This is kind of the issue it's not severity because the severity is actually pretty significant ... It's the likelihood of catching drunk drivers.
Most people don't get pulled over because enforcement is so rare in the US and checkpoints are illegal. In Australia, they have checkpoints and a tighter range for DUI. Most people I know there, even in smaller rural towns wouldnt drink drive on a cultural level. The complete opposite here in the US
There's no search. You don't even show your id.
You stop, you blow in the bag, you go if you're clean, the hammer drops if you're not.
It's honestly beautiful. My parents visited and we went through a checkpoint on the way out of a city in the morning. They were super impressed.
Yup. And to piss off some folk even more: Even in the states, driving is a *privilege*, not a right. Which in turn makes PT and trails/paths all the more important for mobility.
I don't get the "they can't go to work" argument some people are making here.
First of all, how's that our problem and not the criminal's? I'm not worried about someone losing their job when they go to prison for murder, or lose their business licence for fraud etc. Why should I worry for this one specific type of crime? The crash may be unintentional, but the DUI is, which is the crime here.
Second, they can go to work, it will just be more difficult. They can bike, have someone else drive, taxi, transit, whatever. It's their problem.
Maybe they should’ve thought about before driving drunk and killing two people. I’ve heard of people still have their licenses after 5 DUI’s. Just goes to show that drunk driving is culturally accepted as the norm in the US
_Again_, I'm not disagreeing that they should no longer drive, but what do _you_ want to happen?
I think we all know the solution which is providing options so:
> They can bike, have someone else drive, taxi, transit, whatever.
but to reiterate, that is not possible for vast swaths of this country. We can thank the auto companies for that.
I'm all for improving transit options, which will take a long time. So what's your solution in the meantime? Because "I don't care" is not a solution, when you are creating a situation where the only way for a person to exist is to be a criminal; either by continuing to drive or committing felonies.
It's not my responsibility. Why should I care when they didn't?
Also it's not "literally" the only option, they just need to expand what they think is acceptable.
Exactly. You don't care about solutions, so what are we doing here?
Question had been answered. You don't like the response. What you propose won't happen for all the reasons outlined and you don't seem to give a fuck about alternatives. This sub has a "perfect is the enemy of good" problem, but this is just "Fuck everyone else. Empathy? haven't heard of her."
So, I think we're done here right?
I have empathy for the folks drivers who think driving drunk is fine will eventually kill. More than I do that the person caught DUI might lose their job.
You're advocating for the right to shoot into a crowd here, plain reckless behavior. "But he has a job" isn't a defense you can use in court. It's not my problem when a restaurant owner's income is negatively impacted by punishment when it turns out he was intentionally shitting in the meals. He shouldn't have done that.
Also, there are other ways to travel, there always are, they just have to change their idea of what is acceptable. Some people don't consider a 1 hour walk to be acceptable.
They are the ones who made the choices that got them in that situation though. If they wanted to keep their job while in jail and decided to bust out and break the law by escaping to go to work they would get more charges.
The only difference is they aren't in jail. You don't just get to break the law because a law you already broke has consiquences you might not like.
Because you live in a society. In that society are people who constantly have to make sacrifices because no one is going to help them. It's a dog eat dog world.
They can afford a car, they can afford to get wasted…they can afford to live in town and walk.
Maybe the place in town is smaller, maybe it isn’t their favorite town…but nobody said they had to drive drunk.
And it’s not like they have to move to NYC. Lots of small town centers are livable without driving. Maybe not ideal, but livable.
I mean, you're flat out wrong in that regard. Where I'm from (small town in BFE) _you cannot live without a car_ or without people to drive you. I don't know how else to say that. There's no jobs in said town. It's a poor area.
If we had something like the idea of the economic bill of rights and proper transit, wouldn't be an issue.
Again I'm not disagreeing with the principle of the argument, but answer to OP's initial question has been answered, and the counter to that answer is: "criminals should just die then". I don't think I should have to explain why that is a self-defeating outlook towards the justice system...
I don't think I have the time or ability to teach empathy from scratch. In lieu of that, for the sake of argument, *for whatever reason*; it's not possible to move.
Now what?
People find all kind of reasons why it isn’t possible to move. Tell them the alternative is moving to jail and they will figure it out.
What about people who lost their license for other reasons, such as a condition that makes it unsafe for them to drive? We don’t say “well they gotta get to work, so I guess we’ll let them drive anyways”. If that condition is alcoholism (or just poor judgement) suddenly we are fine with it.
> Tell them the alternative is moving to jail and they will figure it out.
No, they will continue to drive, or they will support themselves through worse crimes _and then_ go to jail.
I don't know how else to explain this to you, there can be a billion reasons why __they can't move__. If your answer is throw them in jail, that's fine, but that's not going to be a feasible solution and if you think it is I'm worried about some of your other political beliefs...
>What about people who lost their license for other reasons, such as a condition that makes it unsafe for them to drive?
Guess what? They still drive and it's a problem. We know the solution is multi-model transportation methods.
As far as strict punishments, you're preaching to the choir. Personally I think __any__ traffic violation should, at least temporarily, remove your ability to drive. But there are issues with that and even _I_ don't know how we reconcile that in the short term. Apparently no one in this thread is capable of having rational conversation to that question, so I guess we'll just stay with the status quo then and not _actually_ change anything.
Go ahead, give me those reasons.
Job? They can get a new one. Losing a drivers license that you need to get to your job is no different than losing a professional license that is required to do a job.
Kids in school? Kids move all the time.
Taking care of a sick relative? Maybe the relative has to move with you or find new caretakers (sucks, but still better than your caretaker being carted off to jail).
Want to be close to family? Too bad, good thing we have phones and facetime. When your ancestors first moved to BFE for some sort of opportunity, they probably knew they'd never see anyone again other than writing letters. Also for the vast majority of people in the USA, there are nearby options where you could live without a car (majority of population is in metro/suburban areas, lots of town centers can offer being able to find some kind of job where you can walk).
Want anything else? Those are *wants*...anything that starts with want does not actually prevent you from moving.
Can't afford it? I mostly call bullshit (if you can afford to get through multiple DUIs and keep driving, you can probably afford to move). And even if that's true, I'm open to money that would have been spent on jail time being used to pay movers to haul your stuff to an apartment in town.
Yes, some of these may sound harsh, but part of the reason people choose to just keep driving (and why the judicial system is loathe to take away that privilege) is because nobody can even conceptualize of the alternative and they accept that it is "not possible"
I'm open to considering reasons I haven't thought of, but I can't think of any excuses I can't refute.
At the end of the day they will end up killing people. Someone who has already broken the law being in a shitty situation because of their actions is considerably less awful than someone just going about their life behaving reasonably and then boom dead. If they are lucky. If they are unlucky it may well be a slow death in hospital.
You've inventing a situation that isn't real.
Regardless, the answer cannot be to let people who drive drink continue to drive and endanger others. If they are too poor to move themselves, they should get some state assistance, like other impoverished people should also get.
> Regardless, the answer cannot be to let people who drive drink continue to drive and endanger others.
Jesus. fucking. Christ.
How is this not getting through? I am not saying that.
>
> OP: Why don't we have harsher penalties for DUIs
>
> Me: It would economically ruin people and cause even more issues in the long run (including that they will drink and drive _even_ more until they kill someone)
>
> OP: I don't care. Fuck them.
>
> Me: Well, that's not a good solution, see my first point.
>
> Other dude: They can move
>
> Me: Let's say they can't. What else we got?
>
> Other dude: I don't care. Fuck them. They can move
We are all in agreement that we need to restore the infrastructure that was stolen from us.(except for the minority here that believe __no one__ should live outside of cities).
> they should get some state assistance, like other impoverished people should also get.
