What is Digg?Sponsored by AVG
Not All Free Anti-Virus Software Is Created Equal view!
free.avg.com - 2.4 million people a week get AVG Anti-Virus Free, for the best protection against web threats.
49 Comments
- missjames, on 11/08/2009, -0/+23this is sad. it reminds me of a similar case going on here in baltimore, where a man is accused of killing a college student in a hit and run; he's had his license suspended and has been charged with impaired driving many times before: http://bit.ly/LX51s
in extreme cases like these, you can't help but wonder why someone hasn't locked them up and thrown away the key. what is the line between understanding and penalties that truly punish?
it seems it's not really the judges who are at the true root of the problem ... oftentimes, the traffic laws themselves have little teeth. - stubear, on 11/08/2009, -0/+21How ***** hard can it be to put a category field in the DMV database that specifies revocation of license by some code. DUI and traffic violations get one code, failing to pay child support gets another. Then do a query to find all the former category and do random checks on them. If they are still driving impound their car until their license is officially reinstated.
As to this doozie from the article, "But two earlier efforts failed. In March, some were concerned that the ordinance would target illegal immigrants who didn't have driver's licenses, Allen said."
Why the ***** are they on the road to begin with. Why do illegal immigrants get special protective status when they enter this country? Chicago has mass transit. Take the ***** bus until you become a legal immigrant and can obtain a drivers license and prove you can drive safely. I really hate these "this law COULD be used to do..." arguments. Guns COULD be used to kill people but do you see a national revocation o the Second Amendment? No, in fact we had a strengthening of the Second in a recent SCOTUS ruling. There are lots of ***** COULD be arguments out there but until they have hard evidence something IS actually being abused then it shouldn't even be an issue. - absurdist, on 11/08/2009, -1/+20WTF are you babbling about?
I'm as leftist as anyone on here. Not liberal, leftist. And you trying to make this a right-left issue is pathetic. I think you'll find the "Digg peanut gallery" gets their panties in a twist about abuse of police power, NOT about police doing their jobs. This completely self-absorbed ***** (Cox) should have been off the road and in jail for contempt somewhere around the first or second time he was popped for driving without a license, as obviously he did something bad enough to have his license pulled to begin with. - blackinthmiddle, on 11/08/2009, -0/+13Seriously, you have no ***** clue what you're saying!
Let's start with the basics. Do you know how utterly *dumb* you sound parroting terms like "liberal"? What exactly does that mean? You remind me of a dumb boss I had who would attempt to cover anything he didn't understand with buzzwords. You sound exactly like that trying to paint everyone with a "liberal" brush.
In my opinion, this guy should have been in prison a long time ago. If you're unwilling to do the bare minimum to keep a valid driver's license, then I don't want you on the road.
Since it's so easy to keep a valid license, my rule would be simple. If you're caught two times without a valid license, you go to jail for a week. Caught again? You go to jail for a month. Again? A year. One more time? Ten years.
What's that? Jails are overcrowded? See, that's another area where my liberal ass disagrees with what others have said. As far as I'm concerned, prisoners have too many rights. Jails aren't supposed to be comfortable. Why is it that there isn't overcrowded prisons in other countries? I'll guarantee you that if someone knew they'd actually spend time in prison for not having a valid license, they'd get that ***** taken care of. - breadfred, on 11/08/2009, -1/+12I blame you for politicizing this. I fully expect you to deny this and digg my comment down.
On a more serious note, I find it unbelievable how many people nowadays think it is ok drive around without the necessary paperwork. If you cannot afford to drive legally, do not drive. It's a simples! - inactive, on 11/08/2009, -1/+11When the ***** did we start caring about illegal immigrants?.What a bunch of idiots.
- stubear, on 11/08/2009, -0/+7They're undocumented workers because they are cheap ***** labor, nothing else. If you allow unfettered access to workers in your unregulated free market then you will bring the entire economy down. Corporations will begin to slash wages across the board because they can always find some immigrant willing to do the work for less. There comes a time when you draw a line and say, this is the basic cost of living and this is what you will pay workers. Undocumented workers are paid far less than minimum wage and when you document them, they will move up to minimum wage but the next undocumented worker in line will take their job and the cycle will continue anew except we'll have more unemployed immigrants who can now legally take from unemployment, further draining an already strained system. I don't think we need to round up the illegals and put them on buses back to their countries, what we need to do is start heavily fining companies who hire undocumented workers and let the problem solve itself over time. Companies will begin to reassess their needs based on reasonable salaries and number of employees, then bring in more work to accommodate their actual reality.
