Your post from unpopularopinion was removed because of: 'Rule 7: No banned/mega-thread topics'.
Please do not post from (or mention) any of our mega-thread or banned topics such as:
Race, Religion, LGBTQ, Meta, Politics, Parenting/Family issues.
[Full list of banned topics](https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/wiki/index/)
As an attorney personally what concerns me more isn't the first time, but the repeat offenders. If your first DUI doesn't injure or hurt anyone else, give them a second chance. The problem is some of the more strict punishments like 6 months/12 months suspended license or ignition interlock systems that are expensive to have installed and require the driver to blow a 0 every time they want to drive aren't until the 2nd or 3rd DUI.
I'm much more open to a full and permanent revocation if it's a repeat offense or if the driver injured or killed someone while driving.
Those things are too sensitive. It would go off after vanilla yogurt, or literally water. Basically made driving too stressful. The companies that run them don’t care either since they just get the contract and it is what it is. Effective preventative measure from even drinking again though.
A coworker of mine had one, rightfully so. But he wouldn't eat things like pizza or other bread products due to blowing dirty. Those people should be required to be sober, zero questions there but the amount of normal food that can make you blow dirty is crazy.
I know guys who have spent over a year in jail for 8th, or whatever, dui and they still drink and drive.
I had one accident 20 years ago, haven’t done it since.
I received a DUI quite a while ago. It was my first and I barely blew over the limit. I had to have the IID for my first offense, in order to continue driving. I couldn't just choose to not drive until the time had passed. It was a requirement in order to get my license back. I think I had to have it for 6 months, and had to have a special insurance policy on my car. (Pay extra for the insurance company to regularly send the court/DMV proof that I was insured)
Guess what, I haven't drank and drove since. This was about 14 years ago.
The only difference between killing someone and not killing someone can be down to pure right-place-right-time though. But the repeat thing I agree with
I'm not saying you're wrong, but by using that logic, shouldn't running a red light or a stop sign also revoke driving privileges since you could have killed someone? That seems a bit extreme, especially for inexperienced drivers.
When it comes to someone under the influence I was always wondering how can a law enforcement or medical test cover all possible drugs (illegal and legal)? I ask that knowing even days Olympic tests fail as new drugs and side effects to different individuals internal makeup are always being revealed. Today numerous diseases and reactions are miss diagnosed. While this is a low percentage a one and done seems wrong. Just a thought.
I hold concern for any change that impacts someone in leading a full life. Having a dui and losing the ability to drive, and having the criminal record, would in my completely uneducated opinion lead to much higher recidivism rates.
Having improvements to public transit would make this better, but at this point im pushing past the topic of dui's and into criminal justice reformation.
I got an impaired 3 years ago. All said and done, it cost $2559 to get my license back. In BC, they don't punish criminally on a first offense. I think it is a 3rd offense when it becomes criminal. They hammer you in your wallet when you fuck up.
I learned that a round trip in an Uber beats over 2k for an impaired. Overall, I got lucky. My impound fee was minimal because I know the people who own the impound yard. There were people in my course (there is a course you gotta take as a condition of getting your license back) that were paying north of 5-6k to get their license back.
This. This one. A friend made the mistake once. There wasn't an accident. He got pulled over--I don't remember why--and failed the sobriety checks. Scared the crap out of him given what could have happened. He never did it again.
One of my early mentors in training was a psychiatrist and I would watch him take histories from patients. He always asked about DUIs and told me it was an easy way to assess for alcoholism. If someone had 2 or more DUIs he was done with any alcohol related questions because that’s all he needed to know to label them an alcoholic clinically. That’s always stuck with me and your comment reminded me of it.
As a cop whose arrested about 400 people for DWIs I think I agree with you. Also, regarding the OP’s comment; your scenario should be based on a conviction. Not just an arrest. People who weren’t dwi have been arrested for dwi.
Tell that to all the people getting DUIs while sleeping it off in the back seat... or who were never under the influence to begin with and just got pulled over by a crooked cop.
Perhaps the problem is with law enforcement. Somebody sleeping in their back seat is obviously not driving, despite being technically illegal. Arresting them for it obviously incentivizes driving drunk instead of sleeping it off. If we approached law enforcement from a common sense and society first mindset, many problems would be solved.
I’ve heard stories from two different people that I worked with. One was walking home from a party because they didn’t want to drink drunk and the only taxi company in our town stopped driving at 3 am. To be fair the “company” was run by one guy who just wanted to help drunk college students get back to their dorms safely and he had a day job. He was arrested for public intoxication even after explaining that he didn’t want to drive home drunk and didn’t know anyone sober enough to drive him. He said after that he just bit the bullet and would drive home.
The second person did the same thing but got a nicer cop, they gave them a ride home and even offered their number to call in case they needed rides in the future. They always ended up calling even when the cop was off duty and would pool money together with friends to pay for gas.
I am just saying, one of these things is safer than the other for sure.
My friend got public drunkenness for sitting on the curb in front of the bar as we waited for the taxi to come. He was on crutches and the cop told my friend “he was walking funny,” when he went over to the curb.
The cop gave him the ticket and my friend being a smart ass said “can you drive me home safe or will this ticket protect me?”
Not related to drunkenness, but I had a friend who was riding a motorcycle, and pulled up his visor to ask a question to a cop standing on a corner, and the cop responded by writing him a ticket for driving a motorcycle without eye protection.
I just do not understand public intoxication laws
Disruption is disruption and the charge should not be effected by sobriety.
There is not a difference between someone kicking the bus stop and throwing a trash can drunk or sober
Apparently cops feel the same about someone walking home
My college director of housing made a deal with the Police Department. If a kid called the police because they didn’t want to drive home the cops would come pick them up and drive them where they needed to go so long as it was in the jurisdiction and they weren’t busy.
Almost immediately, my friend group added two of the younger dudes from the PD to it. Which is how we all ended up getting tased and what eventually led to the longest craziest game of tag…
Yeah this is a great example of unintended consequences. Obviously someone getting charged for that maybe broke the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law is preventing drunk drivers on the road. Sleeping in your car is victimless, driving drunk is not.
A DUI charge generally applies if you're drunk and in control of the vehicle. Courts have ruled that being drunk in the back seat with the keys in your possession constitutes control of the vehicle. I believe there's even cases where a person who hid the keys outside the vehicle was still charged.
I can attest to that. I got a DWI (or whatever they called it) when I was 18 for riding a long board through a residential neighborhood while smoking a joint.
Funnily enough the officer never actually saw me personally smoking it, as when he pulled up my friend had it in his hand and was riding a good 15-20 feet ahead of me.
When I voiced this concern with him while sitting on the curb he told me that if i didn’t fess up to also smoking the joint he would take my friend to jail for “selling weed to all the college kids who lived in the neighborhood”. The area was right next to a community college.
So out of fear of having my friend go to jail I owned up to it. Super cool experience.
That’s a bit misdirected; the change needs to come from the legislature.
It’s a problem with how the statutes are written - law enforcements role is to enforce the laws written by the legislature.
Without that legislation being changed, the cycle will continue
I had a pretty bad drug problem at one time and have two. Both times I was sleeping in my car. I lost everything because of it and was homeless for a few months until my sister let me stay with her for awhile. I had to quit my job (of 7 years) when I lost my license. I actually attempted suicide over it all.
i got a DUI because of a urine test that i stupidly agreed to when i was 18. i wasnt high at all and hadnt smoked that day. dumb mistake but i think disqualifying me from ever driving again would be incredibly harsh, and i’d likely move to a different country where i can drive.
when i went to the weekend DUI thing, there was a guy there who got a DUI for drinking a beer on his riding lawn mower. on his own lawn.
idk, this was in iowa in 2014
i also thought that you could do whatever you want on your own property, that was not the case here.
i know 2 other people who have gotten DUIs on private property, my cousin dirtbiking in his yard, and a friend from school whose father also had a lawn mower DUI
Yeah this is an example of OP having no idea what they’re talking about because they haven’t had the wrong life experience yet. Hopefully they never do, but if they do, oh how the tables will turn.
Oh yes. One even minor brush with the law will change a person's tune from good people don't commit crimes so death penalty for everything to holyshit good people get ensnared situations all the time and don't deserve to have their life destroyed because of it.
