License plate justice

[Calcas]

I was in Seattle earlier this week and saw an interesting article in the local paper. One of the state reps is introducing legislation that will require people convicted of a DUI/DWI to have a special license plate. They would be a bright yellow with red numerals/letters. Sort of a scarlet letter if you will. It seems that a few other states (I think they mentioned Indiana, Ohio, Minnesota) already have this. The premise is that other drivers will see these plates and be extra careful around these potentially dangerous drivers. The local law enforcement folks spoke out in favor too. I believe the eloquent statement was, " we'll be able to tell the goats from the sheep."

My question is, Why stop there?

Why not get blue for murderers, maybe green for bank robbers, lavender for ??? Well, I think you get the idea. When do we stop punishing people for their crimes? If the person has been found guilty, sentenced, and done everything required of them by law, why do some people feel it's necessary to continue picking at these people?

[gumboot]

I was in Seattle earlier this week and saw an interesting article in the local paper. One of the state reps is introducing legislation that will require people convicted of a DUI/DWI to have a special license plate. They would be a bright yellow with red numerals/letters. Sort of a scarlet letter if you will. It seems that a few other states (I think they mentioned Indiana, Ohio, Minnesota) already have this. The premise is that other drivers will see these plates and be extra careful around these potentially dangerous drivers. The local law enforcement folks spoke out in favor too. I believe the eloquent statement was, " we'll be able to tell the goats from the sheep."

My question is, Why stop there?

Why not get blue for murderers, maybe green for bank robbers, lavender for ??? Well, I think you get the idea. When do we stop punishing people for their crimes? If the person has been found guilty, sentenced, and done everything required of them by law, why do some people feel it's necessary to continue picking at these people?


Do they have "learner" plates in the US? (Like a probationary license with restrictions, and you have to display an icon in the car while you're driving). If they do I propose that anyone convicted of a serious driving offense should have their full license revoked, and be made to go back to having a restricted license with display of suitable signage.

[Kestrel]

I was in Seattle earlier this week and saw an interesting article in the local paper. One of the state reps is introducing legislation that will require people convicted of a DUI/DWI to have a special license plate. They would be a bright yellow with red numerals/letters. Sort of a scarlet letter if you will. It seems that a few other states (I think they mentioned Indiana, Ohio, Minnesota) already have this. The premise is that other drivers will see these plates and be extra careful around these potentially dangerous drivers. The local law enforcement folks spoke out in favor too. I believe the eloquent statement was, " we'll be able to tell the goats from the sheep."

My question is, Why stop there?

Why not get blue for murderers, maybe green for bank robbers, lavender for ??? Well, I think you get the idea. When do we stop punishing people for their crimes? If the person has been found guilty, sentenced, and done everything required of them by law, why do some people feel it's necessary to continue picking at these people?

It's a lot like forcing a certain group of people to wear the Star of David. The thugs knew that the police would look the other way when you beat up someone wearing that symbol. They were officially marked as subhuman and could be kicked around at will.

[Puppycow]

It's a lot like forcing a certain group of people to wear the Star of David. The thugs knew that the police would look the other way when you beat up someone wearing that symbol. They were officially marked as subhuman and could be kicked around at will.

Godwin in 2. :D

[Bob Klase]

It's a lot like forcing a certain group of people to wear the Star of David. The thugs knew that the police would look the other way when you beat up someone wearing that symbol. They were officially marked as subhuman and could be kicked around at will.

You forgot to compare a jail sentence for drunk driving to a concentration camp.

[TragicMonkey]

It would certainly suck to be somebody else in the household of someone who has one of those license plates. Spouse or kids who use that car are going to get spat on, honked at, roughed up. Nice.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

When do we stop punishing people for their crimes? If the person has been found guilty, sentenced, and done everything required of them by law, why do some people feel it's necessary to continue picking at these people?

What if part of the sentence was to have such a plate for a period of time, would that be acceptable?

[Boo]

How would this be enforced? How many of these folks are going to willingly drive down to the DMV, stand in line, pick up the plates and go put them on in the parking lot? Is the state going to take away the old plates so they don't change them back at home?


Boo

[Leif Roar]

I thought we'd pretty much dismissed pillorying as an acceptable means of legal punishment. Did I miss a memo?

[baron]

The premise is that other drivers will see these plates and be extra careful around these potentially dangerous drivers. The local law enforcement folks spoke out in favor too. I believe the eloquent statement was, " we'll be able to tell the goats from the sheep."

