fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) (01/01/70)
I was listening to the radio yesterday and some "expert" said that
studies in North America show that it is not the severity of the
punishment that deters drinking and driving, but the odds of getting
caught at it. This means that even mild or moderate penalties can
be effective if people expect there is a good chance that they will
be caught.
Do people think there is room for a citizen's patrol similar to
the neighbourhood watch program?
Cheers, Fred Williamstodd@SCIRTP.UUCP (Todd Jones) (07/05/85)
Hey, I am as concerned as the next guy about the problem of drunk drivers, recidivism, teenagers and the like, but I am getting fed up with some of the misguided attempts at curbing the problem, such as: 1. Incessant roadblocks/random breathalyzer tests. I feel truly hassled by this kind of treat- ment. I usually don't have the time to waste and I feel it invades my privacy. 2. No Happy Hours. How unamerican, uncapitalistic, uncalled for and unfair! This simply denies an oppor- tunity to get polluted for those who can't afford it. The wealthy never patronize happy hour establishments anyway. I did, however, get a good laugh at the response of Boston's bars to the happy hour ban: have happy hour all the time! 3. Hold bartenders and waitpersons responsible for the damage performed by the drunk. This is so ridiculous! Now we're telling drunks they're not responsible for their actions, their bartender is! Awareness among liqour-servers does need to be stressed, but this measure has got to be as ineffective as it is discriminatory. So Todd, what are your solutions? Rent (expensively) first offenders the following equipment: 1. a device that is attatched to the ignition system that requires an alcohol free breath reading (in addition to the presence of gases present in human breath, to avoid faking it) to allow the car to be started. 2. a big ugly day-glo bumbersticker declaring the driver to be a DWI offender on probation. The offender would not be allowed to drive a car other than the one designated with the bumpersticker. The offender would carry a special driver's license declaring his status. The offender could be stopped any time for a random breathalyzer check. The device could not be tampered with or big legal whoopass would result. After a designated period of time, the offenders would complete their probationary period and regain all their regular driving priviledges. Boy am I gonna get flamed! Before the flame-throwers go on high, remember, this system is much less harsh on non-offenders and more ostracizing for offenders. Drunk drivers are held accountable for their actions and have to continually prove their sobriety in order to drive. This system is not a "big-brotherish" as it seems when you consider that all citizens in vehicles have reduced rights. This system would reduce the rights (for a temporary period) of offending drivers. FLAME ON FELLOW NETTERS: Note: I'm going on vacation for the next week, so mull over your ideology assassinations and post them in the middle of next week (the week of July 8) so I can defend my insanity, please. The preceding opinions are, in all likelihood, those of Todd Jones. However, these opinions will, in all certainty, bear scant resemblance to the opinions of SCI Systems, Inc., Mr. Jones' employer. ||||| || || [ O-O ] Todd Jones \ ^ / {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd | _ | |___|
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/18/85)
> > Hey, > > I am as concerned as the next guy about the problem > of drunk drivers, recidivism, teenagers and the like, > but I am getting fed up with some of the misguided > attempts at curbing the problem, such as: > > [long discussion of current approaches to dealing with DWI] > So Todd, what are your solutions? > > Rent (expensively) first offenders the following equipment: > > 1. a device that is attatched to the ignition system > that requires an alcohol free breath reading (in > addition to the presence of gases present in human > breath, to avoid faking it) to allow the car to be > started. > > 2. a big ugly day-glo bumbersticker declaring the driver > to be a DWI offender on probation. > > The offender would not be allowed to drive a car other > than the one designated with the bumpersticker. The > offender would carry a special driver's license declaring > his status. The offender could be stopped any time for a > random breathalyzer check. The device could not be tampered > with or big legal whoopass would result. > > After a designated period of time, the offenders would complete > their probationary period and regain all their regular driving > priviledges. Boy am I gonna get flamed! > > Before the flame-throwers go on high, remember, this system > is much less harsh on non-offenders and more ostracizing for > offenders. Drunk drivers are held accountable for their actions > and have to continually prove their sobriety in order to drive. > This system is not a "big-brotherish" as it seems when you > consider that all citizens in vehicles have reduced rights. > This system would reduce the rights (for a temporary period) > of offending drivers. > > > ||||| > || || > [ O-O ] Todd Jones > \ ^ / {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd > | _ | > |___| While your suggestions aren't ridiculous (something I seldom say about your postings), Todd, I would suggest the simplest solution of all to the DWI problem is: 1. Require those convicted of DWI to drive motorcycles for a year or two, instead of cars. This has several positive effects. a. Drunk on motorcycle is much less dangerous to others than drunk in car. (KE = 0.5 * m * (v^2) b. Drunk on motorcycle is less likely to survive drunk driving, perhaps improving the species, and certainly reducing the number of drunk drivers on the road. c. Anyone who doesn't appreciate how dangerous driving is on a motorcycle, probably won't survive long enough to drive anything else; those who do recognize the danger involved, might be more responsible when they get an unrestricted license again. 2. Second conviction for DWI gets you a motorcycle license for life. 3. Driving a car while restricted to motorcycles because of DWI would get you prison time, since you clearly can't be trusted around the rest of us. Why not just pull the license of a DWI? Because judges and juries are reluctant to prevent someone from being able to get to work; if they have a motorcycle license, they have no excuse.
