I don't know if the theory works in practice.
Being caught drunk driving 3(!!!) times is a seriously major crime. I'm a strong advocate for a complete driving ban after a single drunk driving episode, 3 is just crazy to me. I get the argument that in US that basically makes it impossible to get anywhere but I don't know - get a bicycle or something, literally anything is preferable to letting this people on the road again.
I’m am not advocating for lax DUI laws, but a driving ban is the equivalent of house arrest or forced relocation for some people/locations unless they have people who can help them with transportation.
Moving to a city with public transit would provide the most autonomy, but would also mean uprooting one’s life, leaving family behind, etc.
The total impact is indeed very harsh, even if it is necessary for the safety of others.
I understand. That doesn't change my stance on the matter.
So the suggestion was untenable from the start.
Driving drunk should be penalized, even harshly. But people should have a chance at rehabilitation.
In a car dependent society/region, a permanent ban without an opportunity for reform is cruel and unusual punishment.
If self driving cars were 100% here right now, or if we had better public transportation, I think it’d be a different story.
Other drivers are often very aggressive [5], there's not all that much you can do to mitigate harm at the time, there's practically nothing you can do to discourage that bad behavior if they didn't actually crash into anything, and even if they do your options can be limited.
[0] https://www.startribune.com/probation-for-negligent-truck-dr...
[1] https://www.annarbor.com/news/motorist-sentenced-to-probatio...
[2] https://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/driver-in-hit-and-run-that...
[3] https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/driver-in-crash-that-killed...
(if you kill enough children you can get a little jailtime, but again the fact that you were driving really dials back the sentencing) [4] https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/man-accused-in-deadly-wi...
[5] Not a source; I'm just appalled at the utter disregard for human life I see every time I compare SF drivers to the rest of the country. It's not everywhere that you'll see a car speed >60mph around the shoulder (dodging pedestrians) to pass the car stopped waiting for the kids to cross at the well-marked flashing crosswalk in their school zone, but that level of misbehavior is commonplace here. Why? Is it a sampling artifact? Other major cities don't _seem_ so bad in comparison.
The things I see now are mind bogglingly stupid and dangerous.
If it’s happening habitually, the penalties are generally more severe, and that seems reasonable.
If someone reforms themselves, gets sober, stays sober and can prove that, they’re no longer a habitual drunk driver.
To add to a sibling comment, the level of distracted driving happening right now is insane. I’ve been almost hit as a pedestrian and as a cyclist about a half dozen times in the past year due to drivers looking anywhere but at the road. Something changed during/after lockdowns. I think people got more addicted to their devices, and take that on the road with them.
IMO, DUI needs to roll up to a “driving while dangerously distracted” category. Checking instagram, FaceTiming, etc. while driving is as dangerous as driving drunk, and seems to be happening everywhere.
To be clear, my argument is not that people should be excused for bad behavior. But penalties need to be balanced against basic human rights, and should be applied fairly to bad driving behavior across the board.
After getting caught 3 times doing it? Meaning they do it very frequently and will never stop doing it? It's not an innocent mistake at this point.
Yes driving privileges should absolutely be revoked over it and if that ruins their life maybe they should have thought about the consequences of their actions?
I don't know what the answer to that is, since it's more difficult to catch and prove But at the least we should all call out our friends or family if we see them doing it, the same way we would if they were about to drive while drunk.
It sounds crazy but I bet if you were born 40 years earlier, you wouldn't care. Drunk driving wasn't even a thing until Mothers Against Drunk Driving made it a thing in the 80s.
I don't support drunk driving at all but it seems our views on right and wrong are just products of society, lol.
What I mean by this is that when people go out to eat lunch or dinner, they drive to the restaurant. They obviously need to drive back when they're done. They obviously also had some good drinks while they were there; beer, wine, the works. Even just a sip of alcohol will count as drunk driving, legally speaking.
The police largely turn a blind eye to this, because it's so utterly commonplace and a fact and part of life that policing this would quickly lead to a community and public revolt. Restaurants also happily serve alcohol because drunk driving is not their problem, and restaurants that don't will quickly go out of business anyway.
