Advocacy & Safety - Crist to sign bike lane bill -- with an extra item

http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/state/governor-crist-to-sign-bicycle-bill

Apparently it's not just about bikes. It's also about giving people with revoked licenses, from 4 DUI's, a chance to get it back.

The bike lane thing is one issue, but the part about DUI's seems worse. It feels loosely like chanting "give us Barabbas!"

Not living in Florida (or ever planning on visiting that state for various reasons) this is distant to me. I imagine Florida cyclists are pretty miffed.

Because everybody deserves a second, third, fourth and even a fifth chance.

And why shouldn't I be able to enjoy a stiff drink while driving in the bike lane?

Seriously, this is one reason I don't live in Florida. Not that I'm expecting a mass exodus to make the state compete for sane people to live there or anything ... but it really doesn't sound like a good place for a cyclist to live.

"The bill mandates bicyclists to use designated bike lanes except for specified expectations which include when bike lane surface conditions are unsafe."

I think that's pretty reasonable. If the bike lane is obstructed in any way, you won't get a ticket.

"The bill also allows drivers with four DUI convictions to petition for a license after 10 years. Currently, their license is permanently revoked."

That's 10 freakin' years of wait. I would like to think that after 10 years one would get it into their head that another DUI is just not worth it.

It's getting better in Florida tho'. Traffic deaths in Florida hit record low (http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/accidents/traffic-deaths-in-florida-hit-record-low/1102387)

That ten years to amnesty provision might not be bad if being caught driving unlicensed or for public intox resets the clock to zero. That would, I think, provide motivation for the many alcoholics who also happen to be reasonable and responsible people. A lifetime driving ban only encourages unlicensed driving.

:thumb: Florida :thumb:

now there's a real reason to organize a giant CM ride there!

:lol:

"The bill mandates bicyclists to use designated bike lanes except for specified expectations which include when bike lane surface conditions are unsafe."

I think that's pretty reasonable. If the bike lane is obstructed in any way, you won't get a ticket.

There a few problems with that though. Such as the off duty cop who pulled me over a couple of years back when I was riding home. When I tried to explain to him that we cyclists do have the right to take the lane he tried to tell me that we didn't. As well as threatening to seize my bike on the spot. And this was a cop who was suppose to be a traffic homicide cop. Also as we have seen in some recent court cases there are plenty of LEO's out there who take the position that if THEY perceive something to be unsafe that it most also therefore be illegal, and even if it isn't illegal if they perceive it to be unsafe and even after being instructed in a court of law that it is both safe and legal that they would continue to write a citation for it.

Which can also lead to the LEO thinking that in their opinion that a bike lane is safe to use even though those of us who ride on a regular basis know better. As an example, not more than a 1/2-mile or so from my home there is a divided road with a bike lane. On the westbound side there is a curve going from the North-South road, that more cars than not when making that turn enter the bike lane. For that reason I do not, and will not ride in the bike lane, and the irony is that I on my bike give the bike lane a wider berth than do motorists. Once leaving that curve, there is usually broken glass in the much of the bike lane. Now even though I ride on Specialized Armadillo tires, I again will not ride in that section of the bike lane. But to someone in a car I am sure that that bike lane looks like it is perfectly "safe" to use.

The Eastbound bike lane isn't much better. It is right along side the on street parking. And there are usually at least one car parked there if not more as well as quite often a big rig or two. When there are cars in the marked on street parking, again I do and will not ride in the bike lane. And again I am sure to motorists that it looks as if it is a completely "safe" bike lane to ride in.


"The bill also allows drivers with four DUI convictions to petition for a license after 10 years. Currently, their license is permanently revoked."

That's 10 freakin' years of wait. I would like to think that after 10 years one would get it into their head that another DUI is just not worth it.

It's getting better in Florida tho'. Traffic deaths in Florida hit record low (http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/accidents/traffic-deaths-in-florida-hit-record-low/1102387)

Their license should be permanently revoked after their first DUI conviction with absolutely NO chance of ever getting it back. As just because it is their first time getting caught driving while under the influence of anything it is more likely than not, not their first time driving while under the influence of anything. They may have been "slightly buzzed" and let off with a warning, or they may have totally gotten away with it. And each time that they've gotten away with it encouraged them to continue doing so.

So, no I do not want anyone who has had even one conviction for DUI driving ever again. I mean it is a simple law, if you've been drinking, don't drive.

Haven't we been through all of this?

On the DUI point - believe it or not, people change. Alcoholics change. Not all, but many do. The restrictions placed on the licenses that people get back after a revocation are very severe (interlock systems, prove of rehabilitation, and the like), and I think they are appropriate. It's better to have a license with restricitons, so a person can be monitored, than for him to be driving without a license, which is what happens. I had a fellow in court today who just got released from 36 month in prison for driving with a suspended license. Is that really the best use of tax dollars?

On the DUI point - believe it or not, people change. Alcoholics change. Not all, but many do.
This.

No comment on whether or not the existing laws are fine. I can't really say for sure as I'm not even all that sure what Colorado's laws are.

I was under the impression that Crist had already signed this.

I've long been convinced that HB 971 is just a string of bad ideas. I hadn't heard that the DUI license restoration had a waiting time of ten years. The term "petition" makes it sounds like it would still be up for review. One would hope that convictions for driving without a license would factor against it.

The problem with the provision for the cyclist to judge the bike lane unsafe, is that many police officers in Florida don't understand the existing exceptions to their FRAP law. Under this law cyclists will be ticketed for not riding in unsafe bike lanes, and have to explain to a judge why they were out in traffic with the "grown up vehicles."

Oh boy!
I'm so excited to see what is going to happen at Friday's Critical Mass.
I enjoy attending them and there are always cops threatening the cyclists.

Not to mention that there is bike lanes through a good portion of the ride.
So I wonder if the cops are going to actually do anything or just continue throwing around empty threats.

This should be fun!

At least they might start cleaning the debris that has been in the bike lanes for years, now. :rolleyes:

Haven't we been through all of this?

On the DUI point - believe it or not, people change. Alcoholics change. Not all, but many do.

How many, how often and for how long?


The restrictions placed on the licenses that people get back after a revocation are very severe (interlock systems, prove of rehabilitation, and the like), and I think they are appropriate. It's better to have a license with restrictions, so a person can be monitored, than for him to be driving without a license, which is what happens. I had a fellow in court today who just got released from 36 month in prison for driving with a suspended license. Is that really the best use of tax dollars?

As an officer of the court how many people come through your courtroom who'd been arrested for driving without or on a suspended license?

And I'm sorry, but driving without or on a suspended license isn't as bad as a person who has one or more DUI's. Also how many times had the guy who had been released been arrested/ticketed for driving without or on a suspended license? And were there any other charges against him besides the driving without or on a suspended license?

And given that one car can kill more people at the same time vs. a man with a gun. Like I said, I don't want someone who has had even one DUI behind the wheel of a car. Even with an ignition interlock system. As what's to stop them from having someone who is sober from breathing into it, or filling up balloons and using them to "breath" into the interlock???

I was under the impression that Crist had already signed this.

