Mike Rutherford in Saturday's Telegraph

[Tom Crispin]

On Mon, 12 May 2008 07:47:31 +0100, Matt B
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 May 2008 14:38:27 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy
>> <[email protected]> said in
>> <b06db2c3-4a25-4337-82d3-29a136b0e831@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>>> Semantics.
>>> As long as you obey the laws of the land you have a right to drive,
>>> only if you disobey then you may lose that right. Your argument is
>>> used by the anti car lobby to legitimise your "right" to cycle while
>>> ignoring the law.
>>
>> No, it's not a right, it's a privilege.
>
>Or, as the Home Office themselves say: "The right to drive is a
>privilege, earned by proving competence in safe driving, and
>withdrawable on proof of incompetence and dangerousness."
>
>Ah, it /is/ a "right" then, and /cannot/ be taken away so long as the
>appropriate rules are obeyed. Just like all other rights then,
>including the most fundamental right of all.

So you cannot see the oxymoron the the Home Office statement you
quoted?

The /privilege/ is not granted unless the applicant has proved a basic
level of competence. The /privilege/ can be withdrawn.

 

[Matt B]

Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Mon, 12 May 2008 07:47:31 +0100, Matt B
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>> On Sat, 10 May 2008 14:38:27 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy
>>> <[email protected]> said in
>>> <b06db2c3-4a25-4337-82d3-29a136b0e831@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:
>>>
>>>> Semantics.
>>>> As long as you obey the laws of the land you have a right to drive,
>>>> only if you disobey then you may lose that right. Your argument is
>>>> used by the anti car lobby to legitimise your "right" to cycle while
>>>> ignoring the law.
>>> No, it's not a right, it's a privilege.
>> Or, as the Home Office themselves say: "The right to drive is a
>> privilege, earned by proving competence in safe driving, and
>> withdrawable on proof of incompetence and dangerousness."
>>
>> Ah, it /is/ a "right" then, and /cannot/ be taken away so long as the
>> appropriate rules are obeyed. Just like all other rights then,
>> including the most fundamental right of all.
>
> So you cannot see the oxymoron the the Home Office statement you
> quoted?
>
> The /privilege/ is not granted unless the applicant has proved a basic
> level of competence. The /privilege/ can be withdrawn.

The point being that once earned it cannot be withdrawn if all the rules
are complied with, and without due process being followed. Do you know
of many other "rights" which are more strongly protected than that?

--
Matt B

 

[Clive George]

"Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Ah, it /is/ a "right" then, and /cannot/ be taken away so long as the
> appropriate rules are obeyed. Just like all other rights then, including
> the most fundamental right of all.

I had the privilege taken away from me without any rules being broken on my
part. So it looks like you're wrong.

clive

 

[Matt B]

Clive George wrote:
> "Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Ah, it /is/ a "right" then, and /cannot/ be taken away so long as the
>> appropriate rules are obeyed. Just like all other rights then,
>> including the most fundamental right of all.
>
> I had the privilege taken away from me without any rules being broken on
> my part.

Including the rules to do with health conditions?

> So it looks like you're wrong.

Only if you had the right removed for none of the reasons given in the
driving licence regulations, in which case you'll need to elaborate.

--
Matt B

 

[Peter Clinch]

Matt B wrote:

> Or, as the Home Office themselves say: "The right to drive is a
> privilege, earned by proving competence in safe driving, and
> withdrawable on proof of incompetence and dangerousness."
>
> Ah, it /is/ a "right" then, and /cannot/ be taken away so long as the
> appropriate rules are obeyed. Just like all other rights then,
> including the most fundamental right of all.

No, it's not a right. You don't have rights in the UK, you have
permissions. If you think otherwise, show me the written Bill Of Rights
or similar constitutional legal document that says otherwise, not
something the Home Office sort of implies in an aside about driving.

If you think something the Home Office says like the above is proof of
the legal status of a right then you're even dafter than I took you for,
and I say that in the perspective that I took you you as being pretty
bloody daft before now.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[A.C.P.Crawshaw]

Matt B wrote:
>
> The point being that once earned it cannot be withdrawn if all the rules
> are complied with, and without due process being followed. Do you know
> of many other "rights" which are more strongly protected than that?

Not just rules but medical fitness. You are a failure as a pedant

Alan

 

[Matt B]

Peter Clinch wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>
>> Or, as the Home Office themselves say: "The right to drive is a
>> privilege, earned by proving competence in safe driving, and
>> withdrawable on proof of incompetence and dangerousness."
>>
>> Ah, it /is/ a "right" then, and /cannot/ be taken away so long as the
>> appropriate rules are obeyed. Just like all other rights then,
>> including the most fundamental right of all.
>
> No, it's not a right. You don't have rights in the UK, you have
> permissions.