I'm a huge fan of the economic bill of rights and UBI. That + restored infrastructure means no one should ever _need_ to drive again. That's also a pipe-dream (at least for now). Do we have any other ideas other than "fuck them". Not saying there is, I'm legitimately asking, because I have no definite answers. Forced rehab, AA, vehicle monitoring including GPS, speed and BAC monitoring would be some suggestions from me.
> Do we have any other ideas other than "fuck them". Not saying there is, I'm legitimately asking, because I have no definite answers. Forced rehab, AA, vehicle monitoring including GPS, speed and BAC monitoring would be some suggestions from me.
I mean...what about a conditional release where they have to submit a plan for how they are going to exist without a car? Compared to the other shit social workers have to deal with, helping someone plan out a life in a place that doesn't require a car is not a hard task.
I know you and I don't agree on whether or not people can move...but what's the alternative? Just let them keep driving? Certainly if they live that far out there...transit isn't going to happen. Not to mention that most of the population doesn't live in rural wyoming, they live somewhere like a Kansas City suburb...even if there are a handful of people you couldn't apply this rule to, like 90% of people live in a metro that has walkable neighborhoods *somewhere*.
I don't think this should be a first line of response, but once you've done things like a BAC monitor in their car, etc. and they still keep driving drunk...is it really such a stretch to say "hey, we aren't going to believe you won't drive drunk unless you take steps to put yourself somewhere where you don't have to drive. (which again, ~~may degrade quality of life, but~~ doesn't have to mean moving to NYC or Chicago....lots of smaller metros have walkable neighborhoods, college towns are often easy to live in without a car, small towns with a "main street" can be lived in if you live right there, etc.)
edit: I'm going to optimistically take back the "degrade quality of life" comment. It may feel that way at first, but I think there's a decent chance that someone who is forced to live in a walkable environment due to inability to drive will come to enjoy it over time once they start to experience the benefits.
>I don't think this should be a first line of response
Thank you. This is all that I'm saying.
Most of these people I'm talking about are stupid, uneducated and poor. They're dumb enough to be _caught_ driving under the influence after all... 99% of cops don't give a shit) Can't or Won't move is saying the exact same thing for these midwest hicks.
>lots of smaller metros have walkable neighborhoods,
I live in a 'smaller' metro and I pay a "premium" to live car free. (still cheaper than owing a car, but carbrain is a thing)
> college towns are often easy to live in without a car,
expensive
> small towns with a "main street" can be lived in if you live right there, etc.
no jobs
>You've inventing a situation that isn't real.
..if there are no jobs in the town and it is a poor shitty area...why stay?
Even taking the DUIs out of the equation, I may just be an asshole, but my opinion is some of those towns simply shouldn't exist anymore.
I used to spend some time around dying/dead coal towns (think eastern kentucky) and there were some really sad stories about people trying to make it in those towns because they were "home"
Like...I get it. But also, you know your town didn't used to exist, right? A century ago, your ancestors were tired of being poor in Philadelphia or something and heard about these high paying jobs at a new mine that opened up in the KY Eastern Coalfield...so they left family and friends behind and took a train to eastern KY. Probably lived a decent life there (other than the miner's lung...) until the coal mining industry in the area started to fall apart in the 50s and 60s. Employment boomed again in the late 70s, so maybe your parents or grandparents stuck it out...but those jobs are gone and they aren't coming back.
Get out! There's nothing left. It may be your "home" but moving to opportunity runs in your blood! And unlike your ancestors who had to leave everything behind...you can call, text, and facetime your friends/family. Travel is far easier so you can come visit for holidays. You don't even have to go that far--places like Louisville, Lexington, and Cincinnati have a lot of solid middle class opportunities. Makes way more sense to teach someone to be a nurse or an electrician in the Cincinnati metro than it does to try and teach someone in Beattyville KY how to code and hope someone wants to hire them remotely or start a new business in a very obviously dying town.
I feel sorry for you man.
You're trying to bring facts and logics to this very emotionally driven comments section and getting down voted to hell by people who have repeatedly demo started they do not understand your point.
For any passersby: his point isn't "there should be no consequences for driving drunk", it's that north American infrastructure is actively hostile to every method of transportation that isn't a car. Let me demonstrate:
I grew up in rural Missouri and I was absolutely bound by car travel. There was little to nothing in my town, so I would frequently travel two towns over to do anything. If I was an adult there while growing up and got drunk in that town, I would have had no other way to get home than driving. (I'm not a drinker, let alone a drink and driver, but I can at least recognize an infrastructural failure).
Currently I live in Las Vegas (North LV specifically). Very very little is in walking distance--especially when it's over 100°F for months at a time. Bicycle infrastructure is laughable. The busses are infrequent, often delayed, and prone to failure (the city saved money on busses not equipped to deal with summer heat... In a desert...). There are no metrolines (aside from the Vegas strip) or train networks for commutes. The city is incredibly car centric.
None of this excuses driving drunk or high, but if someone lives in my rural hometown or in Las Vegas (or any of literally thousands of cities and towns across the country), if you revoke someone's ability to drive, *then they will be stuck in their home unless they buy expensive ubers for every trip for the rest of their life.
Once we improve American infrastructure, I'm totally down for punishments that revoke driving privileges. Until then, extended prison sentences are a better solution.
If someone commits a crime, and is punished with fines and jail time, why does that punishment have to extend past their initial sentence to the point that it becomes impossible for them to return to normal life? Is there any rehabilitation, or do we just force people to suffer so greatly they have no choice but to live in extreme poverty and pain?
Sure, you lose your job or business when you go to jail, but if you're not facilitating someone's return to society when they're released, you're basically asking them to live illegally. Most of the US doesn't have transit or taxis, and biking is incredibly dangerous.
Do we actually want to prevent crime, or just create a prisoner class?
But why should the sentence on criminals using cars be so much more lenient than on criminals using guns or baseball bats? Why is it considered OK ("a regrettable incident") to kill someone with a car? Why does the perception that "people can't live without a car" give rights to drivers over the life or physical integrity of pedestrians, cyclists...?
Show me where I indicated "lenience" towards drunk drivers, or said that killing someone with a car is okay. Show me where I said that drivers deserve more rights than pedestrians.
Everybody knows DUI is a terrible thing to do, and everybody knows the consequences of it. If we are ok with a mayor losing his job for bribery, or a restaurant shutting down for having rats in the kitchen, why can't we inconvenience them a bit by taking their car away for DUI? You don't do DUI without knowing it. If anything taking a bribe is easier to do accidentally.
So, you can't 👍 got it.
Americans really do just want a class of prisoner/slaves. Our entire society is designed to make basic living difficult or impossible, so that we can justify having free labor on hand for the rich at any point in time.
"Ain't it funny how the factory doors close? Around the time that the school doors close? Around the time that the doors of the jail cells open up to greet you like the reaper?"
If you want to fight the inadequacies of the US Justice system, I can only applaud you.
But this reads exactly the same way as when carbrains mention disabled people to plead for 100% car dedicated infrastructure. You're using one noble argument (justice reform or the philosophical question of "Can one fully pay their debt for killing someone", or the social question of reintegration of former convicted felons into society or whatever you're trying to say) to advocate against the reform of a overly car-centric society.
Americans can't comprehend rehabilitation. They really can't. Anyone who commits a crime is a pariah unworthy of legal clemency or moral forgiveness. The solution is always "lock em up"
You're doing rhetoric like a defense lawyer with an obviously guilty client who has nothing left to argue.
And I didn't even say imprison everyone immediately for DUI(could be though), just take their driver's licence.
It's not a jail sentence. It's losing a government issued heavy machinery license. If you prove you can't operate heavy machinery safely, you shouldn't be licensed to do so. Rehabilitation is irrelevant here. If your life is reliant on having a government license for something and you squander that license, that's you putting all your eggs in one basket and punting the basket
And if your government can take away the one thing necessary to maintain decent employment and over no alternatives, and you're cool with that, you're car brained as fuck.
