• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

DUI license plates

More people are killed because of speeding then are killed by drunk drivers.
 
Tmy said:
More people are killed because of speeding then are killed by drunk drivers.
Click to expand...

I'm willing to bet they were killed because they were driving like morons at high speed rather than just speeding.
 
Tmy said:
More people are killed because of speeding then are killed by drunk drivers.
Click to expand...

Although you may be right about speeding causing more deaths than drunk driving, that's a very bad use of statistics.

What you have to do is compare number of deaths from speeding of the total number of people who were speeding, with the number of people who died from drunk driving of the total number of people who drove drunk.

For example, if 2 people die from speeding, and 100 people speed (2% fatality rate), and only 1 person dies from an accident caused by alcohol, and only 2 people drive drunk (a 50% fatality rate), then obviously alcohol would be considered more dangerious than speeding, even if the total number of deaths were less.
 
What about drunks who also speed? Doh!

Originally posted by Tmy

You would rather these people lose their jobs, bankrupt their familes and have them move to the welfare rolls cause they had couple of martinis?
Click to expand...
I'd rather they used public transportation to get to work for awhile. I have little sympathy for drunk drivers. It's their problem how they adjust their lives around their conviction. I'd prefer they went straight to jail on their first offense. Then they'd REALLY have a problem working now wouldn't they? As it is now, you can have several convictions and never do any jail time.

My sisters boyfriend was recently convicted for his second DUI (or was it DWI?). Cost him $1000s and weekend work programs, and AA meetings. A month after he was convicted he was caught driving his vehicle. Now he may do 30 days behind bars (jail that is) and he's scared of that. As much as I like the guy, he should do jail time and not be able to drive at all for at least a year. He can get to work without a vehicle (but not to his friends house to drink).

None of these deterrents stopped him from driving. Maybe he should have spent time in jail to begin with on his first offense. It's the only thing he seems worried about

I don't see what good a special license plate would do...some good points have already been made by others. I just assume everyone on the road is a potential danger and drive accordingly.
 
Segnosaur said:


that's a very bad use of statistics.
Click to expand...

I learned it from watching MADD alright! I learned it from watching MADD! *sob*



Hey Im not sayingthat DUI are a good thing, but I just dont think we should destroy peoples lives for making a mistake. Especially since so many other worse crimes get off with relativly little punishment. You could walk up to a stranger and punch him in the face and get less trouble than if you got pulled over (for say, a broken tailight) and end up blowing a .08.

As for taking public transportaion, that is not a realistic option for most people.
 
Tmy said:

I learned it from watching MADD alright! I learned it from watching MADD! *sob*
Click to expand...

Maybe you should join D.A.M.M.... Drunks against Mad Mothers.

Tmy said:

Hey Im not sayingthat DUI are a good thing, but I just dont think we should destroy peoples lives for making a mistake. Especially since so many other worse crimes get off with relativly little punishment.
Click to expand...

But your original post didn't mention 'worse crimes'... you mentioned speeding and said it was a greater threat than drunk driving. I was just refuting that particular point.

And of 'worse' crimes get off with little punishment, maybe we should be looking at those other crimes to see if they are punished too lightly.

Tmy said:

You could walk up to a stranger and punch him in the face and get less trouble than if you got pulled over (for say, a broken tailight) and end up blowing a .08.
Click to expand...

Does this actually happen? Seems to me punching a stranger would be assault and would result in jail time.

Blowing a 0.08 may result in a liscense suspension, maybe even a fine, but at least where I'm from (Canada) its unlikely you'd be put in prison.

Tmy said:

As for taking public transportaion, that is not a realistic option for most people.
Click to expand...

Why exactly do you say that? I didn't get my driver's liscence until I was in my 30s; I simply arranged my life to be able to get around without a vehicle. I've had co-workers (ones who still had cars) move so they could be closer to bus lines to get to work. Another co-worker recently lost his ability to drive due to health problems, yet he still manages to come to work.

Public transportation isn't a realistic option because people don't want the inconvenience. But if they are going to risk other people's lives by driving drunk, they should realize that they could get burned because of it.
 
DAMM through me out because of my political views!

Public transportation is pretty much limited to people who live in an urban center and work a steady 9-5 job.

How many times are there bar fights were nothing happens. Even if a personis arrested they most likely will get off with less punishment than a DUI perp.
 
Tmy said:
Public transportation is pretty much limited to people who live in an urban center and work a steady 9-5 job.
Click to expand...

The majority of people do live in urban centers, and most work either a 9-5 job, or work hours where at least some public transportation is available.

If you do live out in the middle of nowhere, that should be even more reason to be extra cautious about your driving habits.

Tmy said:
How many times are there bar fights were nothing happens. Even if a personis arrested they most likely will get off with less punishment than a DUI perp.
Click to expand...

Trouble is, with a bar fight, it may be difficult to determine who 'started it'. (If nobody is clearly 'in the wrong', then pressing charges is difficult.) There are other issues as well: risk (a 'bar fight' usually doesn't involve control of a moving vehicle with enoug size to kill), and the people affected (two drunks fighting probably should share the blame, but if a drunk driver runs over a kid, the kid is likely 100% innocent.)
 