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (07/22/85)
> > 1. Require those convicted of DWI to drive motorcycles for a year or > two, instead of cars. This has several positive effects. > > a. Drunk on motorcycle is much less dangerous to others than drunk > in car. (KE = 0.5 * m * (v^2) > > b. Drunk on motorcycle is less likely to survive drunk driving, > perhaps improving the species, and certainly reducing the number > of drunk drivers on the road. > > c. Anyone who doesn't appreciate how dangerous driving is on a > motorcycle, probably won't survive long enough to drive anything > else; those who do recognize the danger involved, might be > more responsible when they get an unrestricted license again. > > 2. Second conviction for DWI gets you a motorcycle license for life. > > 3. Driving a car while restricted to motorcycles because of DWI would > get you prison time, since you clearly can't be trusted around the > rest of us. > Another benefit is that motorcycle injuries provide a steady source of organ donors. -- "Don't argue with a fool. Ethan Vishniac Borrow his money." {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan Department of Astronomy University of Texas
hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) (07/23/85)
In article <378@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > >Why not just pull the license of a DWI? Because judges and juries are >reluctant to prevent someone from being able to get to work; if they >have a motorcycle license, they have no excuse. The courts frequently do pull the licenses of DWIs. The problem is that this has no appreciable effect. Anyone irresponsible enough to drive while drunk is certainly not going to balk at driving without a license, especially when drunk. A friend of mine's car was recently smashed by a drunk driver who was driving without a license in an unregistered vehicle that didn't even belong to him. Fortunately, my friend's car was parked at the time with no one in it. The police were remarkably disinterested. My solution to the problem: _Any_ vehicle, _regardless of ownership_, the driver of which is found to be in violation of the drunk driving laws is subject to confiscation and sale at auction. No exceptions. Proceeds of the auction to go towards funding the drunk driving enforcement program. Excess proceeds to go into a special fund for the aid of victims of drunk drivers. This approach has several advantages: 1. The program is self-supporting -- no tax increases required. 2. No new jails need be built. (We may need some new vehicle impound facilities, but frequent auctions should take care of that problem). 3. The penalty is sufficiently stiff as to make most people think twice about drunk driving or loaning their car to a known drunk. 4. There is enormous legal precedent for this strategy. The Feds have been doing it for years with vehicles used in drug smuggling. The only objection I can think of is that confiscation of a vehicle might put someone out of work. My answer to this is that drunk drivers _kill_. Being dead is about as out of work as you can get. If someone is going to suffer the loss of earning capacity I think it should be the drunk driver and his family, not his victims (who also have families). -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp TTI Common Sense is what tells you that a ten 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. pound weight falls ten times as fast as a Santa Monica, CA 90405 one pound weight. (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) (07/23/85)
In article <378@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > >Why not just pull the license of a DWI? Because judges and juries are >reluctant to prevent someone from being able to get to work; if they >have a motorcycle license, they have no excuse. Why not ... when someone drunk kill an innocent bystander, charge them with murder. That's what it is, really! Cheers, Fred Williams
jordan@ucbvax.ARPA (Jordan Hayes) (07/23/85)
In article <378@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >Why not just pull the license of a DWI? Because judges and juries are >reluctant to prevent someone from being able to get to work; if they >have a motorcycle license, they have no excuse. Bah. There is a clear solution to people who don't do as they should with the responsibility of a PRIVLEGE (driving a car): Credit Companies have figured it out. Why can't DMV ?? Q. What happens when you break the rules of credit ? A. You lose it by losing your card. Q. What happens when you break ther rules of the road ? A. You lose it by losing your license... (sort of...) catch : I don't need a license to drive. All I need is keys and a car. DMV should take away the car. Ever see someone get his card taken away only to go out and charge more...? ------------ Jordan Hayes jordan@ucb-vax.BERKELEY.EDU UC Berkeley ucbvax!jordan +1 (415) 835-8767 37' 52.29" N 122' 15.41" W
liang@cvl.UUCP (Eli Liang) (07/24/85)
> In article <378@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > > >Why not just pull the license of a DWI? Because judges and juries are > >reluctant to prevent someone from being able to get to work; if they > >have a motorcycle license, they have no excuse. > > Bah. There is a clear solution to people who don't do as they should > with the responsibility of a PRIVLEGE (driving a car): Credit > Companies have figured it out. Why can't DMV ?? > > Q. What happens when you break the rules of credit ? > A. You lose it by losing your card. > > Q. What happens when you break ther rules of the road ? > A. You lose it by losing your license... (sort of...) > > catch : I don't need a license to drive. All I need is > keys and a car. DMV should take away the car. > > Ever see someone get his card taken away only to go > out and charge more...? > > ------------ > Jordan Hayes jordan@ucb-vax.BERKELEY.EDU > UC Berkeley ucbvax!jordan > +1 (415) 835-8767 37' 52.29" N 122' 15.41" W What you seem to have forgotten in your ranting is that while a credit card may belong to you, all it is a $0.05 of plastic that gives you the RIGHT to charge purchases to the credit company which issued it. Thus, when they take it away, the primary thing that they are taking away is that right and not the plastic. On the other hand, confiscation of a vehicle for DWI entails taking away the actual vehicle. This vehicle belongs to someone, and is very concrete, where the "right" to charge things is much less substantial. -eli -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Eli Liang --- University of Maryland Computer Vision Lab, (301) 454-4526 ARPA: liang@cvl, liang@lemuria, eli@mit-mc, eli@mit-prep CSNET: liang@cvl UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!cvl!liang
todd@SCIRTP.UUCP (Todd Jones) (07/24/85)
> My solution to the problem: > > _Any_ vehicle, _regardless of ownership_, the driver of which is found to > be in violation of the drunk driving laws is subject to confiscation and > sale at auction. No exceptions. Proceeds of the auction to go towards > funding the drunk driving enforcement program. Excess proceeds to go into > a special fund for the aid of victims of drunk drivers. In other words, the severity of the penalty depends on the cost of the vehicle used to commit the crime. If I am in my clunker '71 Toyota and you are in your Dad's '86 Mercedes, we both get pulled and blow a DWI worthy breathalyzer reading, I lose my clunker and you get written out of Dad's will. This seems harsh in some cases and wrist-slapping in others. My original posting pointed out the silliness in holding bartenders and even party hosts responsible for customers'/guests' behavior. If a drunk is caught in a borrowed car, he/she faces only the wrath of the borrower, which may not phase him/her a bit. No lesson there. I still like my idea best. ||||||| || || [ O-O ] Todd Jones \ ^ / {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd | ~ | |___| SCI Systems Inc. doesn't necessarily agree with Todd.
slerner@sesame.UUCP (Simcha-Yitzchak Lerner) (07/25/85)
> > Why not just pull the license of a DWI? Because judges and juries are > reluctant to prevent someone from being able to get to work; if they > have a motorcycle license, they have no excuse. You obviously do not live in New England. Have you ever tried to drive a motorcycle on snow and ice? (If you do, you deserve to be 'eliminated from the species.' -- Opinions expressed are public domain, and do not belong to Lotus Development Corp. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simcha-Yitzchak Lerner {genrad|ihnp4|ima}!wjh12!talcott!sesame!slerner {cbosgd|harvard}!talcott!sesame!slerner slerner%sesame@harvard.ARPA
gordon@uw-june (Gordon Davisson) (07/25/85)
>[The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe)] > >My solution to the problem: > >_Any_ vehicle, _regardless of ownership_, the driver of which is found to >be in violation of the drunk driving laws is subject to confiscation and >sale at auction. No exceptions. Proceeds of the auction to go towards >funding the drunk driving enforcement program. Excess proceeds to go into >a special fund for the aid of victims of drunk drivers. Problem: What if the car was stolen? My suggestion: If and only if the driver gets convicted of auto theft, the car is returned to the original owner. This makes it possible for people to get stolen cars back (provided it hasn't been wrecked yet), but prevents people from just claiming that he stole the car when in fact he didn't. > 4. There is enormous legal precedent for this strategy. The Feds > have been doing it for years with vehicles used in drug > smuggling. Anyone know how they deal with the stolen boat problem? (I understand that a lot of the boats used for smuggling *are* stolen) -- Human: Gordon Davisson ARPA: gordon@uw-june.ARPA UUCP: {ihnp4,decvax,tektronix}!uw-beaver!uw-june!gordon
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (07/25/85)
> > > > Why not just pull the license of a DWI? Because judges and juries are > > reluctant to prevent someone from being able to get to work; if they > > have a motorcycle license, they have no excuse. > > You obviously do not live in New England. Have you ever tried to drive > a motorcycle on snow and ice? (If you do, you deserve to be 'eliminated > from the species.' > A person driving while intoxicated IS ALWAYS on snow and ice.
