h a l f b a k e r yMagical moments of mediocrity.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
If you get a DUI, you also get a special license plate that reads DUI and has backlit red letters to be placed on the car for a long time. The second DUI, and the plates stay for life.
This would alert the rest of us sober drivers to a possible risk, and police could monitor possible repeating
offenders closer, thus saving lives.
In pre-guard to the infringement on our rights B.S., they say driving is a privilege, not a right.
Big Bro is watching you!
Google search on "driving privilege"
http://www.google.c...0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
North Carolina, Florida, Missouri and California state laws on just the first page of results alone. Followed by Idaho, Virgina, Oregon, Kentucky, Wyoming, New York, Minnesota, Wisconson, New Jersey, Pennsylvania... Clearly the states consider it a privilege. [waugsqueke, May 03 2002]
This issue was Colorado HB 1334
http://www.dui.com/.../CO.dui.plates.html
I'm pretty sure I heard about other states tring to adopt such a law. [1kester, May 03 2002, last modified Oct 06 2004]
Georgia DUI facts.
http://www.ga-drunk...a/secondoffense.htm
Georgia has such a law [1kester, May 03 2002, last modified Oct 06 2004]
One more
http://dwidata.org/enforce/license.cfm
Maybe you should check your local laws [1kester, May 03 2002, last modified Oct 06 2004]
The Thompson Case
http://www.state-ci...-cases/thompson.zip
(well, the appeal) rfr's quote, if the line about indisputable wisdom is verbatim, comes from some kind of civil liberties site about having to have a social security number in order to get a driving licence, connected to 'fight the fingerprint' which is against the measure of having fingerprint validation on driving licences. [sappho, May 03 2002, last modified Oct 06 2004]
The Right to Travel
http://www.ptialask...erest/travel_2.html
just adding to the debate ;-) [runforrestrun, May 03 2002, last modified Oct 06 2004]
more
http://www.etext.or...ogFarm/legroind.doc
[runforrestrun, May 03 2002, last modified Oct 06 2004]
http://www.roadragers.com/
[mrthingy, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 06 2004]
Drunken Drivers To Get Red-Letter License Plates
http://www.nbc4colu...2732163/detail.html
Jan 05 2004: Now baked in Ohio! [krelnik, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 06 2004]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
[admin] idea moved to 'car: drunk driving'. |
|
| |
emtae: The whole of the halfbakery is about ideas (see help text). 'halfbakery: idea' is for ideas that are about the structure of ideas on the halfbakery. |
|
| |
What's wrong with the current system of taking away their drivers license? |
|
| |
ditto the ditto.
i wouldnt want any softening of existing penalties, on the assumption this is in addition to them, what happens when someone else drives that car ? |
|
| |
So, you think repeat drunk drivers should get tagged as such but be allowed to continue driving? A red dwarf gourami skeleton for you. |
|
| |
Scarlet letter law enforcement has been done and is since long gone. |
|
| |
They do this in France - an "A" sticker on the back of your car when you can drive again after a driving ban - I think you have to have it on for two years?
I remember seeing mostly cars with 'A' stickers parked on the street after the bars closed in Cannes - I think the police just stop you and check if you are drunk if they see an 'A' stickered car driving at night... |
|
| |
I quite like this one. Say you've banned someone for a period of six months, you could then force the to retake their test and use DUI plates for six months. It would serve as a reminder to the person and those around them. |
|
| |
As per phoenix, mymus and waugs, I wouldn't support this as an alternative to other penalties but a supplement. |
|
| |
There's also problems with multiple use cars but nothing that can't be overcome. Croissant. |
|
| |
"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty.... It includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under existing modes of travel includes the right to drive a horse-drawn carriage or wagon thereon, or to operate an automobile thereon for the usual and ordinary purposos of life and business. It is not a mere privilege, like the privilege of moving a house in the street, operating a business stand in the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which the city may permit or prohibit at will." |
|
| |
Indisputable wisdom recorded in Thompson v. Smith, 154 S.E. 579, 1929. |
|
| |
Interesting words, rfr, but it's just not so. Operating a motor vehicle is indeed a privilege in this country (US), and in Canada as well. See link. |
|
| |
In Washington State it is considered a privilege under the law. |
|
| |
Pardon while I join the fool's game without knowing the context of [runforrestrun]'s annotation: I suspect that reference details a persons right to use a public road, not to drive. |
|
| |
His reference is "recorded in" a case. Maybe it was the closing argument for a losing defendant. |
|
| |
Instead of tagging the car with something easily removable, why not tag the person? A nice tatoo of 'SOCIETAL LEECH' across the forehead might do nicely. |
|
| |
City of Chicago v. Collins et al., 175 Ill. 445, 51 N.E. 907 (Oct. 24, 1898). "A license, therefore, implying a privilege, cannot possibly exist with reference to something which is a right, free and open to all, as is the right of the citizen to ride and drive over the streets of the city without charge and without toll, provided he does so in a reasonable manner."
