Marking repeat drunk drivers with special license plates

[Bertie Wooster]

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?"

[General Zod]

It's not too bad of a policy, though one idea that I was toying about with myself awhile back was a "license to drink". Drinking is by no means a right. Given the sheer propensity for people to do stupid and dangerous things under the influence, I'd figure needing a license to do so would be a good idea. Basic idea; you get so many chances after being issued a license upon turning 21. Depending on the severity of abusing these chances, you're charged with simple misdemeanors and one chance is knocked off your license. After all your chances to not commit illegal/stupid acts while drunk are used up, you're no longer allowed to drink, without paying majorly heavy fines, going through special courses, etc.

Serious offenders, those who commit things like murder, repeat drunken driving, etc. get their privileges revoked indefinitely, and anyone who decides to drink without a license gets a nice fat felony charge, if they've already had it taken away once. Anyways, that's the basic jist at least.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

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?"

It's a start, but it doesn't accomplish much, except to let you know, when you're about to be hit by some drunken asshole late at night, that, yes, they are a repeat offender, and yes, the state was stupid enough to let them keep their license, their car, and their ability to buy a new car after they wrecked the last one after getting behind the wheel drunk.

Needless to say, you might be able to pick out what my feelings on what the state should do with drunk drivers is. (I live in the drunk-driving capital of the nation, sadly.)

[Stormin]

3 dui convictions should result in permenant removal of your drivers liscence. I think that's how it is here atleast.

[Big Phil]

What does this accomplish, other than perhaps embarassing the drunk? It's certainly not going to prevent them from driving drunk in the future...

[Bertie Wooster]

What does this accomplish, other than perhaps embarassing the drunk? It's certainly not going to prevent them from driving drunk in the future...

It's a safety measure as opposed to a punishment.

If they do drive drunk in the future, other drivers would be able to tell to be more wary of cars marked as such, and police would be much more likely to pull over a marked car that's driving erratically on a weekend night.

[Big Phil]

What does this accomplish, other than perhaps embarassing the drunk? It's certainly not going to prevent them from driving drunk in the future...

It's a safety measure as opposed to a punishment.

If they do drive drunk in the future, other drivers would be able to tell to be more wary of cars marked as such, and police would be much more likely to pull over a marked car that's driving erratically on a weekend night.

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.

[Sean Howard]

It's not too bad of a policy, though one idea that I was toying about with myself awhile back was a "license to drink". Drinking is by no means a right. Given the sheer propensity for people to do stupid and dangerous things under the influence, I'd figure needing a license to do so would be a good idea. Basic idea; you get so many chances after being issued a license upon turning 21. Depending on the severity of abusing these chances, you're charged with simple misdemeanors and one chance is knocked off your license. After all your chances to not commit illegal/stupid acts while drunk are used up, you're no longer allowed to drink, without paying majorly heavy fines, going through special courses, etc.

Serious offenders, those who commit things like murder, repeat drunken driving, etc. get their privileges revoked indefinitely, and anyone who decides to drink without a license gets a nice fat felony charge, if they've already had it taken away once. Anyways, that's the basic jist at least.

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.

What I don't get is that DUI penalties right now are very stiff, and yet, I personally have met people who have 5 DUIs. How the hell do you not learn after one or 2? #3 requires mandatory jail time here. These people could truly give a shit about the consequences of their actions.

They are at the point where they deserve constant harrassment from cops. Bright orange license plates sound pretty good to me.

[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 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.

[salm]

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.

[Zed Snardbody]

I think we need to stop charging them with man slaughter and reckless endangerment and the like and start charging drunk drivers with murder and attempted murder.

If your stupid enough to drive drunk and be caught, you shouldn't be allowed to pilot a ton and a half of metal.

Its a choice to drink, and a choice to drink to excess. A person doesn't need to drink, and if they do and kill someone, it should be no different than murder. They represent a danger to anyone on the road.

Rant follows:

To hell with bitching about second hand smoke and how smoking kills, how about drinking and how it actually harms innocents. Goddamn stupid Truth bullshit

[TimothyC]

I've seen these plates 3 times. (I'm from Ohio).

Two of the times the car was driving erratically, and I gave them even more room than usual.

The other time the driver used a tinted plate cover to hide the fact that he had the special plate in the first place.

I personally like the idea.

[Broomstick]

What I don't get is that DUI penalties right now are very stiff, and yet, I personally have met people who have 5 DUIs. How the hell do you not learn after one or 2? #3 requires mandatory jail time here. These people could truly give a shit about the consequences of their actions.

It's called "addiction"

Ordinary folks might get 1 or 2 DUI's over the course of a lifetime. Alcholics might get them weekly. Addiction to alcohol is just as compelling as addiction to any other drug. It's not that they don't care about consequences, it's that they care more about getting that next drink.

Giving a real alcholic a "second chance" doesn't work until they've been sober a couple years.

[Darth Wong]

I don't see why they don't just give them a stiff prison sentence after the first couple of DUI offenses.

