5 ms·

I see that the vibe in the comment section is that this is too harsh. In my opinion, this is too lenient. If you repeatedly break the law DUI-wise, you should h

I see that the vibe in the comment section is that this is too harsh. In my opinion, this is too lenient. If you repeatedly break the law DUI-wise, you should have your license revoked. The whole supporting yourself thing should already be a deterrent from maneuvering a ton of metal at speed on public roads while impaired. Contrary to popular belief, driving is not a right, it's a privilege and I firmly believe that the state should take it away from you if you fuck it up. I don't want to get into the whole gun debate but gun ownership (about which I have mixed feelings) is a right, protected in the US by the constitution. However, there are mechanisms in which a single mistake (unrelated to gun ownership or operating a gun) will have the state take that right away from you. Statistically speaking, based on the number of deaths, a car is more dangerous than a gun. Why aren't we applying the same types of bans? Because Joe Bob can't help himself to downing a couple of beers before driving, I need to share the road with him because he 'must drive' in order to sustain himself? Fuck Joe Bob. He can bike, take the bus or ride a cab. If driving is essential for a person to be able to sustain themselves then it should be regarded with a much higher attention in the first place, attention which should warn you that drinking and driving is monumentally selfish and dangerous, especially repeating it.

carlmr 7y ago
>He can bike, take the bus or ride a cab. Not in rural parts of the country. Before driving existed the US had much better public transport. I think your argument holds water in Europe, but not the US, where driving is essential for most people to survive. I think this should be an argument for building public transport though, since many people are excluded societally when they don't have a means of transport.
- alkonaut 7y ago
  > Not in rural parts of the country. Being able to support yourself might include having to move. Indeed it does for most people at som point in their lives. Situations change. If you lose your license because you do stupid things, you might just need to move somewhere near a bus stop.
  - Jamwinner 7y ago
    A dui costs about 5 to 12k before lawyer fees. Not sure most people have tht mu h lying around. Current dui laws effectively criminalize being poor. Then you want them to pick up and move, with no car and no job? I get it, crime is bad, but forcing them into destitution is no better.
    - alkonaut 7y ago
      Not sure how US legal system works, I’d lose my license if I’m repeatedly DUI (0.02%). The first time there would be a fine and my license is temporarily revoked. Unless I want to take it to a court I have no expenses other than the fine. Not sure why it’s to “criminalize being poor”. It’s criminal to drink and drive. I agree punishment shouldn’t be disproportionately affecting poor people but really I don’t feel sorry for people who choose to drink and drive. I think the more liberal alcohol limits is unfortunate because they can make the crime seem like an accident (“I only drank a little”). A near zero limit is much easier to comply with - if I drink at all I don’t drive until the after on the following day. As a final note: not living near public transport is a choice in the first place. Not voting for politicians who prioritize public transport is another.
- squiggleblaz 7y ago
  I'm an advocate for carfree cities and an Australian. But in rural parts of Australia, in the early days of cars, people could have to walk a whole day on poor roads to get to the nearest town in the relatively densely populated state of Victoria. Public transport is not an option in the country. Participation in public life without a car is important and a human right, but it needs to be focused on towns and cities, not rural areas. Cars are optimised to the needs of the country.

carlmr 7y ago

>He can bike, take the bus or ride a cab. Not in rural parts of the country. Before driving existed the US had much better public transport. I think your argument holds water in Europe, but not the US, where driving is essential for most people to survive. I think this should be an argument for building public transport though, since many people are excluded societally when they don't have a means of transport.

alkonaut 7y ago
> Not in rural parts of the country. Being able to support yourself might include having to move. Indeed it does for most people at som point in their lives. Situations change. If you lose your license because you do stupid things, you might just need to move somewhere near a bus stop.
- Jamwinner 7y ago
  A dui costs about 5 to 12k before lawyer fees. Not sure most people have tht mu h lying around. Current dui laws effectively criminalize being poor. Then you want them to pick up and move, with no car and no job? I get it, crime is bad, but forcing them into destitution is no better.
  - alkonaut 7y ago
    Not sure how US legal system works, I’d lose my license if I’m repeatedly DUI (0.02%). The first time there would be a fine and my license is temporarily revoked. Unless I want to take it to a court I have no expenses other than the fine. Not sure why it’s to “criminalize being poor”. It’s criminal to drink and drive. I agree punishment shouldn’t be disproportionately affecting poor people but really I don’t feel sorry for people who choose to drink and drive. I think the more liberal alcohol limits is unfortunate because they can make the crime seem like an accident (“I only drank a little”). A near zero limit is much easier to comply with - if I drink at all I don’t drive until the after on the following day. As a final note: not living near public transport is a choice in the first place. Not voting for politicians who prioritize public transport is another.
squiggleblaz 7y ago
I'm an advocate for carfree cities and an Australian. But in rural parts of Australia, in the early days of cars, people could have to walk a whole day on poor roads to get to the nearest town in the relatively densely populated state of Victoria. Public transport is not an option in the country. Participation in public life without a car is important and a human right, but it needs to be focused on towns and cities, not rural areas. Cars are optimised to the needs of the country.