Autos can be made safer and quicker.

Don't know the number but it does happen. New York for one. But you know, just like I said, it means nothing. The people drive anyway as soon as they are able too.

Not only is the vehicel towed but you go directly to jail.

I know several people who have lost the little plastic card by a judge and STILL drive even after dooing time. Short of killing these people you can do nothing, they do not care.

I do not know of that happening, there are ALWAYS arrest made.

Yea, crime you can say is in the eye of the beholder, but at that time it was illegal, so a crime. The point being is that people did it any way law or no law.

You finally said something mostly true. But I will point out the founding papers refer to this as a republic not as a majority count democracy.

The percentages are on my side. Just look out your window at how people drive.

Write your congressman, maybe hell change it just for you.

Show where it has happened, we already have plenty of examples where it does not.

Because you feel its ok that laws ought to be made just for your belief? You can not have it all your way.

I've never heard the helmet is going to kill you crap. The fact is every body I know who voted to repeal helmets laws did it to say "it's my choice". They know that the helmet can potentially prevent head injury. The same reason people do not put on the safety restraints in there own cars and trucks, they know that it can potentially prevent some injuries they do not buckle up out of choice law or no law. No education need, they already know. The fact is that the percentage of uneducated people who think that a helmet can injure you is small, if any at all.

When they get out they drive. It happens get your head out of the sand.

Different place different attitudes, I said there has to be an attitude change, it aint going to happen.

Aint going to happen. Look at our law makers Ted Kennedy comes to mind.

Reply to
pick one
Loading thread data ...

The roll bar is a killer for people who are not wearing protective head gear. Think before you hit the keys.

Richard.

Reply to
Richard

Arkansas Minnesota Kansas Colorado Illinois Texas New Jersey

And these are just the states that showed up in a simple google search.

Now you're upping the ante. In fact, you never mentioned mandated impoundment in your original post. Are you that unsure of yourself that you need to make your standards a moving target?

Reply to
Isaiah Beard

See above"Integral roll cage // side curtain air bags" kinda negates your point for the average consumer. I believe that's what we're referring to here, Right?

Reply to
Full_Name

Ah, sorry for playing but none of these permanently revoke them - Kansas does have a permanent revocation law on the books - but the list of exceptions to it is a mile long, they offer hardship licenses (that have to be approved by the court and your parole officer) that allow limited driving. And it takes FIVE dui's to even get to this point. Wanna bet on how many people make it to 5 DUI's without having a major accident?

The original post stated:

"In short, you get 1 DUI but the second one means your license is gone - forever"

Now let's see here:

Arkansas:

. Does the state revoke or suspend the drivers' licenses of people convicted of drug-related offenses? Yes, Arkansas suspends operators' licenses. Ark. Code Ann. §

27-16-915(b)(1)(A).
  1. If so, what crime(s) result in suspension or revocation? Any drug-related offense, including illegal possession. Ark. Code Ann. §
27-16-915(b)(1)(A).
  1. If so, what is the length of the suspension or revocation? Six months. Ark. Code Ann. § 27-16-915(b)(1)(A).

Minnesota:

. Does the state revoke or suspend the drivers' licenses of people convicted of drug-related offenses? Yes, the state revokes driver's licenses for drug related offenses, including driving while impaired. Minn. Stat. §§ 152.0271, 169A.54(1) and

171.172.
  1. If so, what crime(s) result in suspension or revocation? Drug sale or possession while driving a vehicle and driving while impaired. Minn. Stat. §§ 152.0271 and 169A.54(1).
  2. If so, what is the length of the suspension or revocation? Thirty days to two years, depending upon time elapsed since prior offenses. Minn. Stat. §§ 152.0271, 169A.54(1) and 171.172.

Kansas:

  1. Does the state revoke or suspend the drivers' licenses of people convicted of drug-related offenses? Kansas passed a resolution on 11/10/2000 in opposition to enacting a law called for by the federal statute in order to receive certain federal highway funds. However, the state does revoke drivers' licenses for driving-related alcohol and drug-related offenses. Kan. Stat. Ann. §
8-1014(b).
  1. If so, what crime(s) result in suspension or revocation? Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Kan. Stat. Ann. §
8-1014(b).
  1. If so, what is the length of the suspension or revocation? The drivers licenses of first-time offenders are suspended for 30 days and then restricted for an additional 330 days. Second and subsequent convictions result in suspensions of one year. On the fifth or subsequent occurrence, driving privileges are permanently revoked. Kan. Stat. Ann. §
8-1014(b). The drivers licenses of first-offenders who are less than 21 years of age are suspended for one year. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 8-1014(c).