tw8023@pyuxii.UUCP (T Wheeler) (07/26/85)
I think if you stop and ponder for a moment, your statement that a person has a "right" to charge something on a credit card falla through the cracks. Being able to charge something is a priveledge granted by the credit giver. That priveledge can be revoked at any time. Just do not pay your bills and you will see haow fast your ?RIGHT? is usurped. Now, as to your right to own an automobile, you are correct. However, it is deemed a priveledge to be able to take said automobile out on a public roadway and drive. There are a few large privately owned tracts of land still around where the owners do not bother to license or register some vehicles as they are never driven off the private property. This is their right. However, once they decide to take those vehicles off that property on to other lands, be they private or public, they must then be registered and licensed in order to gain the privaledge of doing so. As to the idea that an automobile cannot be confiscated because it is private property and property owners have certain rights, there are many laws which say this can, and indeed is, be done. In New Jersey, and many other states, there are laws on the books which state that any vehicle used in the commission of a crime can be confiscated and sold by the state. The most noticeable incidence of this is the confiscating of vehilces (cars, trucks, boats, aircraft) used transport illegal controled substances (drugs). Here in New Jersey, there are state run auctions to sell off the autos collected during the year which were used in the commission of a crime. As to DWI, all that has to be done is to make DWI a crime for which the auto can be confiscated. This can be difficult to do in some states where ther is an overabundace of lawyers as it would reduce their odds for winning a case. By the way, just heard that New Jersey contains the highest percentage of lawyers per capita of any political entity IN THE WORLD. We also have the dubious distinction of having nearly 10% of all of the lawyers in the WORLD. No wonder this place is so screwed up. Well, anyway, confiscation of an automobile in a DWI incident is possible and is, or can be, squarely within the law. Rights and privledges can and are revoked by the courts if a person is found guilty of certain crimes. Confiscation of liberty and property are punishments meted out for the quilty. Rights and privledges only extend as far as they do not impinge on the publics rights or privledges. That is, you can get slap-dash, fall-down drunk in your home, go out and get in your car and smash it through your garage as long as you remain on your property. You may get a ticket for noise pollution or maintaining unsightly property, but you can't be charged with DWI or public drunkeness. T. C. Wheeler
scooper@brl-tgr.ARPA (Stephan Cooper ) (07/26/85)
>> _Any_ vehicle, _regardless of ownership_, the driver of which is found to >> be in violation of the drunk driving laws is subject to confiscation and >> sale at auction. No exceptions. Proceeds of the auction to go towards >> funding the drunk driving enforcement program. Excess proceeds to go into >> a special fund for the aid of victims of drunk drivers. > >In other words, the severity of the penalty depends on the cost of the >vehicle used to commit the crime. If I am in my clunker '71 Toyota and >you are in your Dad's '86 Mercedes, we both get pulled and blow a DWI >worthy breathalyzer reading, I lose my clunker and you get written out >of Dad's will. This seems harsh in some cases and wrist-slapping in others. What about revoking (through law) of the offender's license AND insurance? True, it will then take another arrest to finally put them away (because driving w/out a license and/or insurance is illegal), but would it be a little more sane that confiscating the auto (what if it was stolen?) or forcing them to ride a motorcycle (absurd). -Steve
hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) (07/27/85)
In article <237@SCIRTP.UUCP> todd@SCIRTP.UUCP (Todd Jones) writes: >> _Any_ vehicle, _regardless of ownership_, the driver of which is found to >> be in violation of the drunk driving laws is subject to confiscation and >> sale at auction. ... etc. > >In other words, the severity of the penalty depends on the cost of the >vehicle used to commit the crime. If I am in my clunker '71 Toyota and >you are in your Dad's '86 Mercedes, we both get pulled and blow a DWI >worthy breathalyzer reading, I lose my clunker and you get written out >of Dad's will. This seems harsh in some cases and wrist-slapping in others. If you're driving a clunker chances are it's all you can afford. Taking it away from you may cause you more grief than taking away dad's Mercedes, which he can probably afford to replace. In any case, the possibility of losing the Mercedes will certainly make dad think twice about giving jr. the keys if jr. is prone to trouble. The object of these punishments is partly to serve as a deterrent. In that instance the value of the vehicle is of relatively small interest. >If a drunk is caught in a borrowed car, he/she faces only the wrath >of the borrower, which may not phase him/her a bit. No lesson there. The wrath of the borrower may well extend to legal action. A law suit over the loss of a car in those circumstances would probably include damages for time and wages lost, replacement of the car, rental car while looking for a replacement, legal fees, and punitive damages. Involuntary bankruptcy is a pretty stiff lesson even if you do get away with a few cents on the dollar. Other owners may choose to get more physical about it. -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp TTI Common Sense is what tells you that a ten 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. pound weight falls ten times as fast as a Santa Monica, CA 90405 one pound weight. (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) (07/27/85)
In article <102@uw-june> gordon@uw-june (Gordon Davisson) writes: >>_Any_ vehicle, _regardless of ownership_, the driver of which is found to >>be in violation of the drunk driving laws is subject to confiscation and >>sale at auction. ... etc. > >Problem: What if the car was stolen? I've received a lot of mail asking this question. Theft insurance is the first thing that comes to my mind. The victim would have to prove at least an "arm's distance" relationship with the thief. Claiming that your brother, uncle, cousin, friend, etc. stole your car isn't good enough. Proof of theft (evidence of hotwiring, break-in, etc.) should be required. >My suggestion: If and only if the driver gets convicted of auto theft, the >car is returned to the original owner. This makes it possible for people to >get stolen cars back (provided it hasn't been wrecked yet), but prevents >people from just claiming that he stole the car when in fact he didn't. This is also a workable solution. Insurance would come in if the car was already wrecked. >> 4. There is enormous legal precedent for this strategy. The Feds >> have been doing it for years with vehicles used in drug >> smuggling. > >Anyone know how they deal with the stolen boat problem? (I understand >that a lot of the boats used for smuggling *are* stolen) As I understand it, if a drug smuggler steals your vehicle and gets caught smuggling the vehicle is confiscated and you're out of luck. I don't know if theft insurance would cover the loss or not. Presumably it would if the vehicle was missing long enough. -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp TTI Common Sense is what tells you that a ten 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. pound weight falls ten times as fast as a Santa Monica, CA 90405 one pound weight. (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (07/27/85)
> As to DWI, all that has to be done is to make DWI a crime for which > the auto can be confiscated. Aw c'mon, you wimp! You can do a lot more than that! For instance, how about making DWI a capital offense?! Better yet, why not make DWI a capital offense for both the driver AND the owner of the car? That'll make sure people don't let other people steal their cars and then drive drunk! For that matter how about killing off anyone who might possibly have prevented the crime? Like all the driver's friends and relatives, anyone who didn't prevent the driver from drinking in the previous 24 hours, and all those people's friends and relatives? That'll stop it, don't you think?
levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) (07/28/85)
> >As to the idea that an automobile cannot be confiscated because it is >private property and property owners have certain rights, there are >many laws which say this can, and indeed is, be done. In New Jersey, >and many other states, there are laws on the books which state that >any vehicle used in the commission of a crime can be confiscated and ^^^^^^^^^^^ >sold by the state. The most noticeable incidence of this is the >confiscating of vehilces (cars, trucks, boats, aircraft) used transport >illegal controled substances (drugs). Here in New Jersey, there are >state run auctions to sell off the autos collected during the year >which were used in the commission of a crime. > >T. C. Wheeler > Please clarify (I have no free access to legal eagles). Is not "due process" (i.e., a finding in court) required to do this? What if the vehicle was stolen? What if it is borrowed from someone unaware of the sinister purpose to which the vehicle was put? What if it is rented? If this is allowed I am shocked, but (sadly) not surprised. Laws like this sound like they were drafted by some- body like you, who would punish the innocent along with the guilty. (If the confiscation is limited to items owned by persons who are knowing parties to the crime in question, that's another story.) -- ------------------------------- Disclaimer: The views contained herein are | dan levy | yvel nad | my own and are not at all those of my em- | an engihacker @ | ployer, my pets, my plants, my boss, or the | at&t computer systems division | s.a. of any computer upon which I may hack. | skokie, illinois | | "go for it" | Path: ..!ihnp4!ttrdc!levy -------------------------------- or: ..!ihnp4!iheds!ttbcad!levy
gadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly) (07/28/85)
-- > > As to DWI, all that has to be done is to make DWI a crime for which > > the auto can be confiscated. > Aw c'mon, you wimp! You can do a lot more than that! For instance, > how about making DWI a capital offense?! Better yet, why not make > DWI a capital offense for both the driver AND the owner of the car? > That'll make sure people don't let other people steal their cars and > then drive drunk! ... A capital offense for the *vehicle* too! Hang the driver, and the owner, and the car, too. Then it'll never kill again. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 28 Jul 85 [10 Thermidor An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
andrew@grkermi.UUCP (Andrew W. Rogers) (07/29/85)
In article <601@ttidcc.UUCP> hollombe@ttidcb.UUCP (The Polymath) writes: >In article <237@SCIRTP.UUCP> todd@SCIRTP.UUCP (Todd Jones) writes: >>> _Any_ vehicle, _regardless of ownership_, the driver of which is found to >>> be in violation of the drunk driving laws is subject to confiscation and >>> sale at auction. ... etc. >> >>In other words, the severity of the penalty depends on the cost of the >>vehicle used to commit the crime. If I am in my clunker '71 Toyota and >>you are in your Dad's '86 Mercedes, we both get pulled and blow a DWI >>worthy breathalyzer reading, I lose my clunker and you get written out >>of Dad's will. This seems harsh in some cases and wrist-slapping in others. > >If you're driving a clunker chances are it's all you can afford. Taking it >away from you may cause you more grief than taking away dad's Mercedes, >which he can probably afford to replace... Anyone who could afford an '86 Mercedes could also afford a '71 Toyota (or similar clunker) _specifically_ for driving after drinking! Wake up - there has never been a law that the rich can't somehow circumvent, buy their way out of, or at least minimize the impact of! Just ask E.F. Hutton - or Ted Kennedy! AWR P.S: Have you Boston-area netters ever noticed that the roadblocks around here are set up in places like Revere [non-Boston netters substitute your local blue-collar town] but not in, say, Wellesley [non-Boston netters should be able to guess what to substitute here] ? Apparantly there's a difference between Joe Blow downing a few too many Buds at the Celtics game and J. Blowe III downing a few too many G & T's at the Hunt Club tailgate picnic! Has anyone noticed such 'selective enforcement' in other areas?
levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) (07/29/85)
Dear Mr. Hollombe:
I have never driven in my life while under the influence of even a speck (drop,
what have you) of alcohol; neither have I been arrested on suspicion of such.
Neither have any of my friends or relatives to my knowledge. Yet what you have
to advocate puts me into a slow burn even imagining it--the innocent are pun-
ished along with the guilty. Just because some injustices are already perpet-
rated in this country (i.e. the alleged confiscation and keeping of even STOLEN
firearms and boats which have been used in crimes) is no reason to add more of
the same. I would suspect (is this mistaken?) that many many more people own
autos/trucks than firearms and boats put together, making the innocent victim
base (and yes I understand the great carnage of intoxicated drivers is huge too)
much larger.
You say it's a workable solution if the stolen vehicle were returned IF AND ONLY
IF the drunk/thief were convicted of auto theft. You so forget the realities of
today's implementation of criminal "justice." It could take months, nay, years
under many circumstances to get this conviction if at all (i.e. not sidetracked
by plea bargaining and the like). In the meanwhile the theft victim is left in
the lurch. Not everybody has the luxury of waiting a long time and leisurely
filing a lawsuit in this case. Much harm can be done to the theft victim that
even a lawsuit is not guaranteed to even begin to repair. The possibility that
the thief might be broke is just icing on the cake. You say use funds from the
sold cars for thie purpose. I wonder in some cases whether the funds from 1000
sold cars would suffice to recompense some victims. Money cannot recompense
some injustices due to delays. And imagine the load on the courts! Not every-
one can afford hefty theft insurance either--and why should they? All they are
MORALLY obligated to get is liability!