I've long been convinced that HB 971 is just a string of bad ideas. I hadn't heard that the DUI license restoration had a waiting time of ten years. The term "petition" makes it sounds like it would still be up for review. One would hope that convictions for driving without a license would factor against it.

The problem with the provision for the cyclist to judge the bike lane unsafe, is that many police officers in Florida don't understand the existing exceptions to their FRAP law. Under this law cyclists will be ticketed for not riding in unsafe bike lanes, and have to explain to a judge why they were out in traffic with the "grown up vehicles."

Grey Ryder,

I can verify that. As I've said before the off duty traffic homicide cop that pulled me over a couple of years ago clearly either didn't know or care about the exceptions to the preexisting exceptions to the FRAP portion of the law. And also unfortunately as I'm sure I don't need to say most people (and that includes the LEO's) interpret FRAP to mean that cyclists have to either ride in the gutter pan, or hug the curb instead of actually riding in the lane.

As well as how many are going to know that if we are traveling at the posted speed limit that we are not required to either ride in a bike lane or to ride as FRAP?

As I understand it part of the new DUI law states IF the individuals request for reinstatement is granted they are required to install an alcohol interlock device in their vehicle as well as pay about $80.00 per month for the service so in spirit it's not all bad. Don't get me wrong I believe it's a very bad idea but in all honesty does not having a license really stop anyone from driving, I don't think so just look around.

Because everybody deserves a second, third, fourth and even a fifth chance.

That is just plain lunacy. A second chance I understand, perhaps a third... but beyond that... you're OUT! Sheesh...

"The bill mandates bicyclists to use designated bike lanes except for specified expectations which include when bike lane surface conditions are unsafe."

I think that's pretty reasonable. If the bike lane is obstructed in any way, you won't get a ticket.

"The bill also allows drivers with four DUI convictions to petition for a license after 10 years. Currently, their license is permanently revoked."

That's 10 freakin' years of wait. I would like to think that after 10 years one would get it into their head that another DUI is just not worth it.

It's getting better in Florida tho'. Traffic deaths in Florida hit record low (http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/accidents/traffic-deaths-in-florida-hit-record-low/1102387)

I would think after a second DUI they would get in their head that they are screwed up! Sorry... 10 years is not long enough. There should be no "reset" for folks with this sort of record.

As I understand it part of the new DUI law states IF the individuals request for reinstatement is granted they are required to install an alcohol interlock device in their vehicle as well as pay about $80.00 per month for the service so in spirit it's not all bad. Don't get me wrong I believe it's a very bad idea but in all honesty does not having a license really stop anyone from driving, I don't think so just look around.

If that device works they should be installing it after one DUI. At 4 you should probably be exiled (obvious humor, humor is obvious).

Their license should be permanently revoked after their first DUI conviction with absolutely NO chance of ever getting it back.

Highly disagree.

The world is not all black and white, and it's very easy for people to make statements like this without putting themselves in those shoes or just thinking a little bit.

First of all, I very much agree with the sentiment of Kerlenbach that people DO change, and people DO deserve a second chance. Hell, I know one. He was a kid, he made a mistake, and he got popped for it. He has seriously paid for it, both financially and otherwise. He's sorry, he regretted it, and he would never even think of doing it again. I don't think a person like that deserves to have their driving privileges completely revoked for life, especially in a country where in some places. it can be very difficult to even survive without a car. He caused no damage (yes, he certainly could have), and he repaid his debt to society, as far as I'm concerned (and the law).

Secondly, what if you were wrongly convicted? It does happen you know. Or if there was just an open container in the car? You think someone who is stone cold sober but with a passenger who had a beer in the backseat should have his license pulled for life? What about someone who just went to sleep in their car while drunk? People have been convicted in that case too, you know. In zero tolerance places cold medicine can set you over. How would you feel if you were convicted in a case like this and could never drive again? What, you just hope the appeal works out?

No, no, this is far too militant, and thankfully our society as a whole realizes that. We have a serious problem with drunk driving, but the laws are not really the problem. It's a cultural, and logistical one.

What, do you want a law like El Salvador (http://webpages.charter.net/ricknet/duilaws.htm)'s? :rolleyes:

Highly disagree.

The world is not all black and white, and it's very easy for people to make statements like this without putting themselves in those shoes or just thinking a little bit.

This is true, the world is not black and white.


First of all, I very much agree with the sentiment of Kerlenbach that people DO change, and people DO deserve a second chance. Hell, I know one. He was a kid, he made a mistake, and he got popped for it. He has seriously paid for it, both financially and otherwise. He's sorry, he regretted it, and he would never even think of doing it again. I don't think a person like that deserves to have their driving privileges completely revoked for life, especially in a country where in some places. it can be very difficult to even survive without a car. He caused no damage (yes, he certainly could have), and he repaid his debt to society, as far as I'm concerned (and the law).

My question still stands, how many people change and how often do they change, and for how long do they change? And as has been said before just because it is a person's first DUI conviction that doesn't mean that it is the first time that they've driven drunk. It is a safe to presume that they have driven before while drunk. Again, yes some change, but really what percentage actually do change?


Secondly, what if you were wrongly convicted? It does happen you know. Or if there was just an open container in the car? You think someone who is stone cold sober but with a passenger who had a beer in the backseat should have his license pulled for life? What about someone who just went to sleep in their car while drunk? People have been convicted in that case too, you know. In zero tolerance places cold medicine can set you over. How would you feel if you were convicted in a case like this and could never drive again? What, you just hope the appeal works out?

That's what the appeals process is for. The law says if I am not mistaken that there is to be NO open container within reach of the driver. If his BAC shows even a trace amount of alcohol or if there is an open container where he can have access to it, why should he get off scott free? Yes even if one just "fell" asleep in their car while drunk particularly if they have the key in the ignition as it shows their intent to drive while drunk. If on the other hand they are laying down in the back of the car asleep that might be different.

And if I am not mistaken, these days cough medicine/syrup now carries a warning label, warning that using it might impair their ability to operate various types of equipment, to include motor vehicles.


No, no, this is far too militant, and thankfully our society as a whole realizes that. We have a serious problem with drunk driving, but the laws are not really the problem. It's a cultural, and logistical one.

Exactly, for way too long drunk driving was treated not a very serious problem. Sadly, now that it is being treated as the serious problem that it is we as a nation still have to deal with too many people viewing it as not being a big deal.


What, do you want a law like El Salvador (http://webpages.charter.net/ricknet/duilaws.htm)'s? :rolleyes:

I've posted that list myself once or twice.

I've posted that list myself once or twice.
As a joke, or do you actually believe it's true?

As a joke, or do you actually believe it's true?

To be honest given that there is at least one other country that lists execution as the penalty for a second offense I have to think that there is at least some truth to the penalties in that list.

