Marking repeat drunk drivers with special license plates

[General Zod]

Confiscate the liscense and make it illegal for them to drive a car. Accomplishes the same thing as taking their car without potentially removing your ability to punish non-vehicle owners who still drive.

If a friend borrows my car for the weekend and drives it while blind drunk how on earth should MY car by siezed?

Learn how to use the quote function. That said. . .

I take it you haven't bothered looking into the recent laws regarding drunk driving, yes? It's -already- illegal for people to drive if they don't have a license, let alone under the influence. Yet people still continue to do so. The only way to insure they won't drive under the influence is to make sure they have no access to a car.

[Chmee]

Confiscate the liscense and make it illegal for them to drive a car. Accomplishes the same thing as taking their car without potentially removing your ability to punish non-vehicle owners who still drive.

If a friend borrows my car for the weekend and drives it while blind drunk how on earth should MY car by siezed?

Learn how to use the quote function. That said. . .

I take it you haven't bothered looking into the recent laws regarding drunk driving, yes? It's -already- illegal for people to drive if they don't have a license, let alone under the influence. Yet people still continue to do so. The only way to insure they won't drive under the influence is to make sure they have no access to a car.

I think he probably meant to take the plate, not the driver's license ... but you'd still have numbskulls perfectly willing to steal a plate or use the plate off grampa's old Buick ....

[NapoleonGH]

"
Learn how to use the quote function. That said. . .
"
OF COURSE someone who doesnt use the quote function must not know how to, instead of prefering not to...

[NapoleonGH]

"I take it you haven't bothered looking into the recent laws regarding drunk driving, yes? It's -already- illegal for people to drive if they don't have a license, let alone under the influence. Yet people still continue to do so. The only way to insure they won't drive under the influence is to make sure they have no access to a car.
"

OR MAYBE, i am not someone seeking to do something which will have NO effect on reducing drunk driving, or at least no greater effect than other measures?

Or better yet, maybe I realize that you CANNOT restrict access to a car, so instead, you take their liscense and you PUNISH THEM if you catch someone engaging in illegal activities.

you will NEVER stop people from driving drunk. What you can do is provide disincentive for it for casual drunk drivers, and exile or imprison those who still do not heed the warnings, or just fine the hell out of them.

[Broomstick]

"A step in the right direction is to install an ignition interlock device, which requires a zero BAC sample before the car can be started"

This, while an interesting and decent idea, would be horribly poorly executed if you required a zero-BAC prior to ignition. it would mean that one couldnt have a glass of wine in a restaurant and still start their car. A single alcoholic beverage does not impair driving ability to enough of a degree as to matter. in general a BAC of less than like .05 doesnt, and I personally would hold that a bac of .1 is much more reasonable for such a device.

As far as I'm concerned, if you have a DUI you have lost the right to drink and driver period. If you drink at all you don't drive. Need to drive? Then don't drink. For some specified term, maybe 2 years or 5 years. Whatever seems appropriate.

Because, you see, drinking really is optional. You may continue to enjoy all the wonders of a fine meal at a fine restaurant - except the alcoholic beverage. A normally responsible adult who has just fucked up once in a lifetime will be able to suck it up and do without while driving for the few years required to demonstrate that they are able to control their impulses, whereas the alcholic will not be able to do this.

As for impairment - well, that depends. Small adults, particularly if they're female, actually might become impaired after just one drink. You have to take into account the size of the drink, as a bathtub-size margarita, which some local eateries seem to be in a contest as to just how big they can make them, or other "super-size" beverage may, in fact, be equivalent to several standard-size alcohol servings.

Finally, your recommendation of a .1 limit would exceed the drunk-driving limit of many states, which are now .8 I agree that a 0 rating may be too extreme, in that all devices are subject to error and some beverages, such as fruit juice, may contain trace amounts of alcohol. I would happily go by FAA standards for operation of aircraft, under the reasoning that if you're safe to fly an airplane you're safe to drive a car. That standard is .04 %

I maintain you have no more "right" to drink in public than you have "right" to drive - it's a privilege easily gained, but if you abuse it you should lose it.