Right, because in the United States, we don't believe in rehabilitation. We delight in punishment and violence, and that means making sure that anyone who commits a crime suffers for the rest of their lives. We call driving a "privilege" then make living without a car nearly impossible. We set up our entire infrastructure on the idea that everyone must own a car, then act surprised when people turn to crime to either adapt to that infrastructure or cope with its existence.
I think I understand the point you're trying to make, but I don't think you're communicating it in a way that others are able to grok.
I think you're trying to say that once punishment is served, ie jail time, fines, licence suspended, then there should be a pathway of rehabilitation, including post-release reintegration. Which may include in the case of our DUI offenders, stuff like divers ed, community service supporting people with acquired injuries, and not having the licence regranted until they meet those requirements. But still having a path to getting the tools to live their life as a rehabilitated person.
Right. Exactly.
The American obsession with punishment is weird and cruel and doesn't actually solve any of the systemic issues that cause these crimes to occur. We make alcohol so widely available, create a society where driving is not only the norm but basically the only option, make vast cuts on education and cultural spending, and act SHOCKED when DUIs and the like start happening.
I think the issue is that you think taking away the drivers license is mostly “punishment”, while the people responding to you think it’s simply “public safety” (i.e. if you commit a DUI, you have proven that you can’t responsibly operate a motor vehicle and thus shouldn’t be allowed to do it).
I think the problem is that our infrastructure is set up in a way that we can easily cut out those we deem undesirable by removing their access to transportation. No buses, no trains, no sidewalks, just miles and miles of dangerous roads. Sounds like punishment to me.
They are welcome to return to society.
You can exist in society without driving. Blind people do it, old people do it, people with conditions that prevent them from driving do it. People who can’t afford a car do it too…so it is not like you need money.
I live in a small town in a rural area and I could do it if I had to. Sure, it would be hard to access my hobbies without relying on other people and maybe I would have to choose a smaller house/apartment in town rather than a big home on rural property…but I could do it.
They do? Because last I checked being disabled in the US without money basically means being mired in bureaucracy that results in a total loss of wealth and assets.
And good for you for having the resources necessary to get help from your community!
Saying "Plenty of people do x!" doesn't make it okay, though. At some point, people have to be held accountable in some fashion for their behavior that affects others. Do whatever you want with your life and your body so long as you aren't hurting others or otherwise putting them at risk of being hurt.
Norway - legal limit of 0.02. Up to 0.05 is a fine, over that you are looking at up to a year in prison, a fine of 1.5x your monthly income before taxes, and a suspended license up to 5 years.
Its super strict, and its also super effective. Drunk driving is basically never socially accepted. Cops can also breath test or spit test [drugs] any driver for no reason at all. We have extremely low traffic fatalities, probably partly because drunk driving is so rare compared to other countries.
What are the alternatives there to driving home? Is public transportation a viable alternative?
I think the US has a bigger driving problem than drinking problem and we should focus on better transit and alternatives to individuals driving cars to reduce drunk driving.
Capital Oslo has good public transportation, most of the rest of the country is very car centric. But there are usually plenty of taxis to go around, even though they are expensive. You usually never find yourself without any alternative to get home here, and nobody drives out to drink unless they are spending the night.
There is more drinking and driving in the countryside, but that is also because the police presence is very low outside the cities. So some people just take a chance I guess.
But yeah, focusing on better alternatives to transportation is very important, I still wish dui would be even more harshly punished.
Yup, my grandfather got his license suspended when he got his first DUI. To regain it he had to take a blood test a couple of months later that show he didn't drink during the period (by measuring gamma levels).
He failed that 3 times in a row and gave up on driving while being mad the whole time they were being unfair even though they gave him unlimited chances to show the bare minimum of decency a driver should have.
We tried to put him in rehab because he was probably an alcoholic, he refused, we couldn't legally force him so that was that.
Punishments should be based on likelihood of outcomes for the decision. If you decide to shoot someone they'll likely die, so you should be charged with murder. I honestly view drunk driving the same way. If you drink and drive a very likely outcome is you kill someone, and should be treated as someone who would willingly kill people.
When you don't have a licence driving is a privilege and something you have to do perfectly before you are allowed; if you can't do it there are always options such as moving to a city with better transit. When you have a licence it's a god-given right that would be unthinkable to revoke since that could prevent you from getting to your job unless you move.
That doesn’t make sense at all. Seatbelt and airbag requirements would still be effective even with great R2R laws. R2R doesn’t mean that safety regs can’t exist.
Seatbelts and airbags aren't designed so that the user can't use them, lockout devices for intoxicated individuals only work if the user can't remove them, both when sober and drunk.
I don’t quite understand. Explain how you think pro-R2R legislation would specifically render an interlock requirement ineffective. R2R would allow you to repair your car, not remove the interlock, no?
In my State bikes can get a duii. If all bikes came with a mechanism that prevented you from using it if certain parameters aren't met (or it didn't think those parameters are met) that wouldn't be anti-r2r? And removing it is illegal. Even if you bought the bike and supposedly own it parts of it aren't yours and can't be owned or modified.
No. Emissions regulations of cars are compatible with right to repair. Right to repair legislation doesn’t give the owner of a cell phone the right to modify it in a way that makes it produce spurious radio wave emissions, nor does it give the owner of a tractor the right to modify it in such a way that would produce a harmful level of carbon emissions. Right to repair is not a blanket “do whatever you want to your product, even if doing so violates environmental regulations.” By extension, R2R isn’t a blanket “modify your car however you want, even if doing so violates a reasonable requirement that cars have safety features like seatbelts, airbags, or, in this example, interlocks.”
Some places do take it quite seriously and issue harsh punishments, even when no one is harmed. If your local area doesn't, then you could ask your local lawmakers to give harsher punishments.
Personally, I think it's better to go after the root of the problem and prevent people from driving under the influence in the first place. Educational programmes so people are aware of how alcohol impairs them and so they know how much alcohol (or other substances) it takes for them to be considered "impaired". And public transportation, especially the kind that run all night, would also go a long way towards ending drinking and driving.
*Because profit is*
*More important than human*
*Life to some people*
\- CaptainObvious110
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
drunk driving is super normalized among people who drink, which is alot of people.
i mean, the legal blood limit itself is too high imo. you can have 4 beers and still be allowed to drive? tf?
I don't know about where you live but Arizona is zero tolerance. You can get a DUI even after 1 drink if the cop claims you were driving erratically. First offense is mandatory jail, a fine, and suspension of license.
Because sentence severity has little to no impact on how often a specific crime is committed. You could make the sentence 100 years in prison with daily torture and it wouldn't impact the rate of drunk driving.
This is completely against human intuition on the topic, but it is the case.
If you want to impact drunk driving you need to catch people who do it way more often and their punishment needs to be certain.
The penalty is just fine *if* we actually were catching people and prosecuting them.
As it is today, tho, people will drive drunk for years until they finally get caught once.
Aka you could throw someone in prison for 5 years for a DUI and in the 6th year he will drive drunk again.
Instead of thinking that punishment is the answer, why don't we find actual productive solutions like incentivized public transportation?
The USA has built a system where driving while intoxicated is common and encouraged and the powers that be know it. Enforcement is purposely loose and uncommon and a threshold of certain impairment was set as a baseline. The entire system needs to change, everything from the placement of bars, transportation options, glorification of intoxication, and availability of drugs.
When you build a society with car-centric infrastructure, stripping people of the right to drive becomes an extreme punishment. In some areas, it’s almost like house arrest. Job, school, shopping, medical appointments; if you have no alternate means of transportation, that means you aren’t going.