DC - I don't know what percentage of alcoholics change, and the number really is beside the point.Here's why. In the law, and in life for that matter, you don't deal with percentages, you deal with individuals. I learned that the hard way. I was diagnosed with colon cancer in 2003, and in 2005 it spread to my liver, making it stage 4. The five-year survival rate for stage 4 colon cancer is about 30%. I finished chemo on July 19, 2006, meaning that, statistically, I had a 30% chance of living until July 19, 2011. But, I have learned, survival is not a game of percentages. For an individual it is binary - the answer is either yes or no. I am cancer-free, meaning that for me, I would say my chances of making it to 7/19/11 are around 100%, not 30%

It works the same in court - the likelihood whether an individual will or will not reoffend can be expressed statistically, but for a particular person the answer is binary. That's why each person must be treated as an individual, and why painting everyone with the same brush is not justice. Treating everyone the same is called "wholesale judging." It's a whole lot easier than retail judging, but a lot less fair.

I am not a criminal court judge, but I can tell you that the crime of driving with a suspended license is by more than a factor of 2, the most frequently charged crime in this county and probably throughout Florida. Drivers licenses get suspended all the time (I deal with child support DL suspensions almost daily) for good reasons and bad. To raise revenue, the state has greatly bumped up traffic fines, meaning more and more people get suspensions for failing to pay fines. Too often a small fine results in a cascading failure to pay, resulting in a very long suspension.

So, letting a repeat DUI offender petition to get his license back after a 10-year revocation is fair.

DC - I don't know what percentage of alcoholics change, and the number really is beside the point.Here's why. In the law, and in life for that matter, you don't deal with percentages, you deal with individuals.

True, but you also know that those statistics and percentages are a good guide for who is and which crimes are likely to be repeat offenders/repeated. And as such that they cannot be totally ignored either. The LBS that I go used to rent space in a strip mall next door to a small restaurant/bar and grill type of place. And we'd be sitting back in the workshop listening to the people next door (I don't know if they knew if we could hear them or not or how clearly we could hear them) and laugh at them because they would go on at length about how "Just because I drink X-number of cases of beer/booze a day and I am on my Y-DUI that doesn't mean that I'm an alcoholic." Just listening to them talk I think that it is safe to presume that if they had were given a Breathalyzer test, or had their blood drawn for a BAC that they would be well over the legal limit. And I am sure that you know full well as an officer of the court that just because it is a person's first arrest and/or conviction for DUI that more likely than not that it isn't the first time that they've been driving while under the influence of whatever substance.

And I am sorry but there are certain offense that the first time that a person gets caught committing that they should have to face series jail time/penalties. And Driving under the influence of any mind altering substance is one of those. As I am sure we all know how easy it is for a sober but distracted driver to "not see us" and end up hitting and killing us, and than to use one of the two "magic get out of jail free cards," i.e. "But officer I didn't see him/her," or "But officer they just 'swerved' into my lane and I didn't have time to avoid them." Throw alcohol or some other mind altering substance into the mix and you're really asking for trouble.

I'm also sure that we all know that even with the Breathalyzer interlocks installed in a repeat offenders car that there is no way to insure that the repeat offender isn't going to go out drinking, get wasted and than get someone else who isn't wasted to blow into the interlock. So that they can drive home or to the next bar.

The better way to have those Breathalyzer interlocks setup is as I think I've said before have them not only analyze the breath for alcohol but temperature and moisture content to insure that it came from a person's lungs, as well as DNA to insure that it came from the person who it is suppose to have come from and that they have to breath into it either every X-number of miles driven or every Y-number of minutes. As well as having either a video or web cam mounted so that it observes the person who is blowing in the Breathalyzer interlock.


I learned that the hard way. I was diagnosed with colon cancer in 2003, and in 2005 it spread to my liver, making it stage 4. The five-year survival rate for stage 4 colon cancer is about 30%. I finished chemo on July 19, 2006, meaning that, statistically, I had a 30% chance of living until July 19, 2011. But, I have learned, survival is not a game of percentages. For an individual it is binary - the answer is either yes or no. I am cancer-free, meaning that for me, I would say my chances of making it to 7/19/11 are around 100%, not 30%

I hope that you do beat the odds, but again as an officer of the court you know that you can't totally ignore those numbers either.


It works the same in court - the likelihood whether an individual will or will not re-offend can be expressed statistically, but for a particular person the answer is binary. That's why each person must be treated as an individual, and why painting everyone with the same brush is not justice. Treating everyone the same is called "wholesale judging." It's a whole lot easier than retail judging, but a lot less fair.

I am not a criminal court judge, but I can tell you that the crime of driving with a suspended license is by more than a factor of 2, the most frequently charged crime in this county and probably throughout Florida. Drivers licenses get suspended all the time (I deal with child support DL suspensions almost daily) for good reasons and bad. To raise revenue, the state has greatly bumped up traffic fines, meaning more and more people get suspensions for failing to pay fines. Too often a small fine results in a cascading failure to pay, resulting in a very long suspension.

So, letting a repeat DUI offender petition to get his license back after a 10-year revocation is fair.

Unless you happen to end up as a victim of this multiple repeat offender. How does the court explain to the little girl or boy that because even though the person who hit and killed their parents had had 4 DUI's and served their 10 year suspended license that they were able to petition to get an interlock installed on their car and get their license back?

How is it fair to society to allow a person who has been convicted of DUI four times back on the road with an interlock and/or suspended license? As you've said you deal with numerous cases of people who continue to drive on suspended licenses. Even going so far as to ask whether or not putting them away in prison is a good use of a limited resource or not.

How would you recommend that a person who has been arrested for AND convicted of numerous DUIs and/or driving on a suspended license be treated? I agree that putting them into the Federal system right away probably isn't a good use of a limited resource. But what about putting them into either the Country or State penal system? Starting out in the county system for the first offense for X-amount of days, and a second, third, etc. getting them longer stays until they finally "graduate" to the state lockup. Where again they spend X-amount of time, number of convictions in the State lockup before eventually graduating to the Federal lockup.

And as we know there are still certain areas of the country where DUI (despite all of the media coverage) is treated as no big deal. Even after individuals have wrapped numerous cars around telephone poles and trees and whatnot.

How many "second chances" should a person get before they "graduate" to killing someone because they were driving while drunk, stoned, or otherwise wasted?

[I][B]It's getting better in Florida tho'. Traffic deaths in Florida hit record low (http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/accidents/traffic-deaths-in-florida-hit-record-low/1102387)


Note: All of the fatalities involved at least one motor vehicle; some involved pedestrians or bicyclists

While the numbers are not out yet on the web for 2009 traditionally Florida has had a very high pedestrian and bicyclists fatality rate so I'm still holding out for that detail before I'll say Florida is getting better.

My question still stands, how many people change and how often do they change, and for how long do they change?

It doesn't really matter. In a free society individual's are judged by themselves, not by statistics. Not only is it (IMO) immoral to apply statistics to how we treat people and especially how we deal justice, but statistics can be easily manipulated. You know what they say about the three kinds of lies...


And as has been said before just because it is a person's first DUI conviction that doesn't mean that it is the first time that they've driven drunk. It is a safe to presume that they have driven before while drunk. Again, yes some change, but really what percentage actually do change?

No, it is not safe to presume that. Innocent until proven guilty provides a slight hitch there.

Why not apply this logic to all crimes? Why does this only apply to DUI's? If you've caught a thief, he's likely stolen before in the past too, right? So let's charge him thusly. If he is a first time offender, well, tough noogies and bad luck.


