4 ms·

Agree 100%. Many persons are already far too cavalier about driving. In one of the last TSA threads a few people insisted that requiring a driver's license (al

Agree 100%. Many persons are already far too cavalier about driving. In one of the last TSA threads a few people insisted that requiring a driver's license (also) unduly restricted freedom of travel, totally disregarding that driving is different from flying because you are operating heavy machinery in public. I think a single DWI should be an instant and permanent revocation. DW-Texting/Facebook should be at least a temporary revocation. Having a computer on your face is the same class of thing. If you're so important that you can risk other persons' lives to save your time you can afford to hire a taxi.

dllthomas 13y ago
I don't understand being more lenient about DW-T/F than DWI, at least at a low BAC. It's comparably dangerous, and a lot harder to be mistaken. "Oops, I metabolize alcohol more slowly than I thought" vs. "Oops, I took my hands off the wheel, pulled out my phone...".
- reginaldjcooper 13y ago
  Yeah, you could argue me over to your position quite easily. My thinking is it's less dangerous because you can put it down. But I'd be fine with taking licenses away for DWT.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    Hm, I guess that's a point. If you're intoxicated, you're intoxicated at the most dangerous bit of your drive. If you're playing with your phone, you might be picking relatively safe times to do so (at an extreme, I've been known to check things on my phone if traffic is literally stopped).
yardie 13y ago
I disagree. Most people need to drive to work and most people need to work to eat. Permanent revocation will just create more unlicensed, uninsured drivers. This has the unintended consequence of putting more burden on regular drivers (who pay hire premiums) and the state (which has to pay for incarceration). This is why California and Florida, places with high undocumented immigrant populations, have such high insurance rates. Not only am I paying a premium on my driving I'm also paying a premium on the guy not insured at all.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  > Most people need to drive to work I'm not sure that's actually true. Most people live in cities. It may very well be the case, though, that most people driving need to drive to work, which is probably sufficient for your argument.

dllthomas 13y ago

I don't understand being more lenient about DW-T/F than DWI, at least at a low BAC. It's comparably dangerous, and a lot harder to be mistaken. "Oops, I metabolize alcohol more slowly than I thought" vs. "Oops, I took my hands off the wheel, pulled out my phone...".

reginaldjcooper 13y ago
Yeah, you could argue me over to your position quite easily. My thinking is it's less dangerous because you can put it down. But I'd be fine with taking licenses away for DWT.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  Hm, I guess that's a point. If you're intoxicated, you're intoxicated at the most dangerous bit of your drive. If you're playing with your phone, you might be picking relatively safe times to do so (at an extreme, I've been known to check things on my phone if traffic is literally stopped).

yardie 13y ago

I disagree. Most people need to drive to work and most people need to work to eat. Permanent revocation will just create more unlicensed, uninsured drivers. This has the unintended consequence of putting more burden on regular drivers (who pay hire premiums) and the state (which has to pay for incarceration). This is why California and Florida, places with high undocumented immigrant populations, have such high insurance rates. Not only am I paying a premium on my driving I'm also paying a premium on the guy not insured at all.

dllthomas 13y ago
> Most people need to drive to work I'm not sure that's actually true. Most people live in cities. It may very well be the case, though, that most people driving need to drive to work, which is probably sufficient for your argument.