I don't know if the theory works in practice.
Being caught drunk driving 3(!!!) times is a seriously major crime. I'm a strong advocate for a complete driving ban after a single drunk driving episode, 3 is just crazy to me. I get the argument that in US that basically makes it impossible to get anywhere without a car but I don't know - get a bicycle or something, literally anything is preferable to letting these people on the road again.
I’m am not advocating for lax DUI laws, but a driving ban is the equivalent of house arrest or forced relocation for some people/locations unless they have people who can help them with transportation.
Moving to a city with public transit would provide the most autonomy, but would also mean uprooting one’s life, leaving family behind, etc.
The total impact is indeed very harsh, even if it is necessary for the safety of others.
The point is that while a person should lose their driving privileges for driving drunk, we should take seriously the implications of the typical punishment given our car dependent society, and the lack of public transit options in most places that aren’t big city centers.
The comment was a reaction to the flippant “just get a bike”, which is clearly not sufficient in many cases. Driving drunk is stupid, dangerous, and should involve serious penalties. We should not ruin people’s lives over it.
After getting caught 3 times doing it? Meaning they do it very frequently and will never stop doing it? It's not an innocent mistake at this point.
Yes driving privileges should absolutely be revoked over it and if that ruins their life maybe they should have thought about the consequences of their actions?
I don't know what the answer to that is, since it's more difficult to catch and prove But at the least we should all call out our friends or family if we see them doing it, the same way we would if they were about to drive while drunk.
I understand. That doesn't change my stance on the matter.
So the suggestion was untenable from the start.
Driving drunk should be penalized, even harshly. But people should have a chance at rehabilitation.
In a car dependent society/region, a permanent ban without an opportunity for reform is cruel and unusual punishment.
If self driving cars were 100% here right now, or if we had better public transportation, I think it’d be a different story.
If it’s happening habitually, the penalties are generally more severe, and that seems reasonable.
If someone reforms themselves, gets sober, stays sober and can prove that, they’re no longer a habitual drunk driver.
To add to a sibling comment, the level of distracted driving happening right now is insane. I’ve been almost hit as a pedestrian and as a cyclist about a half dozen times in the past year due to drivers looking anywhere but at the road. Something changed during/after lockdowns. I think people got more addicted to their devices, and take that on the road with them.
IMO, DUI needs to roll up to a “driving while dangerously distracted” category. Checking instagram, FaceTiming, etc. while driving is as dangerous as driving drunk, and seems to be happening everywhere.
To be clear, my argument is not that people should be excused for bad behavior. But penalties need to be balanced against basic human rights, and should be applied fairly to bad driving behavior across the board.
Other drivers are often very aggressive [5], there's not all that much you can do to mitigate harm at the time, there's practically nothing you can do to discourage that bad behavior if they didn't actually crash into anything, and even if they do your options can be limited.
[0] https://www.startribune.com/probation-for-negligent-truck-dr...
[1] https://www.annarbor.com/news/motorist-sentenced-to-probatio...
[2] https://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/driver-in-hit-and-run-that...
[3] https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/driver-in-crash-that-killed...
(if you kill enough children you can get a little jailtime, but again the fact that you were driving really dials back the sentencing) [4] https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/man-accused-in-deadly-wi...
[5] Not a source; I'm just appalled at the utter disregard for human life I see every time I compare SF drivers to the rest of the country. It's not everywhere that you'll see a car speed >60mph around the shoulder (dodging pedestrians) to pass the car stopped waiting for the kids to cross at the well-marked flashing crosswalk in their school zone, but that level of misbehavior is commonplace here. Why? Is it a sampling artifact? Other major cities don't _seem_ so bad in comparison.
The things I see now are mind bogglingly stupid and dangerous.
If we’re ready to cut off ~10% (or more) of drivers for life, we should bite the bullet and mandate ignition interlocks.
Driving is a privilege, not a right. But enforcement needs to help people make the right choice, not just be a lottery for ruining lives in car-dependent places (unfortunately most of the US).
I mention that because it involves a lot of road layout and roadside work setting control points, &c. I used to find so many empty flasks of booze, empty syringes, and empty pill bottles in the weeds on the side of the road that drivers had thrown out the windows of their vehicles. Even in some rural areas this was the case.
The point is that there's still a lot of Americans driving impaired. There's a certain amount of risk involved in operating or riding in a vehicle even if you are stone cold sober. You never know if other drivers are impaired until it's too late.
It sounds crazy but I bet if you were born 40 years earlier, you wouldn't care. Drunk driving wasn't even a thing until Mothers Against Drunk Driving made it a thing in the 80s.
I don't support drunk driving at all but it seems our views on right and wrong are just products of society, lol.
What I mean by this is that when people go out to eat lunch or dinner, they drive to the restaurant. They obviously need to drive back when they're done. They obviously also had some good drinks while they were there; beer, wine, the works. Even just a sip of alcohol will count as drunk driving, legally speaking.
The police largely turn a blind eye to this, because it's so utterly commonplace and a fact and part of life that policing this would quickly lead to a community and public revolt. Restaurants also happily serve alcohol because drunk driving is not their problem, and restaurants that don't will quickly go out of business anyway.
On the other side of the coin however, if you drive to a liquor store at an ungodly hour the police will be on you in an instant to check if you're driving drunk and arrest you if you are. Why? Because everyone wants or needs to eat and drink, but nobody needs to drop by a liquor store at 10pm.
The police will also check if you're driving drunk if they see you on the road and it's blatantly obvious you can't drive straight. This should go without saying, though; and it means most people who drink at restaurants can drive safe (FSVO safe).
Obligatory IANAL, obligatory don't drink and drive disclaimer.
Your statement seems pretty judgmental.
But yes, we agree don't drink and drive.
The police are almost never going to police restaurants, bars, wineries, and other such places even though there will obviously be plenty of potential drunk drivers to arrest. Meanwhile, a friend who parted ways with me after a night out stopped by a liquor store on the way home and was questioned and subsequently arrested (he was legally drunk) as he came out.
The point of this story is that the law states absolutely clearly that noone is allowed to drink and drive. On the other hand, practicality and reality means police will turn a blind eye to certain areas while enforcing the law elsewhere; knowing this is how the real world works is handy and important for what I hope are obvious reasons.
It's irrelevant to the time and place that we live in now, and drunk drivers are a menace that should be purged from our streets.
(Edit) As philwelch points out, the recidivism rate of all drunk drivers is technically different than that of first-time offenders. Accounting for this doesn't seem to wildly change the recidivism rate, though.
[0]: https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/811991...
Personally I don't think either should result in losing a license, at least not for the first offense
Moral of the story: don't drive drunk, don't ride a bike drunk. Ideally, don't get drunk at all, but if you do, don't operate any kind of vehicle.
But some people still choose to drive drunk.