3 ms·

I think they shouldn’t be driving in the first place. Suspend DL for one year and move on.

mothballed 7mo ago
Unfortunately driving on a suspended is mostly not enforced either, so giving them the carrot of keeping their license is the only thing the judicial branch can do that has much sway (other than jailing them) without being able to order the executive branch to change.
HeyLaughingBoy 7mo ago
LOL. Do you know how many people are driving with suspended licenses now? The number would skyrocket if systems like these didn't exist. Especially in rural areas, you can get away with driving on a suspended license for a pretty long time before a cop catches you. I know someone who was probably (she wouldn't admit to it) doing it for at least a year.
- ourmandave 7mo ago
  Especially in rural areas Once while hot air balloon chasing, we saw a guy driving his 4 wheel drive in the ditches along a gravel road and found out later from someone he had a suspended license. They said he figured the cops couldn't stop him if he stuck to the ditches and didn't operate on the official roadway.
  - HeyLaughingBoy 7mo ago
    My wife used to tend bar at a place where one of the regulars would drive there on a tractor for a similar reason.
syntheticnature 7mo ago
The person I mentioned in my story upthread had the one-year suspension followed by the interlock requirement for another year
- londons_explore 7mo ago
  Someone who drives drunk ought to drive with the interlock for life. Generally driving drunk is a sign of addiction.... And that can come back anytime, and killing bystanders is clearly a worse outcome.
  - MisterTea 7mo ago
    > Generally driving drunk is a sign of addiction.... No it is not.
    - FireBeyond 7mo ago
      Repeatedly driving drunk absolutely is. You might be a functioning alcoholic, but when alcohol intoxication is so prevalent in your life it interferes with day to day routines activities, it absolutely meets the psychosocial definition of addiction, and likely points to a deeper one.
      - MisterTea 7mo ago
        The wording used did not indicate they were taking about a repeat offender.
      - Ntrails 7mo ago
        Every rural area I've ever worked in had a non trivial number of folks who would have 2-3 drinks at the bar/whatever on a Friday or a Saturday and drive home. It was not alcoholism, it was "I'm totally fine to drive, the law doesn't know my limits" etc. On some level that's just the price of wanting to go out and not wanting to drop a bunch of cash on a taxi (assuming you can get one to come).
        cwmoore 7mo ago
        As long as bars still have parking lots and there are sin taxes, it’s another state-sponsored racket.
        7mo ago
array_key_first 7mo ago
The main problem is that, in a lot of parts of the US, your options are "drive or be homeless". The ideal solution is needing less driving overall. But excessively punishing people doesn't fix the problem. They're still gonna drive, most likely.
- sublinear 7mo ago
  This is obviously untrue. It wasn't that long ago these devices weren't mandatory and they'd just suspend your license. I am actually curious now whether that was more effective since the offender had to endure the judgment of the person in their life giving them a ride to work.
  - array_key_first 7mo ago
    I don't understand why this is obviously untrue. Do we have any reason to believe that those people didn't just... continue to drive with a suspended license? Not to mention DUI is a fairly recent development. In the 20th century, it was pretty easy to drive drunk and get away with it.
    - sublinear 7mo ago
      Yeah and what's stopping someone from drinking while borrowing someone else's car? Oh they don't want their car wrecked too? They may just drive the drunk to work then. We arrive at the same place with the same real solutions (the people). The technology doesn't do anything except add extra steps and convince the public something was done. If anything it creates enough hassle for the offender that new crimes are being committed with harsher consequences (domestic abuse), or dragging additional people into crime they didn't intend (negligent entrustment).
      - array_key_first 7mo ago
        > We arrive at the same place with the same real solutions (the people) This is always the case. There will always be murderers, and thieves. But technology just helps. There are real solutions, and fake ones. Fake solutions include "make people not bad anymore". This just doesn't work, there will always be alcoholics, end of. If there was less of a reliance on cars, there would be less drunk driving. We take drunk driving as a necessary consequence of transportation, but that's just not true. And, if we had less of a reliance on cars, we could actually suspend licenses sooner. But as it currently stands, we cannot. We would just be permanently fucking people over in such a severe and unnecessary manner. Being unable to drive is one of the most reliable ways to become homeless in many parts of the US. This will only lead to more crime.

