Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Perfect Line and Other Riding Myths' started by Snivly Dweeb, Oct 15, 2013.
Pretty sure inattentive driving was already illegal there, just like everywhere else.
texting while driving.
you mean reaching back and putting your hand over your plate? we try not to promote that here.
I don't mind obeying laws as long as they make sense. the wheelie law is idiotic and obeying it could get you killed in some situations. Republic or not ,if a law is contrary to my safety I have no intention of following it.
I can't count the number of times that wheelies have kept me from certain death:huh
the way the current law is written even vaulting your front wheel over road debris is considered a wheelie and punishable. Remember that dirt roads are also considered highway. having grown up riding off road I can't imagine not being able to do a wheelie in order to save my own ass.
Try doing that on a Wee-Strom, unless you have orangutan arms, impossible.
If only it wasn't Mountana
Says the guy from America's taint...
I think it is exactly this sort of deterrent that will result in packs of idiots that the police can't stop or catch. There are perfectly good laws on the books to deal with this, like reckless driving and dangerous driving, but because they don't have big cash grabs attached to them and don't presume guilt the tax collectors aka police just cream their panties if some one goes 50 over. Meanwhile they lower speed limits despite better engineered roads and vehicles. Just a cash grab that will result in more speeding idiots making a run for it only to be chased to death by the police.
I pay taxes too. I'm 30 years old, never a ticket, never an accident, never been pulled over. How are they going to fine my ass off and take my license if I OBEY THE LAW?
oh right, the lawbreakers aren't the problem, it's the law/police/courts that's the problem. Give me a break.
Must have never been to Montana
Sure I have.
Its kinda far away, and I'm pretty sure that there are more cows than people there. Not good for a computer engineer, makes work a tad difficult.
Someday they will get computers there though.
I'll wait with baited breath.
Texas TRANSPORTATION CODE
Section 521.021 LICENSE REQUIRED
A person, other than a person expressly exempted under this chapter, may not operate a motor vehicle on a highway in this state unless the person holds a driver's license issued under this chapter.
Section 521.025 LICENSE TO BE CARRIED AND EXHIBITED ON DEMAND
Well if losing your license would ´destroy your life´ (..and I doubt this a little, it´s not like you´ve lost your right to breathe, and usually you´ll get it back after a while), then for godssakes do not ride or drive in a way, that will give them any reason to take that license away.
You there! Get in line!
Adolf would be so proud.
Yes, and the definition for "LICENSE," the thing "REQUIRED," is defined for the chapter in 521.001 DEFINITIONS 6.
So for the thing you have posted we already have established that the thing required, "License," in the title of this includes the privilege of a person to operate a motor vehicle regardless of whether that person holds a driver license.
This definition doesn't change willy nilly, it remains constant for the entire 521 section. This is why they include the phrase "other than a person expressly exempted" as in the definition of LICENSE for this chapter EVERYONE is clearly a person expressly exempted.
Another fine use of Weasel Words cunningly crafted in a statute to make you think one thing is the case while leaving the interpretation open to meet constitutional tests.
Elsewhere you will find a sub chapter defining who is exempt, which in no way changes the fact that everyone is exempted by the definition at the beginning of the chapter. This fact having been already established for the chapter in the DEFINITIONS does not need to be repeated in the sub chapter.
If you do hold a Driver License you are required to present it. This in no way infers that it is mandatory.
There are no punishment clauses for "driving without a license" anywhere in the chapter. There is a reason for this. License to operate a motor vehicle is something that may include a Driver License, but doesn't have to. License is the thing required, not Driver License.
Further reading will reveal that there are punishment clauses for driving with an expired, suspended, etc. Driver License, but not a peep in the entire chapter for someone who simply does not have one.("Driver License" has its own definition as a separate thing from License, yet is included in the definition of License. "License" is not included in the definition of Driver License)
Getting through the Weasel Words is a logical process that takes in the references to License and Driver License as they are used throughout the chapter.
These are not oversights. The statutes are carefully crafted, unique terms are clearly defined, and the requirements of constitutional tests are met. Then, after review, the statute is published.
If a Driver License were required there would be a punishment clause for operating a vehicle without it.
Wait...did you really turn your DL in just to (try) prove a point?! :huh