Get convicted of DUI in NY State - lease one of these....
Anti-booze interlocks made mandatory in NY State for first-time convicted drunk drivers. Seems so simple. Why just NY? Why do we punish some offenders so harshly....and hardly bother with others?
2 comments:
James Thurber
said...
Don't get me started on drunk drivers. As a relatively new police officer I had to remove a dead baby from a car, killed by a drunk who was so intoxicated that he didn't even realize he'd been in an accident.
Minimum for DUI: Six weeks in a dry out camp (run by the USMC); loss of vehicle (confiscation); three year driving suspension (if caught driving within those three years the remainder of the three years would be spent in prison).
If this punishment were mandated and EVERYONE convicted of DUI was treated such, eventually (within a year or so) DUI would almost cease to exist in the United States.
I've got two words for anyone who drives after drinking and they're not printable in this column.
The hilarious part of that Times article are the comments complaining about the cost of the unit, as if the drunk is somehow a hapless victim of the state because he/she has to pay for it. The simple answer is don't drive drunk.
Now, can we design a motor vehicle interlock so that whenever the moron behind the wheel gets on the cell phone, the car stops? Given that we know that distracted driving is as dangerous as DWI, it would be unfortunate to proclaim victory over drunks while killing each other while texting.
2 comments:
Don't get me started on drunk drivers. As a relatively new police officer I had to remove a dead baby from a car, killed by a drunk who was so intoxicated that he didn't even realize he'd been in an accident.
Minimum for DUI: Six weeks in a dry out camp (run by the USMC); loss of vehicle (confiscation); three year driving suspension (if caught driving within those three years the remainder of the three years would be spent in prison).
If this punishment were mandated and EVERYONE convicted of DUI was treated such, eventually (within a year or so) DUI would almost cease to exist in the United States.
I've got two words for anyone who drives after drinking and they're not printable in this column.
Drunks do enough damage. Get them off the road.
The hilarious part of that Times article are the comments complaining about the cost of the unit, as if the drunk is somehow a hapless victim of the state because he/she has to pay for it. The simple answer is don't drive drunk.
Now, can we design a motor vehicle interlock so that whenever the moron behind the wheel gets on the cell phone, the car stops? Given that we know that distracted driving is as dangerous as DWI, it would be unfortunate to proclaim victory over drunks while killing each other while texting.
Post a Comment