It’s also encountering resistance from other legislators:
Good idea? Bad idea?
Is there any evidence from the states that have enacted something similar (Ohio especially, whose arrangement seems most similar to what’s proposed) that the threat of a “marker” plate has anything of a deterrent effect? Or, perhaps, that it has improved public safety, by warning other drivers to give the higher-risk vehicles a wider berth?
Or is this just a typically irrational “punish with guilt!” reactionary idea?
Me, I have no opinion as yet. I want to hear the board’s views.
It might, if it acts as an additional deterrent against drunk driving.
But a license plate is assigned to a car, not a particular driver. Why punish all family members who may use the car? And for that matter, what’s to stop the drunk driver from having his/her spouse register the car?
I seriously doubt that chronic drinkers are going to think, “Oh, I’d better call a taxi lest I get caught DUI — I might have to use an ugly license plate!” If they used that much judgment, DUI would be far less prevalent in the first place.
I might support this a bit more if it were treated like someone who’s learning to drive in England: require that someone who’s been convicted of DUI display a prominent “D” sticker/placard in the front and back window when behind the wheel. I still don’t think it would be much of a deterrent, but it would eliminate stigmatizing an innocent who happens to be driving the same vehicle.
Would something like this be used by police to pull these people over more? Can a cop just pull you over because they want to, or make up a lame excuse? Would this be a (un)intended side effect? Could someone call profiling on this?
You get theOhio plate for probationary driving and they’re a heads-up for police to check against the terms of probation. I’ve only seen a couple.
The Ohio law, which took effect on January 1, 2004, requires, rather than allows, courts to order people convicted of operating a vehicle under the influence (OVI) to display “restricted plates. ” The requirement applies to anyone to whom the courts grant limited driving privileges during a period of license suspension. A violator subject to a restricted license order has his regular plates confiscated and must display the restricted plates until his driving privileges are restored.
The feeling of moral superiority we’d all get from knowing which of our friends and coworkers have a DUI on their records? Other than that, I don’t know. I’m really opposed to this trend of shame-based punishments. I doubt it’s effective, and even if it is, the government isn’t everybody’s mom.
Most drunk drivers are not homicidal maniacs. Why should their crime follow them after they’ve paid their debts, while bank robbers and murderers don’t get similar treatment. Is a drunk driver somehow worse than a credit card thief or a wife-abuser?
Seems to me it’s just a way for people to lord their self-righteousness over others.
In Australia, newbie drivers have to display black on yellow “L” plates, while probationary license holders must display “P” plates. Take a look at these L and P plates for South Australia.
It’s understanable to see a driver of practically any age with a L-Plate. They are just learning to drive in Oz. Often, “older” L-platers are new immigrants.
OTOH, A P-plater may mean a new (young) probationary licensed driver, or some who has been driving for years but due to infractions, or a severe infraction, their license status was dropped back to probationary. The street definition is anyone old enough to have a regular license, but displays a P-plate is guilty of DUI or equivalent.
I just wish there was a D-plate, for convicted drug and drunk drivers. I see no problem bringing L-plates and P-plates to America. For me it’s not about public shaming. It’s all about driving clear of drivers who have demonstrated an inability to drive and play safely with others. I would even expand the P-plate use for convicted cell phone user/drivers.
Someone I know in a nameless state got a DUI. I believe that said state had a restricted license plate program. He had a wife and kids who could drive. He was rich enough to have numerous cars and commented that he could just drive the spouse’s or kid’s car. This was not so that he could drive drunk, but so he could avoid the stigma of a DUI (especially when ferrying one’s kid to school, or driving a client to a business meeting). To me, this indicates that the law is inherently biased in favor of someone who is affluent and has additional licensed drivers in their immediate family.
I’d rather see something that cuts down on drunk driving, instead of shaming people who drive drunk.
I’d be in favor of requiring ignition interlocks- then, if the driver has been drinking, they can’t drive. Yes, they could get someone else to blow into the interlock for them, but if they’re going to have someone else along who’s sober, they might as well have a designated driver anyway.
Raise the fines for DUI, and put some of the money toward better public transit. I’ve heard that people in Europe drink more, on average, than Americans, but there’s less drunk driving there. Better public transit probably has something to do with that.
I, too, question just how effective this will be for preventing drunk driving.
Of course, I’m skeptical that the courts still are treating drunk driving as a crime more often than they treat it as a peccadillo. I just know too many people with DUI records who never served the jail time that the law claims to require, or had the license suspension, etc… etc…
Why not enforce the laws we have?
And, yeah, improve mass transit so that there’s no need for someone convicted of DUI to keep their driving privileges to be able to keep their job.
Drunk drivers should be dealt with as being addicted. The penalties are severe now.
We should spend the money on treatment.
We got drivers on heroine and coke. Do we give them a different colored plate. We need another one for guys that smoke weed.
When someone picks up their cell phone a light on the back of their car should go off showing they are driving distracted.
Anne Neville, improving mass transit will do a lot of good things. Though as someone who prefers to grocery shop on the last run of the bus at night, I’d have to change my habits if the buses started looking more palatable to the bar binge crowd.
gonzomax, I am not opposed to treating the drunk driver as an addict, but I don’t think that translates, automatically to treatment without punishment. Treatment as well as punishment would seem better to my mind. I believe that one of the constants for successful substance abuse treatment is to provide the person being treated with clear, and dependable consequences for their actions.
I would also like to raise the question: what fraction of drunk driving arrests involve alcoholics? I have no problem believing that the repeat offender is probably an alcoholic, but I’m less convinced that the first time offender should be treated as such.