Driving Privileges / Reinstatement fee

Discussion in 'Legal Terminology' started by ameri_naco, Dec 4, 2012.

  1. ameri_naco Junior Member

    Iowa, USA
    English- U.S.
    I came across the following sentence on a DMV website:

    Whenever driving privileges have been revoked or suspended, a reinstatement feemust be paid.

    ¿qué opinan de la siguiente traducción: sobre todo lo subrayado?

    Cuando se le revoque o suspenda el privilegio de manejo, se tendrá que pagar una cuota de devolución


    Can ¨privileges¨ be translated this way or does it not have that meaning in Spanish? suena chueco, mejor dicho? All definitions seem to deal with social status. The easy way out is to say ¨derecho a manejar¨ but I think the source language intent is to highlight the difference between a RIGHT and a PRIVILEGE (as a nagging parent might when discussing driving with their child)

    As far as ¨reinstatement¨ this seems to be another blindspot as far as the definitions listed here because all deal with returning someone to work and not re issuing a document/privilege. Is there a better way to say it??

  2. Anwar Boylston Senior Member

    New York
    U.S.A.; English
    Ameri, your distinguishing between right and privilege is very subtle, but legally there is no difference in motor vehicle law. At least in New York law. As for reinstatement, I'd consider 'restablecimiento.'
  3. ameri_naco Junior Member

    Iowa, USA
    English- U.S.
    Agreed . . . the conception of rights contained in ¨driving is a privilege, not a right¨ assumes rights are innate and cannot be taken away, which applies to some but certainly not all rights (driving, voting, owning a gun). Thank you for the feedback
  4. Tochka Senior Member

    In US legal usage, there is a big difference, actually, although colloquially the line may blur.
    Driving is indeed a privilege and not a right. This is why we are given a "license"--which means permission--to drive. Legally, the state considers it to be a privilege and only those who have shown they meet the standards are granted permission to do this. The only place "right" enters into it is from the perspective of the right to equal treatment under the law. That is, the state cannot unfairly discriminate against individuals or groups without a rational basis. It must ensure the same process of obtaining permission is applicable to all.
    Voting is considered a right in the US because it is protected by the constitution (although even that is restricted by age and, in many states, whether one has been convicted of a felony). Owning a gun may be similarly considered a right as part of the constitutional "right to bear arms" (although, as everyone in the US knows, there is debate over this status).

    This model may not translate well into other judicial systems and their languages, however, especially since the word for "right" is often the same as at least one of the words for "law" and is not the distinct concept that it is under US law (and I presume in other common law jurisdictions).
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2012
  5. ameri_naco Junior Member

    Iowa, USA
    English- U.S.
    ok, but isn't "right" used to describe other things that are in fact privileges by your definition?

    I'd also like to bring the discussion back to the original question which is if, EVEN accepting this distinction, it is acceptable to translate driving privileges as " privilegios"

Share This Page