|
I know SA has pretty strong opinions on drunk driving. Where would you personally draw the line? The number I've pulled out of my rear end is three.
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 10:58 |
|
|
In my state, it becomes an option after four or more, or after a DUI manslaughter, which I think is reasonable. However, lifetime revocations can still eventually be reinstated if you can convince the state motor vehicles board you have overcome your relevant issues and are a safe driver again. It's not easy by any stretch of the imagination, but I've seen them granted before, including in cases where they probably shouldn't.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
wrong thread
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
One, zero tolerance is the right way to go here. Driving is a privilege.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
Three strikes and you're out!
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Three strikes and you're out! Two within a five year period or three total within lifetime.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
I think if you get caught you should have to take a drunk driving test and if you prove you can handle your poo poo you get a special license.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
Lose your license permanently once your combined BAC of all violations passes 0.4% Provides some leeway for people unlucky enough to be convicted of the laughably low, yet still illegal, 0.08% violations and punishes those quickly who drive while obviously intoxicated with 0.2% BAC. After your third 0.08% infraction, maybe it's time to stop driving after any drinks because you clearly suck enough at driving to continually get pulled over.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
At least in the U.S. drivers license suspensions and revocations do nothing. People continue to drive unless and until they are imprisoned which is uncommon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
Depends on the population density and road quality of the place you are driving. Urban areas have both more motorists and pedestrians who are endangered by drunk driving and more transportation alternatives to driving as well as better/straighter roads that facilitate more dangerous speeds. But basically, its a balancing act between the risk posed by the drunk driver to others and the impact of loss of driving privileges. If you are in a place with enough environmental hazards and few enough people that an impaired driver is pretty much just a danger to themselves - while the loss of driving privileges means they can't effectively live there anymore - there probably is no need for such a limit. They'll generally kill themselves or wise up before they hurt anyone. While in a sufficiently dense area - say downtown Tokyo - zero tolerance would be reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
Dick Trauma posted:At least in the U.S. drivers license suspensions and revocations do nothing. People continue to drive unless and until they are imprisoned which is uncommon. I sold my car to the dude who delivered my dryer the other day. He delivered it in a fuckoff big truck. When signing the papers I actually had to sign it over to his cousin, because the dude who delivered my washer had in fact got his license suspended and wasn't allowed to drive (or own a car)
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
YourHealthyColon posted:One, zero tolerance is the right way to go here. Driving is a privilege. Bingo. Make people with DUI's take a safe cycling course and buy a bus pass.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
A one strike you're out policy just doesn't seem realistic to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
It isn't as big a deal as people make it out to be and the legal limit is laughably low. Why have draconian punishments in this one specific case? Especially when we know that draconian punishments don't work. Energy is better spent trying to improve local infrastructure through improved zoning and improved public transportation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
Dick Trauma posted:At least in the U.S. drivers license suspensions and revocations do nothing. People continue to drive unless and until they are imprisoned which is uncommon. This depends on the state, and often even on the individual county. I'm thinking of an individual case of someone who was driving on a lifetime suspension resulting from a DUI manslaughter conviction. He went to trial (stupidly, as these are generally the most straightforward cases possible) and got five years in prison. He will serve at least four and a half.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
When I was dispatching my cops were constantly pulling drivers over who were revoked. Sometimes their DMV entry showed multiple revocations spanning year after year as the license was extra-super-mega-revoked upon each subsequent violation. On occasion their car would get towed but generally they would get a licensed driver to collect the car and they'd pay their fine and keep on truckin'. One fellow had six DUIs when we nabbed him for lucky number seven, and the only reason he stopped driving for a while was that his car had gone unregistered since the 1970s and we impounded it. Any crime related to substance abuse and addiction is unlikely to be affected by increasingly harsh penalties, but by that measure people who don't give a poo poo are similarly unaffected. You can discuss penalties until you're blue in the face but the responsiveness is on the part of the offender and when it comes to people's desire to drink (and to drive drunk) you won't accomplish anything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
