People without insurance should get a fine, just like they had. The same goes for no D.L., and a D.W.I. The new fines on these tick me off, however. Beginning Sept. 1, 2003, on top of original fines, violators must now pay new fines: No D.L.=100/yr for 3 years No Ins.=300/yr for 3 years DWI=1,000/yr for 3 years These fines have nothing to do with the infraction. Just the State wanting a bigger piece of the pie.
it's not just about getting more money. i won't deny it's a part of it. but tell me it's just about getting more money when you get hit by an uninsured driver. you have to make that penalty stiff. you have to. you have to have a deterrant factor.
Again, back then it wasn't taking as seriously as it should be. Now, it's taken way too seriously. 2 DWI's and your life is in shambles. I've seen it happen. I disagree with it. If you get into an accident, you're responsible for any and all actions. I've just seen plenty of drivers behaving like morons squeezing through traffic at unsafe levels, and the amount of times I've seen somebody on a cell phone driving piss-poorly is too numerous to count. To me, there shouldn't be this large of a double standard.
I'll only deal with the first two on this one. 1st offense no ins.=325 (roughly) 2nd offense=600 (roughly) and loss of license. license can only be retrieved with proof of ins. The deterrent was already there. Driving with an expired license=$125 To me that was plenty of a fine. Now there's an add'l $300 on top of it. Neither of these new fines were placed for anything other than profit.
I'm with you here. The added amounts don't really do anything to keep our roads safe, other than perhaps increased deterrance based on the amount. These "fines" are incorporated into the "points" system they put in place, which adds surcharges for multiple traffic tickets. I'd like to see a more punitive system put into place that removes drivers from the road, like the system in place in Illinois and other states. At least half the fine amount goes to hospitals and other emergency care providers.
Two DWI's and your life is shambles??? WHO CARES! One DWI and someone else has a good chance of being dead.. because someone doesn't have enough sense to not drive around drunk..
Personally, I think DWI is being treated just about right these days with regards to the amount of damage a drunk driver can cause. Heck, I am a proponent of charging people with DWI for marijauna intoxication too, just not the "zero tolerance" (you are considered intoxicated if you have any at all in your urine) that the current officials have proposed.
I'm completely fine with the current penalties if a drunk driver causes damage. Nobody should be able to use "sorry for ramming into your house, I was drunk" If you wreck someone else's life, you are fully accountable. I do have a problem with the penalties for simply "driving intoxicated." I realize this is a very politically incorrect respone, but these are my feelings on the matter. I always find it funny how these threads can go off on such tangents!
the idea is to prevent a problem before it happens. that way we're not dealing with a harsher punishment AFTER the damage is done. then we're not just talking about, "you busted my car!" Often we're talking about, "you killed my kid!"
I don't see how an idiot on a cell phone or a person on 6 different meds will get away with it, but a drunk won't. People can drive like lunatics in any state of mind. And it is possible to drive responsibly at a .08 level. Following speed limits and obeying traffic laws doesn't fly out the window because you've tied on a few. Heck, in my day, I tended to drive a lot more safely when I had had a few. I understand your "Prevent" argument. I just think there are responsible and irresponsible ways to handle any possible event. By the prevention logic, I should be arrested for owning a gun because I could kill someone with it.
Barry Bonds got caught doing something he knew was wrong before he did it... how do you feel about him? *no answer is necessary, I already know how you feel about bonds, I'm just giving you the business*
The problem is that drunk driving has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to cause accidents and deaths. Since the laws have been tightened up (after MADD was formed and started advocating), we have actually seen a DRAMATIC decrease in automobile fatalities and deaths due to DWI. These results are too substantial to be ignored and the consequences of DWI are too dire to ignore. Personally, I would like to see these laws tightened up even more due to the results we have seen from the initial tightening of these laws. This set of laws has had dramatic positive results.
wait! i didn't defend bonds!!! i didn't say anythng other than that in my mind he still remains the best baseball player i've ever seen. i said ultimately that if rose can't hit the hall of fame, neither should he.
And there was a DRAMATIC decrease in the 80's. I'd like to see how much more dramatic it has been in the past ten years. I'm guessing not much. MADD started out as a great organization. Unfortunately the gov't took the idea and ran with it. The new laws placed on DWI offenses in the past ten years have probably changed nothing as far as deterrence. I'm not arguing what MADD did in the 80's. I'm in full agreement. It's the "new " laws they keep placing on it that I find unacceptable.
Seriously, why don't you just go fire an AK 47 into rush hour traffic. IMHO, DWI fines aren't nearly high enough.
I would say that the effort to drive safely put forth by drunks is in direct response to the deterrent established by harsh drunk driving laws and accompanying propaganda. DWIers are more aware of the risks they take driving drunk and of the punishment for getting caught because of the strong Don't Drink and Drive message. And, they are incentivized to obey laws they would break while sober because of the potential harsh penalties. So, even when we can't convince drunks to stay off the road, the laws still do some work in preventing wrecks by deterring other reckless driving habits by drunks. And, besides all that, even if you do practice safer driving habits after drinking as an extra precaution, that does nothing to ameliorate the impairment of motor skills, perception and cognition caused by drinking. There just isn't any getting around that part.
Like I said... just yanking your chain. I never saw your rose statement. That is harsh especially considering how highly you regard Bonds skills, but a very fair statement. I don't care what Refman says about you... you're alright in my book.
IMO, cell phone use while driving should be banned as should driving on a number of different medications. People CAN drive like lunatics in any state of mind, but studies have conclusively shown that people who are drunk, as a rule, drive like lunatics and have a SIGNIFICANTLY increased risk of causing an accident or killing someone. Unfortunately, you are the exception rather than the rule on this. Most people, after drinking, DO tend to drive more erratically and cause more accidents. You COULD kill someone with the gun, but nowhere has it been proven that simply owning a gun directly causes you to exhibit behavior that will result in your killing someone. Drunk driving has been PROVEN to cause people to exhibit behavior that is dangerous and deadly.