I'm sure I've read this sort of discussion here at the halfbakery before, perhaps involving the words "my god-given right"...
ok, found link to the thompson case. It's an appeal against the revocation of a driving licence; this is in the days before driving licences per se. Still reading (it's quite quaint actually) - better summary coming up in a while... |
|
| |
This makes me cringe. I can't help but think the main motivation is punishment by public humiliation. |
|
| |
aha....interesting
Try this: |
|
| |
"If you are not using the highways for profit, you cannot be required to have a driver's license." |
|
| |
Again, there is no context. The argument would be very different in 1900 vs 2000. The freedom (and right) to use roads as a conveyance is different when everyone else is walking or, at best, riding a horse or carriage. *I* wouldn't want to walk down the center lane of an interstate today.
The same goes for licensing. There's no particular skill to walking (assuming all the bits work) nor to riding a horse or driving a carriage. On the other hand, *I* wouldn't want to share an interstate with a bunch of folks how haven't even attempted to acquire the skills needed to operate a motor vehicle (or automobile, if you prefer) even though it might be difficult to tell the difference between an licensed and unlicensed driver. |
|
| |
In fact, we could take this back to the original discussion. The convicted drunk driver who has his license removed may still get behind the wheel, but at least we have a way to know he shouldn't be there. |
|
| |
Admin: Thank you for the direction of idea placement.
Others: The idea is not humiliation, its defensive posturing oneself against possible repeat offenders that may kill you with their own selfish disrespect for others when they take chances and drive drunk. |
|
| |
A rose by any other name . . . |
|
| |
i think they should give you blaze orange plates for 2 years on your first DUI offense then on your second they should stay for life and if you are found drinking again you r in jail for 2 years |
|
| |
I like the idea, but a good way around it is to have the vehicle put in someone else's name: (ex: a parent). |
|
| |
When a person gets a DUI for the first and second time, are their license not "temporarily" suspended? This idea could still be used for when they get their license back. |
|
| |
Personally I like the idea of the warning. It would be really sad if half the vehicles on the road had those kind of tags. |
|
| |
Why limit it to DUI? There should also be a reckless driving plate, a road rage plate and a vehicular homicide plate. If you passed the poor DUI shmoe on the highway headed to work at 8:45 AM, what are the chances that he's drunk? Go ahead and cut him off! Flip him the bird while you're at it. But the road rager - well, you may want to give him a little more leeway. |
|
| |
If the british folks dont know what road rage is, I have provided a link. I suspect they don't have it there. Heck, when I honked in the Lake District people acted like I'd fired my shotgun in the air. |
|
| |
I am embarrassed to say that I have a brother that has over 20 dui's. Only 2 were earned while he had a drivers license. Otherwise, he gets out of jail and drinks, then drives. he does this until he gets caught again. |
|
| |
No good for people who share cars. For example, the wife has to drive around town with DUI plates because the husband is a drinker? Why make humiliating her part of his punishment? |
|
| |
Better to have a driver's license as a magnetic card (complete with PIN), and the car won't start without a valid card. Then he can't drive any car, or only (with some modifications to the car) at certain times of the day, at certain speeds, and with warning flashers on. If he uses someone else's card, that someone else also loses their driver's license (for letting the drunk have the PIN and the card) unless they can prove it was unintentional or forced. |
|
| |
spartanica - whatever it takes to keep people from getting behind the wheel of a car while influenced by alcohol or drugs. I think that, alone, is the only reason to do this. |
|
| |
It's not going to help me to notice the license plate of the car at the last second as it's coming at me from the other side of the road just before my life ends. |
|
| |
Is this really going to make the roads safer? I think that (a) most drunk drivers still won't have marked plates, (b) many drivers won't see the plates, (c) many more will overcompensate and drive more dangerously to avoid the marked driver. |
|
| |
(As for the law quotes, they need more context. Opinions from state supreme courts, even if they haven't been overturned or overruled, only apply to that state. In addition, it's a bad idea to trust cases from over 70 years ago to be good precedent, especially if you can't find a more recent cite and even more especially if the law concerns a subject that has greatly changed over those 70 years.) |
|
| |
Baked as of this week in the US State of Ohio. See link. |
|
| |