[dataway]

DUI is a big revenue generator for the state as far as DMV fines go, and they know they can pretty much make things as onerous as they want to for people, even the ones trying to avoid driving drunk, and no one is going to complain, and it looks good on paper. So, basically if drinking, best to avoid ever touching a set of keys.

One thing I like about vacation, we go to Rome, Paris, London etc. ... plenty of things in walking distance, tons of cabs or uber, so we have our two bottles of wine at dinner and let fly with the festivities, usually walking a mile or so back to the hotel in a very good mood, with plenty of wonderful things to look at on the way.

[John V.]

I have never agreed with DUI laws.

Years ago I made my point here and got torched. I'm prepared to be vilified again.

Put simply, thousands of people will drive home under the influence tonight and arrive at their destination without having caused property damage, injury, or death. Why make what they do illegal?

I believe driving is a serious business. I think the law goes too easy on those that cause damage, injury, or death while operating a vehicle.

Throw the book at those drivers irrespective of how "impaired" they are. Maybe that will change how people drive, maybe it won't.

Seems to me that DUI, like many other moving violations, is made law to generate revenue. I don't see that they make the roads safer. In many ways, I see people who promote DUI laws using them as a means to bring back Prohibition, some people oppose alcohol generally and will push for anything that moves us in that direction.

I would prefer it be illegal to drive while stupid. Some people simply lack the intelligence to operate a vehicle without endangering other drivers. I contend that is a bigger problem than DUI. At the very least, passing a driving test should be a LOT more difficult than it is currently.

[Sirrotica]

I hold a CDL, it isn't easy to get one if the person administering the test is doing it properly. The test to get a drivers license should be as stringent as the CDL test is, then there wouldn't be the amount of dangerous people operating vehicles on public roads. IMO there also needs to be refresher safety courses, and retests periodically. A CDL driver is held to a higher standard, and .04 is the legal limit for blood alcohol, which is half of the limit on a conventional license.

To have a drivers license is a privilege, not a right, it should be treated as such.

I do agree that the instances of encountering an incompetent driver, as opposed to a impaired driver, is probably greater.

It wouldn't be popular, but an interlock between cell phones, and shutting down a car seems appropriate, I'm pretty sure the technology is already available.

[John V.]

Brad, I agree with you generally.

But I cringe when people say driving is a privilege, not a right.

This idea gets repeated so often, it is simply accepted by many/most people. And I doubt many really understand what it means when they say it. Was riding a horse a privilege? Was driving a horse drawn carriage a privilege? A bicycle?

When something is a privilege, it can be highly restricted and easily taken away whereas rights are not so easily restricted.

The matter is still argued despite certain legal rulings that find the ability to drive is a right.

This may seem counter to my post arguing that laws should prohibit stupid people from driving or that driver testing should be more rigorous. I make those arguments to illustrate my opposition to DUI laws. In other words, if you think DUI laws are "good", why stop there? Outlaw driving by under 25 males. Outlaw people with less than 20-20 uncorrected vision or those with hearing loss. Less than 120 IQ. Some of the worst driving behavior I notice are exhibited by people with handicap plates, why are they allowed to drive? The list goes on.

But I see driving as a right. The State is within its rights to regulate it. But their ability to take away the right should be as limited as their ability to take away any other right.

[Sirrotica]

Horse drawn carriages, and bicycles, don't have the lethality that a car/truck does. Lots more responsibility with something that can kill with a flip of the wrist, and cause multiple deaths. As far as I'm concerned driving a car, and riding a bike, or a horse, is apples, and oranges. It would be like comparing a sling shot to a firearm.

If it was a right then there would be no penalty for someone that causes a serious accident that causes fatalities, and the persons that text while driving could keep doing it with impunity. The people that are lacking in driving skills and common sense is who I want re-educated, or I want them off the roads, If driving is their right, we can't confiscate there license.