On the other side of the coin however, if you drive to a liquor store at an ungodly hour the police will be on you in an instant to check if you're driving drunk and arrest you if you are. Why? Because everyone wants or needs to eat and drink, but nobody needs to drop by a liquor store at 10pm.
The police will also check if you're driving drunk if they see you on the road and it's blatantly obvious you can't drive straight. This should go without saying, though; and it means most people who drink at restaurants can drive safe (FSVO safe).
Obligatory IANAL, obligatory don't drink and drive disclaimer.
Your statement seems pretty judgmental.
But yes, we agree don't drink and drive.
The police are almost never going to police restaurants, bars, wineries, and other such places even though there will obviously be plenty of potential drunk drivers to arrest. Meanwhile, a friend who parted ways with me after a night out stopped by a liquor store on the way home and was questioned and subsequently arrested (he was legally drunk) as he came out.
The point of this story is that the law states absolutely clearly that noone is allowed to drink and drive. On the other hand, practicality and reality means police will turn a blind eye to certain areas while enforcing the law elsewhere; knowing this is how the real world works is handy and important for what I hope are obvious reasons.
It's irrelevant to the time and place that we live in now, and drunk drivers are a menace that should be purged from our streets.
If we’re ready to cut off ~10% (or more) of drivers for life, we should bite the bullet and mandate ignition interlocks.
Driving is a privilege, not a right. But enforcement needs to help people make the right choice, not just be a lottery for ruining lives in car-dependent places (unfortunately most of the US).
I mention that because it involves a lot of road layout and roadside work setting control points, &c. I used to find so many empty flasks of booze, empty syringes, and empty pill bottles in the weeds on the side of the road that drivers had thrown out the windows of their vehicles. Even in some rural areas this was the case.
The point is that there's still a lot of Americans driving impaired. There's a certain amount of risk involved in operating or riding in a vehicle even if you are stone cold sober. You never know if other drivers are impaired until it's too late.
(Edit) As philwelch points out, the recidivism rate of all drunk drivers is technically different than that of first-time offenders. Accounting for this doesn't seem to wildly change the recidivism rate, though.
[0]: https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/811991...
Moral of the story: don't drive drunk, don't ride a bike drunk. Ideally, don't get drunk at all, but if you do, don't operate any kind of vehicle.
Personally I don't think either should result in losing a license, at least not for the first offense
But some people still choose to drive drunk.
But it doesn't matter, because "whiskey plates" are just plain wrong – they are a tongue-in-cheek, populist lawmaker's kool-aid. As a deterrent whiskey plates work best for conscious, god-fearing folk who rarely go over the limit. Besides these types of public shaming schemes can also have just the opposite effect, ie a university bro that looks cool with that whiskey plate or by creating enduring self or public confirmation that you are now that person the plate says you are. Adequate punishment would be to combine fines that are proportional to one's income, use tech like ignition interlock devices and invest on the individual's rehabilitation as a responsible driver, including participating in social services and education programs, among other ordinary measures.
Furthermore, permanently revoking a drivers license is a serious punishment in a country where transportation/commute is primarily done by car. Also not all DUI's are the same and there's a principle of proportionality that always applies when sentencing offenders. So strike-3-and-you're-done would be very harsh for the great majority of DUI/DWI cases in the US.
While "whiskey" plates are on the vehicle police officers can legally stop the driver of the vehicle for a impairment check without cause (e.g. without any indications that the driver is under the influence or any traffic violations.) The idea is that the extra enforcement is incentive for the recovering DUI driver to continue to drive safely and re-develop that habit.
Not any more. They changed this part of the law a few years ago. Probably around the same time that they (MN) began to implement breathalyzer interlocks where you can't start or drive the car if you're above a certain threshold.
However, I think that if you're pulled over and you have an active DUI but are not driving a car with whiskey plates, then it's an immediate loss of license.
> What happens if I drive a car without whiskey plates?
> It is a misdemeanor to drive a car that should have whiskey plates but doesn't. If you illegally remove whiskey plates from your car and are caught, you will go to jail.
> When you register for whiskey plates, you'll need to disclose all cars that you own or plan to drive and get whiskey plates for each of them.
