Beldar

From the S.F. Chronicle:

S.F. to ease up on unlicensed drivers

romanigypsyeyes

^ SF gives a bad name to liberals everywhere .

I think that impounding on a first offense is probably extreme, but I honestly don't know what the answer is.

LogicWarrior

Why is it extreme? People shouldn't be driving without a license, legal or illegal.

geeps20

what a totally screwed up city...yuck

soccerguy315

While they're impounding the car, they should put them on the first flight to Caracas.

zoosermom

This is deeply, profoundly disturbing.

PrincipalV

The break and the reason for which the law was created is bull. We should lower our driving standards because illegal "citizens" do not have licenses? Correct me if I am wrong, isn't there a reason why someone is marked as an illegal immigrant?

Though I will say, do not diss SF as a city. It is probably the one metropolitan area in the US which is not dense with poverty. While not my favorite, it is certainly the "best" city in the USA by an objective standard.

Kei-o-lei

Yes, anything short of immediate impoundment if someone does not have a license is a sickening sign of the impending end of days!!!!!

Get a grip, folks.

Kei

simba

^ Is that the best defense of this new stupid law?

zoosermom

My daughter's high school buried a 16 year old unlicensed driver yesterday, so this hits close to home. Being unlicensed (and unprepared) to drive is a dangerous thing. Are you as callous about gun safety, Kei?

There's also the issue of insurance. What it costs all of us collectively, and each of us individually when the unlicensed (who are also uninsured) use our roads as their own personal demolition derbies.

Yes. Impound the cars. Then sell them and add the proceeds to the uninsured motorists pool.

Hunt

I'd like to see a lot more cars impounded. I'd like to see cars of people driving recklessly, or speeding over a certain limit, etc., impounded, too. In this case, I think S.F. is being unnecessarily lax. If a person is driving without a license, that probably means they don't have insurance either.

zoosermom

Can you actually obtain car insurance without having a driver's license?

Hunt

I suppose the car could be insured. It might actually belong to somebody who is licensed and has insurance.

Kei-o-lei

simba said: "Is that the best defense of this new stupid law?"

What I read is that it takes away the vehicle from the driver. If not claimed in 20 minutes, it's impounded. I wonder how it will work?

in re: z-mom's post: I am sorry for your loss. On a whole range of issues we instinctively throw the book at people: 3 strikes and you're out (that's how we get people incarcerated for 20 years and up for 3 minor offenses); no tolerance for weapons in schools (that's how 5 year olds get suspended for bringing in a spork he used on a camping trip); no tolerance drug laws (that's how we end up prison systems too crowded for violent criminals because joint smokers fill the place).

One virtue of America is that we have 50 states and over 3000 counties, all of which can TRY OUT different approaches to see if they work or not. One size fits all draconian punishment has an innate appeal, but I like my public polices pluralistic AND I like that we have the flexibility in our system to have different jurisdictions try out different approaches.

Sorry, folks . . . flame on, but don't you also want some experimentation in public policies . .or have we already reached the best of all possible worlds ?

Kei

zoosermom

I happen to think some things are just completely wrong and entirely too dangerous to tolerate. Unlicensed drivers are among them. We're not talking about a person who bought a car and is leaving it legally parked while learning to drive. we're talking about people who knowingly, willfully and intentionally endangered themselves and anyone with whom they came in contact. It's not the act of owning a car that's the problem. It's the choice to drive it that's the problem. Take the car so they can't do it again.