I would sooner support a rule similar to that of many European countries, which
would jail the convicted intoxicated driver (even the first time) for a year or
more. At least the onus of punishment is placed upon the guilty there. Very
unfortunately, I fear this would not sell in this country. We love our liberty
too much here (decrepit America! for shame! Why did you ever start the Revolu-
tionary War? Sarcasm mode off--at times this love for liberty can lead to re-
diculous consequences. A pity.). It would be much better if the rules we DO
have were better enforced. Making (potential) measures more draconian in a
system where laws are already spottily enforced just increases the injustice.
The innocent (who have taken no precautions against ruthless law enforcement)
get screwed even worse, and the crafty guilty are about as well off
(with a few notable exceptions) as before.
I wonder, have you or any of your friends or relatives ("loved ones") been
injured/killed in an accident due to an intoxicated driver? If so, I can well
appreciate your wrath. For some victims of this horrible, nay, heinous, crime
it wouldn't be enough justice if the sky fell down on the entire world except
them and their loved ones THIS INSTANT! Unfortunately this won't sell well
either, especially to the strangers who would have the sky fall upon them.
Yet, since we are in such a free country, I will support heartily your right to
propose your draconian solutions to whatever legislative bodies you wish. It
is your privilege to do so. Just as it is my privilege to oppose them.
-Dan-
..!ihnp4!ttrdc!ttbcad!levy
--
------------------------------- Disclaimer: The views contained herein are
| dan levy | yvel nad | my own and are not at all those of my em-
| an engihacker @ | ployer, my pets, my plants, my boss, or the
| at&t computer systems division | s.a. of any computer upon which I may hack.
| skokie, illinois |
| "go for it" | Path: ..!ihnp4!ttrdc!levy
-------------------------------- or: ..!ihnp4!iheds!ttbcad!levygordon@trsvax (07/29/85)
> /* Written 9:17 pm Jul 22, 1985 by ttidcc.UU!hollombe in trsvax:net.legal */ > > ... > _Any_ vehicle, _regardless of ownership_, the driver of which is found to > be in violation of the drunk driving laws is subject to confiscation and > sale at auction. No exceptions. Proceeds of the auction to go towards > funding the drunk driving enforcement program. Excess proceeds to go into > a special fund for the aid of victims of drunk drivers. > > ... > The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) > ... > /* End of text from trsvax:net.legal */ There are several things that would result from this: 1. Renting a car at an airport takes a LONG time. While you are taking a breathalizer test, giving them a blood sample, and taking a polygraph test about your drinking habits, they are checking with the airline to see if you bought any liquor on the plane. 2. Getting an auto loan becomes much harder. Because the bank's collateral may vanish at any time, and confiscation isn't covered by insurance, interest rates go up to about 50% (or you buy confiscation insurance, which is even more expensive), and if you apply for one, you authorize the bank to investigate your background in a way that might make Orwell's Big Brother look like an amateur. Having your fraternity/sorority house censured for violating campus drinking regulations once might mean no loan, even if that was 20 years ago and you are active politically in a movement to bring back Prohibition. I also think it's patently unfair to take away a STOLEN car and sell it, regardless of how drunk the thief was. If I'm going to have my car taken away, I'd much rather realize the car has been stolen, wait until my remote alarm indicates the car is being driven, and remote-activate the self-destruct device while the thief is driving it :-). At least that gets the drunk permanently off the road. I think that if a person can be proved to have been drunk and gotten drunk deliberately (proof of purchasing the booze voluntarily is generally sufficient and is proof of premeditation, and proof that the person is addicted to alcohol is absolutely sufficient), then that person should be legally responsible for everything he/she does as though it was done deliberately and with malice. Thus, lots of drunk driving accidents turn into assault with intent to commit murder (the people in the car the drunk was driving or the other one(s), if they were hurt), assault with a deadly weapon (the car), murder one (if anyone was killed), attempted suicide (if the drunk survived), malicious damage to property (the other car), and property damage with intent to defraud an insurance company (drunk's car, if it was insured), along with the usual DWI, reckless driving, etc. Gordon Burditt ...!microsoft!trsvax!sneaky!gordon ...!convex!ctvax!trsvax!sneaky!gordon ...!ihnp4!sys1!sneaky!gordon
mpr@mb2c.UUCP (Mark Reina) (07/29/85)
I understand that in Bulgaria a person would get one year in jail for driving while intoxicated. The a same person would be executed for a repeat of this offense. This does much to cure Bulgaria's DWI rates and traffic accident reports.
andrew@alberta.UUCP (Andrew Folkins) (07/30/85)
In article <398@utastro.UUCP> ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) writes: >Another benefit is that motorcycle injuries provide a steady source of >organ donors. All right! The death penalty for DWI!!! (Ever heard of Larry Niven's organ banks?) -- Andrew Folkins YABS : If you think education is expensive, ihnp4!alberta!andrew consider the price of ignorance.
gadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly) (07/30/85)
-- > I understand that in Bulgaria a person would get one year in jail > for driving while intoxicated. The a same person would be executed > for a repeat of this offense. This does much to cure Bulgaria's > DWI rates and traffic accident reports. Back in 1972 I met a guy (American) in Denmark who said he'd just gotten out of jail--a 6 month sentence--for simply having been inside a car, *parked*, *not even in the driver's seat*, after stumbling out of a bar quite obviously intoxicated. He'd been looking for something in the glove compartment, and had been unlucky enough to attract the attention of a passing cop. He said it had been a borderline case, but as he had had to unlock the car, he had the keys on him. And that was enough. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 29 Jul 85 [11 Thermidor An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
andy@Shasta.ARPA (07/30/85)
Regarding confiscation of drunk-driver tools: There are two cases, the UZI window shopper (= drunk driver) is the registered owner of the car or he isn't. In the first case, no problem, no wheels. (The legal owner will take care of his end through insurance paid for by the drunk. Buying a new car on credit will be a bit tough, but eventually assigned-risk pools will handle that as well.) In the second case, the car is either stolen or it isn't. If it is, give the car back to the owner and add grand theft auto to the DUI. If it isn't stolen, then confiscate the car. (BTW - if I comitt a crime with an otherwise legal firearm or other device, the game is played by rules much like the above.) I believe the above is too harsh for a first offense. Driving restrictions seem more appropriate. Color-coded vehicles are probably the best idea. Require him to paint the car used in the incident some designated way and restrict him to it for a couple of months. The only bug with the above is that some rich jerk will purposely run around in cheap (for them) cars for the privledge of trying to kill us. Perhaps the third offense should rate both penalties and a presumption of intent for criminal liability. Maybe even fines in % of net worth for persistent (say five) convictions or application of habitual criminal statutes in those states that have them. -andy decvax!decwrl!Glacier!Shasta!andy Acceptance of this message by any retrieval device obligates the owner of said device, or the sponsoring organization, to hold the opinions expressed therein.
