Something similar happend to the family of a guy I know. Whole family in an SUV on the way to a ski area, and a speeding drunk in a sports car crosses the center-line and head-ons them. Again, they all made it. (except for the drunk…sometimes life IS fair)
What is REALLY sad is this story was reported in the press “Entire Family in Hospital” So some human slime went in and cleaned out (burgaled) thier house.
It got bad when they were discharged as well, all with multiple broken bones, and nobody able-bodied in the household as a caregiver.
Force him to move to New York City, or at least close to public transport. I won’t even mind if the gov’t needs to pay for the difference between his current rent and the rent at an apartment near the train station - it’s got to be cheaper than keeping him in prison.
Still, the way I see it, this type of incident is an inevitable consequence of our over-dependence on cars. We can choose to continue using cars the way we do now, and tolerate such incidents once in a while. And continue to sacrifice 40,000 lives every year through more “normal” accidents. Or we can choose to reduce our reliance on cars. Tough choice, I know.
I knew a guy for a while who went through a bad patch WRT his driver’s license being suspended. It wasn’t for DUI (i don’t think) I don’t really remember why it was suspended but he used to say “you don’t need a license to drive, you just need one if you get stopped”.
All the suspensions, probation and fines or even jail time in the world won’t really stop someone who is determined to do what they want.
Thanks for the link and thank you for setting my mind at ease, that yes, we are and we can make a substantial difference against needless death on our roads.
A guy at my racketball club said he wenmt to Ohio last yr for a football game. He got a DUI on way home. Min .08 After he resolved it with Ohio ,Michigan fined him 2600 and put him on probation. he pays a monthly fee for that. What if the rules were differerent from state to state. Some are still .10,I think.
I didnt know they could or would do that.He says 1st off.
Which brings up my idea. Why not pass a law that (in effect) says “If convicted of a DUI, we keep your vehicle.” Only exception is if the offending driver has stolen it.
Think about it. No one can continue to indefinitely give their vehicles to the state. Insurance and car loan companies won’t go near anyone with multiple DUIs. And any transportation company would refuse to hire them for fear of losing their trucks.
I realize there are some details to be worked out with this solution, but it would stop the problem at its source. No one can drive drunk if they can’t get a car.
Except that you can get beaters in driving condition for a few hundred bucks, and I’m reasonably sure that chronic drunk drivers aren’t fretting about their insurance costs – they don’t have any.
A truck had an accident with no other vehicles involved. When the cops showed up, they found the truck lying on its side, its load of candy and snacks strewn about and the driver and his wife still stunned but not badly hurt.
The driver had lost his license in 2001, for 4 years, for repeated DUIs. Caught again (lots of routine checks on truck drivers), add two years to the license loss. Caught again… he’s supposed to be llicense-less until 2017. Yet he was driving.
Drunk.
And, acting as copilot, his wife, whom he isn’t supposed to even visit after a sentence for battery :smack:
Can we pit the moron, his wife, his employers and Spanish judges, please? Spanish is a great language to cuss in, but these levels of collective moronity leave me speechless.
I know driving drunk even once can have grave repercussions. I know I drove while impaired on countless occasions in the past. Fortunately, never caused damage to anyone or any property other than my own vehicle. Never got a ticket. Lucky me. Don’t drink anymore, so that particular stupidity is in my past.
I know several folks who got DUIs. Cost them each several thousand dollars and some significant restrictions for some time. All but one of them treated their first conviction extremely seriously, and simply would not drink if they were going to drive, or would be with a designated driver if they intended to drink. So I’m not sure an initial conviction absent injury need be punished much more severely than at present.
But IMO repeat DUI convictions should be dealt with as severely as most violent crimes. And more severly than drug possession and use, prostitution, theft, and many crimes against property. I would have no problem with life imprisonment without parole for a 3d DUI. Hell, if I thought it would be administered fairly, predictably, and inexpensively, I wouldn’t be all that upset with folks that reckless and stupid simply being put down, but I certainly wouldn’t seriously recommend that as social policy.
So these drunk people “tootling home after a Christmas party” are less likely to be involved in a fatal car accident than the guy in the next lane who is a repeat offender, because…?
I am of the opinion that anyone caught driving drunk should have a hand cut off. But the law disagrees with me.
Last week in Montreal, a drunk driver who killed a person was put on probation for 18 months. On the same day, a protester who climbed onto a bridge was sentenced to 20 months in prison.
Not less likely that evening, I guess, but as others have said, the chances of the repeat offender are higher if only because he’s on the road more often drunk.
I actually try to be nice even in the Pit these days but it really annoys me when people don’t read to the end of the thread. This point has already been made:
In another thread people are discussing law versus justice. It’s situations like this that make extra-judicial justice appealing. No matter what the protester did to earn(?) a 20-month sentence, a drunken murderer (and I strongly feel murder is the right call for any homicide while the driver is impaired) deserves a longer sentence.
One interferes with business the other does not. Alcohol ,bars ,restaurants will keep the lid off the crime enough to maintain business.
Question Has the bar business become less lucrative in the last 20 years.? Is the only casualty of the crackdown the local bar.?
