Maryland to create special "DUI" plates?

[LazerFlash]

Aside from the lack of any study of any kind that shows this does any good, I have to ask why in the heck are those having 3 or more DUIs even allowed to drive or own a motor vehicle at all?

Perhaps a better approach would be to put some real teeth in the DUI laws across the country. Take DUI out of the hands of the states and make it a Federal offense. I would give those convicted of a DUI one chance... A second conviction results in mandatory jail time, a large fine and the loss of driving/vehicle ownership privileges for at least 5 years. A third conviction would result in more jail, more fines and a lifetime revocation.

[Nanuk]

I don't want the federal government infringing on a state's domain any more than it already does, but I'd love to see more states get as tough as Virginia is.
Blood Alcohol over 0.15 = go to jail.
Second offense = go to jail.
All mandatory--can't be pled away or disposed of by an expensive lawyer.

And refusal to take the breath or blood test needs to equate to jail time too, right along with driving after a DUI-related suspension. Also, license plates and/or cars of repeat offenders need to just be seized. That'll keep these dangerous criminals off our roads.

Right now, Maryland's DUI penalties are a joke, and WV's are not much better.

[Black Dog]

, and WV's are not much better.
Really? Unless things have changed a lot, WV is much tougher than MD or VA. In WV there is no provision for a restricted license even on a first offense, as there is in MD and VA. You will lose your privilege to drive for at the very least 3 months on a first offense, longer plus potential jail time on a second offense, 10 years (with eligibility in 5 years) on a third offense along with a year in jail. Eastern Regional is full of them. Also, in WV the criminal and DMV hearings are separate and the DMV doesn't really care what the court says if charges are reduced in criminal court. They operate on the premise that if the arresting officer had reason to believe that you were driving under the influence, than you were.

All of that is good, in my opinion, and much tougher than many states.
Perhaps that has change, but I don't know.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

I appreciate the breathalyzer ignition interlock as a means to reduce DUIs. Sure, they can be tampered with, but hey, does a lack of a license ever really stop anyone from driving?

[LFE]

Part of the problem in WV seems to be that when/if one does lose there privledge (driving is not a right) to drive with a license, that they just take there 4 wheeler or dirt bike around with no worries, no insurance and no consideration for others on the road.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

Or, they can do the same exact thing with a bicycle. Except when you hit them on a bicycle, your lawyer doesn't have a chance...

[Nanuk]

Wrong again. If a bike is negligently ridden and gets struck by a car through no fault of the car driver, the car driver isn't going to be held liable.

[LFE]

Plus a bike does not have a motor on it, and is considered a legal means of transportaion on roads without a license.

[LazerFlash]

...but hey, does a lack of a license ever really stop anyone from driving?No, I guess it doesn't. And, there would also be those who would circumvent any attempt to prevent them from having the means to drive - ie, taking away the privilege of owning/registering a vehicle. But, if the penalties are severe enough, hopefully there'd be a reduction in subsequent incidents. Isn't that - in theory anyway - the whole reason behind assessing strict penalties?

[Chutney Daftcraft]

A bike is meant to be driven in traffic on roads, meaning it is legal to be there. In many cases of rural collisions, it's a 'he said, she said' situation, because of a lack of witnesses. If the person is on an ATV, which is not legal for road use, you have a chance of getting out of it. If the person is on a bicycle, that chance diminishes. External contributing factors aren't even being discussed.

[Nanuk]

So Chutney, are you a lawyer or a trained crash investigator? Do you honestly believe that causes of crashes in "rural" areas cannot be determined as effectively as crashes in urban areas? And is this a case of different laws of physics in the two areas or are you just perpetuating the "rural people are stupider" argument?

Help me figure out where you're coming from here.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

The 'rural focus' I am referring to has ONLY to do with population density. The less the density, the less chance of witnesses observing the event. It's only that simple.

[Nanuk]

Other witnesses aren't needed for a crash investigation. So-called "eyewitnesses" are generally the least reliable sources of information to anything. The physical evidence and the statements of those involved is typically sufficient for a trained investigator.

[caroline]

Those "blow to go" DUI devices don't work to well in VA... You would not believe how many people actually have them when they come in for service on their cars and I swear at least 50% of the time the driver has the passanger blow it to start the car. It's actually pretty scary.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

Yes, they do. It happens. I witnessed a neighbor have her child blow into it. It was a horrible thing to see.

BUT, the thing is, the goal is to make it more difficult to drink and drive, right?

[Chutney Daftcraft]

Other witnesses aren't needed for a crash investigation. So-called "eyewitnesses" are generally the least reliable sources of information to anything. The physical evidence and the statements of those involved is typically sufficient for a trained investigator.

This is true. The crash investigators can usually tell exactly what happened in the collision. Their talents are amazing. What becomes hard to tell is the events that happened BEFORE the collision. Reading the results of the damage is one thing, but determining what happened before the collision is another thing altogether.

[Jeremy]

In WV there is no provision for a restricted license even on a first offense, .

WV gives work restricted license.

[LazerFlash]

WV gives work restricted license.Ummmm... I don't think so. I know of one very recent DUI case where the offender begged for something like that, and was told by the commissioner sent out from Charleston that he'll just have to find another way to get to work. If you have information about something different, I'd like to pass it along to him

[Jeremy]

Yea I'll get the info. I was talking to someone who had a 2nd offense and he was placed on work restriction, $600 fine and only 30 days in jail. Did he go to court yet?

[LazerFlash]

Yea I'll get the info. I was talking to someone who had a 2nd offense and he was placed on work restriction, $600 fine and only 30 days in jail. Did he go to court yet?Yes... the thing that made it even more obnoxious is that he plead his DUI down to a reckless driving. The DMV, however, believes that they have the right to still enforce its DUI revocation rules without a criminal DUI conviction. (Believe it or not, this is a true belief.)

Unfortunately, his is not the first case like this that I know about. I know of at least one other person who has faced the exact same nonsense.