Hacker News Reader

Comment by ghaff | Hacker News Reader

I didn't drive a lot (or own a car) until I graduated from school. But I do have trouble wrapping my head around not getting a driver's license past a certain point--whether they get one while in school or not. Even had Uber/Lyft existed at the time, I literally couldn't have done my first job (I regularly had to drive hours to a job site) and I would have been at least reliant on other people at other jobs.

Vacations and weekends would be even more limited.

I certainly get not owning a car, especially in a city. That's basically a decision about economics and hassle. But even the couple I know who live in SF without a car use rentals and Zipcar all the time (in addition to Uber/Lyft).

View on HN

I'm 42 and don't have a drivers license. My dad tried to nudge me into learning to drive, but I had no interest - it seemed to me to be a waste of time. Of course, I lived in Norway, and public transport was good. I now live in London, and transport is still good.

I've never really felt limited, though certainly there are places that would be expensive for me to get to thanks to the need of long taxi rides etc., but there are also far more places to go than I can get to see in a lifetime that are still easily accessible with public transport.

I something think maybe I should get a license so I could at least rent a car for certain places, but I've just never felt it's been important enough to get around to it.

Had I lived in the US, the situation certainly would be different - I have spent quite a lot of time in the Bay Area without a car pre-Uber/Lyft, and it certainly is possible but awkward even when you're there as a single person, and many other places I've visited in the US has been much worse.

But the thing is, I can totally see a lot of people there too adapting their life after what works with these services. A car is practical in some respects, but you have to deal with service and insurance and parking, and without it you can often spend a portion of that money living in a location where there's less need for a car to begin with, and a portion of it on taxis/Uber/Lyft. And then I can sit back and read or nap.

Of course it depends on the type of jobs you want etc.

>But the thing is, I can totally see a lot of people there too adapting their life after what works with these services.

I'm sure you're right. That's exactly what people do. There are certainly things I can't do that restrict where I can go. I'm not comfortable doing any sort of serious 4WD so there are just areas of parks and forests out west I just don't go to.

Without having had a car it would be hard for you to compare.

In the periods I haven't had a car, I visited some friends much less (friends that other forms of transport were much less convenient than a car). Without a car certain activities were not available either.

Likewise, after many overseas trips, I then hired a car, which made a massive difference to the holiday.

Certainly in a lot of Western Europe, there's a lot that's easily accessible by public transportation + a bit of taxi. But there are absolutely areas and sites that pretty much require you to be either driving or in a tour (which I generally dislike).

It's not that hard to compare, as I certainly are aware there were things we did when I was a child that would be hard for me to do without a car. But the point is that you simply make other choices. Not better or worse choices. Just different ones.

25, and live in SF. No drivers license. Well I had one, but it had expired and I never bothered renewing. I've only personally had to drive a car once in the last 4 years. I recently took a job in the Peninsula, where my commute is now Lyft -> Caltrain -> Lyft, which given the cost of parking in my building turns out to still be cheaper than owning a car - this might be an equation unique to SF.

The only downside of not having a license is getting into bars. Bartenders don't like expired ids and I've been looking into getting a new one.

I'm surprised - most bars I know either don't card because they're upscale enough to not worry about minors, or they don't accept any expired ID (or sometimes even other states). In Texas, a state ID can be issued that is identical to a DL but with a different title. Costs something like $10-20.

Or get your passport, but that's $160 with the book + card.

I've been using my Passport (card) and that was convenient, however I lost my wallet recently - I've been using my Passport, but if I were to lose that, then I'd be a bit more worried.

As far as carding goes, it depends on the establishment. Most bars I go to, don't card, but when they do it's a situation that can mess up your night.

You could get a passport card too, it's only $55.

OP: >I've been using my Passport (card) and that was convenient, however I lost my wallet recently

I was told by a bouncer that this is not technically a valid ID for bars in WA, though was let in.

How is a federal ID with photo and DOB not a valid ID?? Holy heck.

You can also get a state ID; that way you can uphold your no license principle as well as get into bars.

But if I went all the way to the DMV for a state ID and there was no appointment required for a drive test I'd just get a license.

The thing for me is that, if I were living in that area, I'd be driving into the Santa Cruz mountains, Big Sur, the Sierras, etc. all the time. Which you really can't do unless you drive or someone else drives you.

Sure, and if I shared your hobbies, I'd probably have trouble wrapping my head around how people could live without a license too.

For me, the natural areas would be pretty much the only reason I could possibly think of that would make me even consider living in the Bay Area.

Heh. My wife & in-laws went with me to watch the Perseids in the Santa Cruz mountains. While we were there, we met a couple young women who had Ubered in from San Francisco. They got there fine, but there was no cell reception where we were, so their apps didn't work, so they were trying to find someone to hitchhike home with. We had a full car (and were going the other way) so we couldn't take them, but I hope they managed to get home safely.

Renting a car is actually very cheap once you turn 25. Renting a car on the weekends, every weekend is also cheaper than owning a car.

Sure. Subject to the other reasons you may want your own vehicle. But the discussion was about not having a driver's license. I fully agree that, for a lot of people, using some combination of rentals, Zipcar, and ride hail services makes a lot of sense.

That's my main use of the car in California, trips to local hills to hike and monthly trips to the Sierra/other outdoor places.

Or do a tour. Or cycle. It feels good enjoying those areas and not polluting them.

FYI, you can get a California ID card; identical to a driver license without the permission to drive.

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/idinfo/idcard

Some people are very bad drivers for various reasons (e.g. lack of depth perception, poor spatial awareness, whatever). While very little skill is required to get a license in most parts of the country, I fully support people not getting a license if they're bad at it.

I absolutely understand that some people shouldn't/can't get a license. That will probably restrict what sort of activities they can do, etc. I don't really understand doing that by choice though.

(And I'd hope employers would be understanding and supportive of an employee in that position. They're less likely to be as supportive of an employee who just doesn't want to do something even if it affects their ability to do their job.)

I don't get why the employer would have to be "understanding and supportive". Either the job requires a driving license, in which case they should have asked at hiring time, or it doesn't. If they bait-and-switch the employee into driving despite not having asked for it, it's their own fault.

US employers assume adults can drive. Presumably, if they're hiring you as a delivery driver, they will confirm the appropriate licensing. But, if you're a random engineer that they discover can't go to various customer sites without all sorts of special arrangements, a lot of companies are probably going to take that into consideration come review time.

Fair enough, I guess in the US one should make that clear during the hiring interview.

I wonder what US employers will do when the next generations of employees come in and their assumption starts failing hard.

Seems pretty straightforward. If it becomes an actual problem, they start calling it out and make it a requirement, even if it's negotiable.

ADDED: The reality is that there are lots of implicit assumptions in a professional job. Unless it's a job that involves significant/regular travel, they probably won't ask you if you're willing to step on a plane. They probably won't ask you if you're OK with attending meetings before 10am. Etc. If you have out-of-mainstream requirements it's probably mostly on you to raise them.

In the US it's sort of implicit for most professional or technical positions that you'll have to take occasional business trips, and some places you go may not have much public transit or taxis / ride hailing services. A lot of hiring managers just assume everyone has a driver's license and can rent a car if necessary.

Don't forget that getting a driver's license is very expensive in some parts of the world, like Europe. Here it easily requires 1000,00 € and more, as well as a significant time investment for mandatory training, lessons and tests.

While I don't recommend skipping the driver's license despite these circumstances, I can understand that it's a legitimate option for a teenager that doesn't plan to drive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com