We take licenses away to protect the public not to punish (most states you automatically lose your license by refusing or failing a breathalzyer test. You havent been convicted of anything). Chances are if a person is just going to work n back they wont be loaded.


If you run over a kid thats more than DUI. Just like if you punch a guy and he dies, thats more than assualt.

AS for mass transit. You bascially have to live in the inner city to have door to door service. Many people take trains in from the burbs. Even they have to drive to the park n rides.
 
I think we need other special license plate or car decorations:

For one, stickers for how many points on your license, and/or accidents you have had in the last year or so. You see someone with three bright stars, you know to give them LOTS of room, because they're going to do something right out of a blonde joke.
 
Grammatron said:


I guess it's the same logic the use to scare people into not taking drugs. Did anybody see that commercial where they say, "in a recent study most of the drivers involved in an accident tested positive for marijuana." That's shocking until you ask a simple question: Was marijuana cause of all those accidents? I am willing to bet the answer is no.
Click to expand...

But that's not what the ad said.

It said that most of the drivers involved in accidents who were tested for drugs tested positive for marijuana. Testing for drugs is not common and practically only happens when there is probable cause, i.e. veiny, glassy eyeballs with blown pupils. So it's not surprising that most tested positive for marijuana. Perhaps the rest were on their way home from a once-yearly appointment with the optometrist.
 
epepke said:


But that's not what the ad said.

It said that most of the drivers involved in accidents who were tested for drugs tested positive for marijuana. Testing for drugs is not common and practically only happens when there is probable cause, i.e. veiny, glassy eyeballs with blown pupils. So it's not surprising that most tested positive for marijuana. Perhaps the rest were on their way home from a once-yearly appointment with the optometrist.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry I misquoted that propaganda BS of a commercial :)

It still makes it sound that people who cause accidents abuse drugs like marijuana and I am certainly "happy" that my tax dollars are paying for these ads.
 
Tmy said:


You would rather these people lose their jobs, bankrupt their familes and have them move to the welfare rolls cause they had couple of martinis?

Murders dont catch so much grief.
Click to expand...

Timmy, you ignorant slut.

You're weighing a drunk's family's CONVENIENCE against a legitimate public health hazard. Would you absolve a robber who shot and missed during a hold up?

Accountability. It's not like the drunk bastid couldn't call a friend or a cab. You seem to think driving drunk is okay. What gives?
 
Tmy said:


AS for mass transit. You bascially have to live in the inner city to have door to door service. Many people take trains in from the burbs. Even they have to drive to the park n rides.
Click to expand...

So now it has to be door-to-door service. Quite the advocate for the drunks, aren't you? CALL A FREAKIN CAB YOU IDIOT. Otherwise, walk a few blocks from the bus stop. If you can't walk it, what makes you think you can drive it? Sheesh.
 
Well, there does need to be some form of punishment for drunk drivers that works to discourage people from doing while at the same time not ruining their lives. I don't think giving them a "scarlet letter" is going to be a good idea because people are going to adjust their driving around them. People will see the plate and some will slow down, some will speed up to pass, it will just be a mess.

Perhaps we should really just come down hard on them, even the first time. Like a mandatory 1 year jail sentence. I think that would really help because most drunk drivers are just ordinary people, and ordinary people have too much to lose if they go to jail. I think the prospects of a year in jail will help remind you to call a cab or a friend.
 
epepke said:


Cops have computers in their cars and practically spend half their careers punching license plate numbers into them. So why do they need a special license plate?
Click to expand...

Do you really believe this?

Let's pretend it is true that cops spend half their careers punching license plate numbers into the computers in their cars.

1. How long would it take to run one license plate number?

2. How many cars would pass by while this one license plate number was being processed?

3. What are the odds the license plate number would come back with a "Wanted"?

4. If you were a cop, would you waste your time doing this any more after your ran the first few cars through the computer?

If that is all you have by way of objection to a special license plate, it doesn't strike me as a good one.
 
As a former regularly drunk driver and member of D.A.M.M. (I had the T-shirt), I think the DUI laws and punishment are appropriate.

I have been hit by a drunk driver. After he hit me, the drunk tried to talk me into letting him go. I told him I could not in good conscience let him go so that he could go out and ram into somebody else. He was far gone.

And it is a good thing I didn't let him go. As it turned out, he had been arrested for drunk driving exactly one week prior. The cop who responded to the accident happened to be the same cop who had arrested the drunk the week before.

A state trooper once told us he had been hit five times by drunk drivers. And this was while he was on the side of the road with his police lights flashing while writing a speeding ticket.

If somebody is so drunk that they can't see a police car with its lights flashing, well, they should never have gotten behind the wheel.

What punishment do you recommend for someone who has gotten their second DUI? Their third? Their fourth? Their fifth? I know a woman who got five in three years. I don't know why she wasn't put in prison.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom