Driving without a license

26 posts

Flag Post

Would you turn in your friend or someone that you knew was driving an automobile without a license?

 
Flag Post

Yes.

 
Flag Post

No, never.
I’d never turn someone in for something like that.

 
Flag Post

Yes, though I doubt the situation would come up as I don’t entertain friends who do such things.

Not sure what the point of this thread is though…

Originally posted by Zachary_Greene:

No, never.
I’d never turn someone in for something like that.

You would never ‘turn someone in’ for endangering the lives of other random people? What a strange moral code you have where getting a friend in trouble is somehow worse than allowing someone to endanger other peoples lives. Very selfish attitude that what said friend thinks of you is worth more to you than someone elses life

 
Flag Post

Yes. Because if they are driving without a lisence, there is a reason for that. They may be disqualified due to previous poor ability to pay attention to the road, disqualified due to degenerating eyesight, or they may be untrained in how to drive. Almost certainly whatever the reason, they are a danger to the health and safety of other road users. If I did not report them, and they caused an accident, then I would have to take partial responsibility for the damage they did to others, because I knew they were unsafe on the road, and did nothing about it.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

Yes. Because if they are driving without a lisence, there is a reason for that. They may be disqualified due to previous poor ability to pay attention to the road, disqualified due to degenerating eyesight, or they may be untrained in how to drive. Almost certainly whatever the reason, they are a danger to the health and safety of other road users. If I did not report them, and they caused an accident, then I would have to take partial responsibility for the damage they did to others, because I knew they were unsafe on the road, and did nothing about it.

That makes sense. I guess I should of also added in the main post that this person is a friend and the fact it would hurt someone else very close to me. It kind of sounds childish on my way of thinking since I have been pondering this in my mind for a few days. But he is taking a chance that he could cause something more terrible to happen if allowed to continue to drive. I would never get over it if he actually hurt or killed someone. I know what I have to do now. Thanks for your input.
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by dd790:

You would never ‘turn someone in’ for endangering the lives of other random people? What a strange moral code you have where getting a friend in trouble is somehow worse than allowing someone to endanger other peoples lives. Very selfish attitude that what said friend thinks of you is worth more to you than someone elses life

How is he endangering others lives?

 
Flag Post

By most likely not being able to drive properly?

 
Flag Post

No, haha. Why do people insist on treating the real life as though it is a playground in elementary?

I wouldn’t feel very safe if I knew they had no license, and I surely would take precautions or make sure they knew what they were doing, if they acted otherwise I’d take over.

I drove plenty of times when I was 15, it was necessary for my family, considering that I lived probably 20+ miles from any store and most often than not my parents and grandparents were at work. It helped me learn to drive better, to handle stress easier.

 
Flag Post

If a dude can drive but is too young to have a license I will not tell on him.
Considering I have drove for 4 years without a license

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheLoneLucas:

By most likely not being able to drive properly?

You can get your drivers license taken away for someone else hitting you too many times, and you could simply be unlucky.
He could have also forgot it, considering how the OP is worded.
Or if he is slightly too young, and has to have his parent or another adult with him to drive even though he drives better than others…
He could be driving someone somewhere for something important, or was doing so.

I can drive better than a good amount of Highschool seniors or people in college, yet they can drive.
I still don’t drive unless I’m in the country or on a farm or something private just because of how I don’t want to risk being caught by the cops for some stupid reason, but that doesn’t mean I can’t drive.

I’m tall enough and learned how to drive as well as don’t drive or do drugs as well as realize how dangerous cars can be, so why shouldn’t I be able to drive?
Now sure, even though I’m a better are more competent driver than a good fair amount of people who text, smoke, eat and all those other things while driving that doesn’t mean I should be able to drive on the highways or anything like that, but it should still be legal for me to drive in the country or in places that aren’t dangerous/busy, or when there’s an emergency.
Delaying someone from driving till they’re 16, and then not giving them freedom to drive till they’re 17 or 18 or even later is just as stupid as all the other laws surrounding these magical numbers that have no actual reason behind them.
Once someone becomes a teenager they should be taught to drive, but not allowed to drive in all areas if any. But they should still be taught how to drive if they desire.

It’s like in the army. Women often weren’t allowed to join simply because they were women. That was stupid, wasn’t it?
But now however, things have changed.
Women can now join the army, but they have to pass every test just as well as the previous qualifications for men, because the standard should remain the same and they should be equal.

Yet this is thrown out with age, why?
If the person is competent and can pass every test just as a normal soldier would, why couldn’t a 15 or 16year old take a stand and fight for his country?

