Sounds like drunk seniors would be the penultimate menace then 
drunk seniors trying to text their grandkids…
Young drivers and elderly are higher risks due to conditions over which they have no control.
Young people lack experience and driver training programs are generally only minimal.
The elderly often suffer from deteriorating response times, vision, and often hearing. We (the elderly) would change those thins sif we could. Trust me on that.
I believe that the young drivers would love to have better training and more experience. But only by enhancing driver training could this be accomplished.
But drinken driving is a choice. It’s a conscious choice to ignore the safety and lives of everybody on and off the road. And the same drunks get arrested for DUI over and over and over again. Until eventually someone is killed or maimed. And they often continue even after that happens. We can and should stop this. NOW. The solution is simple, and I’ve written it many times. It involves impounding their vehicle when caught and confiscating the vehicles if convicted. Even if the vehicle is owned by someone other than the drunk driver.
But drinken driving is a choice.
While driving with my brother we were hit by a 19yo DUI. No one was hurt.
In court the parents were trying to plead their case to the judge saying it was just a simple accident. So I asked the parents…“How do you accidentally get drunk??” Was he walking down the road and slip and a bottle of Vodka accidentally poured down his throat???
We first need to get the drunks out of office who vote NO for tougher DUI laws. 30 years ago it was considered a traffic infraction. Now in many states DUI is FINALLY being taken serious. But there are still some states where there are still power-drinkers driving around drunk daily.
Amen, Mike.
I’m glad everybody was okay in your accident.
For some getting drunk is a choice. For others, it is an addiction, and I don’t classify that as a choice. This doesn’t make it OK. IMO, if a driver shows an habitual tendency to drink and drive, he should have his license revoked. Hopefully before anyone else is killed or maimed. And it should stay revoked until the repeat offender can show a long-term, consistent record of sobriety.
Yet, how many have 10, 20, or even 30+ DUIs on their record while still being allowed to drive?
I knowOhio has special license plates for those who have gotten DUIs, but that doesn’t stop them from buying another vehicle under someone else’s name and driving it(know of someone who done this, too)
I'm glad everybody was okay in your accident.
He only hit us going about 20mph…but hit me solidly on the side of my brothers car rear door. No one was hurt. The kid tried to drive away but my brother grabbed him and pulled him from his car by his neck. I had to pull my brother off the little dweeb before he killed him.
For others, it is an addiction
I NEVER bought that argument…and NEVER will. That is a cop out for NOT taking responsibility for their actions. They didn’t take ONE drink and all of a sudden they’re addicted. It usually takes years of power drinking to become addicted to alcohol. They made that choice of getting drunk for years.
This doesn't make it OK. IMO, if a driver shows an habitual tendency to drink and drive, he should have his license revoked.
We have a very famous case here in NH/MA. A guy name Duchane (? on spelling) killed a 12yo girl on Rt 3. This was his 12th DUI. He hadn’t had a license in years. Not only was it his 12th DUI, but also the 3RD time he killed someone. Taking someone drivers license away is nothing more then a slap on the wrist. SIGNIFICANT jail time is a better punishment.
DUI stops for drivers who have already had their liscenses suspended for DUI are so common that I have to agree with Mike… suspending liscenses doesn’t work. I agree with suspending them, but not with doing only that. I agree with jail time, at least for repeat offenders, but also believe that taking the cars is really the only way to have a significant impact on the problem.
I agree with jail time, at least for repeat offenders, but also believe that taking the cars is really the only way to have a significant impact on the problem.
Unfortunately that doesn’t work either. Husband takes WIFE car…or borrows son’s car. But it’s a step in the right direction.
First DUI - Heavy fine and suspended license.
Second DUI - Heavier fine and loss of license for a year. Car impounded while license is suspended.
Third DUI- 1 year in jail - MANDATORY. CANNOT be plea-bargained to a lesser crime. Vehicle impounded indefinitely.
Forth Offense - 5 years in jail - MANDATORY. Loss of license permanently.
If caught driving with a suspended license due to DUI …1- year in jail. Second offense - 5 years in jail.
We need to start treating DUI as a criminal offense. I have no problem with people drinking. Just don’t drink and drive.
Not the way I’ve proposed it. The concept is to impound the car upon failure of a field test and confiscate it upon conviction. Once the word gets out, nobody is going to let someone take their car if they think they might lose it. A husband might take the wife’s car in some cases…once…, but he’ll most surely have a hard time borrowing a friend’s car.
This is not meant to be in place of license suspension or jail time. I believe in those too. I propose this IN ADDITION TO liscense suspension and jail; time.
@the same mountainbike–"The concept is to impound the car upon failure of a field test and confiscate it upon conviction"
I had a fellow graduate student that after we finished our degrees, he stayed on with a research team from the National Highway and Traffic Safety Adminstration as the statistician on an accident investigation team. The research was looking at the cause of auto accidents and to see if vehicle defects played a part. It turned out that vehicles defects were not significant in contributing to the accidents, but drunk driving was a very significant factor. My friend went out at all hours of the day and night to accident scenes to be sure that the data were collected accurately. His conclusion was that in the case of drunk driving, that impounding the car was the only real way to deter this problem. That was 40 years ago, but I think his conclusion is valid todayl
Amen.
Maybe if they charged someone who kills someone while DUI with premeditated murder, then they might think twice.
But with over crowding of prisons as it is, and cities cutting back budgets and officers at the prisons, it wouldn’t do to have more people crammed in there. Maybe just amputate their legs. 
VA,doesnt mess around with DUI,first time offenders are treated rather harshly,2nd time,forget about it-You can end up in Prison pretty easy here on drunk driving charges(along with everything else{VA prisons are also filled with non -violent offenders too,just dont understand the disparity between marijuana and the legal drugs}-Kevin
It is important that we drive cautiously. The sentencing of Edward butler in the DUI death of Tamiko Karminaga and injury of Jorge Maresch took place this week. Butler has been sentenced to serve 2 years and 2 months in jail plus six months of supervised probation for an accident in which he hit the victim’s car killing her, and injuring her son, while driving drunk. His alcohol level was almost three times the legal limit.
PRACTICE “panic” BRAKING.
As a AAA driver instructor during college summer break, I taught students to practice INSTANTLY removing foot from the accelerator and pressing the brake pedal.
With engine off, seat-belts fastened, hands on the wheel and looking out through the windshield, repeat it many times to make it second nature.
I tell seniors and women to do this before each start-up. I practice it.