CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in Question of the day

Re: Question of the day

2DUIs&NOwrecks — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 19:09:48 -0000

I'm one of those horrible "multiple offenders" that everyone is so terrified of--I got a DUI in 1997, and once again in 2003. Both times I blew, and both times I went to treatment. I have had absolutely no accidents in over 33 years of driving. Yet, I'm revoked for the rest of my life. I had a safe driver renewal, shortly before my second DUI, because I had absolutely no tickets--no speeding, disobeying traffic signals, etc.--for five years. It isn't drunk driving that kills people: It is disobedience to stop signs, traffic lights, speed limits, and failure to engage in defensive driving that kills. Over 60% of all traffic fatalaties are caused by sober drivers, who text, talk on a cellphone, speed, eat, put on make-up, and don't pay attention to traffic signals or others. People, who have already had one DUI, push in the cruise control, stop at the stop signs, and use turn signals. They get paranoid about drinking and driving, and keep their eyes peeled for cops. I was already home, parked, and had exited my car when the police busted me--the probable cause was "loud music." If everyone in the US who blew a stop sign, got a speeding ticket, or had a traffic accident got an automatic suspension of their license, I believe fatalaties would go down. Instead, drivers believe that, as long as they are sober, they can drive as recklessly as they wish. The laws back them up, too. I have friends who have had no less than 4 accidents on their driving record, but they are still on the highways. In addition, a very sober young man blew his second stop sign in two years and killed a woman in my home county. He has a lawsuit against him--not manslaughter charges. It is not drunk driving that kills--it is the failure of a driver to obey traffic laws that kills, whether he's sober or not. The biggest problem is sober people who jump on the MADD bandwagon, when they have already had near fatal-accidents themselves. That is denial in its simplest form. It is easier to blame a drunk driver, for accidents, than it is to acknowledge that they themselves are risking a fatal accident by their driving behaviors.

Re: Question of the day

Sir William Little Bill — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 01:11:16 -0000

Having a law forcing the automobile makers to install alcohol sensors into every vehicle is the only true way to stop drinking and driving.
I have heard that this is already in the works. This is the only way to stop people from drinking and driving.

Re: Question of the day

HoBoSkillet — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 23:10:37 -0000

You just cannot argue with neo-prohibitionists. Rich, please forgive me but lets take this argument to the logical extreme. Let's say we have capitol punishment for all DUI first offenders. It still will not end DUI's or people driving while drunk.

Re: Question of the day

Justice — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:05:53 -0000

Steven....your first comment is right on for 1st time offenders vs repeat serial offenders. I think it is a bit much for 1st timers, since habitual offenders usually do not have licences, insurance, etc. We lose more and more rights and with the new government....we will lose more.

Re: Question of the day

Justice — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:01:21 -0000

Is the vendor of the vehicle device a campaign contributor? Maybe someone ought to check. Is there only one vendor that makes this or will it be put out for bid? Hmmm.

Re: Question of the day

steve schnorf — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:57:16 -0000

RO, I didn't say they were first time violators, I said they were first time DUIs, a legal status. I'm not stupid.

You simply skip over the entire point I made. Second time DUIs don't kill a very large percentage of the total DUI deaths. Ergo, beating first-time offenders may feel good, but all research date I've ever seen tells me its not severity of punishment that modifies behavior, its certainty and swiftness.

I'm not arguing for doing nothing to first offenders. I am arguing for targeting the serial offenders. If you want to punish "pre-offenders", I guess you'll have to come up with a way. Sounds to me like punishing white and black beans, though. BTW, there will be a point of diminishing returns. Make DUI a capital offense and we will convict virtually no one.

Re: Question of the day

Skeeter — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:35:34 -0000

I also disagree with the orange plates idea. For me, the sight of the person going the wrong way down Ohio Street (or driving in several lanes at once on the Kennedy) is enough of an indication that the person likely is intoxicated.

Everybody makes mistakes? Good thing we don't apply that to other crimes -- "But it was the first person he shot in the head, so let's not be too harsh."

Re: Question of the day

Anon3 — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:44:08 -0000

Pickles the cost varies per vendor of the BAIID device and a violation is a Class 4 felony with the standard Class 4 range of punishment.

Re: Question of the day

stones — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:40:52 -0000

Anyone know what the cost of the device is, and the penalty if they are caught driving without it, such as if they drive another vehicle?

Pickles,

My understanding that the device runs about $80 - $100 for installation and another $80 / month for monitoring. Additionally there is a fee of about $20 that goes to the State.

Re: Question of the day

wordslinger — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:33:14 -0000

Pre-offenders? Was that Kafka or Orwell?

Re: Question of the day

Mr. Ethics — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:29:07 -0000

Don't stop now. And anyone caught speeding on the interstate will have to install a device which locks the cruise control at 65. Presto no more speeding possible and no more tickets required.

Re: Question of the day

wordslinger — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:23:08 -0000

Skeeter, you might be on to something. I hear in Riyadh and Teheran they cut off the hands off of thieves. And let's not forget those stocks in old Plymouth Colony.

Seriously, the original question was whether the device was a appropriate for first offenders. I think it's too much because everyone makes mistakes. I think the orange license plates are ridiculous and have more to do with the someone wanting to inflict humiliation rather than meting justice or discouraging drunk driving.

And make no mistake, the penalty for first offenders is pretty tough already.

Second chance, anyone?

Re: Question of the day

i've been Rod-omized — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:23:07 -0000

Steve S. - If most accidents involve "people with no previous convictions", it most likely implies that they just haven't caused an accident or gotten pulled over YET. Drunk driving is not usually a aberation, it is a pattern of poor decisions.

