Coupla things triggered this post. The 20th flat caused by a smashed booze bottle and an editorial in my local paper complaining about a human terd that just injured a little girl and her father by driving drunk and crashing into their car. He took off on foot. (WHY are the drunks never injured in these crashes???) He only has TWELVE prior DUI convictions! It's a real problem. A drunk will drink and drive if three conditions are met. 1) Liquor exists. 2) Cars exist. 3) THEY exist. I knew a drunk that was a janitor at my former place of employment. While appealing his 4th DUI he picked up his 5th. He was sentenced to 3 months in the county lock-up. The DAY he got out I saw his mother's car parked at the bar. In other words, he EXISTED again. Politicians keep lowering the legal limit for blood alcohol. That doesn't affect the hard-corer drunk. He's ALWAYS over the limit, whatever it is. All it does is prevent you and me from having a 2nd beer at the tap room. But, it LOOKS like something is being done. ( I insist on calling them drunks, not alcoholics because the idea of "illness" is a ready-made excuse for those who endanger the lives of others. Pedophiles are "Ill" too. Should we throw THEM a pity party too? )

The worst of these sacks of filth are those who drink WHILE driving. Of course, due to open container laws, they must get rid of the evidence. This is done by tossing the container out the window. BUT, the bottle must be SMASHED in the street. Almost NEVER do you see a booze bottle on the shoulder. Soda and Snapple bottles make it there, but not booze bottles. I believe this is because of the rage they feel at being outcasts whose favorite activity (drinking while driving) is illegal and condemned by the public. So they vent this anger by making sure the bottle is always smashed. (Like them)

THe proposal. A $20 deposit on liquor and wine bottles and $5 on every beer bottle. It may sound extreme but it's really just a form of recycling and is not much more trouble. It has the twin benefits of reducing litter (and flat tires for cyclists) and making it very expensive to SMASH the bottle and risky to keep in the car. Plus fewer drunks drinking while driving. To me it's a win/win. And yes, I drink occasionally. THoughts?



Note: A few years ago I read about a guy who got FOUR DUIs in ONE nite! He was charged and released to his family. An hour later he was caught again and they impounded his car. THEN (and I've gotta think there was a police shift change here) he was picked up again, driving his wife's car. The last time he was arrested he was driving his son's car. (Where the heck was he GOING?) Finally they locked him up. These people are INCORRIGABLE!

A bottle deposit may stop people from smashing them in the street, but it won't stop chronic drunk driving. What lawmakers need to remember is that driving is a priviledge, not a right. Don't take a away the slip of plastic which legally endorses someone's priviledge: They drove drunk, it's obvious they believe the laws don't apply to them anyhow. Taking away their license doesn't stop them.
TAKE THE CAR.
Plain and simple solution. First offence; jail time, impound the vehicle, suspend the license. Second offence: Seize the car and sell it at auction.

The more difficult solution would be a repeat offender DUI database tied into the DMV, so that someone on that list can't register a vehicle. If they try, it's an immediate flag for the police to come and seize/sell it. No car, no drunk driver. Problem solved.

The reason why it will never happen: Read your local paper and look how many city officials, police officers, local business tycoons and the like are busted for DUI with a b.a.c. that would cripple the average human being. Do you really think anyone responsible for enacting the laws is going to sign off on a law which will strip them of their own driving privileges?

if we put the measure on a ballot and convince enough of the population that it's a good idea, then the bureaucrats won't have a choice.

"TAKE THE CAR.
Plain and simple solution."

Fail! Will you take their wife's car? Their kid's car? Their friend's car? I just illustrated that the janitor and the 4xs guy were driving someone else's car. Sure, you can take it afterward, if the drunk hasn't destroyed it. As long as cars exist the drunk will drive.

Actually, if you read the rest of the solution it makes sense. Also, set mandatory jail time if they caught driving a second car whilst the first is impounded.

The real solution is to get these alcoholics help, that way they will stop being chronic drunks.

I am probably coming from a different place than many people, having two family members who both have had multiple DUIs. The only thing that stopped them was A.A. One has been sober for 4+ years, the other 2 years. Not a single DUI.

I agree we need strict punishments for DUIs, but we should also provide assistance for these alcoholics that are repeat offenders. This is tough though, as the only one who can cure alcoholism is the alcoholic themselves.

I don't get why there isn't mandatory jail time for first offenses. Drunk driving is some scary @#$%! Oh wait, I do get why, the reason cited above: the "it could be be next" mentality. I suppose It's easy for me to suggest mandatory jail time: I don't do alcohol and I rarely drive (don't own a car, yay).

While not a complete solution, I think banning car parking at bars and restaurants which serve alcohol would be a good start. Of course the hardcore alcoholics will still drink at home or in the car, but if we lock them up and throw away the key after the first offense then they won't "exist" anymore. OR get them treatment (unless that's too reasonable and compassionate).

Problem solved.

The problem with impound laws is that many, if not most, motor vehicles have a leinholder. So they can't just "take" the car. In addition, it means that the severity of the punishment is relative to how much equity the owner has in the car. And knowing how many people are "upside down" on the vehicle loans, some people might actually benefit from having their car impounded.

But to the OP, I have also noticed how much of the debris on the shoulder/bike lane is broken beer bottles. I think that is a direct impact of open container laws, and it kinda scares me to think how many people must be drinking in their cars. However, do you think a drunk would keep the imcriminating evidence in the vehicle over a measley $5 deposit? I don't.

I was with you until you made this incredibly ignorant statement.

I insist on calling them drunks, not alcoholics because the idea of "illness" is a ready-made excuse for those who endanger the lives of others.

"I was with you until you made this incredibly ignorant statement."