Colorado:

  1. Does the state revoke or suspend the drivers' licenses of people convicted of drug-related offenses? Yes, the state revokes drivers' licenses based upon drug-related offenses. Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 42-2-125(1)(b) and (1)(k)(I).
  2. If so, what crime(s) result in suspension or revocation? Driving under the influence of a controlled substance or while a habitual controlled substance user and a range of drug-related offenses. Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 42-2-125(1)(b) and (1)(k)(I).
  3. If so, what is the length of the suspension or revocation? Not less than one year. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-2-125(2).

Illinois:

  1. Does the state revoke or suspend the drivers' licenses of people convicted of drug-related offenses? Illinois passed a resolution on November 9, 2000 in opposition to enacting a law called for by the federal statute in order to receive certain federal highway funds. However, the state does revoke drivers' licenses for drug-related offenses. 625 Ill. Comp. Stat. §§ 5/6-201(a)(7) and
5/6-205(a)(2).
  1. If so, what crime(s) result in suspension or revocation? Driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs and drug-related convictions while in physical control of a motor vehicle. 625 Ill. Comp. Stat. §§ 5/6-201(a)(7) and 5/6-205(a)(2).
  2. If so, what is the length of the suspension or revocation? Individuals may apply for restoration after one year. 625 Ill. Comp. Stat. §§ 5/6-208 and 5/6-206.1.

Texas:

  1. Does the state revoke or suspend the drivers' licenses of people convicted of drug-related offenses? Texas passed a resolution on 5/4/2001 in opposition to enacting a law called for by the federal statute in order to receive certain federal highway funds. However, the state does revoke drivers' licenses for drug-related offenses. Tex. Transp. Code Ann. §§ 521.341 and .372.
  2. If so, what crime(s) result in suspension or revocation? Driving under the influence and a range of drug-related offenses. Tex. Transp. Code Ann. §§ 521.341 and .372.
  3. If so, what is the length of the suspension or revocation? For drug-related offenses: one hundred and eighty days; for driving under the influence: a period not exceeding one year. Tex. Transp. Code Ann. §§
521.312, .341, and .372.

New Jersey:

  1. Does the state revoke or suspend the drivers' licenses of people convicted of drug-related offenses? Yes, individuals convicted of or adjudicated delinquent for drug-related offenses forfeit their driving privileges. N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:35-16.
  2. If so, what crime(s) result in suspension or revocation? Any drug-related offense. N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:35-16.
  3. If so, what is the length of the suspension or revocation? Six months to two years. N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:35-16.

I said:

"And in order to avoid mandatory jail time you must present a bill of sale for any vehicle titled in your name within 90 days of a conviction."

"And you will never be permitted to own a passenger vehicle again."

Quite obviously, if this ISN'T done then what, you think no problem, let's just let it slide? If the original owner doesen't sell it by the deadline you gonna do nothing? Sorry if you thought that's what I meant.

For a law like this to mean anything, the vehicle MUST be sold, no matter what the owner does. If he refuses and you have to send him to jail, that makes no difference to the sale process, it still commences. To be done legally means it has to be impounded so someone can sell it. It only makes good sense to wait 90 days before impoundment commences to give the owner a chance to sell it.

Do the research. Permanent revocation of passenger car drivers licenses is a myth. Besides which for the few states that do revoke them, those states honor other states licenses - so in the case of Kansas, you just move to another state, get your license there, and bingo, your legal to drive in Kansas again.

The penalties are much more severe for commercial drivers licenses, and in fact it isn't hard to get a CDL permanently revoked, just drive drunk a few times and a lot of places will do it.

Face the facts - the laws are simply not written this way for typical passenger car licenses. I happen to be a proponent of reforming criminals rather than incarcerating them for the rest of their lives, for many offenses. But, when it comes to vehicle safety crimes, particularly drunk driving which is responsible for a huge number of accidents, it is simply asinine to not adopt a policy of 2 strikes and your out. For God's sakes man, the highways are crowded with too much traffic as it is. We need fewer, not more, cars on the road. Why bend over backwards to get people back in their vehicles and back on the streets when they are caught drinking and driving a second time?!? Are there no busses? Is there no mass transit? Get them out of their cars and decrease the surplus auto population!!! ;-)

Ted

Reply to
Ted Mittelstaedt

Wrong. There is no permanent loss of a standard passenger car license in New York. See here:

  1. If so, what is the length of the suspension or revocation? For drug-related offenses, six months. N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 510(2)(b)(v). For driving while ability impaired, 90 days for the first conviction or six months for a prior conviction within the previous five years or two prior convictions within the previous ten years; for driving while intoxicated or ability impaired by drugs - six months for a first conviction or one year for a prior conviction within the previous ten years. N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 1193(2).

That is why the only way to make a revocation effective is to strike at the heart of the matter and make sure that the person that has lost their licence loses their vehicle as well and is prevented from owning another.

And of course, I'm not talking about stuff like an administrative suspension. Many states use administrative suspensions - Oregon for example - these are license suspensions, but not criminal suspensions. They use them for things like if you don't pay parking fines and other tickets and such, and there is no time limit - once you pay up or whatever the suspension is lifted.