This could only be of benefit - admittedly very slim benefit - if the ex-offender actually now poses more of a risk than the average driver.

If this is the case then the justice system needs to put a system in place that prevents drivers who still pose an increased risk from getting back on the road.

If this is not the case then there's clearly no need for the plates in the first place.

Obviously, then, there should not be a need for silly coloured plates, and that's not even considering the problems they would cause if implemented.

[I less than three logic]

It would certainly suck to be somebody else in the household of someone who has one of those license plates. Spouse or kids who use that car are going to get spat on, honked at, roughed up. Nice.
From my experience the plates don't really change the behavior of other drivers around them. We call them "whiskey plates" here in Minnesota. They're not a different color or anything, just begin with a W. We sometimes make a joke or two and laugh with others in the car, then yell at them for driving like an idiot just like anyone else who follows the posted speed limits. ;)

[Santa666]

This could only be of benefit - admittedly very slim benefit - if the ex-offender actually now poses more of a risk than the average driver.

If this is the case then the justice system needs to put a system in place that prevents drivers who still pose an increased risk from getting back on the road.

If this is not the case then there's clearly no need for the plates in the first place.

Obviously, then, there should not be a need for silly coloured plates, and that's not even considering the problems they would cause if implemented.

I agree with this statement and it has much broader applications as well. I have read far too many times about sex offenders being released even though they still pose a significant risk of repeating their crime. One might ask, "if they are still a danger to society, why are they being released?". The primary answer tends to be that when they serve their time, they system must let them go. I would say, much like the above instance, that the system needs to be modified to identify those who are still a risk to society and disallow them to re-enter society (or the pool of drivers) until such time as they no longer pose said risk.


Santa

[Almo]

WTF. The sex offender publicization WAS a slippery slope, after all. Having to wear your criminal record on your shirt (so to speak) is really wrong. The risk-averse nature of our culture is really spinning out of control.

[ponderingturtle]

I agree with this statement and it has much broader applications as well. I have read far too many times about sex offenders being released even though they still pose a significant risk of repeating their crime. One might ask, "if they are still a danger to society, why are they being released?". The primary answer tends to be that when they serve their time, they system must let them go. I would say, much like the above instance, that the system needs to be modified to identify those who are still a risk to society and disallow them to re-enter society (or the pool of drivers) until such time as they no longer pose said risk.


Santa

NY tried to get around they my comiting sex offenders to mental institutions.

[rwguinn]

I thought we'd pretty much dismissed pillorying as an acceptable means of legal punishment. Did I miss a memo?
Who's this "WE"?
If it makes people think before they walk the walk, then I'm all for it.
As long as being a criminal has no stigma attached to it, what's the use in being law-abiding?

[Jonnyclueless]

A car isn't tied to a particular driver just an owner.

[Esperdome]

Perhaps we should force everyone to advertise everything they have ever done wrong in the eyes of others constantly, ("This is going on your permanent record."). I recommend the atheists among us grab up the Scarlett A before the adulterers get it.

[fuelair]

I was in Seattle earlier this week and saw an interesting article in the local paper. One of the state reps is introducing legislation that will require people convicted of a DUI/DWI to have a special license plate. They would be a bright yellow with red numerals/letters. Sort of a scarlet letter if you will. It seems that a few other states (I think they mentioned Indiana, Ohio, Minnesota) already have this. The premise is that other drivers will see these plates and be extra careful around these potentially dangerous drivers. The local law enforcement folks spoke out in favor too. I believe the eloquent statement was, " we'll be able to tell the goats from the sheep."

My question is, Why stop there?

Why not get blue for murderers, maybe green for bank robbers, lavender for ??? Well, I think you get the idea. When do we stop punishing people for their crimes? If the person has been found guilty, sentenced, and done everything required of them by law, why do some people feel it's necessary to continue picking at these people?
Because the court system is too lenient very frequently: anyone involved in a crime involving murder, maiming, rape or equivalent should not be going back into society - and I think all my fans here know I am quite happy with them leaving it in interesting ways . At least if they are going to let them out with a whole new chance to do it again, we ought to get a warning.

[Kestrel]

WTF. The sex offender publicization WAS a slippery slope, after all. Having to wear your criminal record on your shirt (so to speak) is really wrong. The risk-averse nature of our culture is really spinning out of control.

