Why are repeat drunk drivers allowed to drive?

[OldWiseGuy]

Statistics reveal that many repeat drunk drivers will eventually kill someone, or themselves. So why do we allow them to continue driving? Is there some conspiracy afoot?

 

[com7fy8]

The possible conspiracy? > One thing I think of is the people with conspiracy control might not have such great control to keep themselves from driving while drunk; so they do not want a clearcut thing that could get them off the street. I mean very well-to-do people with influence and politicians.

A practicality problem > Also, ones could be afraid of what would happen if someone in their family gets banned from driving and then they have to deal with transporting the person. The person could be earning a living for the household. Such a regulation could effect a lot of people, when it might be possible that the drunk driver will not repeat or will get corrected.

What are the stats for eventual kills, versus ones who do better?

And . . .

 

[guyver]

Probably because It's just one of the many ways they are using today to depopulate. I won't talk about mask wearing or defunding the police or any of the other methods they are using , but yeah depopulation is the agenda.

During our lockdowns here , the only services available were what they called essential services , so things like smoke shops were shut , but grog shops stayed open all through the lockdowns as they were essential.

Even when the media was reporting spikes in car crashes , suicides , family violence etc , the grog shops still remained open for business.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The possible conspiracy? > One thing I think of is the people with conspiracy control might not have such great control to keep themselves from driving while drunk; so they do not want a clearcut thing that could get them off the street. I mean very well-to-do people with influence and politicians.

A practicality problem > Also, ones could be afraid of what would happen if someone in their family gets banned from driving and then they have to deal with transporting the person. The person could be earning a living for the household. Such a regulation could effect a lot of people, when it might be possible that the drunk driver will not repeat or will get corrected.

What are the stats for eventual kills, versus ones who do better?

And . . .

Drunk drivers repeat because they are allowed by the state to continue driving even after multiple DUI convictions. Even after serving time in prison for repeat DUI offences some continue to drive drunk.

Persons convicted of repeat DUI's should not be allowed to buy or possess a motor vehicle, much like a convicted felon isn't allowed to buy or possess a firearm. If you don't have a motor vehicle you can't drive drunk.

Lots of ways to get around without owning a motor vehicle. You'll also save a lot of money.

I remember a story of a town in Sweden (I think it was Sweden) that had a drunk driving problem. They cracked down by pulling cars over as they left at closing time. Soon few drove their cars to the taverns. The taverns were still full of patrons but the parking lots were nearly empty. Problem solved.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Statistics reveal that many repeat drunk drivers will eventually kill someone, or themselves. So why do we allow them to continue driving? Is there some conspiracy afoot?

It's not easy to stop them. Imprison them? For how long? I read somewhere that car makers will be required to fit alcohol interlocks to all new cars sometime soon. That will be one solution. So drunks will drive older, less safe cars. There is no conspiracy. Governments hate road deaths. It's messy, inconvenient and easy to blame governments for "not doing enough". Of course, ensuring that children know that there are consequences to bad behaviour would be a start. That's not PC these days. So cars have to be turned into mobile padded cells to prevent people from hurting themselves and others. Eventually, no one will be anything but a passenger in their own car, if indeed car ownership remains a thing.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It's not easy to stop them. Imprison them? For how long? I read somewhere that car makers will be required to fit alcohol interlocks to all new cars sometime soon. That will be one solution. So drunks will drive older, less safe cars. There is no conspiracy. Governments hate road deaths. It's messy, inconvenient and easy to blame governments for "not doing enough". Of course, ensuring that children know that there are consequences to bad behaviour would be a start. That's not PC these days. So cars have to be turned into mobile padded cells to prevent people from hurting themselves and others. Eventually, no one will be anything but a passenger in their own car, if indeed car ownership remains a thing.

Alcohol interlocks are easily defeated by friends and family members. Self-driving vehicles might reduce the problem but that's way down the road.

When the State deliberately omits (and refuses to even discuss) the only solution to a problem it is a conspiracy.

It's the "car ownership" that's the pivot point. Why should repeat drunk drivers be allowed to even own a motor vehicle? At the very least even first-time offenders should have their vehicles impounded or 'booted' during their suspension. We have a national felon registry the has prevented tens of thousands of felons from purchasing guns from legal dealers. Why not a national drunk driver registry to do much the same thing regarding vehicles? We would have fewer deaths and injuries and fewer people in prison.

If an ox is known to "push with the horn" how long before it kills someone?

 

[eleos1954]

Drunk drivers repeat because they are allowed by the state to continue driving even after multiple DUI convictions. Even after serving time in prison for repeat DUI offences some continue to drive drunk.

