I’m the creator of the proposed solution to reducing drunk driver fatalities, so I do get to make the rules concerning what vehicles are considered too big or tall for people with a previous DUI to be allowed to drive.
I would like to add that in my proposed solution, that someone who gets a DUI while driving a smaller vehicle would not lose the privilege of driving a larger vehicle without also losing the privilege of driving the smaller vehicle. Doing so would remove the reduced risk incentive of driving the smaller vehicle and the whole purpose of the law would be eliminated.
edit: Here is an example of the current system that doesn’t work. A drunk decides to ride a 49cc moped. The drunk gets a DUI, the moped is impounded, and the drunk loses the privilege of driving all vehiles. Next time around the drunk says forget it I’ll drive my truck because the penalty of getting caught on the moped versus the truck is the same.
@cdaquila I apologize for covid comments but do have all sorts of credentials to back it up
I lost my gym buddy two months ago to a drunk driver hit and run and I know how stupid and preventable these are. So agree with anything done to prevent it.
Let’s make it 20 years in prison instead of 10 years for killing someone while driving drunk in Illinois! edit: Now that was sarcasm. This is the kind of thinking that got us where we are. It’s only enforced after the innocent person is killed. 10 or 20 or 30 years in prison and the person that the drunk driver killed is still dead. Or we could be smart and put the person in prison for a while before they kill someone! When they get out they can ride a 49cc scooter and then work up to being able to legally drive vehicle that weighs under 3200 pounds.
In France people who get DUIs have to go to the hospital for days and spend time with patients who were severely injured by drunk drivers.
I suspect there is some undisclosed information in that case.
In Nevada the first DUI offence carries up to a 30-day jail sentence, driver’s license revocation of 6 months or breath interlock device installed in the vehicle, decision is up to the judge. Also attend a DUI school, Victim impact panel, community service and probation.
With a direct correlation between vehicle height and increased pedestrian fatalities, what other causes do you attribute the increase to?
The only conclusion I can logically draw is that increased vehicle height reduces visibility directly in front of the vehicle, which increases the risk of severe injury and death to pedestrians. This is due (at least in part) to the design of the vehicle’s front end.
The problem with that proposal is that there is no proof that the threat of 10 extra years in prison would work as a deterrent. Do you really think drunks are doing those kinds of calculations in their heads when they choose to drink and drive? I think you are greatly overestimating the thinking power of the average drunk.
So what is your plan when they get pulled over for the 2nd or 3rd time for a DUI with no license and insurance ?
Taking away their car and license won’t stop them, they don’t have a license or insurance now, and they’ll just go buy another cheap car. Most states don’t require a license or proof of insurance to buy a car, especially from a private party.
Mike , it just more of this person’s Trolling nonsense . I and others have posted that he really could be a danger to people who don’t realize that he really does not know anything.
I was being sarcastic and you’re exactly right. The threat of 10 years in prison isn’t any different than 20 for a drunk.
I meant to say that under the current messed up system if the drunk is riding a 49cc moped drunk that they lose the privilege of driving all vehicles. With this system there is no incentive for the drunk to ride the 49cc moped instead of the truck. They way it should be is that the penalty for riding the 49cc moped should be very minimal compared to driving a car or large vehicle. I’ll edit my post make it more clear.
The small motorcycle won’t ever be taken away, neither will the license to ride it. If they’re driving a large vehicle while drunk it will be impounded.
All or nothing thinking with refusal to compromise from you. If my plan could reduce the number of innocent people killed by drunks by 1/3, you don’t like it because you look at the 2/3 that still die and say it’s no good.
Yes, the response to the challenge to show evidence was sanitized, but not the challenge. Doesn’t matter.
On to drunk driving, I have not known anyone killed by a drunk myself and certainly sympathize with those that have. The question is what if anything would mitigate the issue. In Minnesota I believe as the penalty increases, those charged fight the charge harder and plea to a lesser charge. I think the average cost of a dui is $20,000 with lawyer fees. Seems like a fairly substantial penalty in itself without jail time.
Fatalities from alcohol appear to be around 25% of the total fatalities. Many are single car crashes. An alcohol fatality though is classified as such if there is any alcohol in the blood, not over the limit. And it appears most are killings themselves and not others. So it’s hard to tell how big a problem it is, but Minnesota puts a lot of effort into it which will vary state by state…I myself have never driven with even one drink since 1968. It is a choice and decision for me. I would also vote against legalizing pot to make matters worse.
I would just caution thinking that strickter penalties is the answer since it so far doesn’t appear to help much. The old definition of insanity. The culture in France an Norway may be way different than the us and not comparable
I did know one childhood friend that got drunk and drove 80 in a 30 and killed someone. Went to jail for manslatter. When I went to his funeral a few years ago it appeared he had turned his life around so something worked.
So how do you change the culture of a drinker? Probably not 20 years in jail and prohibition didn’t turn out to well. There is a sick element in society but laws are likely to make no difference.
.
Over the past 3 or 4 years, it seems that there has been an increasing number of one-vehicle crashes, almost always with fatal results. It also seems that there is rarely a follow-up news story regarding the “condition” of the driver prior to dying. I theorize that a very large percentage of these crashes are the result of the driver being drunk/high on drugs, but it is rare that we find out the probable cause.
I’ve always wondered why the police don’t park their cars in parking lots where drinkers are likely to be leaving the establishment and getting in their car to leave. Then if someone leaving appears to be even slightly impaired, after they start their car & drive from the parking lot, pull them over and give them a DUI test. Seems like the common sense approach, focus DUI enforcement attention on driver’s who’s actions demonstrate there’s an excellent chance they have actually been drinking. I presume there must be a reason why this seems to be uncommon.
I heard a joke about that the police were doing what you suggested after a while they saw a guy stagger out and bounce of of 3 or 4 cars before he got to his car he fumbled around with his keys before finally getting it started and barely missing hitting a few cars got to the street and left of course the police pulled him over and gave him a breathalyxer test that he passed the police said the machine must be broken the guy told them there was nothing wrong with the machine that he was sober but he was the dedicated decoy.