A while back, one of the guys I work with was looking at an online map of registered sex offenders. There were lots of them on the map and one lived only a few blocks from my friends house. I pointed out that you can click on the offender and see the details of the crime. The guy nearest his house had been convicted of soliciting a prostitute. The next one we clicked on was indecent exposure. It took a lot of clicking on that map before we found an offender convicted of molesting children.

The point seems to have been to disgrace as many people as possible.

[schplurg]

Special license plates because they are dangerous? How about we take away their license altogether?

If they are still dangerous then why the hell are they still driving at all!?!?

AAAAAARRRRGH!!!!!!!!!

Jebus Cripes!!!

:bwall

[Leif Roar]

Who's this "WE"?

Oh, it was the rethorical 'we'. I.e. "me and all god-fearing, upstanding, decent people everywhere." :-p

[fuelair]

Oh, it was the rethorical 'we'. I.e. "me and all god-fearing, upstanding, decent people everywhere." :-pwell, if you leave out that god-fearing crap, maybe.:D

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

First offence for impaired driving- six months in prison, loss of licence for five years. After five years, you are allowed to take a driving test, and you must pass the written test and road test with perfect marks to regain your driving privileges. Second offence, five years in prison, permanent loss of driving privileges. Third offence, life imprisonment. Anyone who kills someone while driving drunk should be subject to the same penalties as a person convicted of murder.


Drunk drivers are murderers looking for a victim.

[Ace_of_Sevens]

I agree with this statement and it has much broader applications as well. I have read far too many times about sex offenders being released even though they still pose a significant risk of repeating their crime. One might ask, "if they are still a danger to society, why are they being released?". The primary answer tends to be that when they serve their time, they system must let them go. I would say, much like the above instance, that the system needs to be modified to identify those who are still a risk to society and disallow them to re-enter society (or the pool of drivers) until such time as they no longer pose said risk.

The reason we don't do this is we punish people for crimes they have committed, not crimes they might commit in the future. Imprisoning people because they might do something is a slippery slope right to Minority Report.

[Autolite]

My question is, Why stop there?

This is a valid point. Why not a licence plate for stupid people? We could have a colour code to match the driver's IQ. I see sober stupid people as a greater hazard on the road than your average impaired driver. A drunk will eventually sober up. Stupid people are stupid 24/7 ... :o

[TragicMonkey]

Special license plates because they are dangerous? How about we take away their license altogether?

If they are still dangerous then why the hell are they still driving at all!?!?

AAAAAARRRRGH!!!!!!!!!

Jebus Cripes!!!

:bwall

Because in order to stop them, we'd have to pass a law. And in order to pass a law, well, let's face it, so many of our politicians have been guilty of drunk driving offenses themselves. Expecting them to legislate against their own activities would be like expecting them to vote against their own pay raises.

[Santa666]

The reason we don't do this is we punish people for crimes they have committed, not crimes they might commit in the future. Imprisoning people because they might do something is a slippery slope right to Minority Report.

I completely understand the slippery slope principle here, but, there is a problem. Society already "punishes" people in this fashion. We, that is, society, punish people for crimes that have not committed based solely on crimes they have already committed and the likelihood that they will repeat those crimes.

Car insurance companies will raise your rates or cancel your coverage, or not cover you at all if you have commited too many crimes or traffic offense with your vehicle. Employers are much less likely to hire you if you have committed crimes, especially those involving theft. While not crime related, your credit history works the same way. If you have a poor credit history, you are much less likely to receive a line of credit than if you do not have such a poor history. In all these instances, and many more, people are taking your past behaviour, then considering the likelihood of repeat offenses, and rendering a decision about your future.

I would say that if someone is considered dangerous to society, then steps or precautions need to be implemented if said person is going be allowed back into society. As it stands currently, most of the steps or precautions in place are voluntary. This creates a self defeating system. Those who are considered most dangerous are asked to place themselves under a more watchful eye. Perhaps we should already be watching them in the first place.

I do not necessarily believe in the phrase, "Once an X, always an X." I do however believe that "Once an X, more likely to repeat being an X." This means two things:

1) Criminals need to watched and monitered, especially those deemed most likely to continue commiting crimes. We can spend money repeatedly rounding them up and incarcerating them, or we can spend money monitering and helping make them useful.

