What would you do if you lost your license?

[smithfz]

If on the off chance you managed to loose your license what would you do?  If you are wondering how or you need some context other than you are perfectly fit and you were just done too many times and you are a bike fanatic that'll do but would you still ride?

[caretaker]

get on my mountain bike and shed a few stone.

[DryRob]

not a chance

[chris.biker]

get on my mountain bike and shed a few stone.

The same except the bikes a hybrid.

[Poodyboy]

easy way to sort out a lost licence.  simples...  http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/DriverLicensing/NeedANewOrUpdatedLicence/DG_4022085

[DryRob]

 

[Rusty]

keep calm and carry on.   

[limax2]

No way. As others suggest get into cycling till you get the licence back. You say you are perfectly fit so you should still be able to break the speed limit with very little chance of getting done. Not difficult where I live since they have put 20 limits all over the  place  .

[smithfz]

OI caretaker you saying the only reason you got a bike is to put of the fact you cant be arsed gettin fit.  Rusty... keep Calm. sure . Depends how your self control is... 

[BBROWN1664]

would you still ride?

Probably somewhere off road but never on the road.

[budgiemurray]

plenty other things to keep me busy, mostly fitness based.. may even temp me to buy a decent mountainbike again, Im in an ideal area for that.. could always train up again for another marathon.. halfs and 10k's are no problem..
 
Budgie

[DILLIGAFF]

A good reason to get one of those electric bikes I have been eyeing 

[ChrisJH]

KTM plus loads of others including Cosworth make some very nice machines, 30mph 60 mile range with your feet up plenty more if you assist

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/eurobike-ktm-debut-electric-mountain-bike-and-more-23093/

[ChrisJH]

[smithfz]

thats cool l'm surprised l've not seen more of those bikes with motors, handy for the hills, mind a cycle in itself are surprisingly expensive and could easily spend thousands on the dam things  hhmm that sound familiar.... new seat, lights, tyres lol, mud guards.

[smithfz]

l didnt loose my license l'm asking what you'd do if you lost yours btw.

[Lawrence]

I'd pay £5500 to get into work for the year     And probably buy a half decent mountain bike.

[Rusty]

Rusty... keep Calm. sure . Depends how your self control is...

Mine's terrible.... so that's where the 'carry on' bit comes in. Yes folks that's what I mean, were I to be banned then I wouldn't take a blind bit of notice of such a ban. If my vehicle was essential to my work then I would use it regardless. Cue gasps of horror and moral indignation.....


When faced with the choice of unemployment, loss of home and potential bankruptcy, the gamble of driving cautiously but illegally for the period of the ban seems a damned attractive one to me. All of this is hypothetical of course as I work from home, but we aren't exactly dealing with a level playing field out there are we. Where's Chris Huhne for example? Still has his license yet doesn't he. Same goes for umpteen high profile cases that have used their influence to swing it for them, so I'm f*cked if I'd lose everything on the call of a magistrate simply because I don't have such influence.

[DryRob]

not necessarily, you could maybe use the some of the high profile get-offs as legal precedent as they always play "need the car to do my job" card and usually get away with it.

[Rusty]

It doesn't work. I was jailed in 1998 for an 'offence' that doesn't ordinarily carry a custodial sentence. The week before this happened Vinnie Jones had been fined peanuts and set free for a much greater degree of the same offence, that of section 18 which does carry such a sentence. I mentioned this anomaly to my own barrister who looked straight at me, smiled, and said;

"Ah, but your not Vinnie Jones"

Several weeks after my imprisonment a 'Lord' somebody or other was involved in exactly the same scenario as I had been. Not only did he not receive a custodial sentence, but the whole case simply 'disappeared', never to be mentioned by the media again. Judges are human beings. Human beings are open to influence, be it by the media, masonic, or the behind the scenes manipulation of government agencies. This being so I accept no judgement as impartial, if it wouldn't happen to Tony Blair then it shouldn't happen to us.

[DryRob]

Fair do's

[smithfz]

l'd be with rusty.  btw does asking for permission to drive a car (driving license)  and "submitting"your car registration - under there rules (which is why you can get done under there rules)  so what happens when you dont sign up and register your car and apply for a driving license and drive your private vehicle or is that idea too "out there" or l'm i reading too much into it l'm just pissed off at the meaning of some words like -
Registration, submitting and license

[Rusty]

I think what you are referring to there grumpe1 is the old FMOTL perspective whereby registering something is seen as handing over the rights to it. (which in a way it is) It's difficult to it sum up in few words but here goes.

There are two systems of law in England, common law and statute law. Common law is the mainstay, as statute law is susceptible to tampering by politicians in order to further a political agenda. For this reason statute law is open to abuse and is not always just. On the other hand Common law stands eternally, it can't be altered.

Basically the premise hinges on the fact that we are a nation governed not by force but by consent, and that individual consent can be withdrawn. If one were to withdraw the consent to be governed then you exist only under common law. This means that you reject statutory law which exists beside common law. Statutes are not Law, they are legislation, "acts of parliament given the force of law by the consent of the governed". You consent to be governed in many ways, most of which your average Joe knows nothing about so is unaware of, which is why statutes are for him - law.


Therefore the theory is that if that consent is withdrawn those acts cease to be law applicable to the individual that has withdrawn it.  In reality it would be very difficult to pull this off, but in Law it is a recognised position, as common law is the law of the land over and above statuatory law. The courts dislike this knowledge being in the public domain however as it diminishes their authority.

The reason is simple; Common law applies equally to all regardless of wealth or favour, whereas statute law is made by politicians and is therefore open to bias. It's simply a question of preventing bad laws from being enforced. For example under the English bill of rights of 1689 it states; http://www.constitution.org/eng/eng_bor.htm

"That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void".

Understand the implications of that. It means that all parking, speeding, littering, or any other form of 'automatic' fine levied against you without a prior trial to determine guilt are illegal. 

Perhaps you now begin to see why much menacing, threats, and huffing and puffing is done by the state and it's various organs to control this sort of revelation. Put simply - We're all being taken for a ride.

[Rusty]

Double post for some reason - now edited out. 

[smithfz]

aahh cheers RUSTY lve heard of this before l'd been looking into legal language.  ta