But this still doesn't answer the question as to why they get special protection under the law when it comes to driving. If they are illegal and haven't obtained a drivers license legally then they should be taking the ***** bus to get to work. If their boss is so concerned about them getting to work so he can pay them cheap ***** wages then he can buy a bus and round up the workers every morning and drive them home every night. Driving is a privilege in the U.S. and people need to realize this. If it were a right, anyone could do it without the need for a license. - dienaked, on 11/08/2009, -0/+7With time served and good behavior, he should be out by Thanksgiving, assuming he gets the "Donte' Stallworth Death of another by DUI" sentence.
- kevinsname, on 11/08/2009, -0/+5In CA they impound your car for driving without a license.
- magamiako, on 11/08/2009, -0/+5If you read the article at all, it stated that people can have a suspended license for failing to pay fines amongst other things that are unrelated to traffic safety.
- inactive, on 11/08/2009, -0/+5They still shouldn't be driving without a license.
- tdmeth, on 11/08/2009, -0/+5They tried. FTA:
Ald. Tom Allen, 38th, plans to propose an ordinance to impound the vehicle of anyone caught driving on a suspended or revoked license.
He came up with the idea a few years ago after a police officer complained that she was constantly ticketing drivers without licenses only to see them driving again soon after.
But two earlier efforts failed. In March, some were concerned that the ordinance would target illegal immigrants who didn't have driver's licenses, Allen said. - inactive, on 11/08/2009, -0/+4And the Crown only asked for seven.Go figure.
- fuwath, on 11/08/2009, -0/+4Not too long ago we had an accident outside of town where this guy killed 4 elderly church ladies driving in a vehicle. The man was drunk and I believe this is his third or fourth DUI and he ended up only getting 4 years in total for the crimes. Go figure.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/09/01/chatham- ... - andyroo316, on 11/08/2009, -0/+3@magamiako
Stupid reasons like disobeying the small print of the highway code (or whatever you call the similar policy/law in America)?
Even the small print makes the roads safe and if someone's parked in a dangerous spot, that's as dangerous as speeding.
It might be annoying to lose your driving license in such a situation if you are normally a considerate, safe driver, but those are still the rules and it stands to reason that if you break one, it makes roads more dangerous and as such, you should be reprimanded. - AmazingSteve, on 11/08/2009, -1/+4"What do cameras have to do with drivers licenses?"
Not the sharpest tool in the shed are you? - jer2eydevil88, on 11/08/2009, -0/+3@andyroo
It's obvious you have never spent significant time in Chicago. There is a traffic light every block and these cameras are being deployed in increasingly large numbers. If you drive around here regularly you get red light tickets, its not breaking the law its just a way for government to tax citizens. - darkstar949, on 11/08/2009, -0/+3There have been articles up on Digg before in the past that were talking about cities shortening the yellow light cycles to trigger tickets for red-light traffic cameras. The problem that a lot of people have with the traffic camera is that there isn't an effective way to fight the ticket (e.g. "Here's a picture of you running a red light, that is against the law, thus you are clearly guilty") when extenuating circumstances might exist (e.g. damp road conditions led to it taking longer to stop safely).
- jer2eydevil88, on 11/08/2009, -5/+8Chicago leads the nation in red light cameras, which issue lots of moving violation tickets. I'd be willing to bet there is a high percentage of people in Chicago without drivers licenses because of that.
- evilregis, on 11/08/2009, -0/+3I was going to post this exact story. I grew up in Chatham and most of my family still lives there. This story was pretty big news when it went down. Sad stuff.
- homer524, on 11/08/2009, -0/+2FTA "Traffic-safety experts say preventing unlicensed driving is difficult. Some motorists routinely flout the rules. Backlogged courts and overcrowded jails are often overwhelmed by more serious offenses."
Like all of those dangerous pot smokers. - andyroo316, on 11/08/2009, -1/+3So you're saying it's good that other states do not take away licenses for jumping red lights?
That's even worse.
it's the ***** that carry on driving after having their license taken away that are the problem, not the cameras, not the tickets and not the traffic policy. - piieerrrree, on 11/08/2009, -2/+4Can't the state just take these people's cars away, until they submit proof that they are legally allowed to drive?
- Idonteven, on 11/08/2009, -0/+2That's actually a pretty brilliant idea. I'm surprised it's not widespread. If someone has a suspended license they should get their cars impounded temporarily. If they get multiple suspensions, it should be impounded indefinitely.