2) This ties into #1. If we are going to moniter and restrict these potentially dangerous offenders, then we need to allow these people back into society without the stigma of their crime. So long as proper precautions are in place, if you are a member of society, you should be treated as such.

Ok, I am done.


Santa

[pgwenthold]

First offence for impaired driving-

Does that include all the instances of "impaired driving"?

Talking on the cell phone while driving
Eating while driving
Changing the radio station while driving
Driving while tired (but not under the influence)

Driving under the influence is only a small part of all the impaired driving that takes place. The reason it is such a big deal is because it is the easiest addressable.

Your proposed penalties are way out of proportion compared to the inattention paid to other impedents to safe driving.

[pgwenthold]

II do not necessarily believe in the phrase, "Once an X, always an X." I do however believe that "Once an X, more likely to repeat being an X."

I disagree. You can't apply this at an individual level. For example, I admit I have a DWAI on my record ("driving while abilities are impaired" - I was under the BAC for a DUI). However, I can also tell you that I drove while impaired a lot more before my arrest than I have after. Before, I would occasionally drive after having a few. Ever since then, I have basically not driven at all after having any drinks, much less "after having a few." (I have on occasion driven after having one drink at dinner, but only then if it has been a long dinner, and at least an hour since I have finished my only drink).

I was one who paid my penalty and have learned my lesson. Should I be penalized because others haven't?

I realize there are a lot of people who don't straighten up. Multiple DUIs indicate a serious problem to me, because man, even one is costly. Those second, third, and more arrests need to be ramped up exponentially. Doing it once means you made a mistake. More than once means it is a behavior, and you can't attribute it to bad judgement. It's a bad lifestyle.

[Ranb]

Driving a car on a public road is a privilege in most countries, not a right. The fools who get caught drunk driving can avoid this "scarlet letter" by choosing to not drive at all. It is up to them. They have demonstrated that they are not fit to be behind the wheel on a public road. We are all are better off if a convicted drunk driver never drives again.

If you drink, don’t drive. If you can’t drive, then find another way to get around. Very simple.

Ranb

[SoBitter]

The license plate does nothing but to shame the driver in a more public manner. If they aren't ashamed enough to have gotten a DUI, a yellow plate isn't going to keep them from getting another one.

I live in Ohio and see the plates occasionally. We call them "party plates". I've never heard of these people getting harassed, but I'm sure they do.

And the legislature did propose a bright green plate for sex offenders. Not sure if it passed, as I haven't seen any. I wonder if child molesters with DUIs can get a florescent putrid yellow-green?

[pipelineaudio]

The reason we don't do this is we punish people for crimes they have committed, not crimes they might commit in the future. Imprisoning people because they might do something is a slippery slope right to Minority Report.

Doesnt this apply to the DUI itself?

I mean if you drive home drunk and dont hit anything...

[NobbyNobbs]

The reason we don't do this is we punish people for crimes they have committed, not crimes they might commit in the future. Imprisoning people because they might do something is a slippery slope right to Minority Report.

I thought we'd pretty much dismissed pillorying as an acceptable means of legal punishment. Did I miss a memo?

Yes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan%27s_law)

Perhaps we should force everyone to advertise everything they have ever done wrong in the eyes of others constantly, ("This is going on your permanent record."). I recommend the atheists among us grab up the Scarlett A before the adulterers get it.

No way! I want the adulterers to have the A. That way, you can tell at a glance who puts out. :D


This is a valid point. Why not a licence plate for stupid people? We could have a colour code to match the driver's IQ. I see sober stupid people as a greater hazard on the road than your average impaired driver. A drunk will eventually sober up. Stupid people are stupid 24/7 ... :o

I think that everyone's license plate number should be their cell phone number. That way, when you get stuck behind some idiot making a left turn from the right lane, you can call them up and ball them out instead of fuming about it.

[Soapy Sam]

I wonder how I would respond if I found myself driving behind (or in front of) someone with such a plate.

I don't drive further behind someone with a "Danger! Baby on board!" sticker in the rear window, as I never felt babies were that dangerous. "Danger! Box of Nitroglycerine on board!" might get my attention. "Danger! Known Drunk" surely would.

