I felt awful when I heard the news today that a neighbors 1 month old Fit Base was smashed into by a drunk driver. The car was actually parked on a residential street near a corner and a drunk driver plowed in the Fit and another car.

From what I gather it was pretty bad and the Fit took a direct hit in the front wheel area and was not drivable. My neighbor was notified by the police that his car was hit and that the woman that had hit it was arrested and jailed for drunk driving.

So I guess it's in the hands of the insurance company now and I wondering if the FIT will be salvageable or not.

 

People that can't handle their liquor should stay home and drink or walk to and from the joints.... I would be sick if I was your neighbors..

 

Oh man o man... Even if you can handle your liquor, stay away from the driver's seat! Not worth it for you and not safe for everyone else!

 

You know what the problem is?

She won't be in jail long, it's just property damage under vehicle law. And as soon as she's released from detention... she's gonna grab herself another car, drive herself to another bar, get piss drunk... and do it again.

It amazes me, hearing report after report on the news of an accident caused by a drunk driver, that has had their license revoked, cars impounded, spent time in jail for DUI... not once, not twice, but MANY MANY times.

The only way to stop them... is for them to kill themselves in the accidents they create, cause they will never learn.

As for the Fit... well, I would personally prefer the insurance total the car, I'm wary of driving a car than has had steering/frame damage.

 

Whoa there, those are some arguable statements.

 

You may say it's arguable... but I assure you, those folks are out there, and too close for comfort.

A while back, a man was pulled over for a DUI. His license had been revoked because he had been pulled over multiple times on SUSPENDED licenses (take a wild guess as to why). His car was impounded, he was driving a "friend's" car.

There was another story of a woman that was drunk... ran over and killed a pedestrian. She had been pulled over multiple times for DUI also.

There was also one of a woman, who was drunk... and a cop tried to pull her over. You know what happened? She got shot, because she tried to run over the cop in a mall parking lot when he approached (at least, that's what he claimed). But... one thing was for sure... she was drunk (official record, she even admitted it). To add to the stupidity... her son was in the minivan.

People argue, why don't the cops do something... they can, but only do so much. Drunk driving is punishable by short (if any) jail times... usually probation, but mostly just fines. But what do you do, when the person has been held in jail, fined multiple times, had their licenses suspended and then revoked? You can't further punish them... until they commit a "harder" crime... and that's usually vehicular manslaughter. Punishable by only slightly longer jail times (yes, great, now an innocent has died for them to "learn" their lesson, if they actually did). Now, the only other punishment, is immediate, when they crash and injure/kill themselves.

I wasn't saying that they SHOULD kill themselves... more of pointing out that... by the time they do learn their lessons... it's too late.

I have been out drinking... I have been "drunk" to the point where I clearly am unable to focus. There have been times where I am "drunk" but fully able to focus on anything around me. But no matter what, I chose NOT TO DRIVE if I have the slightest intention of drinking. If I drove, I will drink VERY little, and wait a LONG time before driving until I sober up. This is the choice I made... without having to "learn a lesson."

So, it boggles my mind, that people would, time after time, get into accidents, pulled over... and STILL choose to drive under the influence of alcohol.

 

It's really, really simple...They're alcoholics, and many of them are blacked out when they drive. Not passed out, but blacked out. Their brains are not engaged and they will remember NOTHING of what they did when they were blacked out.

You are not an alcoholic. You can drink sensibly. For an alcoholic, "drinking sensibly" is the equivalent of being able to sprout wings and fly. They can't do it.

 

I have known a lot of people that get buzzed on a couple of drinks and aren't happy until they are incoherent and have pissed their pants... I am fortunate that I didn't inherit what ever genetics it is that causes people to become alcoholics... One or two beers or shots and I'm relaxed and function just fine... I am large enough that I can drink a lot more before hitting the legal limit but I just don't care to drink that much....When I was bar hopping and staying until closing time I was the guy that would drive the one or two that had drank too much home.... Twenty pot heads could never cause as much chaos as a couple of drunks.

 

wow, this is terrible!

 

Of course there are repeat offenders who should probably be brutally punished, but there are also a lot of people out there, believe it or not, who get a DUI and then never do it again. Some people do learn their lessons, not everybody makes the same mistake over and over again.

You're focusing on the horror stories and ignoring the fact that a DUI is not a crime punishable by life imprisonment nor death. There's a reason for that.

 

Get a BIG truck, wait at the junction this woman will go through after drinking. green light for u move on in and let her hit you.... this will be etached forever in her mind....

 

I love it, this humane view from someone with forum name Doctordoom.
I agree it's the repeat offenders that should be facing some stiffer penalties.

Anyway the guys car that was hit is still pending a review from the insurance company. No word on the woman that hit the car. I'm betting she probably doesn't have insurance.

 

Again... I didn't say anything about what SHOULD be done about them.

Everyone is entitled to making a mistake or two. It's great if they learn their lesson the first time... or even the third time. I don't care much for some property damage, but when other people are directly involved, then it's a sign of someone that needed professional help, but chose not to get it, until it was too late.

Yes, I am focusing on the "horror" stories, because those are the ones that affect people the most. And to clarify, when I say it's too late, I mean that when a driver with a DUI, injures or kills someone else... no amount of jail time will cure them of the suffering they will feel, knowing they took a life. At least, assuming that person isn't a socio-/psychopath.