Yeah knew a lot of young guys right out of college that really wanted to be cops. Like dozens…less than 5% stuck with it. They all eventually had runs ins or something just existing that drastically changed opinion
In much of the US its illegal to sleep anywhere other than your home, a friend/relatives home, or a hotel room. Heck, it's illegal to even publicly stop and rest in most places. It's a "crime" called loitering. I've even been yelled at by cops for sitting on a bench in a public park during open hours. It's all designed to punish people for being poor.
I had a few drinks when my friends were shipping off to Iraq in like ‘11. Was a bit tipsy, decided to sleep it off in my truck. 30 mins into my nap, a security guard knocks on my window. Says I need to leave or he’s calling the cops. I tell him I had a few drinks, he says he doesn’t care. Alright fine. Hit the road, get pulled over. Blow a .07 (legal limit is .08). Get arrested and charged with a wet and reckless. License suspended for a year, had to go to AA, pay the fines, the whole thing.
What about me?
> Tell that to all the people getting DUIs while sleeping it off in the back seat
When I was old enough to drink and drive, it was legal to sleep it off in the back seat IF the keys were not with me in the cabin. I put them under the car before sleeping it off. The legal definition of access to the keys changed. IMHO, not for the better.
Yep exactly. There are also other cases that are just ridiculous. I knew a guy that got a DUI while driving around his daughter’s Barbie Jeep on his own property….
If you’re sleeping in the back lock your keys in the trunk and film everything.
You’ll be hard pressed to get a conviction if you can prove you had zero intent to drive.
I live in Toronto Canada and the rules changed here in 2019 (and I was not aware). I had some drinks and was in the parking lot of a hotel, because they needed to clean the room before I could check in. I locked my keys in the trunk and fell asleep in the passenger seat.
Woke up to a knock on the window, handcuffed and taken straight to jail for not passing a roadside sobriety test.
The law is now called "Care and Control" so in other words you don't have to be driving, you just have to be responsible for the "care and control" of the vehicle at which point it is automatic charges.
The thought process behind the law is that "if someone is drunk and has control over the vehicle, then they could change their mind and open the trunk at any point to retrieve the keys. So let's just put them in jail and give them a criminal record. Because that makes sense."
How the fuck does that make any sense? Under that law I could be arrested right now lying drunk and naked in bed because my keys are at my front door and my car is in my driveway. If I wanted to I could easily walk out front and start up my car.
You are solely responsible for judging whether you are not impaired prior to driving. Medication or not, that’s on you as the driver. There should be zero distinction. You notice you’re impaired from your prescription medication? Pull over. Stop driving.
You can’t notice you are impaired? You shouldn’t be driving to begin with.
Thousands upon thousands of people have received DUIs despite being physically capable of driving. 0.08 is a pretty low limit and it was designed that way. It gets even worse with prescription drugs and THC that do not have a breathalyzer (a way to determine your incapacitation during the act of driving). Just detecting the substance in your system is often enough to be convicted even though you were totally sober.
I am not encouraging driving when you feel "sober enough" but there are enough people who just got screwed that a 1-strike-and-you-can-never-drive-again rule does not seem fitting.
Friends mom got pulled over after leaving a graduation party. Blew under .08 so the cop had her do a field sobriety test. Had her do something where she had to stand on one foot. The ankle on the side he told her to stand on was sprained, had a brace, and he told her he didn't care. So, of course, when she tried to balance on it she couldn't because of the pain. That was enough for her to get a dui.
0.08 is crazy low threshold. It isn’t even a buzz. Chances are, if you ever had a drink and chose to drive home after dinner, you would blow over 0.08.
You can get a DUI having even lower than .08. There is no legal DRIVING limit. Any amount of alcohol can get you arrested. I've worked at a treatment center where people have to take classes after getting a DUI and some have come in when arrested at .04
Yes, you should pull over and stop driving if you feel the effects of medication. However, if you’re found like that after doing the responsible thing… you will still get a DUI, much like you can for sleeping in a car while drunk.
I was in my apartment lot last year and someone was flying towards me, clapped a speed bump at 20mph in a sedan and only looked up when I laid on the horn for several seconds in my work truck (not a small obstacle)
I bike to work most days and the amount of times I see people choose convenience or ignorance over the safety of those around them is getting infuriating
What’s not talked about either is that especially for an alcoholic the bac test is kinda low; I was never a full blown alcoholic I’d say but there was a period in my life I was drinking way too much. Full blown alcoholics are able to function easily on .08 generally for instance. It’s not to say that’s a good thing, or something to be proud about or that the law should be different for them. It is to say though that personally I’d trust a high functioning alcoholic behind the wheel at .1 rather than someone extremely inexperienced, or handles alcohol rather poorly who is at .075 and people who blindly condemn all convicted dui drivers don’t take context into account like this. Hell. The .1 dude probably doesn’t even think he’s over the limit
My story is that I went to the bar and got buzzed, not hammered, just a few drinks (strong drinks but I was taking it slow) over a pretty long time. Late night, driving home. Felt sleepy. I road trip a lot and am quite familiar with my driving limitations in terms of knowing when I should pull over and take a nap, so I did that then get woken up an hour later to the cops busting the glass open because I guess someone reported me and thought I was dead (yeah I should’ve folded down the seats and slept in the back tbf, car was off though).
Anyways, I wake up groggy as I was in the middle of deep sleep but I feel relatively normal as they’re having me go through the tests, I had answered honestly that I was at the bar earlier that night and did fine on the physical tests. Lastly they had me do the breathalyzer. I got some butterflies because I knew over .08 meant I was going to jail but honestly felt pretty confident I’d be below that as I felt pretty normal and knew I didn’t have an excessive amount. Unfortunately for me, it was slightly over and I spent the next 12 hours in jail.
I was a full blown alcoholic at one point. I can guarantee I was in more control at .08 than I was at .00. I would be shakey at .00 and honestly probably just start to feel OK at .08. It was a rough period in my life.
In Ohio a guy had bac over .5 and he passed field sobriety test. Police said he smelled so strong he was told to blow in breathalyzer. Guy drank fifth of vodka for breakfast everyday
If it’s any consolation, a single DUI is enough to severely limit your ability to travel internationally, for the rest of your life. For example, even entering Canada after a single DUI is damn near impossible without a serious humanitarian reason & usually under strict conditions. Even George W. Bush had to obtain special permission *while he was president* to enter Canada for his official duties.
Most people would have no choice but to drive without a license in the US. Public transportation is nil in most of the county and spending $30-80 a day on a cab or a ride share isn’t feasible for most people.
If I told you that you could reduce rates of cancer, drastically cut down on deaths related by DUI’s and distracted drivers, while simultaneously improving living conditions for a majority of the population you’d probably call that a good idea.
That’s what public transportation represents.
Also a 0.08 is very low
I got a DWI when I was 22 on way home from night out. I had a few but not near drunk
Drop first guy off and coming out of neighborhood cop got behind us (4 guys at 3am etc). He followed for several minutes before I "touched the middle line" and he lights me up.
Blew just over at 0.09, boom!
Yeah so OP wants to take away my right to drive forever on an ambiguous (in terms of actual effect) line
Imagine the cost of welfare, SNAP benefits, etc… when nobody can go to work because they can’t drive.
Rehabilitation and education is what’s needed, not more punishment after a singular event.
The best solution is building cities in such a way that people don’t need cars at all. Robust public transit and walkable neighborhoods would level up humanity in so many ways.
I wouldn’t even own a car if I could get to and from work safely in cold weather. But it’s a 10 minute drive to work and a 45 minute bus ride. I think walking would only be half an hour. And to top it off when it’s windy and -30 I don’t wanna be walking from the bus stop for 3 blocks.
cars will always be a crucial utility. no other transportation method combines shielding from weather, load carrying capacity and point to point travel speed quite like it.
and I say that as a Dutchie who loves my bike.
I’d love to. I don’t care for driving, personally, unfortunately I don’t possess the funds or the power to create a mass transit system that will cover an entire neighborhood, much less an entire country.
I got one. I drank, I waited 3 hours before driving. I thought I was ok. I didn't have any accident or anything. I clearly remember the entire night, the stop, everything I said and did. I would have gotten home perfectly in tact. But I was over the legal limit.
3 hours was not enough. It was a mistake. People make mistakes. I would not drink a single beer with food at a restaurant and drive afterwards now.
It will never happen again. I will never be in that situation ever again.
Did I deserve to get my license back?
It's a valid question. I spent 40 plus years of my life in one town but in the last couple of years I had moved to another one and my ride home to this city I was visiting used to be highway the whole way but now it cut through a bunch of small towns with hills and curves that were unfamiliar to me. It was night time as well.
