Drivers who are unlicensed or have a suspended or revoked license are nearly three times more likely to cause a fatal crash, a new Department of Motor Vehicles study found.
But it’s even more dangerous to be an unlicensed driver rather than drive with a suspended or revoked license. Compared to the average legal driver, such drivers are 2.6 to 2.73 times more likely to cause a fatal crash, depending on the driver.
The study, Fatal Crash Rates for Suspended/Revoked and Unlicensed Drivers, took crash data over a span of 23 years. Researchers looked at the correlation among two-vehicle fatal crashes where one driver was at fault. The at-fault crash risk of drivers without permission to drive has not diminished over time.
The Department of Motor Vehicles found that people between the ages of 20 to 29 who do not have authorized licenses have the largest percentage of two-vehicle fatal car accidents.
If caught with a suspended or revoked license or found to be driving without one, the citation can result in a 30-day vehicle impoundment, thousands of dollars in fines, and/or time added to a suspension or probation period.
The news is out to get you, Fox is the only unbiased news source, Riiight, take your meds! Dont miss your KKK meeting!
As for free stuff...medical care, education, college, extended unemployment benefits, welfare, no need for license/registration/insurance...the Patch doesn't allow enough words to list it all. The programs that ARE needed have been expanded to cover ever-increasing numbers of those who don't NEED help, but who would rather be taken care of instead of taking care of themselves. We have become a nanny state/country, and Obama's goal is to increase those numbers significantly and permanently. No one who is on the gov't dole would dare vote against those that are handing them the goodies. The bigger the gov't; the smaller the citizen.
And, yes, that's one of the reasons I voted for Obama. The Republican party has left me.
Early in his administration, Obama enacted a policy of TBS'ing (Turn Back South). What that means is that the border patrol is instructed to NOT apprehend illegals, but to chase them back into Mexico unless there is no other option. TBS'ing, as intended, results in fewer apprehensions. Fewer apprehensions lowers the estimates on successful entries, and so Obama and Napolitano tell the press there are fewer illegals entering. Nothing could be further than the truth. There are MORE illegals entering every day. The next un-truth Obama perpetuates is that he deports more illegals. Again, this is FALSE. His administration has issued more deportation orders. What that means is that the judge has told the illegal to go home. Except in the most extreme circumstances, illegals are NOT forcibly physically removed. That hardly EVER happens. They are asked nicely to return to their country of origin, they walk out of the court house on their own and continue living illegally here. The next time they get picked up, the process repeats.
http://www.fairus.org/DocServer/Obama_Record_072312.pdf
Vehicles must not be stopped for choosing not to enter the checkpoint. The checkpoint must be organized and supervised by higher ranking officers and NOT typical traffic officers. If it has been pre-determined that only every third vehicle be checked, THEN ONLY every third vehicle may be checked. IT MUST NOT BE RANDOM. However, if it has been pre-determined that EVERY vehicle be checked, then EVERY vehicle must be checked. MUST NOT FLUCTUATE. These are just some of the Rules/Laws associated with the checkpoints. BUT, you must keep in mind........... THOSE WHO ENFORCE THE LAW, RARELY FOLLOW THE LAW!!!!! ( Correction: "ALMOST NEVER" follow the law.) Therefore, all of the above RULES/LAWS - Do not Apply, because Police officers do not feel that ANY LAWS apply to them. And in reality, they are correct. Even when an officer is involved in an unwarranted shooting -how is he punished??????? A PAID VACATION - AKA, paid administrative leave. And that's considered a punishment
Some Info from SCOTUS: "Held: The application of the Texas statute to detain appellant and require him to identify himself violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers lacked any reasonable suspicion to believe that appellant was engaged or had engaged in criminal conduct. Detaining appellant to require him to identify himself constituted a seizure of his person subject to the requirement of the Fourth Amendment that the seizure be "reasonable." The Fourth Amendment requires that such a seizure be based on specific, objective facts indicating that society's legitimate interests require such action, or that the seizure be carried out pursuant to a plan embodying explicit, neutral limitations on the conduct of individual officers. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648. Here, the State does not contend that appellant was stopped pursuant to a practice embodying neutral criteria, and the officers' actions were not justified on the ground that they had a reasonable suspicion, based on objective facts, that he was involved in criminal activity. Absent any basis for suspecting appellant of misconduct, the balance between the public interest in crime prevention and appellant's right to personal security and privacy tilts in favor of freedom from police interference."
How to Refuse a DUI Checkpoint (Know your rights) I am only an advocate for those that wish to exercise and claim their Rights. All others are FREE to waive any Right at anytime and I would never demean them for doing so. But if you assert that those individuals exercising their Rights are wrong and should be dismissed I posit that you are un-American and unfit to pass such judgement upon another for using a Right that is not yours. Also the citation I provided comes from Brown v. Texas - 443 U.S. 47 (1979) Go read it, especially the APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT where the transcript from the court of record shows the conversation between the Prosecutor and the court.
is Obama is getting ready to give 12 million of his relatives amnesty to plump up the liberal voting ranks.