It is purely semantics, so hardly worth arguing over it, but having the
legal "permission" to do something does give you the legal "right" to do
it. The right to drive cannot be removed on a whim - unlike, say, the
right to drink in a pub, which can be removed with no reason, and with
no legal process required.

> If you think otherwise, show me the written Bill Of Rights
> or similar constitutional legal document that says otherwise, not
> something the Home Office sort of implies in an aside about driving.

Do don't need a "Bill of Rights" to have the legal right to do
something, you just need to comply with the conditions laid down.

> If you think something the Home Office says like the above is proof of
> the legal status of a right

It demonstrates the word "right" being used in the context of the "right
to drive". There are many similar examples of the use of the term on
government webpages, including this one on the DVLA site: "After this
time they must pass a British driving test in order to continue to have
the right to drive..."[1], and this one in driving licence regulations:
"extending to holders of Community licences the right to drive..."[2].

> then you're even dafter than I took you for,

OTOH, you don't think that the denial of an incontrovertible fact,
relying solely on a narrow and unsustainable definition of a word, is
"daft"?

> and I say that in the perspective that I took you you as being pretty
> bloody daft before now.

Well thanks!

[1] <http://www.dvla.gov.uk/media/pdf/consultations/annex5.pdf>
[2]
<http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&searchDay=12&searchMonth=5&searchYear=2008&searchEnacted=0&text=%26quot%3bright+to+drive%26quot%3b&extent=E%2bW%2bS%2bN.I.&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=3350130&ActiveTextDocId=3350203&filesize=7324>

--
Matt B

 

[David Martin]

It is of course a permission to drive, not a right to be enabled to
drive.

So if I cannot afford to pay for it, I lose the ability to exercise
the privilege of using a motor vehicle on the public highway.

I'm still trying to work out how I can be fleeced an average 1000GBP
(along with the other 5 million scots) for a few miles of motorway in
Glasgow, yet a couple of quid towards a decent cycle infrastructure is
beyond the pale..

...d

 

[Jeremy Parker]

"Sir Jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote

[snip]

>>That isn't a "fact", its your opinion. If I'm a licensed driver and
>>my
vehicle is legal then I have the right to use it on public roads if I
so wish.<<

[snip]

Here, perhaps, it's a matter of semantics, but be very careful if you
drive in the USA. There it's very definitely not a right, but a
privilage, and the difference is not just a matter of semantics. In
the USA privilages don't get protected in the same way that rights
do.

Also in the USA foreigners don't get given the benefit ot the doubt,
in the way that they often do in the UK.

Jeremy Parker

 

[JNugent]

Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Mon, 12 May 2008 07:47:31 +0100, Matt B
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>> On Sat, 10 May 2008 14:38:27 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy
>>> <[email protected]> said in
>>> <b06db2c3-4a25-4337-82d3-29a136b0e831@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:
>>>
>>>> Semantics.
>>>> As long as you obey the laws of the land you have a right to drive,
>>>> only if you disobey then you may lose that right. Your argument is
>>>> used by the anti car lobby to legitimise your "right" to cycle while
>>>> ignoring the law.
>>> No, it's not a right, it's a privilege.
>> Or, as the Home Office themselves say: "The right to drive is a
>> privilege, earned by proving competence in safe driving, and
>> withdrawable on proof of incompetence and dangerousness."
>>
>> Ah, it /is/ a "right" then, and /cannot/ be taken away so long as the
>> appropriate rules are obeyed. Just like all other rights then,
>> including the most fundamental right of all.
>
> So you cannot see the oxymoron the the Home Office statement you
> quoted?
>
> The /privilege/ is not granted unless the applicant has proved a basic
> level of competence. The /privilege/ can be withdrawn.

They say it's a right AND a privilege.

Why do you prioritise one over the other?

 

[JNugent]

Peter Clinch wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>
>> Or, as the Home Office themselves say: "The right to drive is a
>> privilege, earned by proving competence in safe driving, and
>> withdrawable on proof of incompetence and dangerousness."
>>
>> Ah, it /is/ a "right" then, and /cannot/ be taken away so long as the
>> appropriate rules are obeyed. Just like all other rights then,
>> including the most fundamental right of all.
>
> No, it's not a right. You don't have rights in the UK, you have
> permissions. If you think otherwise, show me the written Bill Of Rights
> or similar constitutional legal document that says otherwise, not
> something the Home Office sort of implies in an aside about driving.

