I support this measure. Simply because I drive home for about 50 miles between Annadale, VA and Baltimore, MD at around 11:00pm at night many nights. And yes, I can spot some impaired drivers atleast 3 times a week on the roads at that time. Typically, I see 2 people a week getting a roadside sobriety test. If you get DUI's I see no problem with your plates being tagged to warn other drivers, and let police know your a repeat offender.
Or a better idea. Don't drive drunk. Everyone makes mistakes, thats why the law is aimed at people with more then 2 offenses. But an even better idea is use a DD. Thats what I do, or I don't drink. Self control for the win!
MD to add DUI to License Plates
http://www.nbc4.tv/automotive/7332075/detail.html
Maryland Bill Aims To Put 'DUI' On License Plates
Lawmakers Aim To Address Drunken Driving
POSTED: 10:24 am PST February 22, 2006
ANNAPOLIS, Md. -- Debate under way in Annapolis focused Tuesday on nearly two-dozen bills drafted to address drunken driving.Baltimore television station WBAL reported that one bill would have convicted drunken drivers wear a Scarlet Letter of sorts.According to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration statistics, 45 percent of Maryland's traffic fatalities are related to alcohol. The House Judiciary Committee heard about 18 driving under the influence bills Tuesday, but none as controversial as the so-called Scarlet Letter approach.
Montgomery County Delegate Herman Taylor, D-District 14, introduced House Bill 1315, which would require the state's Motor Vehicle Administration to issue special license plates to people convicted on at least two DUI offenses.
WBAL reported critics have called the measure a bumper sticker solution to crash prevention.
"It's intended to track people who have had two or more offenses dealing with drunken driving," Taylor said.
The license plates would contain the letters "DUI" in bold. Taylor said a drunken driver struck him last May, and at the time of the crash, police had no idea that person was a multiple offender.
Taylor considers the DUI plate an ounce of prevention because it gives police a license to stop the driver at any time."
(The bill) will allow (police) to, without probable cause, pull them over and check" their driving records, Taylor said. Defense attorneys have raised questions as to the specter of possible civil rights and other violations.
"I don't think the answer is a license plate, I think the answer is certainly more treatment and rehabilitation, which the governor has supported (and) the House Judiciary Committee has supported, tougher penalties for subsequent offenders," said Montgomery County Delegate Luiz Simmons, D-District 17, a member of the House Judiciary Committee.
Other states have already instituted similar measures. WBAL reported Ohio issues to habitual drunken drivers a yellow license plate that has red numbers.Last year, Florida's Legislature considered requiring those with multiple DUI convictions to use a bright pink license plate. WBAL reported a similar issue also came up some 10 years ago in California.
Michigan currently uses paper tags to identify repeat offenders, while Oregon and Washington state put a zebra sticker over the plate of habitual offenders.
New plate frames: "If you can read the DUI on this plate, you're GONNA DIE"
Prosecution
20 years ago
Den
20 years ago
I think the driver's license should be taken, and their car impounded. As long as the weapon is available, no matter how many pink plates you put on the car, it can still kill.
Droggen
20 years ago
Shay
i agree but i also like this idea, make them live with humility having population know they are socital fuckups
I think the driver's license should be taken, and their car impounded. As long as the weapon is available, no matter how many pink plates you put on the car, it can still kill.
Verileah
20 years ago
I think we should just take 'em out back and shoot 'em.
Draegloth
20 years ago
I think cops should need actual cause to stop someone from doing what they want to do. If someone's obviously driving drunk, they should be pulled over. They should not be pulled over if they're obeying traffic laws. There's no reason to stop someone who isn't doing anything wrong, even if they've done something wrong in the past. If we continue on with this type of thing, we may as well just impose the death penalty for all crimes, since we're throwing the possibility of rehabilitation right out the window. This and the sex offender registry need to be done away with. If people are a danger to society, keep them apart from it. If they're not, let them live their lives in peace and freedom, and don't subject them to public ridicule.
Make up your minds. Either someone is a criminal, or they're not. Criminals belong in jail.
Make up your minds. Either someone is a criminal, or they're not. Criminals belong in jail.
Prosecution
20 years ago
Actually Drae, funny thing about driving. Its not a right. Too many people assume this. There is no place in any consitution guarenteeing the right to drive. Which is why the DMV can pull your license just because they don't like the way you looked at them, if they wanted to. So comparing it to restricting where people live, and putting them in jail away from society, isn't quite right.