My knee-jerk reaction to drunk drivers is much like Sir Robin Goodfellow's. I don't really care about their problems, or whether they have "paid their debt to society": I care about whether they might kill or injure me or those I care for. I think deliberate social humiliation is a potentially useful response to some kinds of antisocial behaviour.
The casual use of drugs is openly tolerated - even seen as cool in many western countries. The destructive effects of this are widely documented. If humiliating users stopped them buying it and reduced the profit to the pushers, would this be wholly unacceptable? Is it better to repeatedly "admonish" the offender, then jail him when he starts committing other crime to support his habit?

I don't know the answer. I do know that anyone who drives a car while drunk gets no sympathy from me. None whatever.

[Cuddles]

Drunk drivers are murderers looking for a victim.

I think there is far too much focus on drunk drivers and nowhere near enough focus on bad drivers. Drunk driving doesn't always mean someone is completely smashed, unable to stand and vomiting out the window while they drive, it usually means they are just slightly over the limit. Sure, they'll have worse reaction times and judgement than when completely sober, but they'll still likely be far better than the average 70 year old or newly licensed teenager. Things like talking on a phone, even hands free, or eating a sandwich, or changing the radio can all have a much worse effect on your driving than a couple of pints, yet they are entirely legal.

As a particularly extreme example, I have a friend who passed her driving test about 10 years ago. She hasn't been in a car since. Who is the safer driver, her, or me when just over the limit*? How can it be legal, and by implication safe, for her to jump in a car and start driving on a motorway, which she can never have done before, while eating with one hand, talking on a phone, and doing pretty much anything else she likes?

Drink is irrelevant. Safety is what's important. When it comes down to it, I think at least half of drivers shouldn't be allowed near cars, drunk or sober. The current tests, in Britain at least, are a complete joke, and once you've passed there is nothing to check that you are still competent. As far as I can tell, most people certainly aren't competent.

*For the record, I never drive if I've had even one drink.

I do not necessarily believe in the phrase, "Once an X, always an X." I do however believe that "Once an X, more likely to repeat being an X."

But do you have any evidence that's actually true? Many, I think most, murders are crimes of passion and unlikely to mean the perpetrator is any more of a danger to society than anyone else. Similarly, most child abuse is commited by family members, so labeling someone as a danger to society in general achieves nothing.

There are certainly some crimes which are likely to have a high rate of repeat offending. Drunk driving is probably one of them, certainly this seems the case in my experience, as are things like theft. However, it is important not to just assume that this is the case. This is actually something of a counter to the slippery slope argument. Public labeling of offenders in crimes that are likely to be repeated will not necessarily lead to labeling of other criminals because the two are not necessarily comparable.

[Soapy Sam]

Cuddles, you have a point- but the fact remains that in a very large number of cases ,motor accidents involve one (or more) drivers being under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
Yes , some elderly folk are unsafe drivers, as are many youngsters. We do not, however, legislate against being young or old. Many elderly or young drivers are extremely safe.
But no drunk driver is as safe as he would be were he not drunk. We can't help being 17 or 70. We can avoid driving when drunk.
Having seen the charred remains of two young people, destroyed by a man who was so drunk he entered the wrong carriageway of a divided A-road, I find it hard to agree that there is too much focus on drunk drivers. I agree we need more attention to safe driving and I concur that many people who are "qualified" to drive should not be, but driving while drunk is a voluntary act of antisocial stupidity and should not be condoned.

[godless dave]

In Minnesota, the rationale is not so other drivers will see you and be more careful. It's to let the cops know you're driving on a probationary license and they can pull you over and give you a breathalyzer without probably cause.

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

Does that include all the instances of "impaired driving"?

Talking on the cell phone while driving
Eating while driving
Changing the radio station while driving
Driving while tired (but not under the influence)

Driving under the influence is only a small part of all the impaired driving that takes place. The reason it is such a big deal is because it is the easiest addressable.

Your proposed penalties are way out of proportion compared to the inattention paid to other impedents to safe driving.



Why do people always do this? Every few weeks there is a war of letters to the editor in the local paper. One person will complain that people who drive too fast are a terrible menace, then someone will respond to that with a complaint saying, "Oh yeah, well driving too slow is way worse!" Then someone will respond by saying that driving too slow is actually a lot safer, and on and on on, without anyone realising that we can actually enforce both laws regarding excessive speed AND laws regarding obstructing traffic. It's not a choice between one or the other.


I do not support any form of distracted driving. There is a law called "driving without due care and attention". It covers telephone use, eating, and so on. Those laws should be rigorously enforced, but of course, they are not.