So, it seems like you could incidentally drive a random car that you didn’t have a reasonable expectation to drive that specific car at a time of being forced to get whiskey plates.
https://www.ssdpa.com/articles/plate-impoundment-understandi...
Joking aside I imagine taking licenses away are a big part of it, but that doesn't stop them from driving, at least the license plate warns the rest of us not to drive too close to the guy.
For comparison the drink driving penalties are here: https://www.gov.uk/drink-driving-penalties
I’m figuring in UK if you get a DUI, it’s because you were driving allll over the place or got into a 3am collision.
In my country it's also common to get caught after being stopped for speeding or car malfunction (like missing headlight), after a minor crash, by driving in a suspicious way, or just during a random check (that police is allowed to do). In total, around 450 drivers out of 1000 are tested for drunk-driving every year. It's one of the higher numbers in EU, so drunk drivers here are also (hopefully) likely to be caught.
And the US DUI limit is insane - 0.08% BAC. In my country it's 0.02% BAC and if you get caught you lose a driving license for at least 6 months (with progressively more severe consequences for higher violations, up to a prison sentence, lifetime driving ban and losing your car permanently).
I can't speak for all EU countries, but I get the feeling that traffic enforcement is a lower priority by EU police than US/Canada.
Several hypothesized factors for this in EU: more competency-based licensing, more regular technical inspections of vehicles (so fewer missing headlights), more automated enforcement (so fewer in-person controls), less focus on revenue generation by police (again, fewer in-person speed/mechanical controls), and most collisions just being a matter of submitting paperwork to insurance without police involvement. In Ontario Canada, police interaction is mandatory if any injury, >$2k damage or public property damage, so 99% of collisions, which is far different than France at least.
So unless you have mobile alcohol checkpoints, even if drink-driving happens at the same rate as elsewhere, you're less likely to be caught in EU. And those that are caught probably did something more significant at the same time to warrant police attention.
But sounds like your country, testing 45% of drivers per year, makes up for those several factors I brought up. Doesn't seem to be the norm in my EU experience - I do ~25% of my driving there.
20 year old EU data on this on p. 21 here: https://road-safety.transport.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021...
Being awake for 17 hours (working late) is similar to having a BAC of 0.05%. [1]
Being awake for 24 hours (working a double shift) is similar to having a BAC of 0.10%
Simply talking on a phone while driving has been shown to be similar to a BAC of 0.08%.
Texting while driving is equivalent to a BAC of 0.19%! [2]
It seems like 0.02% BAC would be similar to listening to the radio.
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/work-hour-training-for-nurses/long...
https://facilities.uw.edu/blog/posts/2016/07/26/texting-and-....
Yes, it is. I think the bar tends to be a little higher though. Also there are often work exemptions.
It's difficult to register your car when you don't have a license, so then you usually stop registering your car too. And it's hard to get car insurance if you don't have an active license or a registered vehicle, so that's another thing to skip.
If you get pulled over, and have no license, no registration, and no insurance, but that's all that's really wrong, you'll most likely get a ticket, probably have your license suspended for longer, and might have your car taken away, but won't likely be put in jail. So, time to buy another cheap car, private party.
/I have a state ID and passport I use when I need to present valid ID
The biggest roadblocks are the zoning and the public transit, because NIMBYs will come out of the woodwork to prevent any work being done. What it comes down to is that the people who can make laws affecting DUIs and the people who can lessen car dependency in an area aren't really the same people, so it's much more difficult to get done.
The plate is there to shame the driver primarily and dissuade them from DUI, secondarily so the police pay more attention to them.
> Unless the vehicle was stolen or used with the permission of a person who did not knowingly permit an unlicensed driver to operate the vehicle, the registration plates of the vehicle shall be canceled by the secretary of state on notification by a peace officer.[1]
Similarly, this follows the car rather than the driver.
[1] https://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(s5t1ajhoq2c543ccg5zeslmb))...
This doesn't make much sense because the license plate is attached to the car, not the driver. Couldn't the manager just drive his wife's or friend's car or something? What purpose does the plate serve? "Warning everyone! A serial drink driver might be in this car, but might not be, and if he's in it he might be driving, or might not!" Totally useless. As someone else mentioned, wouldn't it make more sense to permanently revoke someone's license after 3 DUIs?