That's what the appeals process is for.

You'd better pray you get a fair shake, otherwise you can never legally drive again.


The law says if I am not mistaken that there is to be NO open container within reach of the driver.

Yes it does, hence why I included it. What I was driving at though is this: Do you think having your license suspended for life is a reasonable punishment for simply having an open container in the vehicle, even though you were not drunk?


If his BAC shows even a trace amount of alcohol or if there is an open container where he can have access to it, why should he get off scott free?

I never said he should get off scot-free. Only that a lifetime ban on driving for a first offense is over the top.


Yes even if one just "fell" asleep in their car while drunk particularly if they have the key in the ignition as it shows their intent to drive while drunk. If on the other hand they are laying down in the back of the car asleep that might be different.


I disagree. I actually knew a woman this happened to. She was drunk, and couldn't drive. She called her husband to come pick her up, but he wasn't answering his phone. So she got in the car, leaned the seat back all the way (yeah, like someone can even drive like that), put the key in the ignition, turned the radio on, and went to sleep (car was not running). She woke up to a cop knocking on the window. Got popped for a DUI.

Call me crazy, I think that a lifetime ban on driving for something like that is absolutely ridiculous (and truthfully, I think a DUI conviction in this case is silly anyway. Yeah, let's go after the people who are being responsible enough to not drive on a technicality rather than after real criminals. Go team us!)


And if I am not mistaken, these days cough medicine/syrup now carries a warning label, warning that using it might impair their ability to operate various types of equipment, to include motor vehicles.

Sure. Groggy day at the office, forgot you took some cold medicine... whoops! Lifetime ban! See where this is going?


Exactly, for way too long drunk driving was treated not a very serious problem. Sadly, now that it is being treated as the serious problem that it is we as a nation still have to deal with too many people viewing it as not being a big deal.

Sure, but the law is not the problem.


I've posted that list myself once or twice.

It is amusing.

It doesn't really matter. In a free society individual's are judged by themselves, not by statistics. Not only is it (IMO) immoral to apply statistics to how we treat people and especially how we deal justice, but statistics can be easily manipulated. You know what they say about the three kinds of lies...

True, but by the same token the judicial system after trying so many cases for so many years has come to learn that certain crimes are likely to be repeated by the individual committing them. Even if they are a first time offender.


No, it is not safe to presume that. Innocent until proven guilty provides a slight hitch there.

Would you say that even if there was video and/or eyewitnesses that saw the "first time" DUI leaving the bar staggering, falling down drunk not just on the day that they were stopped and arrested, but repeatedly for months or even years previously? And let's say that this "first time" DUI who is treated leniently by the court system goes out get's drunk again and ends up slamming their car into an innocent bystanders car killing them, how are you going to explain to their children that even though there was video, and eyewitnesses that proved that they habitually drove drunk that because they were a "first time offender" that they "deserved" a second chance?

Understandably all they're going to care about is taht a person with a history of going out, getting drunk and driving did so again and this time it cost them their mother or their father.

Yes, we have that nice little provision in the law. And there is one thing about it that has never made much sense to me. That is that if a security camera clearly caught the suspect on tape committing the crime, and they confess to their crime of their own free will why is a trial needed?


Why not apply this logic to all crimes? Why does this only apply to DUI's? If you've caught a thief, he's likely stolen before in the past too, right? So let's charge him thusly. If he is a first time offender, well, tough noogies and bad luck.



You'd better pray you get a fair shake, otherwise you can never legally drive again.

To be honest I don't have an answer for the first part, but for the second I do not drive, never (other than Drivers Ed in High School) drove, not even while I was on Active Duty in the US Army did I drive. And we have enough Active Duty Servicemen and Vets here that can tell you that that IS an uncommon occurrence.


Yes it does, hence why I included it. What I was driving at though is this: Do you think having your license suspended for life is a reasonable punishment for simply having an open container in the vehicle, even though you were not drunk?

Given that the law says that there are to be no open containers in the car, or at least where the driver has access to them, yes.


I never said he should get off scot-free. Only that a lifetime ban on driving for a first offense is over the top.

What would you consider to be an appropriate punishment for a first time offender?


I disagree. I actually knew a woman this happened to. She was drunk, and couldn't drive. She called her husband to come pick her up, but he wasn't answering his phone. So she got in the car, leaned the seat back all the way (yeah, like someone can even drive like that), put the key in the ignition, turned the radio on, and went to sleep (car was not running). She woke up to a cop knocking on the window. Got popped for a DUI.

After calling her husband and not getting any answer why didn't she go back into the bar/club? Where she could have ordered soda or coffee and listened to music and give herself time to sober up? Why didn't she sit down on a bench or chair that might have been outside of the bar/club? Yes, she did the smart thing of calling her husband to come and pick her up, but when he didn't answer why didn't she try to call another friend or family member to come and pick her up? But it wasn't very smart of her to put the key in the ignition so that she could listen to the radio while she slept. Especially considering that there has been more than one study that shows that listening to music while going to sleep is actually counter-productive.


Call me crazy, I think that a lifetime ban on driving for something like that is absolutely ridiculous (and truthfully, I think a DUI conviction in this case is silly anyway. Yeah, let's go after the people who are being responsible enough to not drive on a technicality rather than after real criminals. Go team us!)

Yes, it might seem ridiculous to give someone in that situation a lifetime ban on driving, but don't forget that in this country WAY too many people treat driving as an engraved in stone right and not the privilege that it is. And if it takes measures such as this to remind people that driving IS a privilege and NOT a right, than isn't that a small price to pay in order to wake up American and change people's opinions about drinking and driving?


Sure. Groggy day at the office, forgot you took some cold medicine... whoops! Lifetime ban! See where this is going?

I have no problem with that, if one is mature enough to drive one is mature enough to take responsibility for their actions. And if one's mental state is such that they cannot remember taking cough/cold medicine than they don't need to be driving until their mental state improves.


Sure, but the law is not the problem.

True, it's the "boys will be boys" attitude that sadly way too many people still have in regards to drinking and driving. And if it take harsh laws with severe penalties to change those attitudes than that is what it takes.


It is amusing.

And why shouldn't I be able to enjoy a stiff drink while driving in the bike lane?

Seriously, this is one reason I don't live in Florida. Not that I'm expecting a mass exodus to make the state compete for sane people to live there or anything ... but it really doesn't sound like a good place for a cyclist to live.

It is a reason I also have no interest in Florida. The other reasons are all the other conservative nutjobs living in Florida. Seriously. What a messed up State. But from the state that gives you Florida Gator fans and the Tebow cam, what can you expect.

Well, I'm going to wrap up my end of it here, because it seems like we've reached a point where we either agree, or we agree to disagree.


True, but by the same token the judicial system after trying so many cases for so many years has come to learn that certain crimes are likely to be repeated by the individual committing them. Even if they are a first time offender.

I'm not saying your wrong. Honestly, I don't know what those crimes are, and how often that holds true, but it wouldn't surprise me if you're right. What I am saying, as with my example to applying this logic to thieves, etc, is that it simply has no bearing on how much harsher the punishment should be.