The difference between driving when you are drunk, and looking down momentarily to change the radio station should be obvious. When intoxicated, you are impaired for the duration of the drive, rather than for one second.


If someone causes a crash because of distraction or tiredness, then yes, they should face similar sanctions as those who are drunk.

[Santa666]

But do you have any evidence that's actually true? Many, I think most, murders are crimes of passion and unlikely to mean the perpetrator is any more of a danger to society than anyone else. Similarly, most child abuse is commited by family members, so labeling someone as a danger to society in general achieves nothing.

There are certainly some crimes which are likely to have a high rate of repeat offending. Drunk driving is probably one of them, certainly this seems the case in my experience, as are things like theft. However, it is important not to just assume that this is the case. This is actually something of a counter to the slippery slope argument. Public labeling of offenders in crimes that are likely to be repeated will not necessarily lead to labeling of other criminals because the two are not necessarily comparable.

I do not like using statistics this old, however, I had to perform my search quickly.

http://ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/reentry/reentry.htm

I would say, if this type of trend is indicative of criminal behaviour in more recent years, then I am spot on in my assessment. I would not necessarily have a problem with labeling those released offenders who are more likely to repeat rather than blanketing all releasees (is that even a word). My biggest problem is with the correctional system as a whole. There is something inherently wrong with the concept of releasing criminals into society who are still considered a danger to the those very people they were being locked away from.

There needs to be a system for better monitoring of such individuals to help prevent repeat crimes. Either that, or the stay in jail/prison needs to be longer. I am not sure what the best solution is, but whatever it is, what we have isn't it.



Santa

[Cuddles]

Cuddles, you have a point- but the fact remains that in a very large number of cases ,motor accidents involve one (or more) drivers being under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
Yes , some elderly folk are unsafe drivers, as are many youngsters. We do not, however, legislate against being young or old. Many elderly or young drivers are extremely safe.
But no drunk driver is as safe as he would be were he not drunk. We can't help being 17 or 70. We can avoid driving when drunk.
Having seen the charred remains of two young people, destroyed by a man who was so drunk he entered the wrong carriageway of a divided A-road, I find it hard to agree that there is too much focus on drunk drivers. I agree we need more attention to safe driving and I concur that many people who are "qualified" to drive should not be, but driving while drunk is a voluntary act of antisocial stupidity and should not be condoned.

But that's ignoring point completely. Sure, we don't license people's age. I never suggested we should. What we do do is license people to drive. It is irrelevant whether something is voluntary or not, if it makes you an unsafe driver, you should not be allowed to drive. I really don't care why someone can't drive, I only care about the fact that if they can't drive, they shouldn't be allowed to. Focussing on drink ignores the fact that there are millions of entirely legal, but incompetent, drivers.

And to counter your anecdote I can easily post my own story about when my grandfather drove the wrong way up a dual carriageway and then fell asleep. Luckily the road was empty at the time and no-one was hurt. My grandfather has never touched a drop of alcohol in his entire life. Anecdotes are worthless.

Finally, your point about condoning drink driving is a straw man. No-one, certainly not I, has said anything about condoning drink driving. All I have said is that all the focus on drink just distracts from all the other problems. Is it really sensible that someone can not only be fined and have a criminal record, but also be forced to publically display the fact that this has happened, just because they had a couple of drinks before driving home, while a deaf 70 year old with one leg, cataracts, dementia and a reaction time measured in minutes is allowed to do whatever they like?

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

Well, I guess since we'll never get rid of all the bad drivers, we might as well not bother trying to rid the roads of the most egregious offenders, the drunks.

[Soapy Sam]

Is it really sensible that someone can not only be fined and have a criminal record, but also be forced to publically display the fact that this has happened, just because they had a couple of drinks before driving home, while a deaf 70 year old with one leg, cataracts, dementia and a reaction time measured in minutes is allowed to do whatever they like?
No, it's not sensible. It's practicable.
I agree wholly that in an ideal world driving tests should be far harder, with a pass rate of maybe 5-10% at first attempt and no guarantee of ever passing.
This may happen eventually. The UK government certainly seems to be trying to push car drivers off the road, so they can claim to be "green", so I expect we will see drastic pruning of the right to drive in the next ten years, if $200 a barrel oil fails to achieve the desired reduction. (I'm betting 2012 for that).
So where should we start? It seems to me that it makes sense to start with people stupid enough to think they can take drugs and drive unimpaired. We don't have to test to know they're stupid and dangerous. We already know. That evidence is in.