All cars should have integrated breathalyzers that only let it start if you blow low enough.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
Dick Trauma posted:When I was dispatching my cops were constantly pulling drivers over who were revoked. Sometimes their DMV entry showed multiple revocations spanning year after year as the license was extra-super-mega-revoked upon each subsequent violation. On occasion their car would get towed but generally they would get a licensed driver to collect the car and they'd pay their fine and keep on truckin'. One fellow had six DUIs when we nabbed him for lucky number seven, and the only reason he stopped driving for a while was that his car had gone unregistered since the 1970s and we impounded it. Well I can we can go back and forth on deterrence forever, but I can pretty well guarantee you that the guy in my earlier post won't be driving anywhere for awhile, license or no. I don't favor a BAC based standard for permanent revocations, since that ignores the increasingly large problem of people driving around impaired by painkillers or huge doses of alprazolam. I think number of offenses is the way to go.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
prussian advisor posted:Well I can we can go back and forth on deterrence forever, but I can pretty well guarantee you that the guy in my earlier post won't be driving anywhere for awhile, license or no. But we're talking about two different things: license revocation vs. imprisonment. Of course the person in prison isn't going to be driving, but outside of DUIs leading to injuries or death how soon do we escalate an impaired offender to prison time? I'd be interested to find out if there are stats on how often revocation/suspension is violated by the offender. That could inform whether or not speeding up the progression to prison time would make sense. I'd also like to know about the incidence of repeat offenders, both those who only experienced revocation and those who did time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
Maybe after 3 or 4 ban them from driving past 6pm so they can still work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
synftw posted:Maybe after 3 or 4 ban them from driving past 6pm so they can still work. The kind of alkie that gets 3 or 4 DUIs is usually also the kind that gets drunk well before 6pm, and it's not like everyone works 9 to 5 either. By the time you rack up 4 offences, I'm also not particularly fussed if you have to put in a bit of effort in terms of using transit, moving closer to your job, etc, in order to not have to drive to work any more.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
If we want to reduce drunk driving let's look at why it exists in the first place. You won't get people to stop drinking, ever, no don't even try. Humans like to get their drunk on and we aren't stopping any time soon. People often end up driving drunk because there's no other way for them to get home. Our mass transit infrastructure in the States is laughably awful. Socially we make fun of and belittle people for not drinking when everybody else is, even if you're the one driving that night. Plus, like was said, the laws often just don't have teeth. Even then, deterrence can only do so much; it would be better if there was no need to drive drunk in the first place. In other cases we have stupid laws like giving somebody a "public intoxication" charge if they did the right thing and staggered home instead of driving. Hell there are some areas where police would give you a life home if you were doing the right thing. Now they just haul you off to jail and give you fines.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
Dick Trauma posted:When I was dispatching my cops were constantly pulling drivers over who were revoked. Sometimes their DMV entry showed multiple revocations spanning year after year as the license was extra-super-mega-revoked upon each subsequent violation. On occasion their car would get towed but generally they would get a licensed driver to collect the car and they'd pay their fine and keep on truckin'. One fellow had six DUIs when we nabbed him for lucky number seven, and the only reason he stopped driving for a while was that his car had gone unregistered since the 1970s and we impounded it. Do any American cities have plate recognition cctv hooked up to the DMV registry?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
After one, require a breathalyzer to be installed for a few years. After the second, required permanently.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
The sooner "car culture" dies a horrible death and we have public transportation worth a drat, the sooner we can talk about harsh DUI penalties that people might actually abide by.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
I think whatever harm you do in a car should befall you and your family.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
Cicero posted:After one, require a breathalyzer to be installed for a few years. After the second, required permanently. Or we should just install them in every car.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
