Mink: people drive without licenses due to limited resources

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

We have that -- public transportation.

[Anonymous]

In my very humble opinion, the issue for most isn’t money, but rather proper documentation. They’re illegal so they don’t have the proper documents to get a drivers license. Then you have a subset of people who don’t have a drivers license because the courts have taken it away.

[Anonymous]

You can tell people on this thread have no experience with poverty.

Poor people don't live within walking distance or biking distance of their jobs. They don't live anywhere near subway stations. They can't afford Uber. They're not going to spend three hours a day on the bus when they have families to take care of and long hours to work. They're going to drive no matter what, even if their license gets taken away.

A lot of cities have abandoned traffic cameras and heavy fines on drivers for parking in the wrong place or speeding (DC's traffic fines are absurd, BTW) because those fines, especially when they snowball with late fees, can wreak havoc in low income families' lives.

[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".

This doesn’t even make any sense. They have a job but cannot afford to get a proper license?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can tell people on this thread have no experience with poverty.

Poor people don't live within walking distance or biking distance of their jobs. They don't live anywhere near subway stations. They can't afford Uber. They're not going to spend three hours a day on the bus when they have families to take care of and long hours to work. They're going to drive no matter what, even if their license gets taken away.

A lot of cities have abandoned traffic cameras and heavy fines on drivers for parking in the wrong place or speeding (DC's traffic fines are absurd, BTW) because those fines, especially when they snowball with late fees, can wreak havoc in low income families' lives.

Plenty of poor people do take the bus. And the Metro. And also bike, and walk. But yes, there are far too many places/times/trips in Montgomery County where the only realistically feasible option for transportation is a car. And so people drive, even if it's not legal for them to do so.

[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".

This doesn’t even make any sense. They have a job but cannot afford to get a proper license?

How does it not make sense? Please explain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

We have that -- public transportation.

That's not the same as having a private vehicle. It's an inequitable experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can tell people on this thread have no experience with poverty.

Poor people don't live within walking distance or biking distance of their jobs. They don't live anywhere near subway stations. They can't afford Uber. They're not going to spend three hours a day on the bus when they have families to take care of and long hours to work. They're going to drive no matter what, even if their license gets taken away.

A lot of cities have abandoned traffic cameras and heavy fines on drivers for parking in the wrong place or speeding (DC's traffic fines are absurd, BTW) because those fines, especially when they snowball with late fees, can wreak havoc in low income families' lives.

Exactly! Only those who want to pay fines should have to pay the fines. Remember, these are civil infractions, not criminal ones. These violations harm no one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

We have that -- public transportation.

That's not the same as having a private vehicle. It's an inequitable experience.

You're right. We need to improve the public transportation system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

That’s true, but county residents get pretty distrustful of that movement because, for some strange reason, people continue to push their sleazy upzoning schemes in SFH areas, so we are forced to not support any of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

That’s true, but county residents get pretty distrustful of that movement because, for some strange reason, people continue to push their sleazy upzoning schemes in SFH areas, so we are forced to not support any of it.

Well, some county residents. But they are in the minority. There's nothing sleazy about advocating for more housing near public transportation and more public transportation near housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

That’s true, but county residents get pretty distrustful of that movement because, for some strange reason, people continue to push their sleazy upzoning schemes in SFH areas, so we are forced to not support any of it.

Well, some county residents. But they are in the minority. There's nothing sleazy about advocating for more housing near public transportation and more public transportation near housing.

Neither of those things has anything do to with zoning changes, so by all means, do all of that within the confines of appropriately zoned areas.

In any case, if it’s such a minority against, the changes should easily pass if put onto a ballot. Let’s vote like we should have with Thrive 2050…I wonder why they didn’t want to put that in a ballot?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

That’s true, but county residents get pretty distrustful of that movement because, for some strange reason, people continue to push their sleazy upzoning schemes in SFH areas, so we are forced to not support any of it.

Well, some county residents. But they are in the minority. There's nothing sleazy about advocating for more housing near public transportation and more public transportation near housing.

Neither of those things has anything do to with zoning changes, so by all means, do all of that within the confines of appropriately zoned areas.

In any case, if it’s such a minority against, the changes should easily pass if put onto a ballot. Let’s vote like we should have with Thrive 2050…I wonder why they didn’t want to put that in a ballot?

Because under current law, master plans are adopted by county council vote, not public referendum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Provide programs for low income residents to legally get their license. It's in everyone's interest that these folks learn the rules of the road and safe driving practices.

Can't afford to pay your fines/tickets? Set up a public service program that requires them to do X amount of hours of community service at their local school, church, clean up the neighborhood, etc.

I'd go along with that. Good to help low-income people get their licenses. Not good to give people a pass for speeding and running red lights and other dangerous behavior "because they are poor." I like the community service idea.

[Anonymous]

I think Minky is posting responses.