And yes, I do feel people should be required to resit a driving test when they pass about sixty. I'm fifty two and know my reaction time has slowed- but so long as I drive with a degree of caution, lightning reaction time is not critical to safe driving.
My sister, honest enough to register her diabetes , has to reapply for her licence every three years- after a medical.
Perhaps GPs should be required to inform the authorities if someone is a heart attack risk? Could be.

And damn right, seventeen year old boys should have a heavy hand on their shoulder, with perhaps a requirement to take further classes after passing the basic test, until they achieve consistent safety scores. Maybe they should not be permitted to carry passengers of their own age. Refresher tests and classes for all might be beneficial- but who pays for all this? We need practical solutions to limit serious and persistent offenders. We need to start with the high risk drivers and any insurance company knows who they are. If someone can't wait for "one or two drinks" until he gets home, maybe he needs to leave the car at home and catch a cab?

[Cuddles]

No, it's not sensible. It's [I]practicable.

This is where I disagree. What is so practicable about it? There are many things which have an effect on driving, many of which are just as easy, or easier, to catch than drinking. Age is an obvious example. To stick with my grandfather as an example, he only stopped driving after falling asleep while driving up the wrong side of a dual carriageway. In fact, he never even took a driving test since he learned to drive in the army during WW2. A teetotal 80 year old who has never been officially taught or tested is clearly a much greater risk, on average, than someone who had a couple of glasses of wine with their meal.

More importantly, they are also far easier to detect, all these details are already a matter of record. What is easier and less costly, more police patrols and random checks or simply looking up an existing database?

One of the big problems I have is that there doesn't really seem to be any evidence that clamping down on drink driving actually achieves anything anyway. The police love to tell everyone about their latest drink driving campaign which caught the lowest number ever, and therefore must be working. But as has been said many times just in this thread, a large proportion of accidents still involve drink drivers. Clearly, the current measures are not actually effective.

In fact, looking at the statistics here (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nscl.asp?ID=7927) (from the second and third links, the first is just an earlier version of one of them) shows that while both the total number of accidents and the accident rate have been steadily dropping, the number involving alcohol remained essentially constant throughout the 90s.

So focusing on drink driving takes a fair amount of time and money, is very difficult to actually catch people and, most importantly, doesn't actually improve road safety. I'm certainly not saying we should ignore it altogether, there is no doubt that drinking and driving is a bad thing and causes accidents. But there are many other things which also contribute to accidents, and many of them may be much easier to control, and therefore more effective at improving safety.

Finally, to get back to the actual topic of the thread, this wasn't supposed to be about drink driving and safety in general, it was specifically about forcing people to have license plates singling them out in addition to other punishment. The majority of drink drivers will never be caught, because it just isn't practical to breathalise everyone. On the other hand, the DVLA, or relevant authority elsewhere, knows exactly how old everyone is, and old age is certainly a contributing factor in bad driving. Therefore, if you force drink drivers to have coloured license plates because it is claimed to improve safety, it must also make sense to force old people to have coloured license plates as well. They may not necessarily be as bad as drunk people, but since you can guarantee you have all of them, the overall effect will be far more. Clearly this is silly, and will never happen. But if it's silly in one case, how can it be perfectly acceptable in the other, less effective, one?

[Soapy Sam]

That should read impracticable.

I disagree that an 80 year old with a clean record is more risk than a 40 year old with two drinks in her. I flatly deny that and so do the accident statistics. If he never sat a test, would he be in a driver database anyway?
Plus, how many 80 year olds are driving, compared to younger drunks? As populations age it may become a problem, but I doubt it is now. How many 80 year olds cause serious accidents every day, compared with how many drunks?
It is indeed easy to make tests mandatory every (say 5 years) after 60 and maybe every 2 after 65, but if we want to remove bad drivers it makes more sense to stop and test anyone driving badly today. And if they turn out to be over the alcohol limit, pull their licence right there and then.
Applying the law selectively to people who are easy to find sets one helluva precedent.
This is why I object so strongly to the UK TV licence Agency, who simply assume that anyone not on their licence database is a crook. What happened to innocent until..?