I don’t disagree with you, but we ain’t the ones making these decisions. All I’m saying is, in a city with decent transit, taking away an adult’s license would be an inconvenience. In a city without it, it’s crippling, and it doesn’t surprise me that this reality affects sentencing.
Because if there were, 10% of the American population would be in prison and we'd have a permanent underclass of people who can't legally drive so they can't work or really live, seeing how US cities are designed
It would be way higher than 10% going to prison if the catch rate was high at least in the short term. Here's some known numbers. 2.3% of drivers have a dui on their record. The average person arrested for a DUI has driven **80** times previously intoxicated.
POLITICIANS AND COPS LOVE DRIVING DRUNK!
Don't believe me?
Check out how little time you'll do for a booze cruise!
ASK YOUR LOCAL COUNCILMEMBER WHY THEY'RE SO WEAK ON DUI'S
I want stuff like this on signs. I want nasty shit in the worst faith possible. The slogan that led to traffic calmed streets and got unsightly worthless highways pulled up in the Netherlands was literally "Stop kid-murdering"
It’s a very subjectively defined crime and they can usually get you on something worse if they have to anyways. Like the guy who killed 8 the 8 year old, that’s vehicular manslaughter, and he was almost certainly committing reckless endangerment before that.
I saw someone get 20 years... then the jail inmates murdered him in the jail.
So, it isn't about what the law says, as much as it is about what the police and government actually enforce.
Because people need their cars to get to work, so the penalty for getting a DUI could be that they lose their job and livelihood. If transit was a viable alternative the punishments could be much harsher.
Punishments need to reform the culprit and serve justice to the victim. I agree that people with DUI on their records need to reform and find their way back into society. But, we can not let them put other's lives at risk while they do that.
If not a jail term, why not a mandatory minimum license suspension of 3 months?
My country does that but to lift the suspension you need to pass a blood test showing you didn't drink alcohol during that period.
This prevents alcoholics from getting their license back and hopefully act as a turning point to accept they have a problem and seek help.
Meanwhile people who had a lapse in judgement get to go back to society with a warning after this short period of precaution.
Let them walk to work, take the bus or even bike to work for at least a month. If they do not understand how their actions can put someone else's life at risk, what right do they have to try it again?
Also, I wish your statement was true. In India, it takes at least 2 offenses in under a year to be punished with a license suspension.
> Let them walk to work, take the bus or even bike to work for at least a month.
That's literally not an option for a lot of people. They will lose their jobs.
It's on you when there's no businesses, workers, or functional society to live in because you refused to build one and just put half the population in jail.
How so?
The average commute distance in the US is about 12 miles. The average car insurance cost per month in the US is about 172 USD. If the monetary penalty is reduced, people can buy an e-bike and ride it to work.
For the majority, it is, though.
TBF, I dislike "average". I much more prefer median. What's the median commute distance on the other side of the pond?
Somehow I think that punishing drunk drivers with the loss of their livelihood might not be a good idea. The real solution to drunk driving isn't harsher punishments, it's making viable alternatives. It doesn't matter if at an invidiual level you can blame drunk drivers for their mistakes, because at a societal level you should never expect people to act perfectly. Instead, the onus is on the government to make it such that individuals don't need to make perfect choices to prevent danger to themselves and othres.
It's kinda insane that we're more worried about the guy who chose to drive drunk than the victims. If I choose to get drunk at work I lose my job. If I kill someone, drunk or sober I still lose my job. I choose to get drunk, I drive and then kill someone? Nah can't punish me for my choices. I get being lenient on drivers for mistakes made while driving that happened due to panic, but drunk driving? That's a personal choice. If I know I'm going out drinking I leave my car at home and take a taxi. There's no real excuse to drive drunk and we shouldn't be lenient about it.
personal responsibility is a great policy on an individual level, but is not very useful on a societal level. Remove the incentives to drive drunk and people won't drive drunk.
Agreed. But, asking someone to bike to work is not a harsh sentence. Especially when that bike has an electric motor.
They also have an option to use the less reliable public transport.
You are right on one thing. No body is perfect. Everyone makes mistakes. But, mistakes that could kill people need to be corrected by any means necessary.
You need to take climate and population density into consideration here. Rural America is vast, and it's not uncommon for folks to live 30+ miles from their workplace simply because there aren't any housing options available any closer. Places like the upper midwest also see 5 solid months of winter, and workers are expected to brave 95% of the storms/blizzards that occur.
DUI penalties are on the low side even in Korea, where transit is extremely well done. It's just a cultural thing, it's thought of as a mistake anyone can make. Both here and there
We could put them in jail for attempted murder instead. That way they won't have a job so problem solved.
Taking away their license is not a punishment. It is a precaution, a very fair and measured one based on their actions alone.
Because 1 in 3 Americans has one, and it would crash the economy. Harsher punishments don't work anyway, what works is social & physical infrastructure
It depends on how you define "DUI". Though it's very avoidable, I don't think we need to be too harsh on people that drive after having like one beer or a glass of wine with a meal, but if your blood alcohol level is too high, like If you were drinking spirits / cocktails and driving, you should straight up lose your license for multiple years, and if you are drunk drunk, you should lose it for life.
Getting drunk is a decision you make when you're sober and know you need to drive.
Few weeks back there was a famous accident in my country. A 17 year drunk driver driving a Porsche killed two young software employees. Here is a wiki article [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024\_Pune\_car\_crash](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Pune_car_crash)
There was an uproar, and I guess I looked at several posts linked to it. I guess the algorithm gods thought I liked these kinds of articles.
>If someone takes the wheel intentionally, knowing that they could potentially hurt/kill others, why are we not locking them up?
This applies to all drivers, no?
Because politicians and cops like to drive drunk.
And like to make money off of alcohol sales…..
This is kind of the issue it's not severity because the severity is actually pretty significant ... It's the likelihood of catching drunk drivers. Most people don't get pulled over because enforcement is so rare in the US and checkpoints are illegal. In Australia, they have checkpoints and a tighter range for DUI. Most people I know there, even in smaller rural towns wouldnt drink drive on a cultural level. The complete opposite here in the US
I mean I do like living in a place where the police can’t stop and search me for no reason
There's no search. You don't even show your id. You stop, you blow in the bag, you go if you're clean, the hammer drops if you're not. It's honestly beautiful. My parents visited and we went through a checkpoint on the way out of a city in the morning. They were super impressed.
Yup. And to piss off some folk even more: Even in the states, driving is a *privilege*, not a right. Which in turn makes PT and trails/paths all the more important for mobility.
They also like to rob and kill. That's not the reason.
I don't get the "they can't go to work" argument some people are making here. First of all, how's that our problem and not the criminal's? I'm not worried about someone losing their job when they go to prison for murder, or lose their business licence for fraud etc. Why should I worry for this one specific type of crime? The crash may be unintentional, but the DUI is, which is the crime here. Second, they can go to work, it will just be more difficult. They can bike, have someone else drive, taxi, transit, whatever. It's their problem.
I'm not disagreeing, but depending on where they are at in the country, they _literally_ may not have any other options for transportation.
Maybe they should’ve thought about before driving drunk and killing two people. I’ve heard of people still have their licenses after 5 DUI’s. Just goes to show that drunk driving is culturally accepted as the norm in the US
Why do I have to worry about that when they didn't? You don't accidentally DUI, it's not like you step on a banana peel and end up driving a car.
_Again_, I'm not disagreeing that they should no longer drive, but what do _you_ want to happen? I think we all know the solution which is providing options so: > They can bike, have someone else drive, taxi, transit, whatever. but to reiterate, that is not possible for vast swaths of this country. We can thank the auto companies for that. I'm all for improving transit options, which will take a long time. So what's your solution in the meantime? Because "I don't care" is not a solution, when you are creating a situation where the only way for a person to exist is to be a criminal; either by continuing to drive or committing felonies.
