Idea to help stop drivers with suspended license.

[El Feo]

I'm happy to say this is now over a decade ago, but I had my license suspended for nearly five years (for the last 2 years of that, I was out of state for school, so the impact wasn't perhaps as severe as five years sounds).

No DUIs, just many speeding tickets (I really should have listened to the posters on R1 forum, before buying that R1).

I had my bike impounded 30 days once time, and the suspension would be prolonged if I was ever caught driving (happened a couple of times).

This was obviously pre-Uber days, and it's just very difficult to NEVER drive. At the time, I was working at a hospital (obviously open 24 hours a day), and would sometimes get called in for unexpected shifts. It's just not realistic to always take a cab, ask for a ride, etc.

Anyway, I'm not even sure what my point is, expect perhaps to provide a little perspective from the other side. It was stupid and I regret it (aside from the $$$, my suspensions delayed my professional license being granted for over one year). Well OK, I guess in part my point is, it can be very difficult to recover from these sorts of mistakes.

So, during the character and fitness evaluation, you told the bar, "Well, you see there was this R1...."

OK. And RogerC suggests a means of reducing these "wrong, immoral, illegal, objectionable, contemptible..." actions, and you suggest it as "draconian?"

Disagree.

Oh! Okay.

If we had the capacity to target only multi-DUI individuals, I don't think I'd have a problem with Roger's proposal.

 

[enki]

Honestly, I don't know with regard to any numbers.

However, my characterization of what is already in the penal code is "severe." But, this is subjective.

You may say, "Hang 'em high!"



.

I have some experience with the Central Valley (Fresno, Kings, Tulare) and the court system there. I can tell you that those convicted of 3 duis do not serve jail time. The standard sentence is one year suspension, 1 1/ 2 year dui program, which involves 6 weeks of instruction once a week for 3 hours, and the remainder twice a week 3-hour group sessions where people usually sit around and crack jokes. there is usually about 30 hours of community service as well.
Its easy to get out community service if you have a friendly doc. If someone choses to blow off the 1 1/2 year dui program, they will not get their license back, but there will be no bench warrant and no deputy wii go hunting for you.

Does that sound sever?

 

[Derb]

If someone gets pulled over and the driver has a suspended license, doesn't the LEO call in and have the vehicle towed ( so there is a fee from the impound lot at least ). They don't just write and ticket and then just let the non licensed driver drive away again do they?

 

[rogerc]

As I see it now with all due respect, that some of you do not see the problem as severe as i do so you see no need for change or modifications of laws for people who drive with a suspended license.
I see this as a major problem and a majority of these drivers keep making mistakes and others pay the ultimate price. I hope none of us ever know anyone killed or seriously hurt by someone with a suspended license.
RC

 

[enki]

If someone gets pulled over and the driver has a suspended license, doesn't the LEO call in and have the vehicle towed ( so there is a fee from the impound lot at least ). They don't just write and ticket and then just let the non licensed driver drive away again do they?

where I live, they tow, but there is a demand now for leos to stop this.

 

[jdhu]

If someone gets pulled over and the driver has a suspended license, doesn't the LEO call in and have the vehicle towed ( so there is a fee from the impound lot at least ). They don't just write and ticket and then just let the non licensed driver drive away again do they?

I think they have the option of having it towed, or if the LEO is in a forgiving mood, you might be able to call a friend to come and drive the vehicle away.

 

[Aware]

I don't know how they do it in England, but people are deathly afraid of getting speeding tickets and there are camera traps everywhere. Forget about driving drunk! People won't do it.

By campaigning since the '80s to make drink driving socially unacceptable, in the same way that smoking has become socially unacceptable.


