[metasean]

No need to be a Derp about it, curiousgal was asking a logical question.

Yes, the answer was in the article, but it was toward the end. Since many of these days skim articles or read HN comments first or some combination _and_ getting paid to do something for others is a common, if not defining aspect of "work" [0], her question is logical.

As for FUD spreading, before she even asked the question, she started by stating, "IANAL" which indicates anything said about the law should be taken with more than a bit of doubt.

So take a chill pill. Yes,it is important to answer the question to remove doubt or ambiguity, but there was no need to be rude or disrespectful or to berate her for asking a question!

[0] The societal definition of "work", not the physical sciences definition.

edit for spelling and formatting

[gillianlish]

heres a logical question.

ISNT PUTTING SOMEONE IN A ROOM FOR TWELVE HOURS FOR NO FUCKING REASON A CRIME

[dboreham]

You'd think. The culture in the US just seems to tolerate too much of this "Show me your papers!" attitude imho.

Source: I grew up in the UK where you (still) don't need to carry a drivers license. Meanwhile in the USA where I'm now a citizen I get a cold sweat if I forget my wallet when I take a 10 minute drive to buy some milk in case I'm pulled over by the cops..

[metasean]

I'm really not sure why I'm getting downvoted.

Neither curiousgirl or I said the prof should have been detained.

Neither curiousgirl or I said his detention was legal.

Neither curiousgirl or I said we shouldn't fight the current climate.

Neither curiousgirl or I YELLED AT SOMEBODY ON THE INTERWEBS.

I pointed out that someone had a reasonable question, and asked it in a reasonable and respectful way, in a forum that supposedly is about discussion.

Y'all need to pick your battles. It shouldn't have been with either of us!!!

[DanBC]

> I grew up in the UK where you (still) don't need to carry a drivers license.

There's a convenient arrangement, but strictly speaking you commit an offence if you don't, when asked, give your driving licence.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/part/VII/crosshe...

This is an important difference between US and UK.

We have bad laws and they're not often used. The US has bad laws and they're used all the time.

[dboreham]

For clarity, what you say is not true (see section 164(7) in the reference cited above). You only have to produce your license upon request within 7 days at a police station. Nothing bad can happen to you (e.g. you can't be detained) for driving without your license on your person.

[DanBC]

Section 164(7) requires the driver to either immediately produce a receipt (option a) or produce within 7 days a receipt (option b). But that receipt is for surrendered licences under the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

By not immediately producing the document you've committed the offence. (Section 164(1-6), unless section 164(7) applies (it almost never does)) It's a defence to produce them not more than 7 days later, this is in section 164(8).

Strictly speaking: you need to carry your licence and produce when asked. You commit the offence if you do not immediately produce the licence, but it's a defence if you produce the licence within 7 days to a named police station.

> Nothing bad can happen to you (e.g. you can't be detained) for driving without your license on your person.

That's not correct. If officers need to identify you and they can't from the information you give you're going to have a bad time. They most certainly can detain you until they identify you. (If you're the driver.)

[strictnein]

I've been pulled over without my license in the US. Nothing happened. I've also had no proof of insurance. I just had to provide within a specified time period. No big deal.

Lots of US law enforcement experts from overseas on the Interwebs these days.