If people are habitual offenders of driving laws, it is the governments right to do what ever they want to restrict or revoke any driving PRIVELEDGES they want. Hell, I like the idea of making their license plate pink, so on a Friday night at 12:00am at night, I know to avoid that car. Or if the car happens to be leaving a bar, the police know the most likely target and can get them off the road.
Unfortunatly DUI's have a high repeat offender record, so they need to do something to crack down on it. Fines, rehab, don't work that well. In the case of a friend I have in MD, who is a great guy, but is on his second DUI. He fell back into his old habits, the moment his probation was up. Honestly, something like a pink lincense plate would be an excellent reminder for him to double check himself before getting into his car. In his case it would probably work.
Draegloth
I think cops should need actual cause to stop someone from doing what they want to do. If someone's obviously driving drunk, they should be pulled over. They should not be pulled over if they're obeying traffic laws. There's no reason to stop someone who isn't doing anything wrong, even if they've done something wrong in the past. If we continue on with this type of thing, we may as well just impose the death penalty for all crimes, since we're throwing the possibility of rehabilitation right out the window. This and the sex offender registry need to be done away with. If people are a danger to society, keep them apart from it. If they're not, let them live their lives in peace and freedom, and don't subject them to public ridicule.
Make up your minds. Either someone is a criminal, or they're not. Criminals belong in jail.
Actually Drae, funny thing about driving. Its not a right. Too many people assume this. There is no place in any consitution guarenteeing the right to drive. Which is why the DMV can pull your license just because they don't like the way you looked at them, if they wanted to. So comparing it to restricting where people live, and putting them in jail away from society, isn't quite right.
If people are habitual offenders of driving laws, it is the governments right to do what ever they want to restrict or revoke any driving PRIVELEDGES they want. Hell, I like the idea of making their license plate pink, so on a Friday night at 12:00am at night, I know to avoid that car. Or if the car happens to be leaving a bar, the police know the most likely target and can get them off the road.
Unfortunatly DUI's have a high repeat offender record, so they need to do something to crack down on it. Fines, rehab, don't work that well. In the case of a friend I have in MD, who is a great guy, but is on his second DUI. He fell back into his old habits, the moment his probation was up. Honestly, something like a pink lincense plate would be an excellent reminder for him to double check himself before getting into his car. In his case it would probably work.
Draegloth
20 years ago
I understand that it's not a right, but what IS a right is the pursuit of happiness, and so is freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. I'm all for revocing someone's license after their second offense, but I'm against letting them keep their license and branding them with a scarlet letter.
There's a difference. If you're going to let someone drive, let them do so unimpeded. If not, don't let them do it at all.
There's a difference. If you're going to let someone drive, let them do so unimpeded. If not, don't let them do it at all.
Sergon
20 years ago
Follow the Money
S
S
Addi
20 years ago
We have them here in Ohio and I have to admit I laugh everytime i see one. They are yellow here, pink is a bit more a degrading color i think.
Dia
20 years ago
just imo, but i think drae your taking it to an extreme. the right to the persuit of happiness? that envolves being able to kill me or a loved one? It's the safety of others that the state is concerned about, not the happiness of said drunk driver. The habitutial drunk driver is obviously not caring. Sometimes revoking a license and rehab do absolutely nothing. example you say? How about the guy who drove his car into the front of the building where his AA meeting was being held? That happened here. Not that a yellow license plate would have stopped that, but maybe it would have. Not every person who is driving drunk drives like an asshole so you can tell their drunk.
and if the person is driving is being proper and gets pulled over? so they have a 5 minute annoyance and its over. I'm pretty sure they've given cops and other people some much longer annoyances to have gotten to that point. relating this to the death penalty is paranoid. Unfortunatly we live in a society that has to be a bit over the top to stop morons. Go look at drunk driving statistics and how many deaths they cause, its not a small problem. Plates wont solve the problem but IN ADDITION to plates and rehab and revoked licenses , maybe it will help.
and if the person is driving is being proper and gets pulled over? so they have a 5 minute annoyance and its over. I'm pretty sure they've given cops and other people some much longer annoyances to have gotten to that point. relating this to the death penalty is paranoid. Unfortunatly we live in a society that has to be a bit over the top to stop morons. Go look at drunk driving statistics and how many deaths they cause, its not a small problem. Plates wont solve the problem but IN ADDITION to plates and rehab and revoked licenses , maybe it will help.
Den
20 years ago
I tell ya...if they took away their cars...end of problem! I mean yea, I'm sure there would be people out there who might be able to coerce someone into lending them a car...but I would dare say they'd be way down in the minority. I certainly can't see many sane people offering up their cars to people like that.
