?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why have rules?

Why have policies that are effective in getting people to follow the rules and, conversely, NOT have policies that are NOT effective in getting people to follow the rules?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If people can’t afford a license, how are they going to afford to obtain and maintain a car and pay for gas?

Have you ever been poor?

Different poster but I was poor. I hated public transportation. Unreliable and took way too long. Hated waited for the bus in the rain. Would never bike because that is more inconvenient than people think when commuting to and from work. I saved up for a clunker and that is when I learned how expensive it was to operate a car. I saved some more and had to budget my $$$ to pay for license registration gas I insurance maintenance. If you can’t afford a car and that means everything needed to afford a car (similar to houses and babies) you can’t have one.
I worked my as off to get to where I am with no handouts. I did it and others can too. This constant coddling and handouts isn’t doing anyone any good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with this is it ends up raising your auto insurance.

Those that cannot afford a license cannot afford auto insurance. Everyone's rates go up from uninsured motorist accidents.

People that cannot afford a license and cannot afford auto insurance should be taking the bus or biking to work.

Nobody said that it's ok to drive without a license. Merely that higher fines will not deter people from doing so.

How about jail time, would that defer people?

Unlikely. As posters on DCUM keep repeating, in many parts of Montgomery County, it's hard to get around without a car. Compare the urgency of "if I get caught, I might go to jail" to "if I don't get to work, I will lose my job".

So yes, jail would be great deterrent because they would miss work. We need to start locking people up - even the illegal ones (audible gasp).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What she actually said: many people drive without a license due to limited resources [this is a fact] and so higher fines would not deter them from doing so [a reasonable conclusion].

Driving is a privilege not a right. What's next, should we give free cars to those who can't afford one?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If people can’t afford a license, how are they going to afford to obtain and maintain a car and pay for gas?

They aren't getting a license because it is too expensive, they are doing it because they come from a corrupt culture and MoCo has decriminalized crime, so why bother?

Of course they have the money. For cars, multiple children, beer, rent, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What she actually said: many people drive without a license due to limited resources [this is a fact] and so higher fines would not deter them from doing so [a reasonable conclusion].

Driving is a privilege not a right. What's next, should we give free cars to those who can't afford one?

That doesn't make sense. That doesn't solve the problem of drivers with less than the desired amount of licensure. The sensible solution would be to provide a free, on-demand driver service for these individuals.