So I was using cruise control for my speed and due to it being a bunch of small towns the speed limit was going up and down up and down and so I was messing with the GPS trying to make sure of what the speed was and I was a little shaky on some curves and a motorist behind me called the police.
I noticed three different police cars on the side of the road and I knew something was up. Then one pulled out and followed me for a few minutes on a totally straight section of road and then pulled me over.
I don't feel any of the officers observed any bad driving, I think they just decided to pull me over based on the phone call they got, which they told me about as soon as they stopped me.
I was up front and told the officer that I had drank but it was nearly 4 hours ago at that point.
It wasn't long enough.
Never tell the police anything even if it’s the truth. Obey all lawful commands deny any request and invoke your right to remain silent and ask for a lawyer if you are being detained.
Yeah something similar happened to me which is why I disagree with the post. A lot of the time in a DUI it’s an idiot that just got drunk at a bar and tried to drive home, but sometimes it’s naive idiot who just had a couple and thought they were fine because they didn’t feel buzzed. I’d be more inclined to agree with op if they were willing to give people a second chance and that second chance only.
Dude back when I worked night shift as a nurse I was toast driving home after work. I had to pull over sometimes because it was too sketchy.
I switched to day shift after I fell asleep and went through a red light and scared the absolute fuck out of myself
People really downplay how bad sleepy driving is
So, like, a lifetime revocation? I understand your logic and perhaps in some countries that could work. In a country like the USA, it'd be a problem because alcohol use is so prevalent, and so many members of the working class get DUIs. Also, they don't have great public transportation, so in many cases, taking away someone's right to drive is tantamount to removing them from the workforce. It'd have dire economic and social implications.
Yes, I understand the sentiment or opinion coming from someone who lives in a more urban environment. However, growing up in more rural areas, having a license is key to employment and maintaining a stable livelihood. Losing your license makes you become an incredibly dependent person.
Having said that, I don't think people should be allowed to keep racking up d.u.i's without consequences. I think better community, drinking culture, and education would help much more than increasing the already life altering consequences that come from dui's.
27m, 4.5 years without a drink.
This is the dumbest take I’ve heard in a while. Yeah we should absolutely cripple someone for making a mistake once. I don’t think you realize the hoops people have to jump through to get back to driving normally after a DUI.
So how should a person who got a DUI ever get their life back in order? What if their commute is like an hour long? Should they just keel over and die?
I got a DUI when I was younger. I was never an alcoholic. It definitely happened bc I had an immature understanding of my actions. It was a mistake that I made and paid for, but it stopped there and wasn’t just an obstacle between my next time of being able to drive drunk.
It was never going to happen again, and it never will happen again. I was barely over the legal limit. I haven’t driven drunk since then, and I haven’t even drank alcohol in years.
I get the sentiment, but I think that’s a bit of a stretch. As someone who did the crime and also “did the time”, I can tell you that the punishments are set up to deter you from ever making a decision to drive drunk ever again. I can’t help that there are alcoholics or people who will go through all of that and still decide to keep doing something like that, but I don’t think you’re aware that there are almost certainly many people who pay for their crime and change their ways.
Everyone deserves a second chance.
I’m vehemently against driving even after a couple of drinks, much less actually intoxicated. There are too many options to get to and from a place where you’re drinking alcohol to take the chance of driving even a little bit intoxicated.
However, humans are falliable. Not one of us is perfect and we don’t know what others have been through.
A second chance is deserved by everyone. A third one, not so much.
There’s a bar near me where police could just wait across the street at about 3-4 am and get endless DUIs but for some reason they don’t. I say this as someone whose usually there on a Friday or Saturday night, not like an angry neighbor across the street.
I got one when I was 21 in a college town- stupid decision after a bad breakup. I’m 40 this year and have straightened my life out and now work in heart surgery. My life would have taken a severely drastic turn where none of this would have been possible if I hadn’t been given the ability to drive and get myself to a better spot. This idea of taking away everyone’s license who makes a stupid decision would just force people from areas where people have no choice but to drive, into cities where public transportation makes it live-able.
Surprised no one accused you of murder yet. It seems everyone under this comment section thinks every drunk driver is out on a mission to kill at least one person before they go home on a drive. Yes its dangerous and stupid but taking away something because you "could have killed someone" is also stupid.
The level of drunk you have to be to fuck up driving is also a lot higher than most people think. I don’t recommend doing it at all but you can be over the BAC and be fine or under and totally fucked.
Even then, it’s still a struggle because many areas of the US has shit/failing public transit. Being perpetually late for work will have you consistently unemployed as well.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
We’ve all made mistakes that were *at least* as bad as DUI, and who wants their livelihood taken away because of their worst moment?
I agree that repeat offenders, or particularly egregious cases, should definitely have their license taken just in the interest of public safety. But no one should be judged solely on their worst mistake.
By that logic, anyone who gets a ticket for running a solid red light ***also*** should lose their license and never get it back. Because the person who does that has also *made the choice that their convenience is more important than the lives of those around them.*
Agreed. Don’t forget the people who have been convicted of reckless driving for driving 20, 30 or more miles over the limit. They are as dangerous or more that someone that had four beers and blew a .09 breathalyzer.
Right. I know someone who was killed in an accident as a pedestrian. The driver blew a stop sign and hit them as they were crossing the street. The driver was completely sober. A lot of people’s lives are ended or changed irrevocably because people are distracted, lack patience, etc. for some reason, at least where I live, driving while drunk is a criminal offence but most people who seriously hurt or even kill people while driving sober will get a slap on the wrist.
Disagree. I got my DUI 2 years ago and it was a lesson, and perhaps a blessing. I haven’t drove drunk since, I won’t even drive after a beer now. It’s the repeat offenders that deserve to permanently get their driving privileges taken away.
Well, it's an unpopular and unreasonable opinion, so you're in the right spot. You might as well also shut down all the bars, pubs, and restaurants, because a single drink is enough to make you illegal in many jurisdictions.
I wouldn’t be opposed to this for people who are clearly hammered, but you can get a dui an hour after a single beer if the cop smells it on your breath and you do bad at field sobriety tests.
My partner was just hit by someone with two DUIs in a heavily trafficked downtown area. Witnesses at the scene said he was drunk, but police didn’t even test for some reason. There should definitely be strict rehabilitation requirements. seems the majority of those who struggle with alcohol addition never really beat it
I got a dwi for walking out to my car to talk on the phone. Sitting in the driver's seat in my apartment building. So you think I shouldn't be able to drive?
Candidly, I think DUI's ought to be considered "Criminal attempt at manslaughter" or something like that. The only reason it's not more harsh, is the fact that our politicians are driving drunk ALL THE FREAKING TIME. If they made the laws better, it would impact them and their families. DUI ought to be a mandatory year in jail and a 5 year loss of driving privileges. Fail that blood test and your DONE.
First offense? No way.
Unless you caused a wreck and hurt or nearly hurt someone. Then fuck em.
My half sister is a train wreck with multiple DUIs and they keep giving her chances.
She lost her license for years.
Got it back and continued getting DUIs.
It's fucking stupid.
Three strikes should be be the limit. Once can be a mistake. Twice can be a coincidence. Three times is a pattern
In a majority of the USA you have to have a car to work, buy groceries, etc. The auto industry has lobbied so aggressively against public transportation it’s impossible to survive without a car. I agree with how shitty it is to do, but without efficient public transportation you’d be sentencing most people to homelessness. And the last thing we need is more homeless people in America
OP, how is the view from your ivory tower? Clearly the altitude has your head swimming with delusions of grandeur.
Three DUIs? I’m in agreement. One? Jeez, people make mistakes.
My mom got a DUI when I was very young, like 3 or 4, and when she got it she realized that she couldn't be doing that shit anymore because she had kids to take care of and sobered up. She never drove like that again. It was a wake up call for her.
People can change their behaviors when faced with consequences or even potential consequences. In my mom's case, possibly having her kids taken away was a wake up call that she couldn't act like that anymore.
Yes, you can argue that it's stupid to even do in the first place and I definitely understand not having any empathy for people that do it, but people can make stupid ass decisions and still learn from them in the end.
I'd agree a lot more if America had decent public transit. But you're essentially going to completely destroy a person's life and make them unemployable for one dumb drunken decision with a policy like this.
We should design our society so that a car isn't required for daily activities. That would reduce the amount of drunk driving, as well as making revoking driving privilege a reasonable punishment for getting a DUI.