America struggles with making drunk-driving socially unacceptable for most of the country because it is next to impossible to get public transport (which is also socially unacceptable unless you live in one of a handful of cities) or a cab unless you live close to the bars .... which is impossible/illegal in so many places because of zoning laws. Unless you live in a mobile home park, which will often have a bar within walking distance

[edit] oh, and in Britain, DUI is instant jail time. You get locked up there and then (usually overnight, unless there's an accident and other schitt involved. You have to understand that America locks up more people that any other country, so getting locked up is 'ordinary' here. Not so in Britain. Add that your license is automatically taken away if you are caught drunk driving, and your insurance costs are horrific when you get your license back. But I stand by my original comment (above) that TV and other campaigns that made DUI socially unacceptable have most likely had the biggest affect in stopping people driving while drunk in Britain.

 

[jdhu]

So, during the character and fitness evaluation, you told the bar, "Well, you see there was this R1...."

Haha, no, trust me, I was contrite.

In Yolo County, a very forgiving judge actually bought my f=ma argument (Your Honor, although I was certainly speeding, given my very small mass compared to even a compact car, any damage I could potential cause is far less severe) and reduced my ticket greatly.

I'm in no way defending my irresponsibility, but I do think I have perspective others do not (the cycle of suspension/fines/impound, etc.).

I'd be curious to see, regarding the 30-day impound, how strongly tow companies lobbied in the name of "public safety" (my guess is quite a bit).

 

[Johndicezx9]

And parents that leave guns around for children to access should get a free pass as well.

When you apply for a job, do they ask if you have a gun, or if you have a car?

 

[enki]

When you apply for a job, do they ask if you have a gun, or if you have a car?

guess that would depend on the job. I been asked both.

 

[El Feo]

I have some experience with the Central Valley (Fresno, Kings, Tulare) and the court system there. I can tell you that those convicted of 3 duis do not serve jail time. The standard sentence is one year suspension, 1 1/ 2 year dui program, which involves 6 weeks of instruction once a week for 3 hours, and the remainder twice a week 3-hour group sessions where people usually sit around and crack jokes. there is usually about 30 hours of community service as well.
Its easy to get out community service if you have a friendly doc. If someone choses to blow off the 1 1/2 year dui program, they will not get their license back, but there will be no bench warrant and no deputy wii go hunting for you.

Does that sound sever?

No, it doesn't, at least not as you describe.

This what the VC says:

California Vehicle Code 23546 -- DUI punishments. Third offense; punishment. ("(a) If a person is convicted of a violation of Vehicle Code 23152 and the offense occurred within 10 years of two separate violations of Section 23103 VC, as specified in Section 23103.5 VC, 23152 VC, or 23153 VC, or any combination thereof, that resulted in convictions, that person shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than 120 days nor more than one year and by a fine of not less than three hundred ninety dollars ($390) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000).

 

[MrIncredible]

As I see it now with all due respect, that some of you do not see the problem as severe as i do so you see no need for change or modifications of laws for people who drive with a suspended license.
I see this as a major problem and a majority of these drivers keep making mistakes and others pay the ultimate price. I hope none of us ever know anyone killed or seriously hurt by someone with a suspended license.
RC

Look, if someone loses their license and still needs to drive to work to continue to not be evicted and eat, they're going to do it. There's no way around it.

It's been mentioned most loss of license issues are dui.

If there was cheap and efficient public transit the drunks could get home, the unlicensed could get about. Maybe some changes to zoning-California is the only place I've ever lived that didn't seem to have a neighborhood bar on every other corner. In Massachusetts, my last house had no less than five places to get a pint (not just bars-restaurants that served) within a ten minute walk. I had never even *met* anyone with a dui until I got to California.

 

[enki]

No, it doesn't, at least not as you describe.

This what the VC says:

California Vehicle Code 23546 -- DUI punishments. Third offense; punishment. ("(a) If a person is convicted of a violation of Vehicle Code 23152 and the offense occurred within 10 years of two separate violations of Section 23103 VC, as specified in Section 23103.5 VC, 23152 VC, or 23153 VC, or any combination thereof, that resulted in convictions, that person shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than 120 days nor more than one year and by a fine of not less than three hundred ninety dollars ($390) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000).

unless there was an injury, the jail time is routinely converted to community service, or what is called Adult Offender Work Program.

