From: blockedofcourse@foo.invalid   
      
   On 2/16/2026 6:19 PM, Carl wrote:   
   > On 2/16/26 4:38 PM, Don Y wrote:   
   >> Saw mention of the operator of a motor vehicle claiming   
   >> he wasn't DRIVING but, rather TRAVELING (as an argument   
   >> against needing a driver's license to do so).   
   >>   
   >> Wondering what wack-a-doodle logic this entailed:   
   >>   
   >> > misconceptions/>   
   >>   
   >> Though, in an era of driverless cars, how might the notion of "driving"   
   >> evolve -- as any occupant could have been the one who "ordered" the   
   >> trip...   
   >   
   > The wonderful, wacky, looney, completely shut down in any court it's   
   arguments   
   > have appeared in, world of sovereign citizenship. Google that phrase if you   
   > want some twisted reasoning.   
      
   I think simply falling back on "the operator of the vehicle" is the   
   person responsible -- and avoid terms like "driving/driver",   
   "traveling/traveler", "hallucinating/hallucinator", etc.   
      
   I think "driver" is just a colloquialism and the law refers   
   to *operators* so the double-talk is just that...   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)