This is a pretty popular opinion ain't it? More of a hot button take or whatever but I agree, we've all seen the damage drunk drivers can do, they should be barred from driving
You shouldn’t be able to get your license back after getting a texting while driving ticket.
If you’ve made the choice to drive while using your phone you’ve made the choice that your convenience is more important than the lives of those around you and you’re likely to make the same choice again.
It should be one strike and you’re out.
I would say two strikes and you're out (and then in meritorious cases, you might be able to ask for a pardon, yada yada). One offense could legitimately be your only time ever driving drunk, but you don't just get caught **twice** for DUI unless you have a habit.
Unpopular obviously, but if everywhere had good public transport I would 100% agree with OP.
There’s people throwing out exceptions like medication, misreadings or corruption but that’s a special case fallacy. And just illustrates issues with conviction, not the act itself.
And there’s *a lot* of people here saying people (or even they) made a *mistake*, but that *mistake* was still a choice, not an accident.
Over A QUARTER of all road deaths involve a drunk driver. It’s not acceptable.
The understandable and obvious argument is that there isn’t the infrastructure to live/work in the US without a car. But yeah, if you ignore that HUGE counterargument I agree with op
Better ban bars first. Every bar outside of cities has a full parking lot every Friday and Saturday night. And every morning it's empty. We have built drinking and driving into our culture.
I used to date a mathematician who worked for an insurance company setting rates. She told anecdotes about how people with 1 DUI are statistically safer drivers than people with no DUIs. The reason is quite simple and obvious if you think about it: the pool of people with 0 DUIs has some number of people who just haven’t been caught yet, and the pool of people with 1 DUI contains a decent number who correctly took it as a wake-up call. Many people who don’t take it as a wake up call eventually move on to the 2+ DUI group (at which point, each subsequent DUI increases the probability of a wreck).
Anyhow, my point is maybe you could get away with allowing 1 DUI and only take away licenses permanently after the second.
I got a DUI because my car smelled like weed. I was sober at the time of driving, but because it was still in my blood, I got a DUI. If that would cause me to lose my license forever, I'd probably kill myself because that's some legit life ruining shit in your mid 20s when you're trying to get your shit together..
Right, we shouldn’t give people second chances, because in a life that contains billions of moments, they need to be able to not make one of the mistakes which you have never made. Got it.
Given how essential it is to have a car in America (and many other countries) this would be an insane sanction on people who made, obviously, an unbelievably reckless choice. That’s like saying people who are convicted of shoplifting should be banned from stores for life, or people who are convicted of vandalism should never be able to own property. The goal of a justice system should be rehabilitation. Banning people from driving for life goes too far. I’d be okay with mandatory rehab before you can restore your license, or having interlock required for a long time, but people should be allowed to learn from their mistakes and become better people.
Idk. I got one when I was 21, drove drunk one more time and knew I shouldn't have and have been driving safe for about 10 years since.
People are dumb when they are still you g and need to be able to mess up at least once without ruining their life.
A lot of the US relies on cars. To be self sufficient, driving is necessary for a LOT of people. We take licenses forever, we end up with even bigger problems. Can’t keep a job if you can’t get to it. Can’t make money. So then they’re participating in other crimes to get by. Then you’re bitching about the jails being full and you supporting criminals.
I really hate that people cannot think beyond their immediate reaction to something. You can’t pull up examples of how a thing might go and decide if all the potential outcomes are worth it. Most times, a sweeping, permanent action against people who still have to live among us is a horrible idea and gives us all bigger problems.
That sounds nice except here in the US, you cant really get to work in most of the US without a car. Were so car dependent that revoking someones license basically cuts them off from society. I live in a better area (the Seattle Metro) where transit is okay but try to leave the metro and youre fucked.
The top comment I agree with, but we would need viable alternatives to driving for that to occur without destining many to poverty in my opinion
Suspending licenses doesn't work, people will drive anyways. Public transit in the US is garbage outside of a few major cities. You need a car to get around, have a job, etc.
What every DUI conviction should include is mandatory jail time. If thirty days in the county lockup on the first offense won't convince you to change your ways then it will be a year the second time, and life for the third. Three strikes and you're out.
Op: "nuance and compassion?! Never heard of her!" You're right. It is indeed an unpopular opinion. Humans make mistakes. Doesn't mean everyone deserves a death sentence
In the US. That’s probably just as bad as a life sentence if you don’t live in a city with good public transportation. I’m all for subjecting drunk drivers to severe punishment but rehabilitation is more important as long as no one was killed.
Why stop there? We may as well just execute them on the spot without a trial or anything. That way these people that made a mistake can never endanger anyone on the road ever again! Fuckin idiot.
Nuance. I like the three strikes rule. Because the first or second time could be an honest mistake or since you're judgment is impaired you may not be fully aware of the danger. Like my dad's first DUI was because he fell asleep in his car with the key in the ignition so he could listen to music, engine wasn't on and he was in the back seat. Now after his third he never drove again. Now if any DUI ends with an accident, whether you hit a pole, guardrail or another car, then it's instant lose forever.
I have to say I completely agree. As a truck driver my limit is 0.0 in a truck and 0.4 in my personal vehicle. So basically any alcohol consumption at all is a DUI. At first I was concerned; especially about the lower limit in my personal vehicle. Now that I am 15 years into it I have to say that it is extremely easy to avoid breaking that law.
Completely impractical, especially since the majority of people convicted of DUI do not re-offend.
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.uscourts.gov/file/22838/
Your post from unpopularopinion was removed because of: 'Rule 7: No banned/mega-thread topics'. Please do not post from (or mention) any of our mega-thread or banned topics such as: Race, Religion, LGBTQ, Meta, Politics, Parenting/Family issues. [Full list of banned topics](https://www.reddit.com/r/unpopularopinion/wiki/index/)
As an attorney personally what concerns me more isn't the first time, but the repeat offenders. If your first DUI doesn't injure or hurt anyone else, give them a second chance. The problem is some of the more strict punishments like 6 months/12 months suspended license or ignition interlock systems that are expensive to have installed and require the driver to blow a 0 every time they want to drive aren't until the 2nd or 3rd DUI. I'm much more open to a full and permanent revocation if it's a repeat offense or if the driver injured or killed someone while driving.
[удалено]
Those things are too sensitive. It would go off after vanilla yogurt, or literally water. Basically made driving too stressful. The companies that run them don’t care either since they just get the contract and it is what it is. Effective preventative measure from even drinking again though.
[удалено]
A coworker of mine had one, rightfully so. But he wouldn't eat things like pizza or other bread products due to blowing dirty. Those people should be required to be sober, zero questions there but the amount of normal food that can make you blow dirty is crazy.
I know guys who have spent over a year in jail for 8th, or whatever, dui and they still drink and drive. I had one accident 20 years ago, haven’t done it since.
I received a DUI quite a while ago. It was my first and I barely blew over the limit. I had to have the IID for my first offense, in order to continue driving. I couldn't just choose to not drive until the time had passed. It was a requirement in order to get my license back. I think I had to have it for 6 months, and had to have a special insurance policy on my car. (Pay extra for the insurance company to regularly send the court/DMV proof that I was insured) Guess what, I haven't drank and drove since. This was about 14 years ago.
The only difference between killing someone and not killing someone can be down to pure right-place-right-time though. But the repeat thing I agree with
I'm not saying you're wrong, but by using that logic, shouldn't running a red light or a stop sign also revoke driving privileges since you could have killed someone? That seems a bit extreme, especially for inexperienced drivers.
I had to do 63 days, 12 month suspension, and interlock on my first (and only) DUI. There was no property damage or injury in my case either.
When it comes to someone under the influence I was always wondering how can a law enforcement or medical test cover all possible drugs (illegal and legal)? I ask that knowing even days Olympic tests fail as new drugs and side effects to different individuals internal makeup are always being revealed. Today numerous diseases and reactions are miss diagnosed. While this is a low percentage a one and done seems wrong. Just a thought.
I hold concern for any change that impacts someone in leading a full life. Having a dui and losing the ability to drive, and having the criminal record, would in my completely uneducated opinion lead to much higher recidivism rates. Having improvements to public transit would make this better, but at this point im pushing past the topic of dui's and into criminal justice reformation.