You need to stop assuming that I am trying to dictate how they should be punished.

If you ask me how a person "should" be punished... well, you need to find the most PRACTICAL answer. By that, I mean, some fear pain. Some fear loneliness, some fear being infamous. Some fear being fined. The "practical" punishment is whatever gets the point across the most effectively.

Though this could never really be enforced... one option could be to revoke a person's ability to ever own/drive a car, if they pass a certain count of DUI accidents. The reason it can't be enforced... how would you prevent ALL dealerships and private parties from selling to the person... and any and all persons from loaning the offender their car? Maybe if we "evolved" into a totalitarian regime where everything is controlled and enforced... that could happen. But if so, I hope to never see it.

Laws can only do so much, before it becomes "the enemy" of humanity. It's up to people to "police" themselves. Those that fail... let's just say, Darwin's little theory will show up in some form or another.

 

Easy there. You're assuming that I'm assuming, and then telling me to stop assuming. I never accused you of trying to dictate how people should be punished.

Here, I'll start over:

Not necessarily. You don't know her; she might do it again, she might not do it again.

Note here how it's implied that life imprisonment would be an effective way to end this hypothetical cycle of DUIs.

Not necessarily. You don't know them; they might learn, they might not learn.

Note here how it's implied that the driver's self-destruction, not unlike a death penalty, would effectively end this particular hypothetical cycle.

There, see what I meant? I said those are some arguable statements because...well...they're arguable statements.

Whether or not it was your intention, you implied, very conspicuously, that a life sentence or death sentence would be more effective means of stopping drunk drivers. I was pointing out that the death sentence and life imprisonment are not fitting punishments for DUIs. Why? Because not every offender falls into your hypothetical cycle of repeat DUI offenses.

You're going on tirades of tangential thoughts - I didn't say much at all until now really. What have I said that you don't agree with?

Haha, the irony.

 

Believe it or not, I am quite the humanitarian. Seriously.

 

Do you know what insurance company they have? Unfortunately they will only get the ACV (actual cash value) if it's totaled (which is obviously less than it would cost to get a new one), but since it's a 2012, assuming that they bought the car brand new (which is likely, as I doubt there were many used 2012s on lots then or even now), I know that some companies will replace it with a completely new car, but I think it's just Liberty Mutual and Safeco (who is owned by Liberty Mutual) who do that in California if you get the new vehicle replacement endorsement (though it automatically gets dropped off the following year). I think The Hartford also has a similar option.

You have a good point, but the problem is that DUIs are not the only causes of accidents, whether property damage only or involving bodily injury or even death. Here in California, cell phone usage is also a big reason why people get into car accidents, and I think a few years ago, deaths caused by car accidents involving cell phone usage was greater than those involving drunk driving. I think we can all agree that both drinking under the influence and driving while using a cell phone hinders your ability to drive to the point where an accident is much more possible, but should we penalize drivers who talk on their cell phones more harshly than we do now, knowing its dangers?

Look at it this way. Think of EVERY time you've almost been hit (or actually hit) or cut off by another driver. How many times did you end up passing by them and notice that they were using their cell phone? And how many times have you thought it was because the person was drunk? While I realize that you can visually confirm that someone is on their cell phone as opposed to being able to detect if someone is drunk or not, usually you can put two and two together when someone is weaving between lanes late at night. I've only encountered a drunk driver once (who almost hit me and eventually crashed into a wall on the 405S) in that situation, but I can think of so many other occasions where idiot cell phone users almost hit me, even though it has already become a moving violation. Also, drunk driving is mostly prevalant at night time, while people talk on their cell phones all the time, day or night. And seeing how we do most of our driving during the daytime (assuming you have a regular job and not one that demands late hours or graveyard shifts), guess which hinderance is likely to cause a driver to hit you while you are on the road.

I certainly don't think drunk driving is okay and I definitely think it should be punished properly, but let's not forget that there are plenty of other causes of accidents that yield similar outcomes but happen on a more frequent basis.

 

I think i need to go drive to the bar and have a beer!

 

I wholeheartedly agree that there are plenty of cases that were caused by other factors. And aside from the random medical issue (sudden blackout for unknown reason)... they're pretty much the same. People need to learn their lesson. But some folks, even after suffering crash after crash into a guard rail or parked cars, just refuse to learn it.

A few times on the road, I've driven behind or besides a person that insisted on concentrating more on their phone conversation (and holding their phone to their head), than handling their car. They were constantly drifting in and out of the lane next to them.

I felt like calling the cops... but worried that I would be accused of doing the exact same thing (though, I would be using a bluetooth headset). Plus, usually, by then, I'd be pulling off the highway, so I figured my information about where the person would be, would be outdated by the time the cops show up.

 

Re doctordoom

Alright, I'll give that that part should've been worded differently.

Not stopping them, but for them to stop (themselves).

I would quote you and the part of my message that you quoted, but I'm on my tablet and its a PITA to do so.

 

Would it have been helpful if the owner bought GAP insurance?

This my neighbor's car a few years ago. Same story. Sucks to live on a busy road. A few months after this incident a neighbor 2 doors down was t-boned and killed at 2am while backing out of his driveway. Yup, drunk driver