So there's no "right" to cycle, either, despite what is claimed by some?

 

[JNugent]

David Martin wrote:
> It is of course a permission to drive, not a right to be enabled to
> drive.
>
> So if I cannot afford to pay for it, I lose the ability to exercise
> the privilege of using a motor vehicle on the public highway.

You can lose the "right" to eat, drink, live in a house and sleep in a
bed in the same way.

So what does that prove?

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting Terry Duckmanton <[email protected]>:
>alternatives may exist. For many motorists the problem of
>".....being hammered by ever-rising fuel taxes, car taxes, congestion
>taxes, taxes to use bridges and tunnels that are already paid for,
>parking taxes, insurance taxes and so-called green taxes."
>is relatively easily avoided by either walking or cycling to work.

It is also largely non-existent. Ian Jackson recently produced this;

<http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/2008/real-cost-of-motoring/>

Taxing cagers off the road? Maybe we should _start_.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Second Friday, May.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Mon, 12 May 2008 17:36:10 +0100, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

>Tom Crispin wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 May 2008 07:47:31 +0100, Matt B
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 10 May 2008 14:38:27 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy
>>>> <[email protected]> said in
>>>> <b06db2c3-4a25-4337-82d3-29a136b0e831@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> Semantics.
>>>>> As long as you obey the laws of the land you have a right to drive,
>>>>> only if you disobey then you may lose that right. Your argument is
>>>>> used by the anti car lobby to legitimise your "right" to cycle while
>>>>> ignoring the law.
>>>> No, it's not a right, it's a privilege.
>>> Or, as the Home Office themselves say: "The right to drive is a
>>> privilege, earned by proving competence in safe driving, and
>>> withdrawable on proof of incompetence and dangerousness."
>>>
>>> Ah, it /is/ a "right" then, and /cannot/ be taken away so long as the
>>> appropriate rules are obeyed. Just like all other rights then,
>>> including the most fundamental right of all.
>>
>> So you cannot see the oxymoron the the Home Office statement you
>> quoted?
>>
>> The /privilege/ is not granted unless the applicant has proved a basic
>> level of competence. The /privilege/ can be withdrawn.
>
>They say it's a right AND a privilege.

I have already said that the Home Office statement is an oxymoron.

Driving is either a right or a privilege - not both.

As you have to pass a test to be allowed to drive and drivers'
licences may be withdrawn if certain conditions are not met, e.g.
staying within the speed limit, showing courteousy to other road
users, not using a hand held mobile phone, is is not a right.

Riding a bicycle is a right. Whatever a cyclist does, that right
cannot be taken away without their liberty being taken away. I am not
even sure that courts have the power to restrict cycling by the use of
ASBOs. Cycling may be confined to certain times and certain places,
but not, as far as I know, a complete ban.

>Why do you prioritise one over the other?

 

[Dave Larrington]

In news:[email protected],
Jeremy Parker <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to
tell us:

> Also in the USA foreigners don't get given the benefit ot the doubt,
> in the way that they often do in the UK.

(Peers around nervously)

I did (76 mph in a 55 zone)

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
I am Wan, for I am pursued by the Army of Plums.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sun, 11 May 2008 09:09:35 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy
<[email protected]> said in
<ac0214cf-bf6e-4296-8835-c7b8cc9b9681@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>:

>As I said its a right providing you obey the law, you lose the right
>if you don't

In which case, if it is a right, it must be enforceable. Show me
which law grants you the right to drive a motor vehicle. I can see
the law that allows you to do so provided certain conditions are
met, but I see no law which makes it a right. As a pedestrian, you
have the right to pass and re-pass on the highway. Show me the law
which grants you the right to use a motor vehicle, in such explicit
terms.

I really don't think there is any such enforceable right.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[JNugent]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 09:09:35 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy
> <[email protected]> said in
> <ac0214cf-bf6e-4296-8835-c7b8cc9b9681@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>:
>
>> As I said its a right providing you obey the law, you lose the right
>> if you don't
>
> In which case, if it is a right, it must be enforceable. Show me
> which law grants you the right to drive a motor vehicle. I can see
> the law that allows you to do so provided certain conditions are
> met, but I see no law which makes it a right. As a pedestrian, you
> have the right to pass and re-pass on the highway. Show me the law
> which grants you the right to use a motor vehicle, in such explicit
> terms.
>
> I really don't think there is any such enforceable right.

Which law grants you the right to use a bicycle (on the public highway),
in explicit terms?

I really don't think there is any such enforceable right.