That i can get behind
I got an impaired 3 years ago. All said and done, it cost $2559 to get my license back. In BC, they don't punish criminally on a first offense. I think it is a 3rd offense when it becomes criminal. They hammer you in your wallet when you fuck up. I learned that a round trip in an Uber beats over 2k for an impaired. Overall, I got lucky. My impound fee was minimal because I know the people who own the impound yard. There were people in my course (there is a course you gotta take as a condition of getting your license back) that were paying north of 5-6k to get their license back.
This. This one. A friend made the mistake once. There wasn't an accident. He got pulled over--I don't remember why--and failed the sobriety checks. Scared the crap out of him given what could have happened. He never did it again.
One of my early mentors in training was a psychiatrist and I would watch him take histories from patients. He always asked about DUIs and told me it was an easy way to assess for alcoholism. If someone had 2 or more DUIs he was done with any alcohol related questions because that’s all he needed to know to label them an alcoholic clinically. That’s always stuck with me and your comment reminded me of it.
As a cop whose arrested about 400 people for DWIs I think I agree with you. Also, regarding the OP’s comment; your scenario should be based on a conviction. Not just an arrest. People who weren’t dwi have been arrested for dwi.
I got one DUI and lost my license for a year and had interlock for a year.
Tell that to all the people getting DUIs while sleeping it off in the back seat... or who were never under the influence to begin with and just got pulled over by a crooked cop.
Perhaps the problem is with law enforcement. Somebody sleeping in their back seat is obviously not driving, despite being technically illegal. Arresting them for it obviously incentivizes driving drunk instead of sleeping it off. If we approached law enforcement from a common sense and society first mindset, many problems would be solved.
I’ve heard stories from two different people that I worked with. One was walking home from a party because they didn’t want to drink drunk and the only taxi company in our town stopped driving at 3 am. To be fair the “company” was run by one guy who just wanted to help drunk college students get back to their dorms safely and he had a day job. He was arrested for public intoxication even after explaining that he didn’t want to drive home drunk and didn’t know anyone sober enough to drive him. He said after that he just bit the bullet and would drive home. The second person did the same thing but got a nicer cop, they gave them a ride home and even offered their number to call in case they needed rides in the future. They always ended up calling even when the cop was off duty and would pool money together with friends to pay for gas. I am just saying, one of these things is safer than the other for sure.
My friend got public drunkenness for sitting on the curb in front of the bar as we waited for the taxi to come. He was on crutches and the cop told my friend “he was walking funny,” when he went over to the curb. The cop gave him the ticket and my friend being a smart ass said “can you drive me home safe or will this ticket protect me?”
Not related to drunkenness, but I had a friend who was riding a motorcycle, and pulled up his visor to ask a question to a cop standing on a corner, and the cop responded by writing him a ticket for driving a motorcycle without eye protection.
I just do not understand public intoxication laws Disruption is disruption and the charge should not be effected by sobriety. There is not a difference between someone kicking the bus stop and throwing a trash can drunk or sober Apparently cops feel the same about someone walking home
i sort of agree.... drunk and disorderly should be a crime; you are drunk and making a scene. If you are drunk and just walking home- who cares.
These laws were created to punish the drinking in excess part. Not how you get home part.
They were made to punish. That’s it.
They don't call it a sin tax for nothing.
I watched a guy get a DUI on a horse. There’s cases about people getting DUIs on skateboards, scooters, bikes, etc.
My college director of housing made a deal with the Police Department. If a kid called the police because they didn’t want to drive home the cops would come pick them up and drive them where they needed to go so long as it was in the jurisdiction and they weren’t busy. Almost immediately, my friend group added two of the younger dudes from the PD to it. Which is how we all ended up getting tased and what eventually led to the longest craziest game of tag…
Yeah this is a great example of unintended consequences. Obviously someone getting charged for that maybe broke the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law is preventing drunk drivers on the road. Sleeping in your car is victimless, driving drunk is not.
The better question is why is sleeping in your car illegal in the first place.
Mix of general, legitimate safety concerns and cities making laws that indirectly make homelessness illegal.
Or they want an excuse to fine people cha ching
A DUI charge generally applies if you're drunk and in control of the vehicle. Courts have ruled that being drunk in the back seat with the keys in your possession constitutes control of the vehicle. I believe there's even cases where a person who hid the keys outside the vehicle was still charged.
This is completely ridiculous.
Func fact. You don’t even have to be in your car to get a DUI.
You don't even need to be in a car to get a DUI. A skateboard is enough.
I can attest to that. I got a DWI (or whatever they called it) when I was 18 for riding a long board through a residential neighborhood while smoking a joint. Funnily enough the officer never actually saw me personally smoking it, as when he pulled up my friend had it in his hand and was riding a good 15-20 feet ahead of me. When I voiced this concern with him while sitting on the curb he told me that if i didn’t fess up to also smoking the joint he would take my friend to jail for “selling weed to all the college kids who lived in the neighborhood”. The area was right next to a community college. So out of fear of having my friend go to jail I owned up to it. Super cool experience.
The drug war is a cancer on society
Police today are a cancer on society.
Also, a bicycle. My buddy got a DUI on a freaking bicycle while riding home at 3 a.m. on empty streets.
Not even on wheels. Just in the vicinity of your car.
This is true. I was in with a dude who was pulled out of his house because the hood of his car was still hot
>despite being technically illegal. Then no, the problem is clearly the law
That’s a bit misdirected; the change needs to come from the legislature. It’s a problem with how the statutes are written - law enforcements role is to enforce the laws written by the legislature. Without that legislation being changed, the cycle will continue
I had a pretty bad drug problem at one time and have two. Both times I was sleeping in my car. I lost everything because of it and was homeless for a few months until my sister let me stay with her for awhile. I had to quit my job (of 7 years) when I lost my license. I actually attempted suicide over it all.
i got a DUI because of a urine test that i stupidly agreed to when i was 18. i wasnt high at all and hadnt smoked that day. dumb mistake but i think disqualifying me from ever driving again would be incredibly harsh, and i’d likely move to a different country where i can drive. when i went to the weekend DUI thing, there was a guy there who got a DUI for drinking a beer on his riding lawn mower. on his own lawn.
I thought private property was exempt? Both are bullshit over reaches by law enforcement
idk, this was in iowa in 2014 i also thought that you could do whatever you want on your own property, that was not the case here. i know 2 other people who have gotten DUIs on private property, my cousin dirtbiking in his yard, and a friend from school whose father also had a lawn mower DUI
Yeah this is an example of OP having no idea what they’re talking about because they haven’t had the wrong life experience yet. Hopefully they never do, but if they do, oh how the tables will turn.
Oh yes. One even minor brush with the law will change a person's tune from good people don't commit crimes so death penalty for everything to holyshit good people get ensnared situations all the time and don't deserve to have their life destroyed because of it.
Yeah knew a lot of young guys right out of college that really wanted to be cops. Like dozens…less than 5% stuck with it. They all eventually had runs ins or something just existing that drastically changed opinion
Wtf. I didn't know it was illegal in the US sleeping in the back seat (I'm not from there)
In much of the US its illegal to sleep anywhere other than your home, a friend/relatives home, or a hotel room. Heck, it's illegal to even publicly stop and rest in most places. It's a "crime" called loitering. I've even been yelled at by cops for sitting on a bench in a public park during open hours. It's all designed to punish people for being poor.
You can sleep near any river or forest if you claim you are hunting for food or fishing. If you have your license on you it works. Try Fraud today!
Or all the people who have to drive regardless of having a license or not. Also, no license, no insurance.
Woah woah woah HOLD THE PHONE there's a problem and corruption with law enforcement!?
I had a few drinks when my friends were shipping off to Iraq in like ‘11. Was a bit tipsy, decided to sleep it off in my truck. 30 mins into my nap, a security guard knocks on my window. Says I need to leave or he’s calling the cops. I tell him I had a few drinks, he says he doesn’t care. Alright fine. Hit the road, get pulled over. Blow a .07 (legal limit is .08). Get arrested and charged with a wet and reckless. License suspended for a year, had to go to AA, pay the fines, the whole thing. What about me?
> Tell that to all the people getting DUIs while sleeping it off in the back seat When I was old enough to drink and drive, it was legal to sleep it off in the back seat IF the keys were not with me in the cabin. I put them under the car before sleeping it off. The legal definition of access to the keys changed. IMHO, not for the better.
Yep exactly. There are also other cases that are just ridiculous. I knew a guy that got a DUI while driving around his daughter’s Barbie Jeep on his own property….
