Return to

(I'm not a Lawyer) You probbably don't need a Driver's license to controll an Automobile


I’m no Lawyer, but I hear in America, for a century Cops have been extorting money because the word “Driver” is misused. The intent of a Driver’s license wasn’t for the Nanny State to regulate people’s ability to travel on public roads, (of which would violate the right to travel) but the intent of a Driver’s license was to license people employed in conducting a non street railroad car.

Legal definition of the word “DRIVER”

One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle,with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car. See Davis v. Petrinovich, 112 Ala. 654, 21 South. 344, 36 L. R. A.615; Gen. St. Conn. 1902,

So, if you’re not employed as the person conducting the vehicle, you’re not driving.

There are people that call themselves “Lawful Travellers” that “Travel” in their property and get illegally stopped and showing the cop the legal citations with some going as far as putting in a waver of “You take this thing without my permission, you legally agree to buy it for the asking price” and the cops either let them go or if they get illegally locked in a cage, they can win in court with all the legal citations.


I have a feeling of what they were doing was actually illegal someone would have done something by now. I’ve seen some of these types of arguments before about people not being citizens because they didn’t agree or something to that extent and they cite some paragraph in a law somewhere, but I’ve never seen a case of that ever actually ending up bring true. They just claim it is.

I wondered why they guy in the video has gone to such lengths and then he has no plates which I assume are required, so makes sense now why he might be getting pulled over so often.

Seems he took a bunch of snippets from laws and various cases and they all look reasonable but he seems to have forgotten that if you leave your property laying around you may be in violation of another law and it might be moved or ticketed, neither of which go against anything he says. You can’t just park your car in the middle of a highway or in front of a fire hydrant.

As for driver licences. Ive no idea but the same premise i imagine would apply, if it wasn’t actually a law then you wouldn’t actually need one.

I’m not sure why anyone would disagree with requiring some sort of competency test before being allowed to drive on public roads with the rest of the population. Well, people who can’t competently drive I imagine would disagree.


The key word is “drive”, that’s why they call themselves “travellers” or “conveyors”, they go out of their way to change their vernacular because what most people think a Motorist and a Driver is the same thing when a Driver is somebody hired as a Chauffeur. In theory a cop could stop you for being on a bicycle without a license. Common consensus and the law are not the same thing. But it’s one hell of a battle to fight.

But there are some people that send legal threats to their DMV to offer exemption plates for “non-commercial Travellers” because they’re viewed as an authority figure by officers of the law that can steal your property for not having a DMV issued plate or something like that or worse come to worse, go to a different DMV that offers exemption plates.

But as for a competency test, the driver’s test is unofficially-officially used as one and there’s still problems and people still convey their vehicle under a suspended license anyway. What makes you think a literacy test will do anything when we already have an illegal literacy test for non-commercial travellers?


Not for not having a license, a license is for a motorised vehicle of certain classes.


The license is for a driver. If you’re a courier or if you have a passenger on your bicycle that’s paying you, you’re a driver.


Do you have a link to the laws that say this?


The license is for the potential damage that may be caused by bad operating, commercial or otherwise.
Unpowered cycles have a much lower danger profile, as do live horses.
Heavy Goods vehicles have a much higher potential, and require more stringent testing.

Boats are a separate beast though


This is one of the first earliest, they were for operating motor vehicles. Bikes are not motorised.


The legal definition of the word “Driver”


An “Automobile” is “Motorized Vehicle”, but not necessarily a “Motor Vehicle”

Aren’t legal definitions fun?


Which doesn’t include a bike.


No, but if you’re conducting commerce by conducting a bike, you’re a Driver.


Nope, only in American Legal terms.
Not in real life.


I’m probably reading the stuff wrong, but I can’t see where it states a driver on a bike is required to hold a licence.


The reference in question is that a “Driver” is one “Employed” to operate a vehicle.
The supposition being that non-employees are not drivers, and don’t require licensing.


I may be way too drunk at the moment for this. A driver is making use of the vehicle.


I don’t think this is as simple as saying the definition of a driver is “this” and its called a “drivers license” so “this” is the absolute conclusion.

Talking specifically about what you brought up about bikes, licenses are for motor vehicles, a bike isn’t one. That its now called a drivers licences doesn’t matter.

If you feel you can argue successfully that because its got driver in the name it doesn’t apply then your free to try. (the good things about a free democratic country :smiley: )

driver might have had one specific meaning in 1900 but in 2018 driver also means the operator of a motor vehicle. Even by 1930 the linked case the use of driver is not in reference to an operator of a vehicle for work but for operating private vehicles.

You may also find this useful

  1. AUTOMOBILES – Drivers’ Permits – Arbitrary Revocation. – The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking under rules of general application permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to others of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions.

the tl;dr is although people might argue you don’t need a license, there has been no case that anyone is aware of where anyone has judged this to be true. You do need a driver license to operate a motor vehicle, private or commercial on public streets.

Correct me if i’m wrong and there has been a recent ruling which says otherwise?


Blimey, drunk at 11:57 am? The sun is barely over the yard arm!

The contended issue being used by folk, is that anyone operating a vehicle is different to a Driver, who is paid, and requires a license.

Looking at the link, it does look like the Blacks Law Dictionary has re-defined “Driver” as one employed, despite people driving livestock, flocks and people around bends for millennia


It’s 9pm down here on the other side of the pond.
Yeah I get what you mean. It was going right over the nogan before haha.


No, you are not that drunk, some interpretations of definitions are that dumb…