[Broomstick]

If a friend borrows my car for the weekend and drives it while blind drunk how on earth should MY car by siezed?

Maybe you should just not lend your car to people who drive too soon after drinking?

[Big Phil]

Cops will pull over an erratically weaving car anyway - they don't need a special license to encourage them to do so. And other drivers won't notice unless they're really close.

The safety measure would be taking away their car's and their licenses, not just a colored license plate.

How about making a law that says if you have an orange license plate, the cop doesn't need probable cause to pull you over?

They'd probably get pulled over 5 times a night. And they fucking deserve it.

Why don't we do this for all crimes then. If you've ever shoplifted, let's put a big ass sign around your neck saying "former shoplifter," that way we'll all know who the past shoplifters are! Or lets take it even a step further - if you've ever had a ticket (speeding, parking, etc.), the cops are allowed to pull your ass over, search your car, etc., all because you've proven that you're a sucky ass driver who can't obey the traffic laws.

Sounds pretty stupid huh? That's because it is - once somebody has served their punishment for a crime, they should be eft alone. Why the fuck do you want to have the cops keep hassling them?

[Big Phil]

Cops will pull over an erratically weaving car anyway - they don't need a special license to encourage them to do so. And other drivers won't notice unless they're really close.

The problem is that most drunk drivers aren´t that obvious. You can be drunk as fuck and still be able to drive straight, stop at red lights and maintain a normal looking driving style.

The problem is that your reaction will suck, you might have random bad behavior like running into a tree or another car.

I think the licence plates are cool and should be mandatory after the first time you´re caught. Cops will then be more likely to pull you out and you´re going to think twice before drinking and driving again.

So the fact that the constitution prohibits unlawful search and seizures (i.e., without probable cause) doesn't bother you? If somebody's committed a crime one, we should harass them from now on to make sure they don't commit a crime again?

[Tsyroc]

If a friend borrows my car for the weekend and drives it while blind drunk how on earth should MY car by siezed?

I don't know if they still do it but under the old "War on Drugs" laws if your friend was caught purchasing drugs while driving your car it could be seized and auctioned of and you would have been S.O.L.

In most cases if you loan someone your car you can expect that your insurance will be liable if your friend is in an accident. Probably even if your friend has his/her own insurance.

Here in Arizona they made it a law that all vehicles, even those in storage, had to have a minimum amount of liability insurance in case someone stole the car and got in an accident. If my insurance company can be expected to pay for an accident when the driver stole my car you can bet that something at least as bad can happen if you authorized use of the vehicle.

[General Zod]

Cops will pull over an erratically weaving car anyway - they don't need a special license to encourage them to do so. And other drivers won't notice unless they're really close.

The problem is that most drunk drivers aren´t that obvious. You can be drunk as fuck and still be able to drive straight, stop at red lights and maintain a normal looking driving style.

The problem is that your reaction will suck, you might have random bad behavior like running into a tree or another car.

I think the licence plates are cool and should be mandatory after the first time you´re caught. Cops will then be more likely to pull you out and you´re going to think twice before drinking and driving again.

So the fact that the constitution prohibits unlawful search and seizures (i.e., without probable cause) doesn't bother you? If somebody's committed a crime one, we should harass them from now on to make sure they don't commit a crime again?

You do comprehend the difference between comitting crimes while under the influence of a potentially dangerous substance, especially an incredibly addictive substance, as opposed to crimes which can be corrected through simple behavioral changes, yes?

[Melchior]

You do comprehend the difference between comitting crimes while under the influence of a potentially dangerous substance, especially an incredibly addictive substance, as opposed to crimes which can be corrected through simple behavioral changes, yes?

Now I am playing devil's advocate, but you could say that money is addictive too, from a certain point of view.

[Big Phil]

The problem is that most drunk drivers aren´t that obvious. You can be drunk as fuck and still be able to drive straight, stop at red lights and maintain a normal looking driving style.

The problem is that your reaction will suck, you might have random bad behavior like running into a tree or another car.