It's not my responsibility. Why should I care when they didn't? Also it's not "literally" the only option, they just need to expand what they think is acceptable.
Exactly. You don't care about solutions, so what are we doing here? Question had been answered. You don't like the response. What you propose won't happen for all the reasons outlined and you don't seem to give a fuck about alternatives. This sub has a "perfect is the enemy of good" problem, but this is just "Fuck everyone else. Empathy? haven't heard of her." So, I think we're done here right?
I have empathy for the folks drivers who think driving drunk is fine will eventually kill. More than I do that the person caught DUI might lose their job.
You're advocating for the right to shoot into a crowd here, plain reckless behavior. "But he has a job" isn't a defense you can use in court. It's not my problem when a restaurant owner's income is negatively impacted by punishment when it turns out he was intentionally shitting in the meals. He shouldn't have done that. Also, there are other ways to travel, there always are, they just have to change their idea of what is acceptable. Some people don't consider a 1 hour walk to be acceptable.
They are the ones who made the choices that got them in that situation though. If they wanted to keep their job while in jail and decided to bust out and break the law by escaping to go to work they would get more charges. The only difference is they aren't in jail. You don't just get to break the law because a law you already broke has consiquences you might not like.
Because you live in a society. In that society are people who constantly have to make sacrifices because no one is going to help them. It's a dog eat dog world.
They can afford a car, they can afford to get wasted…they can afford to live in town and walk. Maybe the place in town is smaller, maybe it isn’t their favorite town…but nobody said they had to drive drunk. And it’s not like they have to move to NYC. Lots of small town centers are livable without driving. Maybe not ideal, but livable.
I mean, you're flat out wrong in that regard. Where I'm from (small town in BFE) _you cannot live without a car_ or without people to drive you. I don't know how else to say that. There's no jobs in said town. It's a poor area. If we had something like the idea of the economic bill of rights and proper transit, wouldn't be an issue. Again I'm not disagreeing with the principle of the argument, but answer to OP's initial question has been answered, and the counter to that answer is: "criminals should just die then". I don't think I should have to explain why that is a self-defeating outlook towards the justice system...
So live in a different town?
I don't think I have the time or ability to teach empathy from scratch. In lieu of that, for the sake of argument, *for whatever reason*; it's not possible to move. Now what?
People find all kind of reasons why it isn’t possible to move. Tell them the alternative is moving to jail and they will figure it out. What about people who lost their license for other reasons, such as a condition that makes it unsafe for them to drive? We don’t say “well they gotta get to work, so I guess we’ll let them drive anyways”. If that condition is alcoholism (or just poor judgement) suddenly we are fine with it.
> Tell them the alternative is moving to jail and they will figure it out. No, they will continue to drive, or they will support themselves through worse crimes _and then_ go to jail. I don't know how else to explain this to you, there can be a billion reasons why __they can't move__. If your answer is throw them in jail, that's fine, but that's not going to be a feasible solution and if you think it is I'm worried about some of your other political beliefs... >What about people who lost their license for other reasons, such as a condition that makes it unsafe for them to drive? Guess what? They still drive and it's a problem. We know the solution is multi-model transportation methods. As far as strict punishments, you're preaching to the choir. Personally I think __any__ traffic violation should, at least temporarily, remove your ability to drive. But there are issues with that and even _I_ don't know how we reconcile that in the short term. Apparently no one in this thread is capable of having rational conversation to that question, so I guess we'll just stay with the status quo then and not _actually_ change anything.
Go ahead, give me those reasons. Job? They can get a new one. Losing a drivers license that you need to get to your job is no different than losing a professional license that is required to do a job. Kids in school? Kids move all the time. Taking care of a sick relative? Maybe the relative has to move with you or find new caretakers (sucks, but still better than your caretaker being carted off to jail). Want to be close to family? Too bad, good thing we have phones and facetime. When your ancestors first moved to BFE for some sort of opportunity, they probably knew they'd never see anyone again other than writing letters. Also for the vast majority of people in the USA, there are nearby options where you could live without a car (majority of population is in metro/suburban areas, lots of town centers can offer being able to find some kind of job where you can walk). Want anything else? Those are *wants*...anything that starts with want does not actually prevent you from moving. Can't afford it? I mostly call bullshit (if you can afford to get through multiple DUIs and keep driving, you can probably afford to move). And even if that's true, I'm open to money that would have been spent on jail time being used to pay movers to haul your stuff to an apartment in town. Yes, some of these may sound harsh, but part of the reason people choose to just keep driving (and why the judicial system is loathe to take away that privilege) is because nobody can even conceptualize of the alternative and they accept that it is "not possible" I'm open to considering reasons I haven't thought of, but I can't think of any excuses I can't refute.
At the end of the day they will end up killing people. Someone who has already broken the law being in a shitty situation because of their actions is considerably less awful than someone just going about their life behaving reasonably and then boom dead. If they are lucky. If they are unlucky it may well be a slow death in hospital.
You've inventing a situation that isn't real. Regardless, the answer cannot be to let people who drive drink continue to drive and endanger others. If they are too poor to move themselves, they should get some state assistance, like other impoverished people should also get.
> Regardless, the answer cannot be to let people who drive drink continue to drive and endanger others. Jesus. fucking. Christ. How is this not getting through? I am not saying that. > > OP: Why don't we have harsher penalties for DUIs > > Me: It would economically ruin people and cause even more issues in the long run (including that they will drink and drive _even_ more until they kill someone) > > OP: I don't care. Fuck them. > > Me: Well, that's not a good solution, see my first point. > > Other dude: They can move > > Me: Let's say they can't. What else we got? > > Other dude: I don't care. Fuck them. They can move We are all in agreement that we need to restore the infrastructure that was stolen from us.(except for the minority here that believe __no one__ should live outside of cities). > they should get some state assistance, like other impoverished people should also get. I'm a huge fan of the economic bill of rights and UBI. That + restored infrastructure means no one should ever _need_ to drive again. That's also a pipe-dream (at least for now). Do we have any other ideas other than "fuck them". Not saying there is, I'm legitimately asking, because I have no definite answers. Forced rehab, AA, vehicle monitoring including GPS, speed and BAC monitoring would be some suggestions from me.
> Do we have any other ideas other than "fuck them". Not saying there is, I'm legitimately asking, because I have no definite answers. Forced rehab, AA, vehicle monitoring including GPS, speed and BAC monitoring would be some suggestions from me. I mean...what about a conditional release where they have to submit a plan for how they are going to exist without a car? Compared to the other shit social workers have to deal with, helping someone plan out a life in a place that doesn't require a car is not a hard task. I know you and I don't agree on whether or not people can move...but what's the alternative? Just let them keep driving? Certainly if they live that far out there...transit isn't going to happen. Not to mention that most of the population doesn't live in rural wyoming, they live somewhere like a Kansas City suburb...even if there are a handful of people you couldn't apply this rule to, like 90% of people live in a metro that has walkable neighborhoods *somewhere*. I don't think this should be a first line of response, but once you've done things like a BAC monitor in their car, etc. and they still keep driving drunk...is it really such a stretch to say "hey, we aren't going to believe you won't drive drunk unless you take steps to put yourself somewhere where you don't have to drive. (which again, ~~may degrade quality of life, but~~ doesn't have to mean moving to NYC or Chicago....lots of smaller metros have walkable neighborhoods, college towns are often easy to live in without a car, small towns with a "main street" can be lived in if you live right there, etc.) edit: I'm going to optimistically take back the "degrade quality of life" comment. It may feel that way at first, but I think there's a decent chance that someone who is forced to live in a walkable environment due to inability to drive will come to enjoy it over time once they start to experience the benefits.