I also should have mentioned that a alcohol breathalizer is mandated for the offender's vehicle.

 

[Johndicezx9]

As I see it now with all due respect, that some of you do not see the problem as severe as i do so you see no need for change or modifications of laws for people who drive with a suspended license.
I see this as a major problem and a majority of these drivers keep making mistakes and others pay the ultimate price. I hope none of us ever know anyone killed or seriously hurt by someone with a suspended license.
RC

We see it, we get it (what you're saying), but how do you implement what you want to do, and you still haven't given us data as to how big a problem this really is, only anecdotal. You haven't provided enough (for me) to want to re-vamp what is already a pretty strict/expensive system to stop a small percentage of people who won't give shit, but have a huge effect on those that will work to correct their mistakes.

 

[enki]

Look, if someone loses their license and still needs to drive to work to continue to not be evicted and eat, they're going to do it. There's no way around it.

It's been mentioned most loss of license issues are dui.

If there was cheap and efficient public transit the drunks could get home, the unlicensed could get about. Maybe some changes to zoning-California is the only place I've ever lived that didn't seem to have a neighborhood bar on every other corner. In Massachusetts, my last house had no less than five places to get a pint (not just bars-restaurants that served) within a ten minute walk. I had never even *met* anyone with a dui until I got to California.

I dont think you are right about drinkers opting for public transit. Some would, but many would not make rational decisions about that while blitzed.

 

[ABC]

If you want to save lives, start suspending the licenses of the retards who drive 55-65 in the passing lane.

Your posts make me lol

 

[Johndicezx9]

No, it doesn't, at least not as you describe.

This what the VC says:

California Vehicle Code 23546 -- DUI punishments. Third offense; punishment. ("(a) If a person is convicted of a violation of Vehicle Code 23152 and the offense occurred within 10 years of two separate violations of Section 23103 VC, as specified in Section 23103.5 VC, 23152 VC, or 23153 VC, or any combination thereof, that resulted in convictions, that person shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than 120 days nor more than one year and by a fine of not less than three hundred ninety dollars ($390) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000).

In MoCo, the move is towards home detention where convicted pay for the monitoring equipment, pay to be in the program rather than being held in jail that the County pays for.

Did you know you can lose your license if you don't pay court ordered child support?

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/dmv_handout.pdf

 

[jdhu]

Your posts make me lol

Haha, me too, and I tend to agree with him.

 

[WWWobble]

I see this as a major problem and a majority of these drivers keep making mistakes and others pay the ultimate price. I hope none of us ever know anyone killed or seriously hurt by someone with a suspended license.
RC

This what the VC says:

California Vehicle Code 23546 -- DUI punishments. Third offense; punishment. ("(a) If a person is convicted of a violation of Vehicle Code 23152 and the offense occurred within 10 years of two separate violations of Section 23103 VC, as specified in Section 23103.5 VC, 23152 VC, or 23153 VC, or any combination thereof, that resulted in convictions, that person shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than 120 days nor more than one year and by a fine of not less than three hundred ninety dollars ($390) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000).

My good friend Gary is dead.

A drunk driver swerved over the double yellow and hit his motorcycle head on.

The drunk had a suspended license. He had THREE fucking prior DUIs.

Roger's suggestion may not fix anything in this case, and I don't care if people choose to drink or smoke, but if somebody is driving with a suspended license, and one of the reasons is DUI, the penalty should be

...uh... draconian. Way more than CVC23546

 

[Johndicezx9]

I dont think you are right about drinkers opting for public transit. Some would, but many would not make rational decisions about that while blitzed.

The decision needs to made prior to getting "blitzed" (which many don't), but how many DUI's are "buzzed" driving (as they are pushing now) or .08-.09, which wasn't a DUI til fairly recently.

And I'm not against stricter BAC levels at all.