I think the licence plates are cool and should be mandatory after the first time you´re caught. Cops will then be more likely to pull you out and you´re going to think twice before drinking and driving again.

So the fact that the constitution prohibits unlawful search and seizures (i.e., without probable cause) doesn't bother you? If somebody's committed a crime one, we should harass them from now on to make sure they don't commit a crime again?

You do comprehend the difference between comitting crimes while under the influence of a potentially dangerous substance, especially an incredibly addictive substance, as opposed to crimes which can be corrected through simple behavioral changes, yes?

We aren't discussing whether people who are drunk and driving should be pulled over... we're discussing whether people who have previously been convicted of drunk driving should have to wear the equivalent of a scarlet letter. Should I conclude that your moving of the goalposts is your way of conceding the argument? If not, kindly stay on topic, and don't wander off onto other subjects.

[Kuja]

In ohio, repeat drunk drivers are forced to use bright orange license plates, and New York state is considering implimenting the same policy, for those who are convicted of drunk driving 3 times in 5 years, or 5 times in 10 years.

This seems like a very good policy, and I don't know why every state doesn't do the same thing to repeat drunk drivers. Is there something wrong that I'm not aware of by branding repeat drunk drivers with this "scarlet letter?"

There's no need for special markings. Just take their fucking liscences.

[Broomstick]

The problem is that removing the license from their wallet does not physically prevent them from operating an automobile.

A sizeable number of people pulled over every year are driving on expired, suspended, or revoked licenses. And some never bothered to get the license in the first place.

[General Zod]

You do comprehend the difference between comitting crimes while under the influence of a potentially dangerous substance, especially an incredibly addictive substance, as opposed to crimes which can be corrected through simple behavioral changes, yes?

Now I am playing devil's advocate, but you could say that money is addictive too, from a certain point of view.

That's not playing devil's advocate, that's being stupid. Money has never been shown to be physically addictive. Alcohol and other drugs have.

[Big Phil]

You do comprehend the difference between comitting crimes while under the influence of a potentially dangerous substance, especially an incredibly addictive substance, as opposed to crimes which can be corrected through simple behavioral changes, yes?

Now I am playing devil's advocate, but you could say that money is addictive too, from a certain point of view.

That's not playing devil's advocate, that's being stupid. Money has never been shown to be physically addictive. Alcohol and other drugs have.

Zod, why can't you address the point? You've had plenty of time to explain how colored license plates are beneficial, constitutional, and a good idea. Start your own thread about whether alcohol and drugs are addictive if you want, but don't hijack this one. Stay on point.

[General Zod]

Zod, why can't you address the point? You've had plenty of time to explain how colored license plates are beneficial, constitutional, and a good idea. Start your own thread about whether alcohol and drugs are addictive if you want, but don't hijack this one. Stay on point.

Coming from someone who's not addressed a number of my points, I find this post rather amusing. That said, do you believe sex offenders shouldn't be listed in a governmental database? That's hardly any different from labeling the license plate of a known alcoholic whose committed a serious driving offense while drunk. If anything it simply shows that they've had a propensity for commiting such crimes in the past. If someone's been shown to commit driving accidents while drunk numerous times, then there's precedent for labeling him a danger to society. By not drinking responsibly and endangering others they give up some of their rights by default.

[Sean Howard]

Why don't we do this for all crimes then. If you've ever shoplifted, let's put a big ass sign around your neck saying "former shoplifter," that way we'll all know who the past shoplifters are! Or lets take it even a step further - if you've ever had a ticket (speeding, parking, etc.), the cops are allowed to pull your ass over, search your car, etc., all because you've proven that you're a sucky ass driver who can't obey the traffic laws.

Sounds pretty stupid huh? That's because it is - once somebody has served their punishment for a crime, they should be eft alone. Why the fuck do you want to have the cops keep hassling them?

Ahh, nice trotting out of a fine slippery slope. Its not as if there's a huge gulf here

So I take it you're in favor of repealing registration of sexual offenders, then? See, I can construct straw men too.

