Hacker News Reader

Comment by jrockway | Hacker News Reader

Driving is a privilege, not a right. You can drive without license plates on private property all you want.

Not everything is binary. Driving is a privilege, yes, but making use of the privilege does not imply forfeiture of civil rights. A balance has to be struck.

And many, many people are perfectly ok with the balance of "if you want to drive on public roads, you have to display a somewhat-opaque identifier on your vehicle so you can be held accountable if you screw up".

As people point out, the opacity has lessened over time, and it's reasonable to question if we should re-evaluate how it's being used. Kind of like how social security numbers have changed their role in society.

Being required to identify yourself and related property in relation to suspected crimes (with probable cause) is acceptable. E.G. "License and Registration please, you are suspected of committing X and possibly other crimes."

Being required to wear a real-name badge in a public place is much more unsettling.

License plates not being required will lead to abuse of driving privileges, an imbalance.

FWIW, that is not exactly true (in the US). Driving is not an explicitly enumerated right, but it cannot be taken away without due process, so it's more than a privilege.

>Driving is a privilege, not a right.

Given it's impact on day to day life, perhaps it is time to change that.

In a great many cities, this right is actually restricted. City codes often prohibit parking unregistered/expired vehicles on private property if they're visible.

Yeah... that's to prevent blight, having a neighbor who has a de facto junk yard in their front yard is really bad for property values.

If your unregistered car is not in disrepair and you aren't storing multiple cars in your front yard, you're very unlikely to be cited.

I just looked up my town ordinance and it only applies to "junk motor vehicles."

To put that another way, middle-class and wealthy people don't like to see poor people.

The way most places I'm aware of structure it is vehicles that don't have current registration or that can't move under their own power. That's potentially more broad than "junk" but also a more objective standard.

This sort of law can have a severe impact on poor people. Imagine you're barely getting by, then your car breaks down. This is not unlikely because as you're barely getting by, you have an older car and you're not having it maintained professionally on a rigorous schedule. It's going to be a while before you can afford the parts - let's say a "new" transmission from a junkyard. It sure would help if you didn't have to pay $100/month to keep insurance on it though. Of course, that means you have to turn in the license plate, or they'll suspend your driver's license (in certain jurisdictions).

A lot of people have to sell their car for scrap in this situation, which does not give them anywhere near enough to replace it with something reliable.

> I just looked up my town ordinance and it only applies to "junk motor vehicles."

And just exactly who determines this "junk" status?

We have bylaw officers in my town. They would be the ones to decide what a junk vehicle is and obviously they are not experts in every area possible so they just use their judgement and make a call. Some other person who applied for a job in my city that my taxes pay gets to determine if my stuff is crap or not. Of course you can always take the city to court if they are acting inappropriately. What criteria do they use? I am going to guess the does the car look like crap test. If so get ride of it. Or how about when did you insure or drive the car last? Not for years well get rid of it. The fact of the matter is, like others have said, no one wants a neighbor that collects a bunch of cars that just rot and look like crap. No one is asking people to get working vehicles and get rid of them. Also, the city gives you plenty of warning. You could show them look the car drives or your intent to fix it. No different then if they determine your yard isn't clean enought....I personally like long grass and bugs, the city not so much. Some person gets to decide is the answer.

Humans, naturally. Usually a subclass of humans we call "judges" whose job it is to decide on these matters.

Snark aside, law isn't code and the "reasonable person" test works well in most cases.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

I believe in my city a car parked on the streets has to be moved at least once every three days.

In my county junk is defined as incapable of moving under it's own power.

That plus a leeway of 1 week is a fairly objective standard.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com