Unfortunately driving on a suspended is mostly not enforced either, so giving them the carrot of keeping their license is the only thing the judicial branch can do that has much sway (other than jailing them) without being able to order the executive branch to change.

HeyLaughingBoy 7mo ago

LOL. Do you know how many people are driving with suspended licenses now? The number would skyrocket if systems like these didn't exist. Especially in rural areas, you can get away with driving on a suspended license for a pretty long time before a cop catches you. I know someone who was probably (she wouldn't admit to it) doing it for at least a year.

ourmandave 7mo ago
Especially in rural areas Once while hot air balloon chasing, we saw a guy driving his 4 wheel drive in the ditches along a gravel road and found out later from someone he had a suspended license. They said he figured the cops couldn't stop him if he stuck to the ditches and didn't operate on the official roadway.
- HeyLaughingBoy 7mo ago
  My wife used to tend bar at a place where one of the regulars would drive there on a tractor for a similar reason.

syntheticnature 7mo ago

The person I mentioned in my story upthread had the one-year suspension followed by the interlock requirement for another year

londons_explore 7mo ago
Someone who drives drunk ought to drive with the interlock for life. Generally driving drunk is a sign of addiction.... And that can come back anytime, and killing bystanders is clearly a worse outcome.
- MisterTea 7mo ago
  > Generally driving drunk is a sign of addiction.... No it is not.
  - FireBeyond 7mo ago
    Repeatedly driving drunk absolutely is. You might be a functioning alcoholic, but when alcohol intoxication is so prevalent in your life it interferes with day to day routines activities, it absolutely meets the psychosocial definition of addiction, and likely points to a deeper one.
    - MisterTea 7mo ago
      The wording used did not indicate they were taking about a repeat offender.
    - Ntrails 7mo ago
      Every rural area I've ever worked in had a non trivial number of folks who would have 2-3 drinks at the bar/whatever on a Friday or a Saturday and drive home. It was not alcoholism, it was "I'm totally fine to drive, the law doesn't know my limits" etc. On some level that's just the price of wanting to go out and not wanting to drop a bunch of cash on a taxi (assuming you can get one to come).
      - cwmoore 7mo ago
        As long as bars still have parking lots and there are sin taxes, it’s another state-sponsored racket.
      - 7mo ago

array_key_first 7mo ago

The main problem is that, in a lot of parts of the US, your options are "drive or be homeless". The ideal solution is needing less driving overall. But excessively punishing people doesn't fix the problem. They're still gonna drive, most likely.

sublinear 7mo ago
This is obviously untrue. It wasn't that long ago these devices weren't mandatory and they'd just suspend your license. I am actually curious now whether that was more effective since the offender had to endure the judgment of the person in their life giving them a ride to work.
- array_key_first 7mo ago
  I don't understand why this is obviously untrue. Do we have any reason to believe that those people didn't just... continue to drive with a suspended license? Not to mention DUI is a fairly recent development. In the 20th century, it was pretty easy to drive drunk and get away with it.
  - sublinear 7mo ago
    Yeah and what's stopping someone from drinking while borrowing someone else's car? Oh they don't want their car wrecked too? They may just drive the drunk to work then. We arrive at the same place with the same real solutions (the people). The technology doesn't do anything except add extra steps and convince the public something was done. If anything it creates enough hassle for the offender that new crimes are being committed with harsher consequences (domestic abuse), or dragging additional people into crime they didn't intend (negligent entrustment).
    - array_key_first 7mo ago
      > We arrive at the same place with the same real solutions (the people) This is always the case. There will always be murderers, and thieves. But technology just helps. There are real solutions, and fake ones. Fake solutions include "make people not bad anymore". This just doesn't work, there will always be alcoholics, end of. If there was less of a reliance on cars, there would be less drunk driving. We take drunk driving as a necessary consequence of transportation, but that's just not true. And, if we had less of a reliance on cars, we could actually suspend licenses sooner. But as it currently stands, we cannot. We would just be permanently fucking people over in such a severe and unnecessary manner. Being unable to drive is one of the most reliable ways to become homeless in many parts of the US. This will only lead to more crime.