New vehicle confiscation law - Outrageous - Please read

nbc5.com ^ | 07-23-02 | ME

[chitownman]

Correction - Legal limit is .08 and you can be arrested for .05.

[lsee]

I just think that this law is not the appropriate solution to solve the problem

Just curious. What do YOU think is an appropriate, effective solution to the problem?

[per loin]

Expect the car theft rates to rise dramatically.

[shaggy eel]

,,, here's how a similar initiative a long way from you is panning out. Note: Total population of the whole country is only 3,8 million.

[gcruse]

It looks to me and if you joined FR with this subject in mind. Welcome. Now, as to defying a court order not to drive, which is what a license suspension is, you are indeed thumbing your nose at the court. It's easy to keep your car. Just don't drive it until the suspension is lifted. It's called taking responsibilty for your actions.

[gcruse]

From shaggy eel's article

More than 25,000 vehicles driven by disqualified and unlicensed
drivers have been impounded at the roadside since tougher laws
were brought in as part of the photo driver licensing system in May
1999, and crash figures show New Zealand roads are safer as a
 result.

[Lockbox]

and what would be the punishment for rape?

[Kozak]

I absolutely disagree with you on this issue. First the law only applies if you have a suspended or revoked liscense. No first time offender or "social" drinker will fall under this. You have to be a pretty serious alcoholic in most states to have your liscense suspended or revoked.

Second, the POINT of the suspension is to keep those fools off the road where they are a mortal threat to others. I see people injured by drunken drivers almost every day on my job. Frankly, I would make driving with a suspended liscense while intoxicated a jail quality felony. Enough is enough.

[chitownman]

Treatment, education, and treating "drunk driving" as a health problem versus making it a criminal issue. Maybe encouraging the public by giving them more tools to avoid them getting in the situation in the first place. Such as an accurate(if there is such a thing) hand held brethalyzer to check their limit before they drive. I don't see how increased criminal penalties is going to solve the problem. In addition, by not advertising the consequenses enough and slipping in extreme, unconstitutional penalties such as confiscation of one's personal property, the state is doing nothing but making money on unsuspecting drivers who may be "actually be in control while driving", but legally over the limit.

[chitownman]

If you are correct - then I agree with you. But from what I was told by various people, this law also applies to "first time offenders" for DUI's. The person's license doesn't necessarily have to be suspended to get your vehicle confiscated. Nor do you have to be thumbbing you nose at the judge, as the article suggests.

[gcruse]

Treatment, education, and treating "drunk driving" as a health problem

You may be at the wrong forum.  Perhaps
the enablers at democratic underground
would be more sympathetic.

[Amerigomag]

Let me guess.

You live in Chicago. Last Saturday evening you loaned your car to your boyfriend so he could go to the store and get a "few more beers".

Neither your car nor your boyfriend came home. Your boyfriend was released from the Cook County jail Sunday morning with a ticket for DUI and now your car is gone. You'r pissed.

Did I guess correctly?

[Britton J Wingfield]

Drinking may be a health issue, but drunk driving is a criminal conduct issue. I don't care if one gets stoned every day of their life, as long as they don't then engage in dangerous behavior.

[chitownman]

You're absolutely wrong! I'm doing this so we can protect our rights to our personal posssessions (in this case our vehicles). When a law goes to far as this one does- someone needs to make light of it.

[Wm Bach]

I thought Amerigomag did a fine job of making light of it.

[Britton J Wingfield]

I have a few concerns with this law, but don't know enough about it to know if they have been addressed or not.

• Judicial review and due process for car owners
• Permanent confiscation or impound?
• What happens if they are driving someone else's car?

I'm all for impounding cars of those who violate court orders not to drive. WOD-style seizures without due process definitely need to be guarded against, though.

[shaggy eel]

the state is doing nothing but making money on unsuspecting drivers who may be "actually be in control while driving", but legally over the limit.

,,, the State is actually taking steps to protect law abiding drivers from being killed by losers who tank up and get behind the wheel. I think that's justice for those who obey a law based totally on common sense. The penalty is no surprise - the warning's there for those who want to try it out. Sympathy escapes me on this issue. I've got kids who will be driving a few years from now and I won't tell you what I'll do to them if I find they've been drinking and driving.

[VOR78]

Sounds like a good idea to keep the drunks off the road, as far as I'm concerned. I don't care if its the 1st DUI or the 5th, they're still a danger to everyone else on the road.

[phil1750]

I lost a son at age 21 to a drunk driver. Repeat offenders SHOULD have the vehicle confiscated. And one more group. Those without insurance. My state, Missouri, has a law on the books making it illegal to drive without insurance, but it has no teeth. So, the insurance pool is smaller, making us legal drivers all pay more.