Would you say that even if there was video and/or eyewitnesses that saw the "first time" DUI leaving the bar staggering, falling down drunk not just on the day that they were stopped and arrested, but repeatedly for months or even years previously?

If it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he was previously DUI, then I have no problem with multiple DUI convictions. If it cannot be proved, no, I do not think he should be charged any harsher. Our justice system is built upon presumed innocence and the burden to prove something beyond reasonable doubt. I like it like that.


And let's say that this "first time" DUI who is treated leniently by the court system goes out get's drunk again and ends up slamming their car into an innocent bystanders car killing them, how are you going to explain to their children that even though there was video, and eyewitnesses that proved that they habitually drove drunk that because they were a "first time offender" that they "deserved" a second chance?

Well firstly, this "How are you going to explain to the children" thing is a tear-jerker.

Secondly, I have no problem with harsher punishment if it can be proved that this is not the first offense. But you're adding a lot of qualifiers to your original statement of "First time offenders should get a lifetime ban".

Thirdly, we can again apply this logic of your "explain to the children" scenario to other crimes. A thief is caught and prosecuted and sent to jail. He gets out and goes and commits another burglary, killing the father who startled them in the house. What do you say to the children who lost their father?

What, do we just always lock every criminal up for life and throw away the key? This is a knee-jerk reaction from Americans in the quest for ultimate-safety that can never be achieved. While sometimes the worst-case scenario happens, you cannot, in a free society, judge an individual especially harshly because he is statistically more likely to repeat his crime. Or else why don't we apply these statistics to age, race, and whatever else you'd like. Because it is not right, and goes against everything this country stands for.


Understandably all they're going to care about is taht a person with a history of going out, getting drunk and driving did so again and this time it cost them their mother or their father.

Yes, understandably.


Yes, we have that nice little provision in the law. And there is one thing about it that has never made much sense to me. That is that if a security camera clearly caught the suspect on tape committing the crime, and they confess to their crime of their own free will why is a trial needed?

Well, that is a situation where they probably would be proven guilty. But people can be framed, film manipulated, confessions forced. A trial with the presumption of innocence for the accused is the very foundation of freedom.

Imagine, if you will, someone accuses you of something horrendous. Say, child abuse. Do you think you should have to prove your innocence? Or do you think that the accuser should have to prove their assertions?

The onus is always on the one making the assertion to prove their point.


To be honest I don't have an answer for the first part, but for the second I do not drive, never (other than Drivers Ed in High School) drove, not even while I was on Active Duty in the US Army did I drive. And we have enough Active Duty Servicemen and Vets here that can tell you that that IS an uncommon occurrence.

Do you think that everyone in America could get around reasonably easily without a car? I don't...


Given that the law says that there are to be no open containers in the car, or at least where the driver has access to them, yes.

We aren't talking about what the law says, we're talking about what it should say and why. Regardless though, I think that's major overkill. You're swinging the pendulum too far the other way.


What would you consider to be an appropriate punishment for a first time offender?

I consider the current treatment in California fairly reasonable. I would like to see the legally drunk number dropped a little lower than .08, however. Also, I would like to see repeat offenses more harshly punished.


After calling her husband and not getting any answer why didn't she go back into the bar/club? Where she could have ordered soda or coffee and listened to music and give herself time to sober up? Why didn't she sit down on a bench or chair that might have been outside of the bar/club? Yes, she did the smart thing of calling her husband to come and pick her up, but when he didn't answer why didn't she try to call another friend or family member to come and pick her up? But it wasn't very smart of her to put the key in the ignition so that she could listen to the radio while she slept. Especially considering that there has been more than one study that shows that listening to music while going to sleep is actually counter-productive.

I think you are being contrary here. You and I both know that a lifetime ban in this situation would not be reasonable.


Yes, it might seem ridiculous to give someone in that situation a lifetime ban on driving, but don't forget that in this country WAY too many people treat driving as an engraved in stone right and not the privilege that it is. And if it takes measures such as this to remind people that driving IS a privilege and NOT a right, than isn't that a small price to pay in order to wake up American and change people's opinions about drinking and driving?

No, that is not a small price to pay. I don't think you really are grasping what a lifetime ban on driving in a country so car-centric does to people. I don't think you grasp how big of a deal it really is. I can but agree to disagree with you on this point.

I understand your goal, but I disagree with your method. The fact of the matter is, not everyone is in a position to be able to ride a bike to work, or to take the bus. We have a country where it can sometimes be plain impossible to get from point A to point B in anything but a car (for some people). I can think of a few families that would be utterly screwed and ruined with a lifetime ban on driving. And that, I think, is punishment that does not fit the crime.


I have no problem with that, if one is mature enough to drive one is mature enough to take responsibility for their actions. And if one's mental state is such that they cannot remember taking cough/cold medicine than they don't need to be driving until their mental state improves.

:rolleyes:

Glad to know you remember every little damn think you do throughout the day. Oh, and if you ever forget anything you did, be sure not to drive, because you aren't in a mental state for it. Oh, brother.

You are being contrary and are purposefully dodging my point here.


True, it's the "boys will be boys" attitude that sadly way too many people still have in regards to drinking and driving.

Yes.


And if it take harsh laws with severe penalties to change those attitudes than that is what it takes.

No. And I'd point out yet again, that you could apply this logic to absolutely any crime and anything, with unforseen consequences.

Well, I'm going to wrap up my end of it here, because it seems like we've reached a point where we either agree, or we agree to disagree.

There are some points that I don't think that we'll be able to "agree to disagree" on.


I'm not saying your wrong. Honestly, I don't know what those crimes are, and how often that holds true, but it wouldn't surprise me if you're right. What I am saying, as with my example to applying this logic to thieves, etc, is that it simply has no bearing on how much harsher the punishment should be.

In watching the news and seeing the light, lenient, slap on the wrist sentences being handed out for a lot of crimes, I'm reminded of the theme song from the "old" Beretta show.

"Don't do the crime if you can't do the time, whoa whoa don't do it."


If it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he was previously DUI, then I have no problem with multiple DUI convictions. If it cannot be proved, no, I do not think he should be charged any harsher. Our justice system is built upon presumed innocence and the burden to prove something beyond reasonable doubt. I like it like that.

And what would you accept as proof? I'd already listed the two most common one's i.e. video tape, and eyewitnesses. As has been said, the more someone is able to get away with doing something the bolder they become in doing so, until the come to "believe" that they have the "right" to continue to do so.


Well firstly, this "How are you going to explain to the children" thing is a tear-jerker.

And don't you think that the DA trying the case isn't going to be trotting out pictures of the victims family members to show the jury the "cost" of the accused actions?


Secondly, I have no problem with harsher punishment if it can be proved that this is not the first offense. But you're adding a lot of qualifiers to your original statement of "First time offenders should get a lifetime ban".

But according to you because the accused hadn't been stopped and/or arrested before they are still a first time offender who should be treated with "kid gloves."


Thirdly, we can again apply this logic of your "explain to the children" scenario to other crimes. A thief is caught and prosecuted and sent to jail. He gets out and goes and commits another burglary, killing the father who startled them in the house. What do you say to the children who lost their father?