I'm talking about a criminal suspension, because you have been convicted for a traffic crime such as a DUI.

Since the states issue the car title why do they issue titles to people who aren't allowed to drive a car - because they have a revoked or suspended license? It's absolutely crazy.

How about TAKING AWAY THEIR CAR. Who's car are they caught driving? Their girlfriends? Don't you think that if girlfriend loses her car because boyfriend was driving with a revoked license this might possibly result in loss-of-pussy-availability to boyfriend, who then might become motivated to not drive girlfriends next car again?

Obviously there's some work that needs to be done to flesh this kind of idea out, you have to put appropriate safeguards in. Maybe boyfriend was driving gf's car without permission - in which case for this excuse to work, gf has to press charges for auto theft- or something.

:-) Ok, this is the "everybody drives like crap except for me" argument. I have to admit this argument appeals to me - because after all everyone does drive like crap, except for me. You included. ;-)

Actually, the state I live in is a Western state and as such we have a different attitude about speeding in the government than a lot of Easterners. I know this as I periodically follow what the committee in the dept of transport does in my state. When we western states got together and forced the rest of the country to revoke 55Mph, it triggered a long range plan within the department to gradually raise speeds out here. There has been some legislation passed within the last few years - quietly, without public fanfare - that has given some specific direction to raise speeds. And as a result on the Interstates the speeds have, in fact, risen several times since the end of 55Mph. They are very careful where this is done, and it's only done where there's clearly no risk of increased accidents.

But, what I'm talking about is a political shift in how speed limits are viewed by the general public. Most of the GP seems to have the same idea you do about speed - higher speeds are fine for ME but NOT for everyone else on the road. Very few of the GP understand that speed limits need to be raised for everyone, not just themselves.

Well, look at the cocaine laws for one. The majority understands cocaine is a bad drug and the majority supports laws against it, that's why we have 'em.

Precisely, I'm glad you have grasped it. This is correct - the conservatives that want laws paying money to religious schools, in clear violation of separation of church and state, have no more right to have these laws than the liberals do to have laws like the kyoto treaty that limits emissions of pollutants, yet does it in a way that allows some of the favorite countries to continue to pollute without restraint.

People understand this, they know that both these kinds of laws are bad law, as they are personal beliefs. It destroys the respect for the law when EITHER side does this. When conservatives try to pass laws that usurp states rights by making things like death with dignity illegal, it erodes respect for law, and when liberals try to pass laws that block the rights of oil companies to drill in Alaskan land that they have legally purchased, it also erodes respect for the law.

You aren't around bikers much, then. The usual line is that the helmet restricts my vision and I can't see as well, so I'm more likely to have an accident.

Some did, and this was what I was talking about. It disgusts most real bikers to see idiots in tee-shirts and no helmets riding down the street, and if we had crafted the helmet laws to get these morons off the road, then we wouldn't be voting against our own law. But the helmet laws in general were crafted by non-riders to make non-riders feel good about them, and have little to do with safety.

For example, the laws require helments sure - but only DOT-approved. The problem is that motorcycle helmets that ONLY meet DOT standards are completely unsafe. To be safe a motorcycle helmet needs at minimum to meet Snell standards. By not requiring this, it is obvious the helmet laws don't give a crap what you wear on your head, they don't give a crap if what your wearing actually works. In short, feel-good laws that do nothing to make anything safer.

There is a limit to this when every time they get out of prison and start driving they get caught and sent back for a longer and longer time, eventually they never get out again. This is called setting an example and that is one of the functions of prisons, a function that in our modern society a lot of people have missed. Not everybody though - a number of states have in fact passed get-tough laws over the last decade and there are some states (like Oregon) that have rules now that repeated lawbreaking will eventually put you permanently behind bars. Even if the crime is minor. For an example, look up 'measure 11' crimes in Oregon in your favorite search engine.

After Vietnam people said the government would never go to war again.

At one time people's careers could be destroyed by someone claiming they were a commie Red.

At one time people thought the world was safer the more nuclear bombs their country had.

At one time people actually paid good money to listen to Elvis Presley.

At one time people didn't think that it affected childrens development for them to watch a lot of TV

Things change.

He ain't going to live forever and who is going to follow him? Hell the Kennedy family is about played out in politics anyway, a Kennedy hasn't had national power in what, 3 decades or longer?

Attitude shifts go on in the US society all the time and people don't realize it, because they happen so slowly that people don't realize they are happening. The large corporations are very skilled at engineering these, why do you think that today people have so much credit card debt? Can you imagine 150 years ago the early pioneers that settled the country sat around saying "Gee, I really need to dump my used but still working plow and run out and buy the newest model I just saw, so that I can establish credit!" So tell me, how did we get from that - to today?

Still believe attitude changes don't happen?

Ted

Reply to
Ted Mittelstaedt

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.