- upnortherik, on 11/09/2009, -0/+1Here in Wisconsin, DUI isn't a felony until the fifth offense. These laws need to be changed, and repeat offenders need to be punished more harshly.
- upnortherik, on 11/09/2009, -0/+1Some of the yellows downtown in Chicago are INSANELY fast.
- Apex3, on 11/09/2009, -0/+1Not anymore in San Francisco
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2 ... - AmazingSteve, on 11/08/2009, -2/+3Because you don't need a driver's licence to buy a car. There's no law preventing you from owning a car without one and do change that would open up a constitutional ***** that you don't want to get into. You'd probably be ***** shocked a the sheer numbers of people on the road without a licence or insurance.
- dzzle420, on 11/09/2009, -0/+1I don't know if this is normal, but I'm 20 and my car is still in my parents name. If I got my license taken away, they wouldn't have a car to impound. That would be a huge flaw in that law, among the other things. Also, before I got my car I would just share my parents cars, when they weren't using them.
While it's a good law in theory, it would never pass and it would never actually work. People would just go buy another car. - wlmafia, on 11/10/2009, -0/+1No, I don't drive drunk (or buzzed). Do you realize how many people would be taken off the road? I bet 25% to 50% of the adults you know have had DUI's. It would be nice without all of that extra traffic though.
- AmazingSteve, on 11/09/2009, -1/+2Looks like the drunks are weighing in. Here's to hoping a drunk driver touches your life like one touched mine. That'll change a few tunes around here.
- kevinsname, on 11/10/2009, -0/+1Cause SF is the most liberal place in CA
- xsteponmex, on 11/09/2009, -0/+1because here in Maryland, few are punished as they should be. He will get off on a technicality.
- piieerrrree, on 11/10/2009, -0/+1I thought about that, too, people borrowing others' cars, but the way I see it, it's the owners' responsibility to make sure that whoever drives their car isn't messing around with it.
Who has enough money to buy cars like that? It would be a lot cheaper to just pass a license test ._. - xsteponmex, on 11/09/2009, -0/+1States vary from state to state. Unfortunately, they don't take it nearly as seriously as it should be in many cases.
- labantnet, on 11/08/2009, -4/+4The problem here is stated in the article, There are too many administrative reasons that licenses are revoked. A DAS doesn't mean the person is a danger to society. Maybe they are poor and can't pay a minor traffic infraction. Now they have their license revoked, and what, they're not supposed to go to work? How are they ever going to pay off the ticket? So they have to keep working to bring money into the household, so they risk it and drive. Don't say they have other options, you have not been in EVERYONE else's shoes. So now they get picked up for a DAS, and what now? They still can't pay that one, so now they have a double revoked license revocation. At some point when you try to get strait, maybe come into some extra cash, you're still *****. you pay your fines, wait your 30-60 days for reinstatement, then BAM it's taken away again because they held on to a revocation till everything was cleared up. so what you thought was a 30-60 day no driving turns into 6 months. So you were punished more for trying to go straight.
My point is, There should be different classes of DAS depending on your previous infractions that caused the revocation. - katie82, on 11/09/2009, -1/+1She was 27 and was pregnant with her SIXTH child!?
- AmazingSteve, on 11/08/2009, -4/+4Agreed. No 2 or 3 strikes. You get one DUI and you are done driving permanently. There's no excuse for driving with alcohol in your system. NONE. You make that decision and you get caught, you're on public transit for the rest of your life. Get caught driving after that, you're going to jail for a year minimum. If it's a hardship, or prevents you from working, because you live out in the boonies or need a licence for your job, tough tittie. Better start thinking of moving and making a career change. It's a situation that you'd only have yourself to blame for. Personally, I'd like to see drunk drivers lives made a complete ***** misery. Drunk drivers fall into the same catagory as child molesters in my book. Scum that doesn't deserve to live.
- UV0001, on 11/08/2009, -2/+2The whole point of punishment is for the person to suffer the inconvenience that comes along with it. If you value your ability to drive to work and provide for your family, don't break the damn law. It's as simple as that. Whether you have your license revoked from an unpaid ticket or extreme reckless driving.
- 80hd, on 11/08/2009, -3/+3I don't understand why people take such a lethal problem so lightly..
I say confiscate the vehicle on the spot (unless its been reported stolen). If it's owned by somebody else, they will have to sue the driver to get the value of the car back This goes for leased vehicles too so people can't walk away from a DUI basically scott-free. 12 months of this law will make people think VERY carefully about if they want to drive home from the bar and who they want to loan their car to. As for the car, sell it at auction and require 100% of the proceeds to go toward PSA's against drunk driving.
