Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site kontron.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!scgvaxd!pertec!kontron!cramer
From: cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: net.flame,net.politics,net.legal,net.auto
Subject: Re: DWI Crackdowns
Message-ID: <378@kontron.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 18-Jul-85 12:02:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: kontron.378
Posted: Thu Jul 18 12:02:45 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 23-Jul-85 05:10:42 EDT
References: <202@SCIRTP.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Kontron Electronics, Irvine, CA
Lines: 78
Xref: linus net.flame:10346 net.politics:9360 net.legal:1475 net.auto:6338

> 
>         Hey,
> 
> 	I am as concerned as the next guy about the problem
> 	of drunk drivers, recidivism, teenagers and the like,
> 	but I am getting fed up with some of the misguided
> 	attempts at curbing the problem, such as:
> 
> [long discussion of current approaches to dealing with DWI]
> 	So Todd, what are your solutions?
> 
> 	Rent (expensively) first offenders the following equipment:
> 	
> 	1. a device that is attatched to the ignition system
> 	   that requires an alcohol free breath reading (in
> 	   addition to the presence of gases present in human
> 	   breath, to avoid faking it) to allow the car to be
> 	   started.
> 
> 	2. a big ugly day-glo bumbersticker declaring the driver
> 	   to be a DWI offender on probation.
> 
> 	The offender would not be allowed to drive a car other
> 	than the one designated with the bumpersticker. The
> 	offender would carry a special driver's license declaring
> 	his status. The offender could be stopped any time for a
> 	random breathalyzer check. The device could not be tampered
> 	with or big legal whoopass would result.
> 
> 	After a designated period of time, the offenders would complete
> 	their probationary period and regain all their regular driving
> 	priviledges. Boy am I gonna get flamed!
> 
> 	Before the flame-throwers go on high, remember, this system
> 	is much less harsh on non-offenders and more ostracizing for
> 	offenders. Drunk drivers are held accountable for their actions
> 	and have to continually prove their sobriety in order to drive.
> 	This system is not a "big-brotherish" as it seems when you
> 	consider that all citizens in vehicles have reduced rights.
> 	This system would reduce the rights (for a temporary period)
> 	of offending drivers.
> 
> 
>     ||||| 
>    ||   ||
>    [ O-O ]       Todd Jones
>     \ ^ /        {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd      
>     | _ |
>     |___|

While your suggestions aren't ridiculous (something I seldom say about
your postings), Todd, I would suggest the simplest solution of all to
the DWI problem is:

1. Require those convicted of DWI to drive motorcycles for a year or
   two, instead of cars.  This has several positive effects.
   
   a. Drunk on motorcycle is much less dangerous to others than drunk
      in car.  (KE = 0.5 * m * (v^2)
      
   b. Drunk on motorcycle is less likely to survive drunk driving,
      perhaps improving the species, and certainly reducing the number
      of drunk drivers on the road.
      
   c. Anyone who doesn't appreciate how dangerous driving is on a
      motorcycle, probably won't survive long enough to drive anything
      else; those who do recognize the danger involved, might be
      more responsible when they get an unrestricted license again.
      
2. Second conviction for DWI gets you a motorcycle license for life.

3. Driving a car while restricted to motorcycles because of DWI would
   get you prison time, since you clearly can't be trusted around the
   rest of us.

Why not just pull the license of a DWI?  Because judges and juries are
reluctant to prevent someone from being able to get to work; if they
have a motorcycle license, they have no excuse.