Exactly way too many people are unwilling to accept responsibility for their actions, or thinks that their "situation" in life somehow excuses their behavior. Just look at all the families that have been on welfare for multiple generations. Instead of using the welfare program as the hand up that it was suppose to be we have people and families out there who have learned to "work the system" and feel that they are "entitled" to that monthly welfare check. Even going as far as having as many kids as the possibly can, as early can, because they know/have learned that the more kids that they have the more money that they are "entitled" to from the welfare system. And their kids learn this and repeat the cycle themselves passing it on to their children.


What, do we just always lock every criminal up for life and throw away the key? This is a knee-jerk reaction from Americans in the quest for ultimate-safety that can never be achieved. While sometimes the worst-case scenario happens, you cannot, in a free society, judge an individual especially harshly because he is statistically more likely to repeat his crime. Or else why don't we apply these statistics to age, race, and whatever else you'd like. Because it is not right, and goes against everything this country stands for.

No, but first time offenders should not get a "slap on the wrist" and lenient treatment simply because they are a first time offender. And no I am not saying that first time offenders should be sentenced to a federal facility where they are likely to be "schooled" in how to better commit crimes. And yes, jail should be about punishment but it should also be about education (the right kind) so that when the offender gets how he or she stands a better chance at earning an honest living.

Uh, actually in several areas we do just that, as if I am not mistaken young male drivers pay higher premiums than older male drivers. Drivers of "high powered" sports cars also if I am not mistaken pay higher premiums than those who drive a "reasonable" and safe sedan.

Why do you think there is the actuary field? It's their job to study numbers and to make predictions based on those numbers.


Yes, understandably.


Well, that is a situation where they probably would be proven guilty. But people can be framed, film manipulated, confessions forced. A trial with the presumption of innocence for the accused is the very foundation of freedom.

That's why I specified that the video clearly shows the accused having committed the crime, as well as having freely confessed to their crime. I know that video and pictures can be manipulated so as to show something other than what really happened as well as confessions can be forced, coerced, and outright beaten out of a person. Which is as I said why I said that the video clearly shows them committing their crime(s) as well as having freely confessed to their crime(s). That includes those "mental giants" who go on a crime spree and video tape themselves in the action of breaking the law. As well as making comments on said video tape about how much fun they had in doing so.


Imagine, if you will, someone accuses you of something horrendous. Say, child abuse. Do you think you should have to prove your innocence? Or do you think that the accuser should have to prove their assertions?

There are I believe countries and cultures where that IS the normal course of events. That it is on the accused to prove their innocence, not the state to prove their guilt.


The onus is always on the one making the assertion to prove their point.

Again not in all countries/cultures.


Do you think that everyone in America could get around reasonably easily without a car? I don't...

Myself and others seem to do so without much problem, how do you explain that? And let's not forget that at one time cities and towns were laid out with the walker/biker/horse rider in mind NOT the driver.


We aren't talking about what the law says, we're talking about what it should say and why. Regardless though, I think that's major overkill. You're swinging the pendulum too far the other way.

I happen to think that that is a good law to have on the books.


I consider the current treatment in California fairly reasonable. I would like to see the legally drunk number dropped a little lower than .08, however. Also, I would like to see repeat offenses more harshly punished.

What number would you pick? The only thing that I would like to see happen with drunk drivers (and that also covers addicts of all kinds) is that instead of being sent to jail they're given the option to go to a rehab facility and given the opportunity to clean up. IF for whatever reason they choose not to than send them to jail.


I think you are being contrary here. You and I both know that a lifetime ban in this situation would not be reasonable.

Sorry, but I do not agree with you. As we still have WAY too many people out there who think that it is okay to get "lit, wasted, stoned, high, what have you" and drive. If confiscating their car and imposing a lifetime ban is what it takes than that is what we need to do. And that confiscating of the car includes any and all cars they might be driving whether it's their car or a friends car, or a family members car. IF more people realized that they could lose their car because they loaned it to someone who got drunk and then drove people would be more careful about who they loaned their car to.


No, that is not a small price to pay. I don't think you really are grasping what a lifetime ban on driving in a country so car-centric does to people. I don't think you grasp how big of a deal it really is. I can but agree to disagree with you on this point.

We've become so car-centric because we've bought into Detroit's "hype" that in order to be "cool" and "respected" you "must" drive this or that car. There was a time when most people lived and worked no more than 50 miles from the place that they were born. Sadly that isn't always true now a days.


I understand your goal, but I disagree with your method. The fact of the matter is, not everyone is in a position to be able to ride a bike to work, or to take the bus. We have a country where it can sometimes be plain impossible to get from point A to point B in anything but a car (for some people). I can think of a few families that would be utterly screwed and ruined with a lifetime ban on driving. And that, I think, is punishment that does not fit the crime.

That is why people should give more thought to the forms of public transportation is available in an area before moving there. As well as they should (and yes I realize that it may not always be the case) work that is close to where they live or a home close to where they work. I also seem to remember a time (I want to say the 60's and 70's) when people who lived in the suburbs would take the train into "the city" to work leaving the car at home.


:rolleyes:

Glad to know you remember every little damn think you do throughout the day. Oh, and if you ever forget anything you did, be sure not to drive, because you aren't in a mental state for it. Oh, brother.

How many times do I have to say that I do not drive??? But given that driving is actually the more dangerous action out on the streets do you really want someone behind the wheel of a 2-ton (or more) vehicle whose mind ISN'T on the task of driving? It would be nice if car stereos were set up so that the driver could not change radio stations, or CDs or CD tracks while they were driving and that they had to pull off of the road and stop in order to make any kind of adjustment to their car stereo, or just about any other piece of electronic equipment in their car. And as we all know even though the use of bluetooth or other hands free devices is a step in the right direction. We still know that even talking on a cell phone via a bluetooth or other hands free device is still very distracting.


You are being contrary and are purposefully dodging my point here.

Yes.



No. And I'd point out yet again, that you could apply this logic to absolutely any crime and anything, with unforeseen consequences.

Let's not forget though that there are countries out there that deal much with all of these same crimes in a much harsher manner, and take personal responsibility more seriously than we do. Does that make them right and us wrong?

There are some points that I don't think that we'll be able to "agree to disagree" on.

Let me put it this way: There are points we fundamentally disagree upon and will not ever agree upon.



In watching the news and seeing the light, lenient, slap on the wrist sentences being handed out for a lot of crimes, I'm reminded of the theme song from the "old" Beretta show.

"Don't do the crime if you can't do the time, whoa whoa don't do it."


Absolutely. Reasonable, just punishment. Not just any punishment. That's why we don't put people to death for stealing a Snickers.


And what would you accept as proof? I'd already listed the two most common one's i.e. video tape, and eyewitnesses. As has been said, the more someone is able to get away with doing something the bolder they become in doing so, until the come to "believe" that they have the "right" to continue to do so.


The same things courts accept as proof: Anything that proves beyond a reasonable doubt.


And don't you think that the DA trying the case isn't going to be trotting out pictures of the victims family members to show the jury the "cost" of the accused actions?