I would proffer that the majority of first time offendors are not first time violators.

Instead of targeting multiple offendors, should we not be more concerned with "pre-offendors"? And, if not through thorough training and education, then through fear of severe punishment.

Re: Question of the day

Thomas Westgard — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:10:18 -0000

I'm listening right now to yesterday's 60 Minutes story about drunk driving. There are prosecutors across the country charging people with first-degree murder for drunk driving deaths. It gives a different picture from the more lenient opinions posted here.

I'm kind of surprised that there's so much leniency being expressed about it here. I know we don't want people to drive under the influence of other drugs, or tiredness, or other distractions, but it's kind of weird not to remove people who commit this particular abuse of the power to drive.

Re: Question of the day

HoBoSkillet — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:50:00 -0000

===If you can afford to drink and drive you can afford the cost of a couple of beers a day to pay for you BAIID device in your car for a year and the rest of us are greatful that for a year or more the cars wont start when the driver attempts to start it after consuming alcohol.===

There is an awful lot of presuppositions in that statement.

Re: Question of the day

Pickles!! — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:46:27 -0000

Anyone know what the cost of the device is, and the penalty if they are caught driving without it, such as if they drive another vehicle?

Re: Question of the day

Anon3 — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:36:57 -0000

Overall I believe its a good law. Couple of thoughts: 25+ years ago when the SSS went in to effect many/most of the same points were raised against SSS.
We all must remember back in the day when we applied for our first IL Drivers License we signed on the dotted line that we would, if asked, submit to tests to determine if we were impaired driving. PERIOD This is not a right. This is a privilege granted by the State of Il.
There is no shortage of people driving in violation of their JDP's and I am sure that plenty of people will violate the new law.
It will take a year or more to evaluate whether or not this is a success.
If you can afford to drink and drive you can afford the cost of a couple of beers a day to pay for you BAIID device in your car for a year and the rest of us are greatful that for a year or more the cars wont start when the driver attempts to start it after consuming alcohol.

Re: Question of the day

Skeeter — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:16:17 -0000

Wordslinger,

How about they tattoo to their foreheads: "Don't serve me alcohol, because I've proven that I am unable to determine when I've been served too much to drive safely."

Beats the scarlet letter thing, and serves the purpose well. And it would be reasonable.

Seriously, how difficult is it to NOT drive drunk? Why are we making a big deal about this? Don't want a device on your car? Then don't drive drunk.

If you do drive drunk -- even once -- it should be made as difficult as possible for you to do so again.

Re: Question of the day

stones — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:02:25 -0000

It is a poor law.

The law is writen so that the offender pays the cost of installation and monitoring. If the individual is indigent, who pays then? Is it the County, State, etc? You can bet that more people than not will claim they cannot afford the device.

There is a fund set up to pay for indigencies but the law does not specify how a County jurisdiction can tap into the fund.

The legislation was well intentioned but poorly conceived.

Re: Question of the day

wordslinger — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 14:46:37 -0000

--I think the state should issue bright orange license plates for people who have had a DUI.--

Why orange? Are you assuming they're all U of I alums? To keep it simple, why not just make them wear a Scarlet DUI on their clothes?

Re: Question of the day

Chanson — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 14:44:20 -0000

What I am concerned about are the totally innocent. I don't drink and drive but I do not trust the technology of devices used by the untrained. Recently a combative diabetic driver was tazed because the police thought that the man was drunk. Are safeguards and studies there to support all this? The total lack of preparedness by the SOS screams error and lawsuits. Too many laws are passed and go into effect without the staff and training to lawfully enact the legislation.

Re: Question of the day

HoBoSkillet — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 14:42:57 -0000

- Reformer - I hate to say this but many parents would use their children for that particular purpose.

Re: Question of the day

reformer — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 14:28:28 -0000

While the ignition interlock isn't foolproof, it's not so easy to bypass without detection. As far as having a sober person take the test, remember that drivers must retest during a drive. So under this scenario, a drunk would have to have a sober person riding with a drunk all the time. Seems rather unlikely. BTW, how stupid would the sober person have to be to be driving with a drunk to and from the tavern?

Re: Question of the day

Skeeter — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 13:55:26 -0000

I'm with Jimbo on this.

Sympathy for people who get arrested for DUI? Not from me.

Want to avoid a DUI? Don't drink and drive. Pretty simple.

i just do not understand why people find it confusing. My personal policy is, and has been since just about the time I could legally consume alcohol, that if I have a full drink somebody else gets the keys (I think I can handle a small sip toast an event, but if the glass is empty, the keys get handed over).

Why do other people have a problem with that sort of procedure, and why on earth should we want to make things easy or convenient for people who have driven drunk in the past?

One final note -- "People can get around it." Those people should do some research on these devices. They are pretty tough to evade.

Re: Question of the day

steve schnorf — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 13:49:24 -0000

This law may be well-intended, but I think it is not well targeted.

The data are clear. There are a relatively small percentage of serious repeat DUI offenders. The great majority of 1st-time DUIs will never have a second such charge.

We need to target those people who repeatedly knowingly and intentionally violate the DUI law. Not only do they get multiple DUIs, they drive with suspended licenses, revoked licenses, without insurance (not surprisingly, they are uninsurable) and they are repeatedly arrested for driving on suspended or revoked licenses: they even somehow get school bus permits.

I don't claim to know the answer (there are serious problems with impounding cars, for example) but these drivers should be the target. If you're think I'm wrong, go look up how many DUI deaths are caused by second time offenders. Very few. The majority of the tragic accidents we read about are caused by people with no previous violations.