I have two further comments. I'll speak to Indiana, where I was a LEO, but I suspect these are similar across the USA and possibly other countries. (Similar is not the "same", but close ...)
1st topic:
Regarding license status -
There's a big difference between the several conditions of license status.
- fully licensed and "valid" (means you have the proper license for your driving condition and it's not otherwise inhibited; normal, CDL, etc)
- expired only means that your previously valid license has overrun it's period of effect
- suspended means your driving privileges are revoked; you are not supposed to drive (by law there were two classes; suspended vs suspended-with-prior-conviction)
- never had a license; means you never went to the BMV to open a file and get a permit or license
Each condition has a different approach from an officer's POV. Here's how things were generally handled through my agency. As always, your attitude may have some say in how you were treated. I will defend these actions fervently because I believe they are a balance of empathy for all vs a concern for legalities.
- Valid licenses were obviously not a problem.
- An "expired" license would only get a warning if the expiration was less than 30 days. If over 30 days, then you'd get a ticket. And we would not tow your car.
- Suspended licenses actually were going to get you a citation. If your suspension was administrative (by the BMV) then you'd get a ticket. However, if your suspension was "with a prior conviction" then you were ticketed AND arrested (it was part of the statute). Either way, if there was another person in the car with a valid license, we'd typically allow the other person to drive the car away to avoid a towing charge. If not, well, that's your fault and your car was getting towed. (I lost track of how many times I wrote a ticket to a suspended male driver and yet there was a female in the car with a valid license. The hubris of some men just overrides their common sense.)
- Never had a license means you are going to jail in addition to getting a citation; class C misdemeanor. It was enforced at our agency, but admittedly not all departments do so.
2nd topic: driving a vehicle w/o a proper valid license
For a long time, the state of IN did not have a requirement for people who ride motor scooters (not the same a motor cycles) to have a license. And this actually became a fairly big issue, because just about every person who had a suspended license ended up on a scooter. The streets were littered with motor scooters. The problem is that scooters are a tad slow relative to vehicular traffic. Scooters caused some minor traffic flow problems. And then people started to complain and so the legislature then created a new law that required a valid license for the operation of a scooter.
I, for one, prefer the non-license requirement for scooters. I'll explain why, and I'll warn you that my position is a very rough, tough outlook on life, so be prepared for some harsh reality ...
When a person lost their privilege to drive (suspended license, or never had a license at all), they could get onto a scooter and "drive" (ride) to work, to the market, etc without a license. And though these vehicles were a bit of a PITB to faster cars, the risks these vehicles posed were minimal. Think about it ... a 400 lb scooter with a 200 lb person on it really is no match for a 5000 lb SUV. And believe it or not, those folks on the scooters were really darn careful not to do stupid things because if they got into an accident, they would be dead or maimed horribly. If a full size pickup or minivan hits a guy/gal on a scooter, the laws of physics prevail. And so the scooter folks were VERY careful not to cause problems (other than the limitations of speed of the scooters by nature of low power). Even if there were an accident, the damage a scooter did to a car or truck was minimal; maybe a fender replacement, etc.
Once Indiana started requiring licenses for operation of scooters, those folks couldn't get a "valid" status because of their "suspension", so they could not legally operate a scooter. And so what did they do? They got right back into cars and drove large vehicles again. You see, the "requirement" to have a valid license to operate a scooter couldn't be attained by a suspended driver, and so that suspended driver might as well break the law in a car versus on a scooter.
I, for one, was happy that unlicensed and suspended drivers were on scooters BECAUSE THEY POSED A LOWER THREAT TO OTHERS. They were a lower risk to cause accidents because a person on a scooter is REALLY CAREFUL not to cause a problem when facing a soccer mom in her SUV.
It's the law of natural selection ... I'd rather a stupid idiot kill himself on a scooter than kill a family if he's driving a large vehicle.
But the law of unintended consequences reared its ugly head. While the "intent" was to get suspended drivers off of scooters (which it did), the unintended result was that those same suspended drivers went right back to driving cars.
The best compromise would be to let suspended drivers operate small, light scooters and take the risks upon themselves rather than risk the lives of others. I believe the inconveniences of the slower scooters in traffic were a benefit which far outweighed the potential for continued major damage that careless/reckless people cause when driving large vehicles.
Yes, that's my cold-hearted point of view, and I stand by it; let the people who make poor life decisions take greater risks.