[Sean Howard]

What I don't get is that DUI penalties right now are very stiff, and yet, I personally have met people who have 5 DUIs. How the hell do you not learn after one or 2? #3 requires mandatory jail time here. These people could truly give a shit about the consequences of their actions.

It's called "addiction"

Ordinary folks might get 1 or 2 DUI's over the course of a lifetime. Alcholics might get them weekly. Addiction to alcohol is just as compelling as addiction to any other drug. It's not that they don't care about consequences, it's that they care more about getting that next drink.

Giving a real alcholic a "second chance" doesn't work until they've been sober a couple years.

Its actually called "addiction coupled with incredible levels of irresponsibility and/or stupidity".

What, like its impossible to drink at home?

[Mr Flibble]

I don't see why they don't just give them a stiff prison sentence after the first couple of DUI offenses.

Personally I think it should be after the first offence. There is no excuse for drunk driving. I think any DUI offense should result in permanent loss of drivers license. If you can't stop yourself from drinking before driving, then you have no place driving a vehicle.

[Broomstick]

Its actually called "addiction coupled with incredible levels of irresponsibility and/or stupidity".

What, like its impossible to drink at home?

Addiction has nothing to do with responsibility or thinking thing out.

Addiction makes you do stupid shit for bad reasons.

Alcoholics drink at home, at work, in the car... they'd drink in their sleep if they could find a way to do so. By definition an alcoholic is someone who is no longer responsible about alcohol consumption, which is why they need to give it up entirely to "recover". It is impossilbe for such a person to consume alcohol in a responsible manner, or to act responsibly while under the influence.

Which is why alcoholics should not be permitted to operate heavy machinery such as an automobile. At least not until they've been sober for a considerable length of time, like several years at least.

[Sean Howard]

Which is why alcoholics should not be permitted to operate heavy machinery such as an automobile. At least not until they've been sober for a considerable length of time, like several years at least.

Agreed, but how do you know they won't someday drink again, and reenter this magical state where they aren't supposed to be held responsible for their actions?

[General Zod]

Which is why alcoholics should not be permitted to operate heavy machinery such as an automobile. At least not until they've been sober for a considerable length of time, like several years at least.

Agreed, but how do you know they won't someday drink again, and reenter this magical state where they aren't supposed to be held responsible for their actions?

This is a ridiculously simple question to answer. You don't punish someone for something they -might- do. If they've shown they've been sober for a long period of time there's no reason to believe they'll go back to the bottle anytime soon. Also, what the hell is this bullfuckery about alcoholics not being required to be held responsible for their actions? I don't remember anyone spouting that particular line of idiocy in this thread.

[SCRawl]

There are some good reasons for making the bright orange "I'm a stupid fucker" license plate, and they've been posted already.

Here are a couple of points against it:

- The license plate goes on a vehicle, not on a driver. In a household with teenagers which includes a former DUI offender, there may be two, three, or more legally licensed drivers who use the same vehicle.

- The license plate doesn't actually prevent a repeat DUI offender from further repetitions. It only makes him easier to pick out. While this is a (mildly) laudable goal, it doesn't achieve the holy grail: it won't prevent the guy from driving drunk again. If he does re-offend, he'll be easier to catch, by which time he's probably already done the damage.

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. It isn't perfect, not by a long shot, but it's more helpful than an "I'm a drunk" bumper sticker. And some jurisdictions require that DUI offenders install them in their cars, at their expense.

As Broomstick pointed out, though, the problem isn't always that these people are stupid, or uncaring. If they are alcoholics, there's nothing to be done about them until they get the drinking under control. I used to work for one such person: he had a total of *seven* DUI convictions in Ontario, though all but two were before the more recent severe penalties were introduced. The sixth of these convictions included a license suspension, but this doesn't really stop a person from driving -- it merely stops them from driving legally.

The seventh offence involved a near-fatal car wreck. The offender is deceased now, after having eaten his gun a few years ago. I can vouch for the fact that we're all better off without him.

Anyways, the point I was making is that for an alcoholic, driving and driving sober are practically mutually exclusive. Until you fix the drinking, either by incarceration, medication, or addiction recovery, I don't see how you're going to fix the driving drunk.

[NapoleonGH]

"for those who are convicted of drunk driving 3 times in 5 years, or 5 times in 10 years. "

Why dont we instead institute a program teaching our drivers HOW to drive while drunk, so as to reduce the harms of driving while intoxicated?

[NapoleonGH]

"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.

[Chmee]

Convicted 3 times in 5 years?

Confiscate the car, auction it off, proceeds to a victim's fund .....

The *only* thing that will keep one of these stupid fucks from driving is a lack of a car.

[NapoleonGH]

"Confiscate the car, auction it off, proceeds to a victim's fund .....

The *only* thing that will keep one of these stupid fucks from driving is a lack of a car.
"
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?

[Chmee]

"Confiscate the car, auction it off, proceeds to a victim's fund .....

The *only* thing that will keep one of these stupid fucks from driving is a lack of a car.
"
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?

Fair enough, I only meant confiscation of the car if the driver is the legal owner.