StarrBeth
20 years ago
I used to do temp work for a company that made a device that courts could order be installed in the cars of repeat offender drunk drivers. It's basically a breathalizer that is connected to the ignition of the car. When they get in the car they have to blow into it to check their alcohol level. If it's over a certain point the car won't start. They also have to periodically blow into it while driving. I think this is one of the smartest solutions I've ever heard. No "scarlet letter" and no way that they'll be able to drive and hurt someone. Just thought I'd throw in my two cents.
Sergon
20 years ago
Yea they have those in most states. They put them in cars usualy of folks on thier second. I agree with this idea. They would cut down on all of this if it became a requirement for all cars. They would need a non intrusive device. They wont do it because the state makes way too much money off first time offenders. Every one makes mistakes. Follow the money.
S
StarrBeth
I used to do temp work for a company that made a device that courts could order be installed in the cars of repeat offender drunk drivers. It's basically a breathalizer that is connected to the ignition of the car. When they get in the car they have to blow into it to check their alcohol level. If it's over a certain point the car won't start. They also have to periodically blow into it while driving. I think this is one of the smartest solutions I've ever heard. No "scarlet letter" and no way that they'll be able to drive and hurt someone. Just thought I'd throw in my two cents.
Yea they have those in most states. They put them in cars usualy of folks on thier second. I agree with this idea. They would cut down on all of this if it became a requirement for all cars. They would need a non intrusive device. They wont do it because the state makes way too much money off first time offenders. Every one makes mistakes. Follow the money.
S
Mylec
20 years ago
In Pennsylvania, you can opt to get that device installed on your car on even your first offense. The cost of the device and installation (about 700 bucks) is paid by the defendant and usually shortens the term of a license suspension (In PA, its a minimum 90 day suspension of you license on the first offense but only 30 days if you get that thing put on your car).
Anyway, I have to agree with Drae. The court finds a person guilty, pronounces sentence, and sees that it is carried out. When that person walks out the door at the end of his sentence, or finishes his probation, etc...he is no longer a criminal and has the same rights as anybody else. Changing the license plate color is just stupid. For one, most people who are convicted of DUI are married so they can just take the spouse's car out for a spin. Unless you plan to give a colored plate to the spouse too even though they didnt do anything wrong?
Also, people who are repeat offenders of DUI are not going to be swayed by a colored license plate. It would be a total non-issue to them. Third, if a cop is worth anything he/she should be able to tell if a driver is under the influence without a cheat sheet. And finally, anybody who has been found guilty of DUI and learned their lesson would be unnecessarily harrassed because of their past crime that they have paid for.
With all the parents on this board I thought Drae would have caught shit for the comment about doing away with the sex offender registry (unless people skipped over that part). I have to agree with this one, as well, on the same grounds.
Anyway, I have to agree with Drae. The court finds a person guilty, pronounces sentence, and sees that it is carried out. When that person walks out the door at the end of his sentence, or finishes his probation, etc...he is no longer a criminal and has the same rights as anybody else. Changing the license plate color is just stupid. For one, most people who are convicted of DUI are married so they can just take the spouse's car out for a spin. Unless you plan to give a colored plate to the spouse too even though they didnt do anything wrong?
Also, people who are repeat offenders of DUI are not going to be swayed by a colored license plate. It would be a total non-issue to them. Third, if a cop is worth anything he/she should be able to tell if a driver is under the influence without a cheat sheet. And finally, anybody who has been found guilty of DUI and learned their lesson would be unnecessarily harrassed because of their past crime that they have paid for.
With all the parents on this board I thought Drae would have caught shit for the comment about doing away with the sex offender registry (unless people skipped over that part). I have to agree with this one, as well, on the same grounds.
Draegloth
20 years ago
yes, I'm usually right, and agreeing with me shows intelligence. disagreeing with me shows a lack of higher brain function. people that disagree with me should be required to use special license plates.
Prosecution
20 years ago
Wouldn't it be easier just to make a registery of people who disagree with you, so you know where they live?
Draegloth
yes, I'm usually right, and agreeing with me shows intelligence. disagreeing with me shows a lack of higher brain function. people that disagree with me should be required to use special license plates.
Wouldn't it be easier just to make a registery of people who disagree with you, so you know where they live?
Mylec
20 years ago
Why not both?
Prosecution
Wouldn't it be easier just to make a registery of people who disagree with you, so you know where they live?
Why not both?
Draegloth
20 years ago
That's a good start. Next, I can sign an order to raze their farmlands and execute their families.