Why couldn’t the 13year old take a drivers course, or try to get a license? If he can pass all the other qualifications and his parents approve (I guess), then why shouldn’t he be allowed to drive at least in some areas?
He’s qualified.

So no, I wouldn’t turn him in, for all the reasons above.
And no, him not having a license doesn’t mean he is directly endangering someones life.

Now sure, if I found out this “friend” of mine is a crazed bastard who can’t drive for shit and wrecks every car he touches as well as speeds, does drugs of some sort, as well as all these horrible things, then yes I’d consider turning him in.
I doubt he’d be my friend if he acted like that in the first place though.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Zachary_Greene:
Originally posted by TheLoneLucas:

By most likely not being able to drive properly?

You can get your drivers license taken away for someone else hitting you too many times, and you could simply be unlucky.

You do not even get points on your lisence, let alone get it taken away if someone else hits you, unless you were demonstratably driving without due care and attention, and thus this was what caused you to get hit in the first place. You get points added for you being an unsafe driver, not for someone else being an unsafe driver. Too many points and yes, your lisence will be revolked.

Or if he is slightly too young, and has to have his parent or another adult with him to drive even though he drives better than others…

If he has his parent or another adult in the car, then they are driving on the other’s lisence not his – and the DMV / DSLA will pick up on that. Its if he goes out on his own, then he is absolutely breaking the law, and like any other criminal is to be punished for it.

He could be driving someone somewhere for something important, or was doing so.

Never heard of public transport?

I can drive better than a good amount of Highschool seniors or people in college, yet they can drive.

They have passed a test which demonstrates they know how to drive safely. Don’t wish to pass the test? Then don’t drive on public roads. Do what you like on your own property, not on other people’s land. A driving lisence is a prerequisite of driving on a government road.

I still don’t drive unless I’m in the country or on a farm or something private just because of how I don’t want to risk being caught by the cops for some stupid reason

The ‘stupid reason’ being you have never demonstrated that you are safe to drive on the roads. You have not had your eyesight tested, you have not had your reactions tested, you have no insurance, there is no guarantee you know what the rules of the road are, or how to react in an emergency. You are responsible for the safety of others in the car with you, and yet there is no record anywhere of you having been properly trained to deal with their safety.

I’m tall enough and learned how to drive as well as don’t drive or do drugs as well as realize how dangerous cars can be, so why shouldn’t I be able to drive?

Because you don’t have a lisence. You never passed the test. You have no insurance if you hit someone, or damage their property. Even if your car is insured, the fact you were driving without a lisence, renders that insurance void.

Delaying someone from driving till they’re 16, and then not giving them freedom to drive till they’re 17 or 18 or even later is just as stupid as all the other laws surrounding these magical numbers that have no actual reason behind them.

Other than very valid reasons conserning brain development and maturation, sure.

Once someone becomes a teenager they should be taught to drive, but not allowed to drive in all areas if any. But they should still be taught how to drive if they desire.

You can drive as a five year old kid if its on your own property. If you plough into a tree at 40mph without wearing a seatbelt on your own property that’s your own damn business. But as soon as you drive on someone else’s property, you follow the owner’s rules.

It’s like in the army. Women often weren’t allowed to join simply because they were women. That was stupid, wasn’t it?
But now however, things have changed.

You will in order for that parallel to be valid, need to show how women don’t need to pass any of the tests the men do, complete none of the training, and still get to use whatever weapon or vehicle they feel like, whenever or wherever they feel like doing so.

If the person is competent and can pass every test just as a normal soldier would, why couldn’t a 15 or 16year old take a stand and fight for his country?

Because whilst they could take the tests, they have not done so, and thus are not certified. Also a 16 year old is not mature. We objectively know this, so why should we ignore facts to let them do as they please?

Why couldn’t the 13year old take a drivers course, or try to get a license? If he can pass all the other qualifications and his parents approve (I guess), then why shouldn’t he be allowed to drive at least in some areas?

Other person’s property, other person’s rules.

 
Flag Post
You can get your drivers license taken away for someone else hitting you too many times, and you could simply be unlucky.

I’m fairly certain this is complete bullshit

 
Flag Post

uhm…well obviously that would totally depend on why they don’t have a license. if they’re 12, or blind, then yes; if they’re lazy, then no.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

uhm…well obviously that would totally depend on why they don’t have a license. if they’re 12, or blind, then yes; if they’re lazy, then no.

Why is “being lazy” a justification for breaking laws that can endanger other people’s lives?