Yes, but you are not a DA and this is not a court of law. We're debating a subject and you are attempting to appeal to emotion with the "think of the children" nonsense, which could be applied to nearly any crime.


But according to you because the accused hadn't been stopped and/or arrested before they are still a first time offender who should be treated with "kid gloves."

Whoa there, Hauss, I never said anything about "kid gloves". I'm saying that a lifetime ban on a driver's license for a first offense is asinine. And, shockingly, our courts and society also feel that a first time offender should not be treated the same as a repeat offender. I'm not really saying anything crazy here.


Exactly way too many people are unwilling to accept responsibility for their actions, or thinks that their "situation" in life somehow excuses their behavior. Just look at all the families that have been on welfare for multiple generations. Instead of using the welfare program as the hand up that it was suppose to be we have people and families out there who have learned to "work the system" and feel that they are "entitled" to that monthly welfare check. Even going as far as having as many kids as the possibly can, as early can, because they know/have learned that the more kids that they have the more money that they are "entitled" to from the welfare system. And their kids learn this and repeat the cycle themselves passing it on to their children.

So we should rule with an iron fist in order to beat it out of them?


No, but first time offenders should not get a "slap on the wrist" and lenient treatment simply because they are a first time offender. And no I am not saying that first time offenders should be sentenced to a federal facility where they are likely to be "schooled" in how to better commit crimes. And yes, jail should be about punishment but it should also be about education (the right kind) so that when the offender gets how he or she stands a better chance at earning an honest living.

Most DUI convictions are most certainly not a "slap on the wrist".


Uh, actually in several areas we do just that, as if I am not mistaken young male drivers pay higher premiums than older male drivers. Drivers of "high powered" sports cars also if I am not mistaken pay higher premiums than those who drive a "reasonable" and safe sedan.

Why do you think there is the actuary field? It's their job to study numbers and to make predictions based on those numbers.

Charging a higher rate for insurance isn't exactly the same as being dealt a longer jail sentence, but for what it's worth I don't think insurance companies should legally be able to do that either.

I'll restate my question differently: If you think it's okay to charge a DUI offender especially harshly because he is statistically likely to repeat his crime, would you also be okay with charging a minority especially harshly if he is statistically more likely to repeat his crime? If so, why; if not, why not? The two situations are very close, after all.




That's why I specified that the video clearly shows the accused having committed the crime, as well as having freely confessed to their crime. I know that video and pictures can be manipulated so as to show something other than what really happened as well as confessions can be forced, coerced, and outright beaten out of a person. Which is as I said why I said that the video clearly shows them committing their crime(s) as well as having freely confessed to their crime(s). That includes those "mental giants" who go on a crime spree and video tape themselves in the action of breaking the law. As well as making comments on said video tape about how much fun they had in doing so.


Well, while you as the creator of this hypothetical situations are omniscient, none of us are in real life. That's the point of the trial. To ensure that the video is, in fact, real. To ensure that a confession was NOT beaten out of him. That's the whole damned point of our justice system! To ensure everyone gets a fair shake.


There are I believe countries and cultures where that IS the normal course of events. That it is on the accused to prove their innocence, not the state to prove their guilt.



Again not in all countries/cultures.

Firstly, that's not what I asked. I asked if you think it should be that way and if you should have to prove your innocence.

Secondly, we are not talking about other cultures, we're talking about this one. And that's one of many reasons I live here and not elsewhere. Forcing one to prove his innocence goes against everything this country was founded on.




Myself and others seem to do so without much problem, how do you explain that? And let's not forget that at one time cities and towns were laid out with the walker/biker/horse rider in mind NOT the driver.

Well, sure, and I wouldn't have a problem either. I'm also a healthy young man. Do you think that everyone, everywhere in the United States (a country now famous for NOT being built for walkers/bikers/horse riders anymore. A country where we constantly complain about it being hard to get around by anything other than a car) could say the same? Don't you think you're making a wee bit of a blanket statement here?


I happen to think that that is a good law to have on the books.

I was speaking of the thought of a lifetime ban, but at any rate I do disagree with that particular law.


What number would you pick? The only thing that I would like to see happen with drunk drivers (and that also covers addicts of all kinds) is that instead of being sent to jail they're given the option to go to a rehab facility and given the opportunity to clean up. IF for whatever reason they choose not to than send them to jail.

I would be fine with that.


Sorry, but I do not agree with you. As we still have WAY too many people out there who think that it is okay to get "lit, wasted, stoned, high, what have you" and drive. If confiscating their car and imposing a lifetime ban is what it takes than that is what we need to do.

Be careful with the "If that's what it takes" attitude. Good intentions lie behind it, but it can be the death of freedom.


And that confiscating of the car includes any and all cars they might be driving whether it's their car or a friends car, or a family members car. IF more people realized that they could lose their car because they loaned it to someone who got drunk and then drove people would be more careful about who they loaned their car to.


How about we just shoot drunk drivers on sight? If more people realized they would be shot for driving drunk, less people would, right?


We've become so car-centric because we've bought into Detroit's "hype" that in order to be "cool" and "respected" you "must" drive this or that car. There was a time when most people lived and worked no more than 50 miles from the place that they were born. Sadly that isn't always true now a days.

Exactly. Especially in the west, cities are not always built in a way where it's practical to get around without a car.


That is why people should give more thought to the forms of public transportation is available in an area before moving there. As well as they should (and yes I realize that it may not always be the case) work that is close to where they live or a home close to where they work. I also seem to remember a time (I want to say the 60's and 70's) when people who lived in the suburbs would take the train into "the city" to work leaving the car at home.


Of course they should. However it's just not always possible. I have 0 public transit available to get me to or closer to work. Luckily, I live close enough that I can comfortably bike... but were I further.... I'd be SOL.



How many times do I have to say that I do not drive???

We aren't just talking about you, DC. YOU may be fine. I may be fine. Is it fair to apply the logic that "If I can deal so can everyone else"? No, it's not. We're a society of different people. What is good for you may not be for the next guy. If you are talking about laying down such an iron-fisted blanket policy as a lifetime ban on driving, you must consider the consequences for the whole society.

Which is why we haven't done it. When you really consider it, it just doesn't make sense...


But given that driving is actually the more dangerous action out on the streets do you really want someone behind the wheel of a 2-ton (or more) vehicle whose mind ISN'T on the task of driving? It would be nice if car stereos were set up so that the driver could not change radio stations, or CDs or CD tracks while they were driving and that they had to pull off of the road and stop in order to make any kind of adjustment to their car stereo, or just about any other piece of electronic equipment in their car. And as we all know even though the use of bluetooth or other hands free devices is a step in the right direction. We still know that even talking on a cell phone via a bluetooth or other hands free device is still very distracting.

Of course I do not advocate DUI in any form. At all. But I do think that people should be given a second chance. So does our society. Thank goodness.


Let's not forget though that there are countries out there that deal much with all of these same crimes in a much harsher manner, and take personal responsibility more seriously than we do. Does that make them right and us wrong?

Do you think we should execute people that are DUI? Why not? Would that not foster more responsibility?