Persons convicted of repeat DUI's should not be allowed to buy or possess a motor vehicle, much like a convicted felon isn't allowed to buy or possess a firearm. If you don't have a motor vehicle you can't drive drunk.

Lots of ways to get around without owning a motor vehicle. You'll also save a lot of money.

I remember a story of a town in Sweden (I think it was Sweden) that had a drunk driving problem. They cracked down by pulling cars over as they left at closing time. Soon few drove their cars to the taverns. The taverns were still full of patrons but the parking lots were nearly empty. Problem solved.

We give people the opportunity to change ... sometime they do, sometimes not.

What I don't understand is we have the ability to monitor it with breathalyzers being installed ... so if one violates and drives drunk then why not make it a requirement right then that they have to have one rather than waiting for multiple offenses.

Lots of ways to get around without owning a motor vehicle. You'll also save a lot of money.

Perhaps in a city ... but all don't live in the cities.

I would have a very difficult time without owning a vehicle .... with the lifestyle I choose to live .... going camping/traveling and such.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Perhaps in a city ... but all don't live in the cities.

I would have a very difficult time without owning a vehicle .... with the lifestyle I choose to live .... going camping/traveling and such.

Are you suggesting that those who live in the country should exempt from the drunk driving laws?

 

[ozso]

One thing I recall hearing as far as a conspiracy goes, is a lot of politicians have been caught driving drunk themselves. And that's why the law against it isn't as harsh as it probably should be. Add to that the drunk driving rich who give lots of money to politicians.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

One thing I recall hearing as far as a conspiracy goes, is a lot of politicians have been caught driving drunk themselves. And that's why the law against it isn't as harsh as it probably should be. Add to that the drunk driving rich who give lots of money to politicians.

That's a good point. Perhaps judges and legislators are loath to inflict punishment that they wouldn't want inflicted on themselves. There are law firms that specialize in defending drunk drivers. It seems that we want to keep our drunk drivers on the road while at the same time decrying the problem.

 

[angelsaroundme]

If there was a conspiracy, I suspect it would be to make humans driving cars seem too dangerous so when AI drives them for us AI can be hailed as a hero. I'm still for self-driving cars though because safer is safer, whether it's because of the situation they created or not.

 

[eleos1954]

Are you suggesting that those who live in the country should exempt from the drunk driving laws?

no .... I'm suggesting that keeping people from driving can severely impede their ability to maintain their living (regardless where they live) and that there is a mechanism that is available that could be used to curtail the issue.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

no .... I'm suggesting that keeping people from driving can severely impede their ability to maintain their living (regardless where they live) and that there is a mechanism that is available that could be used to curtail the issue.

What is the mechanism for allowing incarcerated dangerous felons to provide a living for themselves and their families? More states are regarding repeat drunk driving as a felony and sending them to prison.

 

[eleos1954]

What is the mechanism for allowing incarcerated dangerous felons to provide a living for themselves and their families? More states are regarding repeat drunk driving as a felony and sending them to prison.

we are talking about drinking and driving .... Breathalyzers are available. After one offense they could be required .... rather than waiting for multiple drinking and driving offenses as most do now.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Alcohol interlocks are easily defeated by friends and family members. Self-driving vehicles might reduce the problem but that's way down the road.

When the State deliberately omits (and refuses to even discuss) the only solution to a problem it is a conspiracy.

It's the "car ownership" that's the pivot point. Why should repeat drunk drivers be allowed to even own a motor vehicle? At the very least even first-time offenders should have their vehicles impounded or 'booted' during their suspension. We have a national felon registry the has prevented tens of thousands of felons from purchasing guns from legal dealers. Why not a national drunk driver registry to do much the same thing regarding vehicles? We would have fewer deaths and injuries and fewer people in prison.

If an ox is known to "push with the horn" how long before it kills someone?

In Australia, some drivers have their cars confiscated and even crushed if they are dangerous drivers. So some of them go and steal a car and drive like lunatics anyway. There is only so much the law can do. The only real answer is to lock habitual drunk drivers up and throw away the key. Would society accept that? In a democracy, the state has to keep people happy or they won't be the state come election time.

Things are vastly better in Australia now. Pubs used to close at 6.00 pm. Men (pretty much exclusively) would go from work to the pub, get blind drunk and head home (known as the "six o'clock swill". Smart drivers would avoid the roads at that time.) Too many did not make it. Drunks are much more easily caught now. Pubs are open for much longer hours. It's easier for someone to go home without driving.