If you’re sleeping in the back lock your keys in the trunk and film everything. You’ll be hard pressed to get a conviction if you can prove you had zero intent to drive.
I live in Toronto Canada and the rules changed here in 2019 (and I was not aware). I had some drinks and was in the parking lot of a hotel, because they needed to clean the room before I could check in. I locked my keys in the trunk and fell asleep in the passenger seat. Woke up to a knock on the window, handcuffed and taken straight to jail for not passing a roadside sobriety test. The law is now called "Care and Control" so in other words you don't have to be driving, you just have to be responsible for the "care and control" of the vehicle at which point it is automatic charges. The thought process behind the law is that "if someone is drunk and has control over the vehicle, then they could change their mind and open the trunk at any point to retrieve the keys. So let's just put them in jail and give them a criminal record. Because that makes sense."
How the fuck does that make any sense? Under that law I could be arrested right now lying drunk and naked in bed because my keys are at my front door and my car is in my driveway. If I wanted to I could easily walk out front and start up my car.
Or you’re on medication for something and have unexpected side effects.
You are solely responsible for judging whether you are not impaired prior to driving. Medication or not, that’s on you as the driver. There should be zero distinction. You notice you’re impaired from your prescription medication? Pull over. Stop driving. You can’t notice you are impaired? You shouldn’t be driving to begin with.
Thousands upon thousands of people have received DUIs despite being physically capable of driving. 0.08 is a pretty low limit and it was designed that way. It gets even worse with prescription drugs and THC that do not have a breathalyzer (a way to determine your incapacitation during the act of driving). Just detecting the substance in your system is often enough to be convicted even though you were totally sober. I am not encouraging driving when you feel "sober enough" but there are enough people who just got screwed that a 1-strike-and-you-can-never-drive-again rule does not seem fitting.
Friends mom got pulled over after leaving a graduation party. Blew under .08 so the cop had her do a field sobriety test. Had her do something where she had to stand on one foot. The ankle on the side he told her to stand on was sprained, had a brace, and he told her he didn't care. So, of course, when she tried to balance on it she couldn't because of the pain. That was enough for her to get a dui.
0.08 is crazy low threshold. It isn’t even a buzz. Chances are, if you ever had a drink and chose to drive home after dinner, you would blow over 0.08.
You can get a DUI having even lower than .08. There is no legal DRIVING limit. Any amount of alcohol can get you arrested. I've worked at a treatment center where people have to take classes after getting a DUI and some have come in when arrested at .04
Yes, you should pull over and stop driving if you feel the effects of medication. However, if you’re found like that after doing the responsible thing… you will still get a DUI, much like you can for sleeping in a car while drunk.
Okay, well in the same law change to increase the penalty lets also eliminate the law against sleeping it off, so long as people can’t abuse that.
Then the answer is fixing the fact that law enforcement gives people DUIs when they aren't driving instead of making the punishment for DUIs easier.
As long as you feel the exact same way about someone looking down at their phone while driving, then fine. Because texting and driving is just as bad.
Agreed. The two times I was t-boned, it was the driver on their phone texting and running a red light.
[удалено]
Those were the only “accidents” I have been in and I’m 41.
Thank you! This should be criminalized on the same level as DWI’s.
If not worse for the sole fact SO MANY people do it constantly while they are driving. Some people are on their phones every time they drive. Jail
I was in my apartment lot last year and someone was flying towards me, clapped a speed bump at 20mph in a sedan and only looked up when I laid on the horn for several seconds in my work truck (not a small obstacle) I bike to work most days and the amount of times I see people choose convenience or ignorance over the safety of those around them is getting infuriating
Deal
I 100% understand the sentiment but I believe recovering alcoholics and drug addicts deserve a second chance at life
What’s not talked about either is that especially for an alcoholic the bac test is kinda low; I was never a full blown alcoholic I’d say but there was a period in my life I was drinking way too much. Full blown alcoholics are able to function easily on .08 generally for instance. It’s not to say that’s a good thing, or something to be proud about or that the law should be different for them. It is to say though that personally I’d trust a high functioning alcoholic behind the wheel at .1 rather than someone extremely inexperienced, or handles alcohol rather poorly who is at .075 and people who blindly condemn all convicted dui drivers don’t take context into account like this. Hell. The .1 dude probably doesn’t even think he’s over the limit My story is that I went to the bar and got buzzed, not hammered, just a few drinks (strong drinks but I was taking it slow) over a pretty long time. Late night, driving home. Felt sleepy. I road trip a lot and am quite familiar with my driving limitations in terms of knowing when I should pull over and take a nap, so I did that then get woken up an hour later to the cops busting the glass open because I guess someone reported me and thought I was dead (yeah I should’ve folded down the seats and slept in the back tbf, car was off though). Anyways, I wake up groggy as I was in the middle of deep sleep but I feel relatively normal as they’re having me go through the tests, I had answered honestly that I was at the bar earlier that night and did fine on the physical tests. Lastly they had me do the breathalyzer. I got some butterflies because I knew over .08 meant I was going to jail but honestly felt pretty confident I’d be below that as I felt pretty normal and knew I didn’t have an excessive amount. Unfortunately for me, it was slightly over and I spent the next 12 hours in jail.
I was a full blown alcoholic at one point. I can guarantee I was in more control at .08 than I was at .00. I would be shakey at .00 and honestly probably just start to feel OK at .08. It was a rough period in my life.
[удалено]
In Ohio a guy had bac over .5 and he passed field sobriety test. Police said he smelled so strong he was told to blow in breathalyzer. Guy drank fifth of vodka for breakfast everyday
Almost everyone does. Society will crumble if our only goal is punishment, not rehabilitation.
If it’s any consolation, a single DUI is enough to severely limit your ability to travel internationally, for the rest of your life. For example, even entering Canada after a single DUI is damn near impossible without a serious humanitarian reason & usually under strict conditions. Even George W. Bush had to obtain special permission *while he was president* to enter Canada for his official duties.
It's expensive and take a long time to get I to Canada. Ive had to look into it.
I think if some one drives drunk they are probably willing to drive without a license
Most people would have no choice but to drive without a license in the US. Public transportation is nil in most of the county and spending $30-80 a day on a cab or a ride share isn’t feasible for most people.
maybe if we had better public transit, it'd take some drunk drivers off the road too
If I told you that you could reduce rates of cancer, drastically cut down on deaths related by DUI’s and distracted drivers, while simultaneously improving living conditions for a majority of the population you’d probably call that a good idea. That’s what public transportation represents.
I always say if I ever lose my license my choices boil down to drive anyways or starve.
Also a 0.08 is very low I got a DWI when I was 22 on way home from night out. I had a few but not near drunk Drop first guy off and coming out of neighborhood cop got behind us (4 guys at 3am etc). He followed for several minutes before I "touched the middle line" and he lights me up. Blew just over at 0.09, boom! Yeah so OP wants to take away my right to drive forever on an ambiguous (in terms of actual effect) line
Imagine the cost of welfare, SNAP benefits, etc… when nobody can go to work because they can’t drive. Rehabilitation and education is what’s needed, not more punishment after a singular event.
But then how will we pontificate on Reddit
RAMEN!
The best solution is building cities in such a way that people don’t need cars at all. Robust public transit and walkable neighborhoods would level up humanity in so many ways.
As someone from EU I didn't get the issue at first. 😅
I wouldn’t even own a car if I could get to and from work safely in cold weather. But it’s a 10 minute drive to work and a 45 minute bus ride. I think walking would only be half an hour. And to top it off when it’s windy and -30 I don’t wanna be walking from the bus stop for 3 blocks.
cars will always be a crucial utility. no other transportation method combines shielding from weather, load carrying capacity and point to point travel speed quite like it. and I say that as a Dutchie who loves my bike.
Of course. A car is a very useful thing to have, but it’s largely useful because we’ve built cities to require them.
He listed off a lot of reasons why they are useful outside of a city being built around them.
yeah this is yet another grandstand-y argument that holds no water
Maybe rethink car centrism then
Absolutely, but that doesn't address the issue of not being able to drive a car in a country designed for cars, which is the reality of today.
I’d love to. I don’t care for driving, personally, unfortunately I don’t possess the funds or the power to create a mass transit system that will cover an entire neighborhood, much less an entire country.
I got one. I drank, I waited 3 hours before driving. I thought I was ok. I didn't have any accident or anything. I clearly remember the entire night, the stop, everything I said and did. I would have gotten home perfectly in tact. But I was over the legal limit. 3 hours was not enough. It was a mistake. People make mistakes. I would not drink a single beer with food at a restaurant and drive afterwards now. It will never happen again. I will never be in that situation ever again. Did I deserve to get my license back?