If someone is that reckless with the lives of others, then yes, all we can really do is hope to catch them before they do real damage.

[Sean Howard]

Cops will pull over an erratically weaving car anyway - they don't need a special license to encourage them to do so. And other drivers won't notice unless they're really close.

The problem is that most drunk drivers aren´t that obvious. You can be drunk as fuck and still be able to drive straight, stop at red lights and maintain a normal looking driving style.

The problem is that your reaction will suck, you might have random bad behavior like running into a tree or another car.

I think the licence plates are cool and should be mandatory after the first time you´re caught. Cops will then be more likely to pull you out and you´re going to think twice before drinking and driving again.

So the fact that the constitution prohibits unlawful search and seizures (i.e., without probable cause) doesn't bother you? If somebody's committed a crime one, we should harass them from now on to make sure they don't commit a crime again?

We're not talking about people who commit one crime, we're talking about repeat offenders that show an inability to learn from 3 or 4 DUIs. They've already been thrown in jail, and they still don't get it.

[Sean Howard]

This is a ridiculously simple question to answer. You don't punish someone for something they -might- do.

What? Since when? Then why have DUI laws at all? I mean, they haven't *done* anything until they actually have a wreck.

Ex convicts aren't allowed to own guns. Should we repeal that law as well?

[General Zod]

This is a ridiculously simple question to answer. You don't punish someone for something they -might- do.

What? Since when? Then why have DUI laws at all? I mean, they haven't *done* anything until they actually have a wreck.

Ex convicts aren't allowed to own guns. Should we repeal that law as well?

If they've been sober for several years (say, 7+), where's the probable cause they might operate machinery under the influence again?

[General Zod]

This is a ridiculously simple question to answer. You don't punish someone for something they -might- do.

What? Since when? Then why have DUI laws at all? I mean, they haven't *done* anything until they actually have a wreck.

Ex convicts aren't allowed to own guns. Should we repeal that law as well?

If they've been sober for several years (say, 7+), where's the probable cause they might operate machinery under the influence again?

ghetto edit: this is of course assuming they've had only one offense. two or more, I wouldn't be as willing to take the chance.

[Lonestar]

The problem with this, is that is would take a huge agency to administer these licenses. It would be very expensive, and all that would wind up happening is alcoholics would just get their pals to buy for them.
.

A Huge agency? Perhaps a Department? But what shall we name this Department? Perhaps since it has to do with Motor Vehicles, we should call it the DMV?


C'mon, that's a stupid excuse. It wouldn't put that much more strain on the DMV.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

"
Learn how to use the quote function. That said. . .
"
OF COURSE someone who doesnt use the quote function must not know how to, instead of prefering not to... :roll:

Then start preferring to use the quote function, you ass. Unless you like intentionally making your posts harder to read. In which case, we'll come after you with branding irons and big hammers.

With that being said, in regards to what you said here:

If a friend borrows my car for the weekend and drives it while blind drunk how on earth should MY car by siezed?

That's simple. If you lend your car to a person, then you are still responsible for how that person chooses to use your vehicle, since it is registered and insured under your name. You accept the legal responsiblity for whatever happens to it. If you let someone borrow it, and they choose to get drunk in it, and go driving, then you deserve to have it seized. Especially since, as the dispensation of the vehicle is your legal responsibility, you are obligated to find out if the person you are lending the vehicle to is prone to destructive behaviors, such as driving under the influence.

[Zero]

The problem with this, is that is would take a huge agency to administer these licenses. It would be very expensive, and all that would wind up happening is alcoholics would just get their pals to buy for them.
.

A Huge agency? Perhaps a Department? But what shall we name this Department? Perhaps since it has to do with Motor Vehicles, we should call it the DMV?


C'mon, that's a stupid excuse. It wouldn't put that much more strain on the DMV.

Having a license for drinking wouldn't really probably belong to the DMV. Why would it? This isn't just a proposition about driving, it's about alcohol consumption in general. Having a licensing agency for this and actually enforcing the system would probably be about as easy and enforcing prohibition.