Let me clarify. I was refering to "DRUNKS" who won't get help and put the lives of our children at risk by their incredibly selfish, irresponsible, and reckless behavior. To recovering "ALCOHOLICS" my respect, support, and admiration.

Fair enough, I guess I can see where you're coming from. No harm done.

I'd be happier with a system that punished drivers for being inattentive/unresponsive no matter their BAC. Why don't police give a reaction test to drivers which would measure actual impairment from any source, rather than BAC, which doesn't even translate into comparable levels of impairment for different people?

I find that punishments for driving offences are far more lenient than similar offences - i.e. death by dangerous driving should be treated the same as murder/manslaughter but it isn't.

This is because as I have stated many times before and Clifton mentioned above driving is seen as a right not a privilege. It is beyond comprehension how operating a deadly weapon that can kill many people with a simple misjudgement or moment of inattention can be driven by so many incapable people. In the UK no irresponsible person is allowed a gun, but MANY MANY irresponsible people are allowed cars. I hate society sometimes, it is blinded by its own greed and sense of importance. For an intelligent species we are bloody stupid.

Driving with a suspended license should get people thrown into prison for the duration of their license suspension. Don't care if they were pulled over drunk or speeding, if they're driving suspended, they go to prison. Heck, make it a "primary offense" and if the cop sees a car registered to someone with a suspended license that's reason for it to get pulled over. And they don't get to go to county lockup only on weekends. State prison, 24x7. About 2/3 of the time I hear about some tragedy of drunk driving, it includes the line "the driver, driving with a suspended license...". Anything they did to have their record sealed or expunged goes away. They are now felons as a matter of public record. Good luck finding a job. Ruins their life? Good. Better them than me.

Anyone who allows someone with as suspended license to drive their car deserves to lose their car. Spouse, child, plumber, whatever. Don't care. If it's stolen, report it stolen as soon as you notice, or you're going to lose your car. If you've got someone living in your house who has a suspended license, you probably should secure your keys. Just like if you lived in a house with children in it you'd secure your firearms.

Second offense for drunk driving should be mandatory prison. No county lockup on weekends, or special counseling. Prison. Years. Many years. With a felony record.

And the blood alcohol level should be pushed back to .10 instead of .08. .08 is just silly, it hasn't helped anything except increase court and police revenues from tickets. .08 is to safety as red light cameras are.

If there is a third offense, yeah, just shoot 'em.

Do you think that restricting honest employment from these people will make them more or less of a danger to society?

Blood alcohol levels should be 0. There is NO reason to drink and drive, you don't HAVE to drink when you go out FFS.

Either way ALL distractions while driving need to be banned. Eating, drinking, mobile phones etc. you don't see people with firearms arsing about while using them (I'm talking mainly about police officers) - they are concentrating on the task in hand because any distractions / mistakes could get people killed.

Hey, screw that idea. I don't drive drunk, and I don't want to have to pay $30 extra bucks for a six pack to deter some other *******. I think that there should be much harsher penalties for drunk driving. In particular, I think breath-test immobilisers are a great way of keeping the drunken out of their cars.

Really, the infeasibility of some of these plans is astounding. $20 deposits on bottles? I'm sure liquor stores are just clamoring to have to carry more cash on hand just so they can get robbed. Breatholizer limits of 0.00? Have fun with false positives caused from a variety of factors, not to mention people who get a DUI but were not measurably impaired in any way. Totally fair system right there. Banning all distractions? Are you going to ban talking to the passenger, too? I think we can all agree that drivers need be behave more safely, but some of you are just out of hand.

If it keeps them off the road, it makes them a dramatically lower danger to society. If it keeps them from having the money to buy a car, that helps too. If everyone sees that as a "well, I better not drink and drive or I'll end up like that" it'll probably help a little also.

Not everyone won't hire felons. My company wont. No company I've ever worked for would. Pretty much rules out working with kids, working with money, and working for government.

Don't drive with a suspended license. If that's not acceptable, here's an idea: Don't get the license suspended in the first place.

That line of thinking could also justify reclassifying inebriated vehicular manslaughter as premeditated (aka, 1st degree) murder. Which I would actually agree with.

I'm not sure there is anything modest about asking people to leave $120 in deposits for a $20 case of beer.

I'm not sure which is more frightening, the thought of drunks being on the road, or some of the logic in this thread.

Fail! Will you take their wife's car? Their kid's car? Their friend's car?
Yes, if the person is caught DUI, regardless of whether or not the vehicle is registered in their name, seize it. If there's still a lien holder against it, return it to them and fine the DUI offender in the case of any damages to the vehicle.

As long as cars exist the drunk will drive.
They're far less likely to drive if no one will give them the keys, knowing that they'll lose their car if their d-bag friend takes it for a drunken joyride.


I've got an over-aggressive stance on this one for personal reasons. My fiancee was hit by a guy on his 7th DUI, no license or insurance, driving a friend's car which he borrowed for the weekend.
I've personally been hit by a guy on his 5th DUI, no license or insurance, driving a car whose owner he couldn't identify because he was so effing plastered. (Turns out it was his wife's car. Good job, guy!)


Once again, you'll never see it happen because the lawmakers are worried "it could be me next." Right from today's newspaper: Burien city manager pulled over for another DUI offence. Previous offence cost him his job with a different city administration because it was a DUI + Hit-and-Run combo!

Hah, welcome to BikeForums.

I'll actually agree with you though; I'm not in favor of increased incarceration or more bans on behavior as I don't believe either approach is actually effective at preventing behavior. The idea is to be preventive rather than punitive, but that sort of goes by the wayside in a country in which 50% of the populace thinks torture is an acceptable method of interrogation.

The fact is none of the ideas in this thread would be likely to prevent drunk driving.