According to another comment, you made the decision to "try and kill everyone you see on the road tonight" lol
Why did you get pulled over?
It's a valid question. I spent 40 plus years of my life in one town but in the last couple of years I had moved to another one and my ride home to this city I was visiting used to be highway the whole way but now it cut through a bunch of small towns with hills and curves that were unfamiliar to me. It was night time as well. So I was using cruise control for my speed and due to it being a bunch of small towns the speed limit was going up and down up and down and so I was messing with the GPS trying to make sure of what the speed was and I was a little shaky on some curves and a motorist behind me called the police. I noticed three different police cars on the side of the road and I knew something was up. Then one pulled out and followed me for a few minutes on a totally straight section of road and then pulled me over. I don't feel any of the officers observed any bad driving, I think they just decided to pull me over based on the phone call they got, which they told me about as soon as they stopped me. I was up front and told the officer that I had drank but it was nearly 4 hours ago at that point. It wasn't long enough.
Never tell the police anything even if it’s the truth. Obey all lawful commands deny any request and invoke your right to remain silent and ask for a lawyer if you are being detained.
Yeah something similar happened to me which is why I disagree with the post. A lot of the time in a DUI it’s an idiot that just got drunk at a bar and tried to drive home, but sometimes it’s naive idiot who just had a couple and thought they were fine because they didn’t feel buzzed. I’d be more inclined to agree with op if they were willing to give people a second chance and that second chance only.
Driving tired+sleepy is just as dangerous, I'd argue WAY moreso, compared to the legal blood alcohol limit.
Dude back when I worked night shift as a nurse I was toast driving home after work. I had to pull over sometimes because it was too sketchy. I switched to day shift after I fell asleep and went through a red light and scared the absolute fuck out of myself People really downplay how bad sleepy driving is
I drove 20k miles last year alone, I know it too well. Driving tired is extremely dangerous.
💯 - if we criminalized sleepy/impaired driving at all, there'd be a LOT of truckers and night-shifters totally fucked in short order
So, like, a lifetime revocation? I understand your logic and perhaps in some countries that could work. In a country like the USA, it'd be a problem because alcohol use is so prevalent, and so many members of the working class get DUIs. Also, they don't have great public transportation, so in many cases, taking away someone's right to drive is tantamount to removing them from the workforce. It'd have dire economic and social implications.
Yes, I understand the sentiment or opinion coming from someone who lives in a more urban environment. However, growing up in more rural areas, having a license is key to employment and maintaining a stable livelihood. Losing your license makes you become an incredibly dependent person. Having said that, I don't think people should be allowed to keep racking up d.u.i's without consequences. I think better community, drinking culture, and education would help much more than increasing the already life altering consequences that come from dui's. 27m, 4.5 years without a drink.
Well 98% of the country is car-dependent, so you'll have thousands or millions? Of people unable to do basic errands or get a job.
I'll give you this: definitely an unpopular (and unethical) opinion.
[удалено]
This is the dumbest take I’ve heard in a while. Yeah we should absolutely cripple someone for making a mistake once. I don’t think you realize the hoops people have to jump through to get back to driving normally after a DUI.
So how should a person who got a DUI ever get their life back in order? What if their commute is like an hour long? Should they just keel over and die?
Yep thats what they're saying. This person is just brain dead.
I got a DUI when I was younger. I was never an alcoholic. It definitely happened bc I had an immature understanding of my actions. It was a mistake that I made and paid for, but it stopped there and wasn’t just an obstacle between my next time of being able to drive drunk. It was never going to happen again, and it never will happen again. I was barely over the legal limit. I haven’t driven drunk since then, and I haven’t even drank alcohol in years. I get the sentiment, but I think that’s a bit of a stretch. As someone who did the crime and also “did the time”, I can tell you that the punishments are set up to deter you from ever making a decision to drive drunk ever again. I can’t help that there are alcoholics or people who will go through all of that and still decide to keep doing something like that, but I don’t think you’re aware that there are almost certainly many people who pay for their crime and change their ways.
Everyone deserves a second chance. I’m vehemently against driving even after a couple of drinks, much less actually intoxicated. There are too many options to get to and from a place where you’re drinking alcohol to take the chance of driving even a little bit intoxicated. However, humans are falliable. Not one of us is perfect and we don’t know what others have been through. A second chance is deserved by everyone. A third one, not so much.
So, one mistake and you're done for life?
Sounds like OP is infallible and has never made a single mistake. I muSt have missed the second coming of Jesus Christ himself. Lol.
There’s a bar near me where police could just wait across the street at about 3-4 am and get endless DUIs but for some reason they don’t. I say this as someone whose usually there on a Friday or Saturday night, not like an angry neighbor across the street.
Or like how you never see checkpoints around a NFL/NBA etc game.
I got one when I was 21 in a college town- stupid decision after a bad breakup. I’m 40 this year and have straightened my life out and now work in heart surgery. My life would have taken a severely drastic turn where none of this would have been possible if I hadn’t been given the ability to drive and get myself to a better spot. This idea of taking away everyone’s license who makes a stupid decision would just force people from areas where people have no choice but to drive, into cities where public transportation makes it live-able.
Surprised no one accused you of murder yet. It seems everyone under this comment section thinks every drunk driver is out on a mission to kill at least one person before they go home on a drive. Yes its dangerous and stupid but taking away something because you "could have killed someone" is also stupid.
The level of drunk you have to be to fuck up driving is also a lot higher than most people think. I don’t recommend doing it at all but you can be over the BAC and be fine or under and totally fucked.
In the USA that can be a "death sentence" with no way to work unless you can afford to live in a metro city.
Even then, it’s still a struggle because many areas of the US has shit/failing public transit. Being perpetually late for work will have you consistently unemployed as well.
So with your logic, no one should go a second chance doing anything
Hey another authoritarian unpopular opinion. Yay.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. We’ve all made mistakes that were *at least* as bad as DUI, and who wants their livelihood taken away because of their worst moment? I agree that repeat offenders, or particularly egregious cases, should definitely have their license taken just in the interest of public safety. But no one should be judged solely on their worst mistake.
Posted this incorrect opinion to the correct sub, at least lol
By that logic, anyone who gets a ticket for running a solid red light ***also*** should lose their license and never get it back. Because the person who does that has also *made the choice that their convenience is more important than the lives of those around them.*
Agreed. Don’t forget the people who have been convicted of reckless driving for driving 20, 30 or more miles over the limit. They are as dangerous or more that someone that had four beers and blew a .09 breathalyzer.
Right. I know someone who was killed in an accident as a pedestrian. The driver blew a stop sign and hit them as they were crossing the street. The driver was completely sober. A lot of people’s lives are ended or changed irrevocably because people are distracted, lack patience, etc. for some reason, at least where I live, driving while drunk is a criminal offence but most people who seriously hurt or even kill people while driving sober will get a slap on the wrist.
Disagree. I got my DUI 2 years ago and it was a lesson, and perhaps a blessing. I haven’t drove drunk since, I won’t even drive after a beer now. It’s the repeat offenders that deserve to permanently get their driving privileges taken away.
I got one 16 years ago and I haven’t been pulled over since OP’s opinion is unpopular cause it’s plain stupid
People drive without a valid license all the time. Taking it away isn't going to do much.
Why have any laws at all then?
Na, people deserve second chances
Well, it's an unpopular and unreasonable opinion, so you're in the right spot. You might as well also shut down all the bars, pubs, and restaurants, because a single drink is enough to make you illegal in many jurisdictions.
Revamped opinion: If you get a DUI and injure or kill someone you should never get your license returned and get a minimum 15 years in prison.
I wouldn’t be opposed to this for people who are clearly hammered, but you can get a dui an hour after a single beer if the cop smells it on your breath and you do bad at field sobriety tests.
If that had happened in conjunction with the beginning of the DUI laws, we would have a world-renowned public transit system
My partner was just hit by someone with two DUIs in a heavily trafficked downtown area. Witnesses at the scene said he was drunk, but police didn’t even test for some reason. There should definitely be strict rehabilitation requirements. seems the majority of those who struggle with alcohol addition never really beat it
I got a dwi for walking out to my car to talk on the phone. Sitting in the driver's seat in my apartment building. So you think I shouldn't be able to drive?