And pardon me for being so crass, but I do not think Russia (lifetime ban), El Salvador (execution), and Bulgaria (execution at 2nd offense) are beacons of freedom. Most enlightened countries in the world treat DUI's seriously, but reasonably.

Let me put it this way: There are points we fundamentally disagree upon and will not ever agree upon.

And you are right in that we will probably never agree, but I cannot agree to disagree to them.


Absolutely. Reasonable, just punishment. Not just any punishment. That's why we don't put people to death for stealing a Snickers.

And I am not saying that someone who steals a Snickers or other food because they are starving should face a death sentence over it.


The same things courts accept as proof: Anything that proves beyond a reasonable doubt.


Yes, but you are not a DA and this is not a court of law. We're debating a subject and you are attempting to appeal to emotion with the "think of the children" nonsense, which could be applied to nearly any crime.

And given that children are often the most vulnerable amongst us why shouldn't we stop and think about how our actions will impact/effect their lives?


Whoa there, Hauss, I never said anything about "kid gloves". I'm saying that a lifetime ban on a driver's license for a first offense is asinine. And, shockingly, our courts and society also feel that a first time offender should not be treated the same as a repeat offender. I'm not really saying anything crazy here.

At what point than do you think that someone should have to face the possibility of losing his or her license for the rest of their life? Or should they never have to worry about losing their license permanently?


So we should rule with an iron fist in order to beat it out of them?


Most DUI convictions are most certainly not a "slap on the wrist".

No, I do not think that. Given that we obviously still have a large enough problem with drinking (that includes any other intoxicating substance) in this country it is obvious that the current laws/punishments aren't doing enough to deter people from driving while under the influence of whatever. If they were we would still have so many DUI's now would we?


Charging a higher rate for insurance isn't exactly the same as being dealt a longer jail sentence, but for what it's worth I don't think insurance companies should legally be able to do that either.

Why not? They're the ones who are taking the risk why shouldn't they be able to charge more when their data shows them that people in certain groups are more likely than others to behave in a certain manner? Is it fair to all in that group? No, but as I said they are the ones who are taking the risks by writing and selling them a policy so why shouldn't be able to charge more?


I'll restate my question differently: If you think it's okay to charge a DUI offender especially harshly because he is statistically likely to repeat his crime, would you also be okay with charging a minority especially harshly if he is statistically more likely to repeat his crime? If so, why; if not, why not? The two situations are very close, after all.

No, because in the first the actuary data supports that certain crimes are likely to be repeated. While saying that because so and so is a member of this or that minority that they are more likely to commit this or that crime is racist. As there are other factors besides their ethnicity involved.


Well, while you as the creator of this hypothetical situations are omniscient, none of us are in real life. That's the point of the trial. To ensure that the video is, in fact, real. To ensure that a confession was NOT beaten out of him. That's the whole damned point of our justice system! To ensure everyone gets a fair shake.

Again, that is why I tried to make it as clear as possible that the video in question clearly (i.e. unedited, unaltered, unenhanced, unmodified) that the suspect(s) breaking the law to include the part about them videoing themselves as well as making comments at the beginning of the tape and throughout the tape about what they are doing.


Firstly, that's not what I asked. I asked if you think it should be that way and if you should have to prove your innocence.

Secondly, we are not talking about other cultures, we're talking about this one. And that's one of many reasons I live here and not elsewhere. Forcing one to prove his innocence goes against everything this country was founded on.

Tell that to the Native Americans who had their children taken away from them, and whose children were punished if they tried to speak their native language. As well as who had all their lands and rights taken away from them, and who if I am not mistaken that the government tried to kill by "kindly" giving them blankets that were infected with disease.



Well, sure, and I wouldn't have a problem either. I'm also a healthy young man. Do you think that everyone, everywhere in the United States (a country now famous for NOT being built for walkers/bikers/horse riders anymore. A country where we constantly complain about it being hard to get around by anything other than a car) could say the same? Don't you think you're making a wee bit of a blanket statement here?

It's only a "problem" if they let it be a problem and because they bought into the theory that they "needed" this or that car in order to be "cool," or "successful."


I was speaking of the thought of a lifetime ban, but at any rate I do disagree with that particular law.

Again at what point do you think that a lifetime ban is appropriate?


I would be fine with that.

Be careful with the "If that's what it takes" attitude. Good intentions lie behind it, but it can be the death of freedom.

Again obviously the current system is working the way that it should and thus needs to be be changed. And given that the police are already allowed to confiscate a persons car if they are transporting "large" quantities of drugs, or are out cruising for hookers how is confiscating a persons car because of DUI going to be the "death of freedom?"


How about we just shoot drunk drivers on sight? If more people realized they would be shot for driving drunk, less people would, right?

No, I do not agree with executing a DUI on their first, second or whatever conviction but something needs to be done to give the penalties more of a bite.


Exactly. Especially in the west, cities are not always built in a way where it's practical to get around without a car.

Than the people living there need to petition for changes.


Of course they should. However it's just not always possible. I have 0 public transit available to get me to or closer to work. Luckily, I live close enough that I can comfortably bike... but were I further.... I'd be SOL.

Again, than it is time that the people who live there started to petition for change.



We aren't just talking about you, DC. YOU may be fine. I may be fine. Is it fair to apply the logic that "If I can deal so can everyone else"? No, it's not. We're a society of different people. What is good for you may not be for the next guy. If you are talking about laying down such an iron-fisted blanket policy as a lifetime ban on driving, you must consider the consequences for the whole society.

The way that you've addressed several of your responses it sure does seem as if you are talking about me. And if I am not mistake the Amish (and I think Mennonites) seem to get along just fine without a lot of "modern" conveniences.


Which is why we haven't done it. When you really consider it, it just doesn't make sense...

Of course I do not advocate DUI in any form. At all. But I do think that people should be given a second chance. So does our society. Thank goodness.

Again though how many second chances does one get before their license is finally taken away for good?


Do you think we should execute people that are DUI? Why not? Would that not foster more responsibility?

And pardon me for being so crass, but I do not think Russia (lifetime ban), El Salvador (execution), and Bulgaria (execution at 2nd offense) are beacons of freedom. Most enlightened countries in the world treat DUI's seriously, but reasonably.

Again, no I do not think that it is reasonable to execute a person for a DUI regardless of how many they have had, but give that obviously people have not learned how serious of an offense it is a lifetime ban for a first offense is not unreasonable. And again if the first or second time that a person is arrested for DUI doesn't warrant a lifetime ban, then when does? Maybe the person who was arrested for DUI needs to be inconvenienced as do their friends and family in order for the seriousness to be truly driven home.

You've made no relevant arguments. You've gone off on tangents that have little to no bearing on the original point, to the point of talking about our government's actions against Native Americans years ago (???). So I'm done. I've made my point. Debate I find interesting; emotional rhetoric, not so much.

I will answer your question though: No, I am not opposed to a lifetime ban for repeat offenders. I just think it's overkill for a first time offense. That's all. And the attitude of "do whatever it takes" leads down a bad road. That can lead to the death of freedom (I wasn't talking about a lifetime ban being the death of freedom - but I expect you know this).