 
Flag Post

They don’t have to be blind, to pose a problem Omega. If their eyesight is poor enough that they cannot read a lisence plate 20 yards away without squinting or concentrating, whilst using any necessary visual aid they normally wear, then it is too poor to drive. With vision that poor, you’ll miss small changes in the upcoming road until you’re almost on top of them. If you are travelling at any speed, that often means its too late to stop – the braking distance will carry you past the issue.

It could be anything from a car stopped in the road that you took to be moving, to a small ball bouncing out into the road that will likely have a child following.

If your vision is not sufficient, even when you can see sufficiently to be fine around the house, then there is a problem.

If their reactions are not fast enough, there is also a problem, even though their reactions may be fast enough for everyday tasks. If they have epilepsy they’ll be denied a lisence because anyone who is prone to sudden seizures cannot be trusted to be safe behind the wheel of a moving vehicle, etc.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by dd790:
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

uhm…well obviously that would totally depend on why they don’t have a license. if they’re 12, or blind, then yes; if they’re lazy, then no.

Why is “being lazy” a justification for breaking laws that can endanger other people’s lives?

It’s not. Thats the problem with alot of people. They dont like to obey laws,rules or follow some kind of structure. That is shown in alot of today’s world. Or at least in New York.
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

uhm…well obviously that would totally depend on why they don’t have a license. if they’re 12, or blind, then yes; if they’re lazy, then no.

By lazy you mean they own a license but left it at home/forgot to put it in their wallet that day?

 
Flag Post

^yes. in fact i know someone that refuses to have his license on him because he’s forgetful and would rather risk getting in trouble by being pulled over than losing his license. (he has a copy of it in the, uhm, dashboard)

or i could imagine other circumstances of people being perfectly able to drive, but they didn’t renew it or w/e.

also depends on if we’re talking an incedental short distance, or like a taxi-driver or something.

 
Flag Post

Yes, after telling them I was going to so allowing them a chance to stop doing it first.

 
Flag Post

no.
if they can drive then they should

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Galdos:

no.
if they can drive then they should

Everyone can drive.
Not everyone can drive safely and/or responsibly.

 
Flag Post

That depends on the circumstances and my friend.

Starting with my friend. I like him, but are they responsible? Do they have the tendency to drink/use soporific substances which could put others in danger? Are there disabilities they have which could inhibit in their ability to drive safely? The answers to these questions can influence my decision one way or another.

Now the circumstances. How do I benefit from turning my friend in? I want to convince my friend to make the right choices, but turning them in could just drive us apart. Is it a life or death situation? I certainly wouldn’t turn my friend in if I knew letting him drive could save someone’s life. How many friends do I have, and how close to this friend in particular am I? I depend a lot on having friends there for me when I need them. If I choose to turn this friend in posthumously, I could lose their trust/friendship, and I would want to be sure that that is something I can afford before doing so.

People are complex, and the answer is not that simple. Details that would influence my decision one way or another are left to be desired in the prompt for this thread. It all depends on those two variables; how responsible/trustworthy/moral/etc. my friend is, and how dire/profitable/helpful the circumstances are to me or my friend.

 
Flag Post

There are two possible responses to this question: the ignorant one and the morally correct one.

My guess would be that the majority of people who “watch out for their bros” would likely refrain from turning the person in. This, regardless of how much your friend would appreciate it, is the wrong decision. It would qualify as the wrong decision for a multitude of reasons, some of those reasons being:

1.) Your friend is endangering the lives of every individual they encounter — whether they be behind the wheel of another automobile or walking on the sidewalk. Your friend is obviously not qualified for the task of driving an automobile, therefore they should not be in control of one.

2.) Your friend endangering his or her criminal record, considering if they were to get caught driving without a license, they’d most definitely get arrested and fined.

3.) Your friend is putting the integrity of your criminal record (assuming your record is clean) at risk. You knew of the fact that he or she was driving without a license, and if your friend were to tell this to the police, you yourself may also face some repercussions. You shouldn’t have to suffer for your friend’s wrong doing.


The right choice would most definitely be to turn your friend into the police. However, you should do it anonymously to avoid angering your friend. If this is not possible, you should turn them in regardless due to the blatant ignorance displayed by your friend — they deserve it. Your friend may be angry with you, but you prevented a potential accident, and perhaps a/several potential death(s).

 
Flag Post

Doesn’t even have to be your friend that causes the accident. There are alot of bad drivers on the roads, even if your friend is a good driver and someone else causes the accident they are still legally screwed if they are in an accident as they have no licence or valid insurance.

I wouldn’t take the risk of letting them continue because I know that personally if they hurt someone I would blame myself for it as I will know I could of done something to stop it.

Either way it is a problem waiting to happen, either a legal one if your lucky, or blood on someones hands if not.