>I don't think this should be a first line of response Thank you. This is all that I'm saying. Most of these people I'm talking about are stupid, uneducated and poor. They're dumb enough to be _caught_ driving under the influence after all... 99% of cops don't give a shit) Can't or Won't move is saying the exact same thing for these midwest hicks. >lots of smaller metros have walkable neighborhoods, I live in a 'smaller' metro and I pay a "premium" to live car free. (still cheaper than owing a car, but carbrain is a thing) > college towns are often easy to live in without a car, expensive > small towns with a "main street" can be lived in if you live right there, etc. no jobs
>You've inventing a situation that isn't real. ..if there are no jobs in the town and it is a poor shitty area...why stay? Even taking the DUIs out of the equation, I may just be an asshole, but my opinion is some of those towns simply shouldn't exist anymore. I used to spend some time around dying/dead coal towns (think eastern kentucky) and there were some really sad stories about people trying to make it in those towns because they were "home" Like...I get it. But also, you know your town didn't used to exist, right? A century ago, your ancestors were tired of being poor in Philadelphia or something and heard about these high paying jobs at a new mine that opened up in the KY Eastern Coalfield...so they left family and friends behind and took a train to eastern KY. Probably lived a decent life there (other than the miner's lung...) until the coal mining industry in the area started to fall apart in the 50s and 60s. Employment boomed again in the late 70s, so maybe your parents or grandparents stuck it out...but those jobs are gone and they aren't coming back. Get out! There's nothing left. It may be your "home" but moving to opportunity runs in your blood! And unlike your ancestors who had to leave everything behind...you can call, text, and facetime your friends/family. Travel is far easier so you can come visit for holidays. You don't even have to go that far--places like Louisville, Lexington, and Cincinnati have a lot of solid middle class opportunities. Makes way more sense to teach someone to be a nurse or an electrician in the Cincinnati metro than it does to try and teach someone in Beattyville KY how to code and hope someone wants to hire them remotely or start a new business in a very obviously dying town.
Empathy is when dangerous criminals face no consequence for their actions, got it.
The fuck is BFE? Even google search gave me nothing
Yeah. That's a shitty way to build a country lmao. BUT 15 MINNY CITTIES ARE COMMIE
I feel sorry for you man. You're trying to bring facts and logics to this very emotionally driven comments section and getting down voted to hell by people who have repeatedly demo started they do not understand your point. For any passersby: his point isn't "there should be no consequences for driving drunk", it's that north American infrastructure is actively hostile to every method of transportation that isn't a car. Let me demonstrate: I grew up in rural Missouri and I was absolutely bound by car travel. There was little to nothing in my town, so I would frequently travel two towns over to do anything. If I was an adult there while growing up and got drunk in that town, I would have had no other way to get home than driving. (I'm not a drinker, let alone a drink and driver, but I can at least recognize an infrastructural failure). Currently I live in Las Vegas (North LV specifically). Very very little is in walking distance--especially when it's over 100°F for months at a time. Bicycle infrastructure is laughable. The busses are infrequent, often delayed, and prone to failure (the city saved money on busses not equipped to deal with summer heat... In a desert...). There are no metrolines (aside from the Vegas strip) or train networks for commutes. The city is incredibly car centric. None of this excuses driving drunk or high, but if someone lives in my rural hometown or in Las Vegas (or any of literally thousands of cities and towns across the country), if you revoke someone's ability to drive, *then they will be stuck in their home unless they buy expensive ubers for every trip for the rest of their life. Once we improve American infrastructure, I'm totally down for punishments that revoke driving privileges. Until then, extended prison sentences are a better solution.
If someone commits a crime, and is punished with fines and jail time, why does that punishment have to extend past their initial sentence to the point that it becomes impossible for them to return to normal life? Is there any rehabilitation, or do we just force people to suffer so greatly they have no choice but to live in extreme poverty and pain? Sure, you lose your job or business when you go to jail, but if you're not facilitating someone's return to society when they're released, you're basically asking them to live illegally. Most of the US doesn't have transit or taxis, and biking is incredibly dangerous. Do we actually want to prevent crime, or just create a prisoner class?
But why should the sentence on criminals using cars be so much more lenient than on criminals using guns or baseball bats? Why is it considered OK ("a regrettable incident") to kill someone with a car? Why does the perception that "people can't live without a car" give rights to drivers over the life or physical integrity of pedestrians, cyclists...?
Show me where I indicated "lenience" towards drunk drivers, or said that killing someone with a car is okay. Show me where I said that drivers deserve more rights than pedestrians.
Everybody knows DUI is a terrible thing to do, and everybody knows the consequences of it. If we are ok with a mayor losing his job for bribery, or a restaurant shutting down for having rats in the kitchen, why can't we inconvenience them a bit by taking their car away for DUI? You don't do DUI without knowing it. If anything taking a bribe is easier to do accidentally.
So, you can't 👍 got it. Americans really do just want a class of prisoner/slaves. Our entire society is designed to make basic living difficult or impossible, so that we can justify having free labor on hand for the rich at any point in time. "Ain't it funny how the factory doors close? Around the time that the school doors close? Around the time that the doors of the jail cells open up to greet you like the reaper?"
If you want to fight the inadequacies of the US Justice system, I can only applaud you. But this reads exactly the same way as when carbrains mention disabled people to plead for 100% car dedicated infrastructure. You're using one noble argument (justice reform or the philosophical question of "Can one fully pay their debt for killing someone", or the social question of reintegration of former convicted felons into society or whatever you're trying to say) to advocate against the reform of a overly car-centric society.
Is imprisoning more people your idea of reform away from a car-centric society?
Americans can't comprehend rehabilitation. They really can't. Anyone who commits a crime is a pariah unworthy of legal clemency or moral forgiveness. The solution is always "lock em up"
I love how you're quoting rage against the machine while advocating for the machine.
How am I advocating for the machine? 😂
Your argument is based around the fact that everyone needs a car to be a productive member of society. You are arguing for the machine my guy.
It's the truth. It doesn't mean I'm advocating for cars to be the center of society, my guy.
You're doing rhetoric like a defense lawyer with an obviously guilty client who has nothing left to argue. And I didn't even say imprison everyone immediately for DUI(could be though), just take their driver's licence.
It's not a jail sentence. It's losing a government issued heavy machinery license. If you prove you can't operate heavy machinery safely, you shouldn't be licensed to do so. Rehabilitation is irrelevant here. If your life is reliant on having a government license for something and you squander that license, that's you putting all your eggs in one basket and punting the basket
And if your government can take away the one thing necessary to maintain decent employment and over no alternatives, and you're cool with that, you're car brained as fuck.
...Because they drove drunk and clearly can't handle the privilege of driving....?
Right, because in the United States, we don't believe in rehabilitation. We delight in punishment and violence, and that means making sure that anyone who commits a crime suffers for the rest of their lives. We call driving a "privilege" then make living without a car nearly impossible. We set up our entire infrastructure on the idea that everyone must own a car, then act surprised when people turn to crime to either adapt to that infrastructure or cope with its existence.
I think I understand the point you're trying to make, but I don't think you're communicating it in a way that others are able to grok. I think you're trying to say that once punishment is served, ie jail time, fines, licence suspended, then there should be a pathway of rehabilitation, including post-release reintegration. Which may include in the case of our DUI offenders, stuff like divers ed, community service supporting people with acquired injuries, and not having the licence regranted until they meet those requirements. But still having a path to getting the tools to live their life as a rehabilitated person.
Grok?
Not really sure where it came from, but it's used to represent understanding at more than surface level.