I think DUI should not only be legal, but strongly encouraged. Mandate beer helmets for all drivers, so they can stay focused on the road while they drink.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Or we should just install them in every car. It's not like they're expensive and easily circumventable by getting a sober person to start your car, or leaving your car running while you drink. Seriously, the only solution is to make it easier for people to drink without driving. Neighbourhood pubs, 24-hour transit, better taxi availability, etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
Mercury_Storm posted:The sooner "car culture" dies a horrible death and we have public transportation worth a drat, the sooner we can talk about harsh DUI penalties that people might actually abide by. Got the cart before the horse there chief. Car culture isn't to blame, single-family homeownership is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
PT6A posted:It's not like they're expensive and easily circumventable by getting a sober person to start your car, or leaving your car running while you drink. b...but that would displease our lords and masters... THE GREAT JOB CREATORS of the automotive industry.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
PT6A posted:It's not like they're expensive and easily circumventable by getting a sober person to start your car, or leaving your car running while you drink. They're getting cheaper already, and if they were mandated in every car, they'd be cheaper still. Plus it's not meant to stop everybody, but it will keep people honest. No system will be completely effective against someone who really wants to drive a car when they're drunk, but it will stop plenty of people who don't THINK they're drunk. I agree that we should do that other stuff too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
What about legalizing cocaine and providing it at bars? It will help the drunk citizens sober up before their drive home. MDMA will also work!
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
Mercury_Storm posted:The sooner "car culture" dies a horrible death and we have public transportation worth a drat, the sooner we can talk about harsh DUI penalties that people might actually abide by. Exactly. The problem here is that in most of America, it's flat-out not feasible to get from any (affordable, at least) place worth living in to any place worth working at without driving. You can't just say "driving is a privilege" and expect people to quietly accept a life of soul-crushing poverty as punishment for DUI.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
PT6A posted:It's not like they're expensive and easily circumventable by getting a sober person to start your car, or leaving your car running while you drink. I know a lot of people with interlocks and it's best use is to force people into prioritizing their drinking. Yeah, maybe there's the dude with the sober friend who is a pushover or doesn't care but most people learn to keep their drinking at home and not if they need to work the next day or bike more. What's bulls hit about interlocks is the service fees they slap on use+installation in my opinion. I'd be fine with just taking drivers licenses away but a lot of jobs have mandatory requirements of a valid drivers license even if you don't have to drive for work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:I know a lot of people with interlocks and it's best use is to force people into prioritizing their drinking. Yeah, maybe there's the dude with the sober friend who is a pushover or doesn't care but most people learn to keep their drinking at home and not if they need to work the next day or bike more. What's bulls hit about interlocks is the service fees they slap on use+installation in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
I have had an employee get a DUI and he just about ended up homeless over it. A few wealthier acquaintances got a DUI and pretty much just threw money at the problem and laughed it off. I would like to see some sort of asset based or income based penalty system. That said, I do know someone who got their driving privlages permanently revoked. I think it was 5 offenses. The worst part: she was a high school English teacher. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
One. It is so dangerous and the consequences for innocent people can literally be death. The fact that it's tolerated at all is mind blowing. I'd rather pay for some drunk idiot to collect a welfare check because he can't drive than I would have said idiot on the road.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
The idea of one is insane. So many people drive drunk, in the tens of millions, a year in America. Texting causes more teen deaths than drunk driving.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 10:58 |
|
|
Why do people seem to think that a .08 BAC isn't significant impairment? If you can't walk right you sure as gently caress shouldn't be driving, and that's a significant number of drinks for your average guy. Really, if you feel impaired then you are VERY loving impaired. Also, is there any research on why people drive drunk? I mean obviously some are addicts who can't control themselves or are simply drunk 24/7, but it seems like most drunk drivers are just assholes who don't give a poo poo about the risk of killing or maiming innocent people (and alcohol enhances poor decision-making). Alcoholics aren't going to respond to harsh punishments, but that latter group is if they think it might happen to them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 02:47
|
|