Back to the licence plates- would you ban "L" Plates for the same reason? They are clearly discriminatory. The reason driving schools' cars are clearly marked (apart from advertising) is not to punish learners, but to warn other road users to exercise a bit of caution and give the learner a bit of room and time to think. If a similar ("O"?) plate were issued to everyone over 65, would that be so bad?

[Mason]

I could see having the plate as part of the sentance, but not as a side-effect of the conviction. That is, if a standard sentance is 2 years with no license, but the judge had the option of instead sentancing the driver to 18 months with no license and 18 months of required registration as a DUI convict (hence the special plates), I could perhaps be convinced of the legitamacy of such a plate.


However, the stigma attatched to such a plate has consequences reaching further than the driver. His spouse and children, who would conceivably drive the car would possibly be looked upon differently, as criminals perhaps, much like we look at convicted DUIs as criminals and low-lifes, since nobody knows who the plate belongs to, if not the driver. Or, relatives being associated with a DUI, like friends of the kids seeing the plate and knowing it was the mother's plate, etc.

Yes, it can be argued that the driver should have thought of this ahead of time, but such an arguement does not merit the impact to persons who had nothing to do with the crime.

Besides all of this, the plate sounds like a simple "Come and get me" invitation to the patrol cars. If we, as a society, acting through the judge, have declared this person to no longer be a threat and therefore reinstate his license, what need is there to further stigmatize him? If he shouldn't be driving, don't let him have his license back. If he's safe enough to drive, why mark him for further scrutiny? He'll be more likely to be singled out for something that isn't dangerous, and wouldn't get someone pulled over for in the first place, like weaving slightly or speeding slightly, which could very easily lead to further, unjust, financial burden for his family.

I mean, if we want to tar and feather a drunk for killing someone, I'm all about it. Criminals should be punished and deterred from committing future crimes. The sentance, however, should fit the crime and once satisfied, should not be branded on his forehead.

[Cuddles]

I disagree that an 80 year old with a clean record is more risk than a 40 year old with two drinks in her. I flatly deny that and so do the accident statistics.

The statistics I've shown say that while there has been a massive drop in the total number of road casualties, the number involving people over the limit has stayed almsot unchanged. Regardless of whether alcohol has a bigger effect than other factors, clearly the current policies don't actually help. Given that, there either needs to be a big change in policy, which I don't think will help since it still won't be possible to actually monitor eveyone, or other factors need to be targetted.

Applying the law selectively to people who are easy to find sets one helluva precedent.

And yet this is exactly what drink driving laws do. In the UK at least, there is no law against "drink driving", there is a law against driving while intoxicated. By anything. The reason there is so much focus on alcohol is because it can be tested for. Driving under the influence of may other drugs, including prescription ones, is just as dangerous, or more so, than driving drunk, but no-one cares about it because they can't catch them.

In any case, it's all a matter of cost and benefit. It's all very well saying making it illegal to drive after however much alcohol, but only a small minority will ever be caught, because it is simply impossible to check up on everyone. If another factor has a smaller effect but is much easier to catch, the overall improvement in road safety will be much larger.

This is why I object so strongly to the UK TV licence Agency, who simply assume that anyone not on their licence database is a crook. What happened to innocent until..?

Back to the licence plates- would you ban "L" Plates for the same reason? They are clearly discriminatory. The reason driving schools' cars are clearly marked (apart from advertising) is not to punish learners, but to warn other road users to exercise a bit of caution and give the learner a bit of room and time to think. If a similar ("O"?) plate were issued to everyone over 65, would that be so bad?

There's an important difference. Learner drivers are identified precisely becase they are still learning. They have strick limits on on where and how they can drive, and a warning for other road users to let them know that the learner may not be competent to hold a license yet. Labeling people who hold a license is not in any way comparable, especially not when done as a punishment.

I mean, if we want to tar and feather a drunk for killing someone, I'm all about it. Criminals should be punished and deterred from committing future crimes. The sentance, however, should fit the crime and once satisfied, should not be branded on his forehead.

Exactly. I think this is even more the case for driving offenses than for other crimes. The whole point of a license is that it says that you are competent to drive. If you're not considered safe, you shouldn't be allowed a license at all. If you are considered safe, what is the point of a label?

[Soapy Sam]

The statistics I've shown say that while there has been a massive drop in the total number of road casualties, the number involving people over the limit has stayed almsot unchanged.

So drunk driving is increasing in importance as a cause?