Better late than never. You're lucky that some journalist remembered or uncovered the report at all.
The sad fact is that news isn't driven by what is important. The issue of repeat offenders driving under the influence and their willingness to drive without a license is as important today as it was yesterday and as it will be tomorrow.
That doesn't mean the media will pick up on it as important - I wonder if the media interest was sparked by one or more highly publicized fatal accidents caused by one of these drivers? Do you know?
Sometimes when something like your report goes unnoticed at the time of its release, a way to get attention is to issue a press statement about the report when a newspaper is covering a related issue. Did something like this spark the new interest in the report?
Anyway, I'm glad it's getting attention - and I hope it gets more from legislators. Seems like necessary reading for anyone trying to figure out regulations that will result in fewer of these folks on the road and fewer deaths.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Thanks - you didn't post on the thread, but I appreciate the feedback. As I mentioned in my last post on the thread (I think) I probably won't be posting anything like that on Hatrack again - it got to feel too much like work instead of getting away from work.
And, getting back to Bob's report, I'm wondering if he's got any insights on the best approaches to dealing with the repeat drunken drivers.
I really hated the part in the article in which a lawyer claims offenders are faced with a choice of driving or losing their jobs. Lots of people don't drive. There are alternatives - getting a ride, buses, etc. Driving is not a right. Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
sndrake, thanks for the comments. I'm sorry I missed your thread. Could you provide a link?
Anyway, I was a bit disappointed that the author of this article didn't use the stuff I gave her about "what to do." Here's the best solution, as I see it:
1) You need a menu of options that includes both carrots and sticks. 2) Carrots: a) Assistance to people who are just a little screwed up and failing to reinstate their licenses. This might include putting them in contact with social services, or just explaining the laws...
b) A chance to avoid some fines or some of the worst insurance rates if one maintains a clean driving record or does some sort of mandatory service for the community.
2) STICKS: a) Ignition interlocks and so-called "reverse tether" devices for the more trustworthy of people. Have to couple this with visits from a parole officer or the people will just borrow a car that isn't equipped with the interlock.
b) vehicle impound or even complete seizure. This would have to include ANY vehicle driven by the offendor, even if it is owned by someone else.
c) Jail time. The worst of these folks will continue to drive except for those periods during which they are behind bars. So, locking them up (the hard core folks) is the only way to ensure they are obeying the license suspension/revocation.
We also need to have checkpoints designed specifically to catch people driving without a valid license. It's the only way to catch these folks, unless you just wait for them to have a crash or do something stupid in front of a cop.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
I was getting ready to email you the link to the op-ed, and then realized you might have a different email address now. Is the one in your profile still good?
Speaking of op-eds, seems to me that your study and the recommendations you have for dealing with the problem could make a great op-ed - worth pitching to national newspapers. Have you thought about that?
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
I hadn't thought of the op-ed idea. Interesting. Is there a syndication place to send it to once or would you have to approach each of the major dailies individually?
posted
You know, I saw a report, and I thought it was on GMA, but now I wonder. . .
Anyway, one of the suggestion I saw was, instead of impounding the car (if it's the only family car and the driver isn't the only driver) would be to attach a placard to the car asking the cops to pull the car over and check the driver. That one sounds kind of cool.
The other, much more intelligent thing to do, is to follow them out to their cars right after they lose their license. These morons just walk out of court and get behind the wheel. (Of course, what does it say about the cops that they haven't thought of this before. )
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
I'm unfamiliar with syndication services or if they're out there. I think for someone unknown - like you or me - the individual approach is best.
Also, if you still work with the AAA foundation, do they have a public relations or communications department? They should have some resources for pitching an op-ed.
One thing to remember - for the greatest chance at publication, try for a limit of 600 words.
Yeah, I know, it stinks and it hurts.
And if it's accepted, you get to deal with the editors...
But that isn't really painful if your main purpose in publishing is getting your message out rather than keeping the purity of your prose untouched. Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
I think the actual problem is that they're also more likely to be driving on sidewalks, medians, and front lawns.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kayla! You saw my interview!!! Did you see a large guy in a dark shirt and ponytail?
Anyway, the cops HAVE thought of just hanging out just outside the courthouse to catch the idiots who drive to their hearing and or drive home after being sentenced to losing their license. Duh!
The "placard" idea is alternatively called "zebra plates" or "whiskey plates" They put a distinctive plate on the car and impound the original license plate. Any time that car is seen on the road, the officer automatically has probable cause to stop it and see who is behind the wheel. It's a great thing in states where the judiciary agrees that the presence of a distinctive plate equates to probable cause. I'm not really comfortable with that, though, having seen how it works in Israel -- yellow plate in the "wrong" part of the country means you are in for a hassle, if not a bit of jail time.
Anyway, this is obviously for a different purpose and it DOES work. so what the heck!
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are countries that have very severe penalties for drunk driving. Do these countries have fewer deaths or accidents as a result of their stringent laws? Do not take this incorrectly. I feel that countries like Japan are correct in assessing maximum sentences for drunk driving. I am just wondering if the statistics show that it works.
If it does, why do we have 3 Strikes Laws for crimes but not for drunk driving?
Your thoughts??
Posts: 201 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Have ever seen a drunk driving trial? It almost seems like it doesn't matter how much evidence the jury has, they'll aquit. It makes me sick. And these were DUI's where a death was involved!
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and Bob, as soon as the Chiefs game is over (agony, I hate Sports Illustrated!) I'm going to see if I still have it on tape. I think I taped over it, but you never know. And while I remember the gist of what I saw, I don't remember specifics.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Couple of years ago my cousin died in a drunk driving accident. He was a father of two and very charismatic.
He was also the drunk driver.
After several DUI convictions, manditory substance abuse programs and having a breathalizer attached to the ignition of his car, he was still driving drunk on a regular basis.
The breath/ignition control thingy was disabled by the same guy that the court used to install it. My cousin convinced the installer guy that it was "a real pain to use and gave too many false positives."
Late one night, coming home from a party, he fell asleep and rammed into the back-end of a semi. He died instantly; noone else was injured.
Our family, who had done everything from encourage sobriety to ostracize him for his drunk-driving, was sad but felt an overwhelming sense of relief that noone else was killed. In particular, we were thankful that his two daughters were not in the car at the time.
I'm not sure what else could have been done legally to protect him from himself. But I can tell you some of the things we wished could have happened:
1- He was prohibitted from hanging out with his partying buddies. 2- He was prohibitted from being allowed to drive with a minor in the car. 3- His breath monitor thingy was regulary checked. 4- The stores were prohibitted from selling liquor to him. 5- There was a magic pill that made liquor repulsive to him.
We miss Eric. I wish we could have done more to keep him with us.
The breathalyzer thing attached to car seems like the best idea, although it can't overcome human beings.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I really want to know is why you didn't tell us you were going to be on Good Morning Amercia before it happened.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good point, but I was too polite to say that.
It would have needed a better title to grab people's attention in a timely manner though, something like "Bob Scopatz on Good Morning America!!!"
It's interesting that so far, there are more people interested in discussing Bob's new furniture than there are people interested in discussing his current wave of media popularity.
Frankly, I think that's something I like (among other things) about Hatrack.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