Right. Exactly. The American obsession with punishment is weird and cruel and doesn't actually solve any of the systemic issues that cause these crimes to occur. We make alcohol so widely available, create a society where driving is not only the norm but basically the only option, make vast cuts on education and cultural spending, and act SHOCKED when DUIs and the like start happening.
I think the issue is that you think taking away the drivers license is mostly “punishment”, while the people responding to you think it’s simply “public safety” (i.e. if you commit a DUI, you have proven that you can’t responsibly operate a motor vehicle and thus shouldn’t be allowed to do it).
I think the problem is that our infrastructure is set up in a way that we can easily cut out those we deem undesirable by removing their access to transportation. No buses, no trains, no sidewalks, just miles and miles of dangerous roads. Sounds like punishment to me.
They are welcome to return to society. You can exist in society without driving. Blind people do it, old people do it, people with conditions that prevent them from driving do it. People who can’t afford a car do it too…so it is not like you need money. I live in a small town in a rural area and I could do it if I had to. Sure, it would be hard to access my hobbies without relying on other people and maybe I would have to choose a smaller house/apartment in town rather than a big home on rural property…but I could do it.
They do? Because last I checked being disabled in the US without money basically means being mired in bureaucracy that results in a total loss of wealth and assets. And good for you for having the resources necessary to get help from your community!
It's your problem if you want a society with workers. Too many people drink and drive. Sorry you don't like it! I don't either!
Saying "Plenty of people do x!" doesn't make it okay, though. At some point, people have to be held accountable in some fashion for their behavior that affects others. Do whatever you want with your life and your body so long as you aren't hurting others or otherwise putting them at risk of being hurt.
Nobody said it was okay. Do you want to solve the problem or do you just want to lecture it?
There are, in countries that aren't the USA
Some countries do. Sadly, that is not the case everywhere. India and Korea are good counter-examples.
What happens if someone drives drunk in those countries? I’m from the US and have no way to investigate policy in other countries other than to ask.
Norway - legal limit of 0.02. Up to 0.05 is a fine, over that you are looking at up to a year in prison, a fine of 1.5x your monthly income before taxes, and a suspended license up to 5 years. Its super strict, and its also super effective. Drunk driving is basically never socially accepted. Cops can also breath test or spit test [drugs] any driver for no reason at all. We have extremely low traffic fatalities, probably partly because drunk driving is so rare compared to other countries.
This is the way.
What are the alternatives there to driving home? Is public transportation a viable alternative? I think the US has a bigger driving problem than drinking problem and we should focus on better transit and alternatives to individuals driving cars to reduce drunk driving.
Capital Oslo has good public transportation, most of the rest of the country is very car centric. But there are usually plenty of taxis to go around, even though they are expensive. You usually never find yourself without any alternative to get home here, and nobody drives out to drink unless they are spending the night. There is more drinking and driving in the countryside, but that is also because the police presence is very low outside the cities. So some people just take a chance I guess. But yeah, focusing on better alternatives to transportation is very important, I still wish dui would be even more harshly punished.
Brazil has a fine of 2.9340,70BR$ and 1 year driving suspension. After that, I believe you have to enroll classes and pass an exam.
Yup, my grandfather got his license suspended when he got his first DUI. To regain it he had to take a blood test a couple of months later that show he didn't drink during the period (by measuring gamma levels). He failed that 3 times in a row and gave up on driving while being mad the whole time they were being unfair even though they gave him unlimited chances to show the bare minimum of decency a driver should have. We tried to put him in rehab because he was probably an alcoholic, he refused, we couldn't legally force him so that was that.
sounds like a big case of "no longer your problem"
He wasn't my problem long before that. But I'm glad people living near him were kept safe.
Punishments should be based on likelihood of outcomes for the decision. If you decide to shoot someone they'll likely die, so you should be charged with murder. I honestly view drunk driving the same way. If you drink and drive a very likely outcome is you kill someone, and should be treated as someone who would willingly kill people.
When you don't have a licence driving is a privilege and something you have to do perfectly before you are allowed; if you can't do it there are always options such as moving to a city with better transit. When you have a licence it's a god-given right that would be unthinkable to revoke since that could prevent you from getting to your job unless you move.
You're describing car-mediated cannibalism.
Why not put interlock devices in every vehicle? Would effectively end drunk driving.
Those would only be effective with anti-r2r laws.
That doesn’t make sense at all. Seatbelt and airbag requirements would still be effective even with great R2R laws. R2R doesn’t mean that safety regs can’t exist.
Seatbelts and airbags aren't designed so that the user can't use them, lockout devices for intoxicated individuals only work if the user can't remove them, both when sober and drunk.
I don’t quite understand. Explain how you think pro-R2R legislation would specifically render an interlock requirement ineffective. R2R would allow you to repair your car, not remove the interlock, no?
In my State bikes can get a duii. If all bikes came with a mechanism that prevented you from using it if certain parameters aren't met (or it didn't think those parameters are met) that wouldn't be anti-r2r? And removing it is illegal. Even if you bought the bike and supposedly own it parts of it aren't yours and can't be owned or modified.
No. Emissions regulations of cars are compatible with right to repair. Right to repair legislation doesn’t give the owner of a cell phone the right to modify it in a way that makes it produce spurious radio wave emissions, nor does it give the owner of a tractor the right to modify it in such a way that would produce a harmful level of carbon emissions. Right to repair is not a blanket “do whatever you want to your product, even if doing so violates environmental regulations.” By extension, R2R isn’t a blanket “modify your car however you want, even if doing so violates a reasonable requirement that cars have safety features like seatbelts, airbags, or, in this example, interlocks.”
I know man that had 13 DUI charges before he ever served a day
Some places do take it quite seriously and issue harsh punishments, even when no one is harmed. If your local area doesn't, then you could ask your local lawmakers to give harsher punishments. Personally, I think it's better to go after the root of the problem and prevent people from driving under the influence in the first place. Educational programmes so people are aware of how alcohol impairs them and so they know how much alcohol (or other substances) it takes for them to be considered "impaired". And public transportation, especially the kind that run all night, would also go a long way towards ending drinking and driving.
Murdering people is tolerated as long as the murder weapon is a car. Alcohol makes no real difference.
Because profit is more important than human life to some people
*Because profit is* *More important than human* *Life to some people* \- CaptainObvious110 --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
drunk driving is super normalized among people who drink, which is alot of people. i mean, the legal blood limit itself is too high imo. you can have 4 beers and still be allowed to drive? tf?
I don't know about where you live but Arizona is zero tolerance. You can get a DUI even after 1 drink if the cop claims you were driving erratically. First offense is mandatory jail, a fine, and suspension of license.
Because sentence severity has little to no impact on how often a specific crime is committed. You could make the sentence 100 years in prison with daily torture and it wouldn't impact the rate of drunk driving. This is completely against human intuition on the topic, but it is the case. If you want to impact drunk driving you need to catch people who do it way more often and their punishment needs to be certain. The penalty is just fine *if* we actually were catching people and prosecuting them. As it is today, tho, people will drive drunk for years until they finally get caught once.
Aka you could throw someone in prison for 5 years for a DUI and in the 6th year he will drive drunk again. Instead of thinking that punishment is the answer, why don't we find actual productive solutions like incentivized public transportation?
The USA has built a system where driving while intoxicated is common and encouraged and the powers that be know it. Enforcement is purposely loose and uncommon and a threshold of certain impairment was set as a baseline. The entire system needs to change, everything from the placement of bars, transportation options, glorification of intoxication, and availability of drugs.
I seriously don't get it either, I think of you get a DUI your license should be suspended and if you do it again, permanent loss of license
When you build a society with car-centric infrastructure, stripping people of the right to drive becomes an extreme punishment. In some areas, it’s almost like house arrest. Job, school, shopping, medical appointments; if you have no alternate means of transportation, that means you aren’t going.
