In the United States a person can be repeatedly convicted of drunk driving and continue to drive.
I’ve been told that in many European countries that not only is the cost of any drunk driving conviction many many times that in the US but
that it is also an automatic revocation of the license.
There have been various proposals in several state legislators that any vehicle used while driving drunk should be confiscated.
The proponents contend that:
For those that actually think before drinking, they will make sure they don’t drive by either not drinking or removing access to a vehicle.
For those that currently don’t think, they will receive a more pointed lesson upon their conviction that will, hopefully, get them to think.
No one will loan a person they know to be a drinker, their vehicle for fear that they will lose it if that person is apprehended driving drunk.
Without access to a vehicle, drunk drivers will become pedestrians and find it much more difficult to kill someone.
The opponents contend that:
Spouses will be unfairly penalized when they lose the “family” vehicle.
The offender will be unfairly penalized when they are unable to get to work without a vehicle.
That “innocent” people will be unfairly penalized for “trying to do a good thing” by loaning a “friend” a vehicle that gets confiscated.
People who are not really drunk, that just test above an arbitrary value, will lose their vehicle.
While the opponents are correct that individuals other than the offender will be penalized it doesn’t automatically mean that it is unfair or that the offender shouldn’t be penalized in this way.
Spouses They claim that they shouldn’t be made to
pay for their partners mistake. Which is also saying that they want to be treated as an individual in this situation. However they want to be treated a part of a partnership when it comes to say insurance (family rates), taxes or even an invitation to some social event. You can’t have just the benefits with out the responsibilities, or in this topic the hardships.
Work. What about the person that they might kill
while driving drunk? They won’t be able to get to work. The offender had some choice to take any drink but that dead person had no choice. To the point. Not having a vehicle to get to work is something that millions of people deal with every day. There are buses, cabs, commuter trains and even hiring others to drive for you. Yes this will impact
them financially. Yes this will be more inconvenient for them. Yes they may even have to relocate to have access to alternate transportation. Yes they may even have to change jobs, especially if their job was driving. If their job was driving and they can not keep themselves from drinking and driving, even when not working, then their exhibited level
of judgment is not sufficient to have that job.
Innocent Friends. There really is no difference
between a friend that provides an alcoholic just one drink for them to “get by” and a friend that provides them a vehicle to “get by.” In both cases the so called friend is just helping a bad thing continue and needs to be held accountable for contributing to that bad thing.
Not Really Drunk. The NHTSA (www.nhtsa.dot.gov) has reviewed almost 300 studies which have clearly found that Virtually all drivers, even experienced drinkers, are significantly impaired at a .08 BAC. It is not an arbitrary value. It is not making criminals out of “good” people. It is about getting people that are a danger to themselves and others out of danger.
According to data from the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA), in 2003, 17,013 people were killed in alcohol-related crashes. These deaths constituted approximately 40 percent of the 42,642 total traffic fatalities.
I really don’t mind if people just kill themselves. However, I don’t know of anyone, that if they kill themselves it will be just killing themselves. Even if absolutely no one else dies they still have hurt someone, anyone that knows and cares for them.
Now if they kill themselves and it risks taking me with them, I really