Yeah it's harsh, but so is losing family and friends. At least cars are replaceable. - AndrewRidgely, on 11/08/2009, -1/+1@stubear
Most undocumented workers in the US are paid above at or above minumum wage. The way it works is business owner X hires a guy, and asks for an SSN number so that he covers his ass to the IRS, FICA, etc. when he does payroll. The guy supplies a made-up number, and starts getting paid, and gets standard withholdings -- as in he's paying medicare, social security, state and federal taxes, and so on. Now April rolls around, but the guy can't file for a tax return (of course) and, and certainly doesn't have a hope of seeing social security benefits or anything like that. But since the coffee market fell apart in Veracruz, it's a still a good deal for the guy to work the job and send money home, and it's a good deal for the business owner since he needs someone in that job, and it's definitely a good deal for the government.
Now at this point, if you're into the free market and you're a right winger, you should be saying "the market is wise and this is as it should be, and the government shouldn't burden the economy or the business owner by making it illegal to hire this guy". If you're a protectionist, and think it's not ok to hire non-nationals or to export labor, then you should also be thinking that free trade agreements and low tariffs are a bad thing, and globalization is bad, and Coca-cola and Walmart should be fined into non-existence.
Either position is defensible, I'm just saying you can't take both at the same time without being confused. - andyroo316, on 11/08/2009, -2/+1When you're near traffic lights, you shouldn't be going full speed anyway. At least take your foot off the gas so you can brake if need be, and then whack it back on when you are through and clear. Especially if traffic's been moving forward for a while, you should know that a yellow light should be coming up soon.
Yes, it's unfair that the yellow light is shorter on purpose sometimes, but this simply shouldn't be a problem for alert drivers that can drive safely. So while it's unfair, it's only gonna catch out the unalert drivers who are a little risky anyway. Which is kinda the point - because a few little gambles here and there with danger will end up in a death when a gamble goes too far, like in this case.
And the "It was wet" excuse simply shouldn't fly in any court of law, ever. If you're a safe driver, you go slow in rain. Extra slow around lights. It's one of the first things that's taught to people in England when they get in a car. - magamiako, on 11/08/2009, -3/+2Or people who weren't really dangerous drivers, but lost their license for some other dumb, stupid reason.
- wlmafia, on 11/08/2009, -4/+1Three strikes law for DUI's
Maybe even two strikes. - Yamileth, on 11/08/2009, -3/+0Ok, Wait....
The whole point of this article is to say that people who drive without drivers liscences should have their cars taken away or worst (CRUSHED?!?!) Seriously, Why was so much attention put into that. He got into an accident because he was DRUNK and DRIVING AGGRESSIVELY... DRUNK!!!
Taking away and/or crushing a persons car will not just hurt them, it will also hurt the state and the country....Just look at the numbers: 1 out of 5. Think about the consequences. - piieerrrree, on 11/08/2009, -8/+3What do cameras have to do with drivers licenses?
- AndrewRidgely, on 11/08/2009, -8/+0They have special status because we have the unique and odd position of depending on undocumented workers for our economy to function (even with a recession, there's plenty of ***** US citizens don't want to do), but we're also unwilling to give them full status under the law. The republican party is split on this as well -- in a free market system you'd allow the free movement of labor, but republicans still have to pander to a protectionist public with respect to fear of losing non-existent factory jobs, or maybe just fear of foreigners in general.
So we need these people here, but we can't officially give them work visas because Chet and Joe-Bob wouldn't vote for us, so let's just turn a blind eye. As long as undocumented workers keep paying taxes (they do) without recouping benefits (they don't) meanwhile having lower rates of crime than the mean (they do this too), it's win-win. Except for the cognitive dissonance. - xwatermelon, on 11/08/2009, -14/+0oh well
- Gondring, on 11/08/2009, -23/+8Cops are generally conservative; judges generally liberal.
I fully expect the Digg peanut gallery to blame the police for citing the driver so many times, rather than the liberal justice system that recycles offenders rather than suspending sentences and overloading to the point where citations can't be brought further.
Love this part...
. "He came up with the idea a few years ago after a police officer
. complained that she was constantly ticketing drivers without
. licenses only to see them driving again soon after.
. But two earlier efforts failed. In March, some were concerned that
. the ordinance would target illegal immigrants who didn't have
. driver's licenses, Allen said."
Silly alderman...he forgot that if you're a criminal and break one law, we can't have any other laws that might also catch you.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is