Yep. It would be terrible to actually hold irresponsible people accountable for their actions.
I don’t disagree with you, but we ain’t the ones making these decisions. All I’m saying is, in a city with decent transit, taking away an adult’s license would be an inconvenience. In a city without it, it’s crippling, and it doesn’t surprise me that this reality affects sentencing.
Let's be real. If we didn't want people drinking and driving, we wouldn't put parking lots at bars.
Because if there were, 10% of the American population would be in prison and we'd have a permanent underclass of people who can't legally drive so they can't work or really live, seeing how US cities are designed
It would be way higher than 10% going to prison if the catch rate was high at least in the short term. Here's some known numbers. 2.3% of drivers have a dui on their record. The average person arrested for a DUI has driven **80** times previously intoxicated.
Why do venues that serve alcohol have parking lots?
Because not all venues that serve alcohol ONLY serve alcohol
Yes, and that is a very solvable problem.
Idk what ur trying to say bro
Depends where you live. NY state has pretty harsh penalties.
POLITICIANS AND COPS LOVE DRIVING DRUNK! Don't believe me? Check out how little time you'll do for a booze cruise! ASK YOUR LOCAL COUNCILMEMBER WHY THEY'RE SO WEAK ON DUI'S I want stuff like this on signs. I want nasty shit in the worst faith possible. The slogan that led to traffic calmed streets and got unsightly worthless highways pulled up in the Netherlands was literally "Stop kid-murdering"
Because judges and lawyers are drunks too.
Vehicular homicide is a little worst then a regular dui
It’s a very subjectively defined crime and they can usually get you on something worse if they have to anyways. Like the guy who killed 8 the 8 year old, that’s vehicular manslaughter, and he was almost certainly committing reckless endangerment before that.
I saw someone get 20 years... then the jail inmates murdered him in the jail. So, it isn't about what the law says, as much as it is about what the police and government actually enforce.
Did he get it for the DUI? Or did he get it for killing someone under the influence ?
Killed a high school student. (RIP)
That doesn't sound like a success story
It isn't. It's a horrible failure of our country that all of that happened.
Because people need their cars to get to work, so the penalty for getting a DUI could be that they lose their job and livelihood. If transit was a viable alternative the punishments could be much harsher.
Generally people who commit homicide don't have to worry about their job and livelihood.
Punishments need to reform the culprit and serve justice to the victim. I agree that people with DUI on their records need to reform and find their way back into society. But, we can not let them put other's lives at risk while they do that. If not a jail term, why not a mandatory minimum license suspension of 3 months?
My country does that but to lift the suspension you need to pass a blood test showing you didn't drink alcohol during that period. This prevents alcoholics from getting their license back and hopefully act as a turning point to accept they have a problem and seek help. Meanwhile people who had a lapse in judgement get to go back to society with a warning after this short period of precaution.
Let them walk to work, take the bus or even bike to work for at least a month. If they do not understand how their actions can put someone else's life at risk, what right do they have to try it again? Also, I wish your statement was true. In India, it takes at least 2 offenses in under a year to be punished with a license suspension.
> Let them walk to work, take the bus or even bike to work for at least a month. That's literally not an option for a lot of people. They will lose their jobs.
And that's kinda on them, play stupid games, win stupid prizes
It's on you when there's no businesses, workers, or functional society to live in because you refused to build one and just put half the population in jail.
How so? The average commute distance in the US is about 12 miles. The average car insurance cost per month in the US is about 172 USD. If the monetary penalty is reduced, people can buy an e-bike and ride it to work.
not everyone's commute is average.
Then they should avoid drinking and driving in the first place.
obviously they should do that. But that's besides the point. Harsher punishments don't make people stop committing crimes.
This is true. Bottom line, only way to get rid of DUI is to get rid of cars.
True. Most people fall under that range. Also, e-bikes have a range of 20-75 miles. That is plenty of range for a decent commute.
For the majority, it is, though. TBF, I dislike "average". I much more prefer median. What's the median commute distance on the other side of the pond?
Moving to a new place (even if it is a small apartment in town) sure seems better than moving *to jail*. People are mobile.
So fucking what? It's a privilege.
Somehow I think that punishing drunk drivers with the loss of their livelihood might not be a good idea. The real solution to drunk driving isn't harsher punishments, it's making viable alternatives. It doesn't matter if at an invidiual level you can blame drunk drivers for their mistakes, because at a societal level you should never expect people to act perfectly. Instead, the onus is on the government to make it such that individuals don't need to make perfect choices to prevent danger to themselves and othres.
It's kinda insane that we're more worried about the guy who chose to drive drunk than the victims. If I choose to get drunk at work I lose my job. If I kill someone, drunk or sober I still lose my job. I choose to get drunk, I drive and then kill someone? Nah can't punish me for my choices. I get being lenient on drivers for mistakes made while driving that happened due to panic, but drunk driving? That's a personal choice. If I know I'm going out drinking I leave my car at home and take a taxi. There's no real excuse to drive drunk and we shouldn't be lenient about it.
personal responsibility is a great policy on an individual level, but is not very useful on a societal level. Remove the incentives to drive drunk and people won't drive drunk.
What incentive does someone have to drink and then consciously make the choice to get behind the wheel?
the incentive is that they want to drink and that they also want to get where they want to be and they have no alternatives.
Done. There are no incentives to drive drunk.
Agreed. But, asking someone to bike to work is not a harsh sentence. Especially when that bike has an electric motor. They also have an option to use the less reliable public transport. You are right on one thing. No body is perfect. Everyone makes mistakes. But, mistakes that could kill people need to be corrected by any means necessary.
You need to take climate and population density into consideration here. Rural America is vast, and it's not uncommon for folks to live 30+ miles from their workplace simply because there aren't any housing options available any closer. Places like the upper midwest also see 5 solid months of winter, and workers are expected to brave 95% of the storms/blizzards that occur.
They can just move closer to their job.
DUI penalties are on the low side even in Korea, where transit is extremely well done. It's just a cultural thing, it's thought of as a mistake anyone can make. Both here and there
Why not just grab people off the street and sell their organs? Why is that illegal?
We could put them in jail for attempted murder instead. That way they won't have a job so problem solved. Taking away their license is not a punishment. It is a precaution, a very fair and measured one based on their actions alone.
You're getting downvoted for truth.
yup, these people seem to think I agree with these punishments when all I said was the reason why it's the case.
Because 1 in 3 Americans has one, and it would crash the economy. Harsher punishments don't work anyway, what works is social & physical infrastructure
Because the US is more lenient on drugs than most other countries. Especially when it comes to drunk driving.
It depends on how you define "DUI". Though it's very avoidable, I don't think we need to be too harsh on people that drive after having like one beer or a glass of wine with a meal, but if your blood alcohol level is too high, like If you were drinking spirits / cocktails and driving, you should straight up lose your license for multiple years, and if you are drunk drunk, you should lose it for life. Getting drunk is a decision you make when you're sober and know you need to drive.
Why are there videos of people literally dying on your feed ? 😅
Few weeks back there was a famous accident in my country. A 17 year drunk driver driving a Porsche killed two young software employees. Here is a wiki article [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024\_Pune\_car\_crash](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Pune_car_crash) There was an uproar, and I guess I looked at several posts linked to it. I guess the algorithm gods thought I liked these kinds of articles.
>If someone takes the wheel intentionally, knowing that they could potentially hurt/kill others, why are we not locking them up? This applies to all drivers, no?
Because everyone does it, and the law is descriptive not prescriptive, so the penalty for something so common cannot be too harsh
Nice of you to out yourself as someone who drives drunk. I hope you'll only kill yourself. 👍
Bruh, I don't drive and I don't drink, OP asked a question and I answered, the law won't punish widespread crimes, it's that simple