tw8023@pyuxii.UUCP (T Wheeler) (07/30/85)
Naw, why not just shoot the car, impound the driver, and let the owner call his insurance company.
scooper@brl-tgr.ARPA (Stephan Cooper ) (07/30/85)
In article <4056@alice.UUCP> ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) writes: >> As to DWI, all that has to be done is to make DWI a crime for which >> the auto can be confiscated. > >Aw c'mon, you wimp! You can do a lot more than that! For instance, >how about making DWI a capital offense?! Better yet, why not make >DWI a capital offense for both the driver AND the owner of the car? >That'll make sure people don't let other people steal their cars and >then drive drunk! For that matter how about killing off anyone who might >possibly have prevented the crime? Like all the driver's friends and >relatives, anyone who didn't prevent the driver from drinking in the >previous 24 hours, and all those people's friends and relatives? > >That'll stop it, don't you think? Yes
daw1@rduxb.UUCP (WILLIAMS) (07/31/85)
> In article <4056@alice.UUCP> ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) writes: > >> As to DWI, all that has to be done is to make DWI a crime for which > >> the auto can be confiscated. > > > >Aw c'mon, you wimp! You can do a lot more than that! For instance, > >how about making DWI a capital offense?! Better yet, why not make > >DWI a capital offense for both the driver AND the owner of the car? > >... > >That'll stop it, don't you think? > > Yes No! :-( Doug Williams AT&T Bell Labs Reading, PA mhuxt!rduxb!daw1
todd@SCIRTP.UUCP (Todd Jones) (08/01/85)
> What about revoking (through law) of the offender's license AND insurance? > True, it will then take another arrest to finally put them away (because > driving w/out a license and/or insurance is illegal), but would it be a > little more sane that confiscating the auto (what if it was stolen?) or > forcing them to ride a motorcycle (absurd). > > -Steve Steve- What if you or I were hit by an uninsured driver? We could tally huge medical bills with no means to pay for them. I think you can never confiscate someone's automobile liability insurance because others will often suffer the most. -Todd
greg@mcc-db.UUCP (Greg) (08/01/85)
> I understand that in Bulgaria a person would get one year in jail > for driving while intoxicated. The a same person would be executed > for a repeat of this offense. This does much to cure Bulgaria's > DWI rates and traffic accident reports. In Bulgaria, a person can be executed whether or not (s)he was caught for DWI. Moreover, Bulgaria has very little traffic, and therefore very few traffic accidents. -- gregregreg
todd@SCIRTP.UUCP (Todd Jones) (08/01/85)
> Why not ... when someone drunk kill an innocent bystander, charge > them with murder. That's what it is, really! > > Cheers, Fred Williams No Fred, it's manslaughter, and drunk drivers who kill anyone *can* be charged with manslaughter. -todd jones
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (08/02/85)
> What if you or I were hit by an uninsured driver? > We could tally huge medical bills with no means > to pay for them. I think you can never confiscate > someone's automobile liability insurance because > others will often suffer the most. Which brings up an important point. This can happen to you NOW! My attorney has handled many cases where innocent people were severely injured by uninsured drivers and were unable to collect. Their own Uninsured Motorist coverage ("U" in Texas) only paid up to a limit of a few tens of thousands. These people had no recourse. It is possible to get extended coverage that will cover you up to a much larger limit, such as $1,000,000. If you don't have it (and most people don't) you should see your agent pronto and get it. It's not expensive. -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)
rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) (08/05/85)
In article <1690@mnetor.UUCP> fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) writes: > > I was listening to the radio yesterday and some "expert" said that >studies in North America show that it is not the severity of the >punishment that deters drinking and driving, but the odds of getting >caught at it. This means that even mild or moderate penalties can >be effective if people expect there is a good chance that they will >be caught. > Do people think there is room for a citizen's patrol similar to >the neighbourhood watch program? Well, I really hate to give you this idea (I'll tell you why in a moment), but all one has to do is pick up a handy CB radio or stop at a phone booth and call the highway patrol and/or local police with a tag number and description of the car and driver, and that person will probably be history in a short period of time. I've done this (via telephone) on numerous occasions when I've seen someone weaving badly -- blatantly gone-to-Borneo, as it were. The reason I hate to mention this is that I happen to enjoy my 1 or 2 beers during my 45-minute drive home from work. Now, if I am stopped I won't get a ticket for drunken driving because I am not legally drunk by quite a bit; but I will get a ticket for having an open container in the car. You see, obeying the spirit of the law is not enough; one must obey the letter. That is why I only call in people who are drunk; not those I see hoisting a brew at the wheel. There are a lot of people who are convinced that if you have taken a single drink before or during your time at the wheel (within 4 hours before, say), that you are a drunken driver. They are, unfortunately, too often right -- the word 'single' above rarely applies. This does not mean, however, that everyone in shabby clothes in rundown New York City neighbor-hoods is necessarily a mugger -- neither does it mean that just because a lot of them are potential muggers that they should be arrested for having that potential. "Let's get those drunk drivers off the road!" "Right! Let's make sure people don't drink while driving!" "Right! Let's make sure people don't drink in their cars!" "Right! Let's make sure people who own cars don't drink!" "Right! Let's make sure people who have access to cars don't drink!" "OK, we fixed them. Now what do we do?" "Hey, you know all them computer breakins that happen all the time? Well, if we outlawed modems...." -- The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291) alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!rcj ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua masscomp ]!clyde!rcj
hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) (08/05/85)
