Return to

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


Yeah. This entire thread is off topic and ridiculous though.


Discussing the reasons behind a certain system is very useful as it will give insight in the society.


Pretty much.


Your definition of a driver fails to take in to account many years of case law which would help to clarify the definition and what is and isn’t acceptable.


If I gave out gold stars, you would both be given some.

My friend is one of those “In the state of Texas, there is no speed limit, sir, sir, SIR, am I under arrest? Sir, in the state of Texas, there is no speed limit. I do not recognize your authority. Sir, get off my window. Sir, get your hands off of me. SIR–” and now he’s face down in concrete getting handcuffed.

He’s lightened up a bit in his old age, but he still has these retarded discussions when we drop our guard and allow Alex Jones style political debate.

On the flip side, I can’t count how many tickets I’ve gotten out of for not being a raging douche bag to police officers. If you’re polite, admit wrong doing (99% of the time you fucked up, don’t lie), and are pretty easy going, they’re likely to let you off. Maybe they’re behind their quota, and it’s gonna cost you a couple hundred bucks. So be it, learn the speed traps.

Or, better yet:


In the US, licensing of people to drive motor vehicles is regulated by the states, therefore, all states are going to have slightly different laws, and ways of defining them. This is important. If the state is the one making the law, they can define terms written in their laws how they choose, regardless of how other sources or jurisdictions define their terms. In the context of the OPs argument, it depends on how, or if an individual state defines the term “driver”.

The State of Ohio does not define the term driver. “Driver License” is simply the name of the qualifications and paperwork a person must have to operate a motor vehicle. Although there are more specific qualifications, such as those that ride a motorcycle, Ohio defines anyone that operates a motor vehicle as an “operator.”

“Operator” includes any person who drives or operates a motor vehicle upon the public highways. ORC 4501.01 (X)

Further, it is stated that an operator must have a driver license to be a motor vehicle operator.
ORC 4507.01

Seems pretty cut and dry. As someone stated above, if you disagree, file suit and take the argument to court.

Disclaimer, I am not a lawyer either, im just some bored jackass on the internet. Also, if I have misread or overlooked part of the ORC, please correct me, I will admit when I am wrong.

Seriously though, im not trying to troll anyone, just my .02

EDIT: typos


Here’s a recent example of those 2 realities:

Further reading:


I think I’d rather fly an autogyro than to be on the roads with yahoos. There’s nobody to crash into me there.




You’re not a mod or an admin.


Are you mocking my god?


Only on Thorsday


Well Its pretty simple as far as i’m concerned,
if you drive a motorized vehicle on the public roads, then you need a drivers license.
I dont see why this would be any different in the US?


It’s not. People are just cherry-picking to try to avoid getting tickets.


“The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”


If your not going to read the thread why reply? I already posted about the supreme court ruling on this. Citizens have the right to travel on public roads but the city can regulate it within the bounds of the law

Your doing just what @aLilBabyOtter said, your cherry picking. That doesn’t work in the total world.


I would say at least 75% of drivers in New Jersey (Yours truly included) is not qualified to drive


I think there ought to be stricter limits on what local governments can do. Just because things are the way they are doesn’t mean we can’t try to change it.

Just because someone lives in a state or county or a town shouldn’t mean they can come up with whatever law they want. For example, apparently some people are taking nimbyism too far with the anti Waze thing where they say people can’t drive through the towns.



This reminds me of back in the 2016 election when Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, was criticized at their convention for supporting drivers licenses.

For some people that is going too far…


Oh yeah, that is messed up. You would think they’d want to clear traffic out as quickly as possible through whatever means available. Just because my app shows me the way through Grandma’s back yard to get out of your podunk town doesn’t mean I am breaking any laws - you should thank me for being one less car clogging the interstate during clog hour.