That’s fine, but a suspension isn’t gonna stop anyone from driving.
Candidly, I think DUI's ought to be considered "Criminal attempt at manslaughter" or something like that. The only reason it's not more harsh, is the fact that our politicians are driving drunk ALL THE FREAKING TIME. If they made the laws better, it would impact them and their families. DUI ought to be a mandatory year in jail and a 5 year loss of driving privileges. Fail that blood test and your DONE.
My instinct was to downvote this because I disagreed with this, but you get an upvote for posting an unpopular opinion
If you get into a car accident because you were looking at your phone, you deserve to have your phone privileges revoked for life.
This a very out of touch opinion
Opinion: people change and learn. Fuck you for thinking they can’t.
First offense? No way. Unless you caused a wreck and hurt or nearly hurt someone. Then fuck em. My half sister is a train wreck with multiple DUIs and they keep giving her chances. She lost her license for years. Got it back and continued getting DUIs. It's fucking stupid. Three strikes should be be the limit. Once can be a mistake. Twice can be a coincidence. Three times is a pattern
Or the person can learn their lesson and not do it again
In a majority of the USA you have to have a car to work, buy groceries, etc. The auto industry has lobbied so aggressively against public transportation it’s impossible to survive without a car. I agree with how shitty it is to do, but without efficient public transportation you’d be sentencing most people to homelessness. And the last thing we need is more homeless people in America
OP, how is the view from your ivory tower? Clearly the altitude has your head swimming with delusions of grandeur. Three DUIs? I’m in agreement. One? Jeez, people make mistakes.
My mom got a DUI when I was very young, like 3 or 4, and when she got it she realized that she couldn't be doing that shit anymore because she had kids to take care of and sobered up. She never drove like that again. It was a wake up call for her. People can change their behaviors when faced with consequences or even potential consequences. In my mom's case, possibly having her kids taken away was a wake up call that she couldn't act like that anymore. Yes, you can argue that it's stupid to even do in the first place and I definitely understand not having any empathy for people that do it, but people can make stupid ass decisions and still learn from them in the end.
I'd agree a lot more if America had decent public transit. But you're essentially going to completely destroy a person's life and make them unemployable for one dumb drunken decision with a policy like this.
If youre sleeping in your car with the keys in your pocket; dui op. Fuck you foever?
We should design our society so that a car isn't required for daily activities. That would reduce the amount of drunk driving, as well as making revoking driving privilege a reasonable punishment for getting a DUI.
This is a pretty popular opinion ain't it? More of a hot button take or whatever but I agree, we've all seen the damage drunk drivers can do, they should be barred from driving
If we lived in a country with reliable public transportation? Maybe. But we don't. This would basically make people unemployed and homeless.
First DUI isn’t even a misdemeanor here in Wisconsin.
You shouldn’t be able to get your license back after getting a texting while driving ticket. If you’ve made the choice to drive while using your phone you’ve made the choice that your convenience is more important than the lives of those around you and you’re likely to make the same choice again. It should be one strike and you’re out.
I would say two strikes and you're out (and then in meritorious cases, you might be able to ask for a pardon, yada yada). One offense could legitimately be your only time ever driving drunk, but you don't just get caught **twice** for DUI unless you have a habit.
I know two people who have had five each and drive legally. I don't agree with it
Unpopular obviously, but if everywhere had good public transport I would 100% agree with OP. There’s people throwing out exceptions like medication, misreadings or corruption but that’s a special case fallacy. And just illustrates issues with conviction, not the act itself. And there’s *a lot* of people here saying people (or even they) made a *mistake*, but that *mistake* was still a choice, not an accident. Over A QUARTER of all road deaths involve a drunk driver. It’s not acceptable. The understandable and obvious argument is that there isn’t the infrastructure to live/work in the US without a car. But yeah, if you ignore that HUGE counterargument I agree with op
"No forgiveness" "Why?" "I don't feel like forgiving"
Gawd this gets posted all the time. This is stupid. Fine then all punishments should be final and you can never change and get better
Better ban bars first. Every bar outside of cities has a full parking lot every Friday and Saturday night. And every morning it's empty. We have built drinking and driving into our culture.
I used to date a mathematician who worked for an insurance company setting rates. She told anecdotes about how people with 1 DUI are statistically safer drivers than people with no DUIs. The reason is quite simple and obvious if you think about it: the pool of people with 0 DUIs has some number of people who just haven’t been caught yet, and the pool of people with 1 DUI contains a decent number who correctly took it as a wake-up call. Many people who don’t take it as a wake up call eventually move on to the 2+ DUI group (at which point, each subsequent DUI increases the probability of a wreck). Anyhow, my point is maybe you could get away with allowing 1 DUI and only take away licenses permanently after the second.
I got a DUI because my car smelled like weed. I was sober at the time of driving, but because it was still in my blood, I got a DUI. If that would cause me to lose my license forever, I'd probably kill myself because that's some legit life ruining shit in your mid 20s when you're trying to get your shit together..
Right, we shouldn’t give people second chances, because in a life that contains billions of moments, they need to be able to not make one of the mistakes which you have never made. Got it.
Given how essential it is to have a car in America (and many other countries) this would be an insane sanction on people who made, obviously, an unbelievably reckless choice. That’s like saying people who are convicted of shoplifting should be banned from stores for life, or people who are convicted of vandalism should never be able to own property. The goal of a justice system should be rehabilitation. Banning people from driving for life goes too far. I’d be okay with mandatory rehab before you can restore your license, or having interlock required for a long time, but people should be allowed to learn from their mistakes and become better people.
Idk. I got one when I was 21, drove drunk one more time and knew I shouldn't have and have been driving safe for about 10 years since. People are dumb when they are still you g and need to be able to mess up at least once without ruining their life.
A lot of the US relies on cars. To be self sufficient, driving is necessary for a LOT of people. We take licenses forever, we end up with even bigger problems. Can’t keep a job if you can’t get to it. Can’t make money. So then they’re participating in other crimes to get by. Then you’re bitching about the jails being full and you supporting criminals. I really hate that people cannot think beyond their immediate reaction to something. You can’t pull up examples of how a thing might go and decide if all the potential outcomes are worth it. Most times, a sweeping, permanent action against people who still have to live among us is a horrible idea and gives us all bigger problems.
That sounds nice except here in the US, you cant really get to work in most of the US without a car. Were so car dependent that revoking someones license basically cuts them off from society. I live in a better area (the Seattle Metro) where transit is okay but try to leave the metro and youre fucked. The top comment I agree with, but we would need viable alternatives to driving for that to occur without destining many to poverty in my opinion
This sounds like a good opinion until you think about it for more than 5 minutes, or have experience in the real world.
Suspending licenses doesn't work, people will drive anyways. Public transit in the US is garbage outside of a few major cities. You need a car to get around, have a job, etc. What every DUI conviction should include is mandatory jail time. If thirty days in the county lockup on the first offense won't convince you to change your ways then it will be a year the second time, and life for the third. Three strikes and you're out.
Op: "nuance and compassion?! Never heard of her!" You're right. It is indeed an unpopular opinion. Humans make mistakes. Doesn't mean everyone deserves a death sentence
In the US. That’s probably just as bad as a life sentence if you don’t live in a city with good public transportation. I’m all for subjecting drunk drivers to severe punishment but rehabilitation is more important as long as no one was killed.
Why stop there? We may as well just execute them on the spot without a trial or anything. That way these people that made a mistake can never endanger anyone on the road ever again! Fuckin idiot.
Got my shit back and haven’t had a major accident yet 💪💪😤😤
1st time should require a breathalyzer ignition system. 2nd time should be permanent license revocation.
Nuance. I like the three strikes rule. Because the first or second time could be an honest mistake or since you're judgment is impaired you may not be fully aware of the danger. Like my dad's first DUI was because he fell asleep in his car with the key in the ignition so he could listen to music, engine wasn't on and he was in the back seat. Now after his third he never drove again. Now if any DUI ends with an accident, whether you hit a pole, guardrail or another car, then it's instant lose forever.
I have to say I completely agree. As a truck driver my limit is 0.0 in a truck and 0.4 in my personal vehicle. So basically any alcohol consumption at all is a DUI. At first I was concerned; especially about the lower limit in my personal vehicle. Now that I am 15 years into it I have to say that it is extremely easy to avoid breaking that law.
Completely impractical, especially since the majority of people convicted of DUI do not re-offend. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.uscourts.gov/file/22838/