In article <269@SCIRTP.UUCP> todd@SCIRTP.UUCP (Todd Jones) writes: >> Why not ... when someone drunk kill an innocent bystander, charge >> them with murder. That's what it is, really! > >No Fred, it's manslaughter, and drunk drivers who kill anyone >*can* be charged with manslaughter. The distinction between murder and manslaughter rests primarily on the presence or absence of premeditation and intent. It has been ruled that premeditation can occur in under 1 second. If a drunk accidentally kills someone, that's manslaughter. If they decide to kill someone and do so, that's murder. Actual case: A man was sitting on his motorcycle in the 2nd position in a left-turn lane. A drunk driver entered the intersection from his right and ran him down, _going behind the car in front of him to do so_. Three police officers witnessed the incident. The drunk driver was charged with 1st degree murder. I never did hear the final verdict in the case. (The victim was an instructor at the Northrop Institute of Technology). -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp TTI Common Sense is what tells you that a ten 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. pound weight falls ten times as fast as a Santa Monica, CA 90405 one pound weight. (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) (08/06/85)
In article <269@SCIRTP.UUCP> todd@SCIRTP.UUCP (Todd Jones) writes: >> Why not ... when someone drunk kill an innocent bystander, charge >> them with murder. That's what it is, really! >> >> Cheers, Fred Williams > >No Fred, it's manslaughter, and drunk drivers who kill anyone >*can* be charged with manslaughter. > >-todd jones I stand corrected! Does this depend on what state one is in? (or country, I suppose.) In Canada, prov. of Quebec, I know of one person who hit a 16 year old girl riding a bicyle. A mile later down the road he bagan to wonder if something had happened, he wasn't quite sure, so he turned around & went back. The girl was dead. I think he got a three month sentence, and was then put back on the road because he makes his living driving a company truck, and the judge didn't want to take away his livlyhood. - Yes, it was the company truck he hit the girl with. Cheers(?) Fred Williams
bobn@bmcg.UUCP (Bob Nebert) (08/06/85)
> In article <1690@mnetor.UUCP> fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) writes: > > > > I was listening to the radio yesterday and some "expert" said that > >studies in North America show that it is not the severity of the > >punishment that deters drinking and driving, but the odds of getting > >caught at it. This means that even mild or moderate penalties can > >be effective if people expect there is a good chance that they will > >be caught. > > Do people think there is room for a citizen's patrol similar to > >the neighbourhood watch program? > > Well, I really hate to give you this idea (I'll tell you why in a moment), > but all one has to do is pick up a handy CB radio or stop at a phone > booth and call the highway patrol and/or local police with a tag number > and description of the car and driver, and that person will probably be > history in a short period of time. I've done this (via telephone) on I think it is incredible that you can determine that a person is driving while under the influence of alcohol at a level above the allowed limit just by watching their car. I hope your beer can dosen't get in your way while you are watching them. > numerous occasions when I've seen someone weaving badly -- blatantly > gone-to-Borneo, as it were. I happen to work at certain times of the month, three jobs, to support my family. I get about four hours of sleep at those times and I weave at night because I'm tired. I worry about driving because my reactions are slower than normal. The front end on the van I drive needs work and when I have the extra money I'll have it done. Now along comes somebody and calls the cops because I'm driving while drunk and that person had to put down his beer to call the cops. Shame on you Mr. Hypocrite. > The reason I hate to mention this is that I happen to enjoy my 1 or > 2 beers during my 45-minute drive home from work. Now, if I am stopped DURING... > I won't get a ticket for drunken driving because I am not legally drunk > by quite a bit; but I will get a ticket for having an open container in I hate to be the one to tell you but the average human body disperses 1 (one) oz of booze ( one 12 oz can of beer) in one hour thru sweat, breath and urine. If you have 2 cans during 45 minutes I'll bet somebody's pay check that you are LEGALLY driving while drunk. I'm sure they are 12 oz cans and not 16 oz. > the car. You see, obeying the spirit of the law is not enough; one > must obey the letter. That is why I only call in people who are drunk; > not those I see hoisting a brew at the wheel. There are a lot of people The spirit or the letter of the law has no difference to a parent whose child has been driven over by a person whose reactions have been slowed by alcohol. Not only reactions but judgement and the entire thinking process. > who are convinced that if you have taken a single drink before or during > your time at the wheel (within 4 hours before, say), that you are a drunken > driver. They are, unfortunately, too often right -- the word 'single' above > rarely applies. > > This does not mean, however, that everyone in shabby clothes in rundown New > York City neighbor-hoods is necessarily a mugger -- neither does it mean that > just because a lot of them are potential muggers that they should be arrested > for having that potential. This last statement really irritated me, sorry. Nobody ever said that people who dress shabby are potential muggers. I'm saying people who drink and then climb behind the wheel run a higher risk of an accident. LORD IT'S ROUGH ENOUGH OUT THERE ALREADY. That might be the only clothes that person has but NOBODY forced anybody to buy and then drink while driving. To pose a situation, let's say you just finish your second beer and your about two blocks from home. You hear a noise off to the left and just for a second you look. In that second a child wanders in front of your car. It happens enough so bear with me. You hit and kill. The childs mother or father comes running up and you smell like beer. The police come of course and off you go for testing. Your blood count is below the limit. Now granted this can happen even if you never had any beer but the only thing these parents know is you were drunk. And you have to live knowing the that maybe, just maybe if you wern't drinking your reactions would be different. > > "Let's get those drunk drivers off the road!" > "Right! Let's make sure people don't drink while driving!" > "Right! Let's make sure people don't drink in their cars!" > "Right! Let's make sure people who own cars don't drink!" > "Right! Let's make sure people who have access to cars don't drink!" > > "OK, we fixed them. Now what do we do?" > "Hey, you know all them computer breakins that happen all the time? Well, > if we outlawed modems...." > --
kimv@dartvax.UUCP (Kim 'Ro' Vasel) (08/07/85)
There is a "citizen's patrol" measure available, atleast in
some areas. Just call 1-800-NAB--DWI. I am not sure how
widespread this is, but i think it is a good idea.
--
Kim Vasel
USNET: {linus|decvax|cornell|astrovax}!dartvax!kimv
ARPA: kimv%dartmouth@csnet-relay
CSNET: kimv@dartmouthweltyrp@rpics.UUCP (Richard Welty) (08/11/85)
> > What about revoking (through law) of the offender's license AND insurance? > > True, it will then take another arrest to finally put them away (because > > driving w/out a license and/or insurance is illegal), but would it be a > > little more sane that confiscating the auto (what if it was stolen?) or > > forcing them to ride a motorcycle (absurd). > > > > -Steve > > Steve- > > What if you or I were hit by an uninsured driver? > We could tally huge medical bills with no means > to pay for them. I think you can never confiscate > someone's automobile liability insurance because > others will often suffer the most. > > -Todd These problems are worse than can be imagined. About 10 years ago my father was in an accident. A cop was sitting in his cruiser in a parking lot, and saw the whole thing. The other driver, uninsured and with a suspended license was clearly at fault, and was duly charged and convicted. But the lack of a license and insurance didn't stop her, nor was there any guarentee that she wouldn't put it again ... Incidentally, the passenger in her car sued my father for medical expenses since she couldn't get anything out of the party at fault ... -- Rich Welty (I am both a part-time grad student at RPI and a full-time employee of a local CAE firm, and opinions expressed herein have nothing to do with anything at all) CSNet: weltyrp@rpi ArpaNet: weltyrp.rpi@csnet-relay UUCP: seismo!rpics!weltyrp
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL) (08/12/85)
> > What about revoking (through law) of the offender's license AND insurance? > > True, it will then take another arrest to finally put them away (because > > driving w/out a license and/or insurance is illegal), but would it be a > > little more sane that confiscating the auto (what if it was stolen?) or > > forcing them to ride a motorcycle (absurd). > > > > -Steve > > Steve- > > What if you or I were hit by an uninsured driver? > We could tally huge medical bills with no means > to pay for them. I think you can never confiscate > someone's automobile liability insurance because > others will often suffer the most. > > -Todd --------------------- Unfortunately, here in Illinois it is NOT illegal to drive without liability insurance. Our illustrious state legislators have many times failed to pass compulsory insurance legislation. There are many, many, uninsured drivers here. To compound the insult, those of us who are insured pay an additional premium to cover being injured by an uninsured motorist. There must be something in the water down there in Springfield. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
scott@hou2g.UUCP (Racer X) (08/12/85)
>Unfortunately, here in Illinois it is NOT illegal to drive without liability >insurance. >To compound the insult, those of us who are insured pay an >additional premium to cover being injured by an uninsured motorist. >There must be something in the water down there in Springfield. You have it SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO easy! Here in New Jersey, we HAVE a law against driving without liability insurance. And we STILL pay (through the nose, mind you) for uninsured (and underinsured) motorist coverage. But according to the law, there ain't no such animal as an uninsured motorist. (They must think we import them from Illinois. :-)) Not to mention the fact that in New Jersey they insure cars, not people, for liability--but that's another story... Scott J. Berry
chu@lasspvax.UUCP (Clare Chu) (08/13/85)
In article <589@hou2g.UUCP> scott@hou2g.UUCP (Racer X) writes: > >>Unfortunately, here in Illinois it is NOT illegal to drive without liability >>insurance. > >>To compound the insult, those of us who are insured pay an >>additional premium to cover being injured by an uninsured motorist. >>There must be something in the water down there in Springfield. > >You have it SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO easy! > >Here in New Jersey, we HAVE a law against driving without >liability insurance. And we STILL pay (through the nose, >mind you) for uninsured (and underinsured) motorist coverage. > >But according to the law, there ain't no such animal as an >uninsured motorist. (They must think we import them from >Illinois. :-)) Not to mention the fact that in New Jersey >they insure cars, not people, for liability--but that's another >story... > > Scott J. Berry I have a question. What is the law in Pennsylvania? A few months back I got rearended at a stop sign by a guy who had no insurance. He begged me not to call the police and seemed pretty scared that the police would do something to him. Turns out the damage was minor and he's paying for it. I just wonder if there is a law about liability or not. Clare
rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) (08/15/85)
In article <1785@bmcg.UUCP> bobn@bmcg.UUCP (Bob Nebert) writes: >I think it is incredible that you can determine that a person is driving >while under the influence of alcohol at a level above the allowed limit >just by watching their car. I hope your beer can dosen't get in your >way while you are watching them. Obviously if the person is staying in between the little lines I can't tell. It's when they are obviously weaving badly that I'm concerned. >I happen to work at certain times of the month, three jobs, to support >my family. I get about four hours of sleep at those times and I weave >at night because I'm tired. I worry about driving because my reactions >are slower than normal. The front end on the van I drive needs work and >when I have the extra money I'll have it done. Now along comes somebody >and calls the cops because I'm driving while drunk and that person had >to put down his beer to call the cops. Shame on you Mr. Hypocrite. Then you are no better at that point than a drunk driver; supporting your family or no. As for "Mr. Hypocrite", you notice that I would be calling in suspecting that you were driving DRUNK, not DRINKING WHILE DRIVING, which was the point of my whole article. >I hate to be the one to tell you but the average human body disperses >1 (one) oz of booze ( one 12 oz can of beer) in one hour thru sweat, breath >and urine. If you have 2 cans during 45 minutes I'll bet somebody's pay >check that you are LEGALLY driving while drunk. I'm sure they are 12 oz >cans and not 16 oz. Hmmmmm. Doesn't jive with the figures I've heard, but just to be safe I'll cut it down to one at a maximum. Thanks. >The spirit or the letter of the law has no difference to a parent whose >child has been driven over by a person whose reactions have been slowed >by alcohol. Not only reactions but judgement and the entire thinking >process. Agreed. People shouldn't drive DRUNK. Having a (singular) beer on the way home from work does not drop judgement or thinking even as much as being tired. BTW, I do NOT have any beer on the way home if I am very tired. >This last statement really irritated me, sorry. Nobody ever said that people >who dress shabby are potential muggers. I'm saying people who drink and then >climb behind the wheel run a higher risk of an accident. LORD IT'S ROUGH >ENOUGH OUT THERE ALREADY. That might be the only clothes that person has but >NOBODY forced anybody to buy and then drink while driving. Bad analogy on my part; but I think you really did get my point. I can see yours as well -- I definitely want to disallow homosexual men from giving blood to the Red Cross going on the assumption that they (could) have AIDS. But in that case all I'm doing is saying, "Sorry; can't use your blood." In the case of open container laws, I get fined even though I'm not drunk and not posing a threat to anyone. That is not police work (keep the peace, protect the people, serve and protect, all that rot); that's blind law enforcement. >To pose a situation, let's say you just finish your second beer and your >about two blocks from home. You hear a noise off to the left and just for >a second you look. In that second a child wanders in front of your car. It >happens enough so bear with me. You hit and kill. The childs mother or father >comes running up and you smell like beer. >The police come of course and off you go for testing. Your blood count is >below the limit. Now granted this can happen even if you never had any beer >but the only thing these parents know is you were drunk. >And you have to live knowing the that maybe, just maybe if you wern't drinking >your reactions would be different. What if I wasn't drinking at all but just dropped a hot cigarette ash on my pants? (I don't smoke, though, do you? While driving?) What if it is you when you are coming home from that third job? What if it is morning and you look down to pick up your coffee cup for a half-second? Life is a bitch that we can minimize; but there are definite tradeoffs. Eating, smoking, and a beer on the way home from work are in my mind quite acceptable. -- The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291) alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!rcj ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua masscomp ]!clyde!rcj
mmar@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Mitchell Marks) (08/16/85)
> Here in New Jersey, we HAVE a law against driving without > liability insurance. And we STILL pay (through the nose, > mind you) for uninsured (and underinsured) motorist coverage. > > But according to the law, there ain't no such animal as an > uninsured motorist. (They must think we import them from > Illinois. :-)) > Scott J. Berry Uhhhh... gosh, Scott, I thought people do still drive across state lines. Oh, sorry, I hadn't opened today's mail yet, and here it is -- my Internal Passport. Now I understand. -- -- Mitch Marks @ UChicago ...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmar