Driving is a privilege, not a right.

Too many times in my life and the lives of my friends we have experienced the loss of a loved one in an automobile accident. Some of these are under circumstances beyond anyone's control. Others fall into a couple of different categories; driving under the influence and distracted driving. These are not new facts, but the loss of a friend’s aunt and uncle last week started a thought process that required venting.

So, here we go. We'll take them one at a time.

Driving under the influence.

As I said, this is not a new problem, but our efforts to prevent people from driving under the influence do not seem to be working. The police are doing their job in finding people who are too drunk to be behind the wheel and arresting them. I believe it is in the court system that we are being let down. Part of the reason for this is that the general public refuses to see this as a problem that affects them. None of the measures taken to date seem to have grabbed their attention. We see reports of accidents every day that maim and kill innocent people because someone decided to drive drunk, and still we remain silent and the penalties remain wanting.

As Americans it seems that in order to get everyone’s attention, we need to declare war. So we'll have the War on D.U.I., complete with mandatory sentencing depending on the crime. We also need to be able to alter the process that allows someone found driving under the influence to continue to drive awaiting a court date.

So, surprise, I have a few suggestions.

Any person who blows above the legal limit is guilty. It does not take a judge to figure this out, nor can a defense attorney change this fact. So why are we wasting the court’s time and our money. The penalties need to be put on a level that would make a drug dealer squirm. The penalties could still be progressive dependent on each case, but no one should be allowed to keep a driver’s license or license plates after arrest for DUI. They should be confiscated at the time of arrest and only returned after their sentence has been served.

What gives the police the right to take the license and plates? Because in my plan anyone who drives under the influence will have no need of them for at least a year. That should be the minimum sentence along with a very large fine for what I'll call the accidental drunk. This would be a first time offender who blows no more than 10% above the legal limit. In Illinois that would be .08 to .09 blood alcohol level, and there is no accident or injuries involved. The in car breathalyzers have been an option here, but they only work if the offender drives that vehicle.

As the blood alcohol level rises, so does the obvious irresponsibility of the driver. The judge can use an escalating penalty scale based on the blood alcohol level of a first time offender. Assume the driver blows a 2.3 at the time of arrest. Up to 5 years no license or plates, and let’s make the fine five times the minimum sentence.

The part of my plan that every person who owns a car needs to realize is this: If you allow someone whose license is revoked to drive your vehicle, you lose your license and plates for a year and you too get to pay a large fine. You are an accessory, guilty of everything the driver is and subject to the same punishments.

If while serving one of the above sentences, you are caught driving, your sentence should double. If you are caught D.U.I. while serving one of these sentences, your sentence should become a lifetime ban on driving and ten times the original fine. If caught driving a friend’s vehicle, that friend will receive the same sentence.

A third offense should result in confinement as determined by a judge, but let’s not fill our prisons with these folks where we have to support them. Let’s improve the ankle bracelet house arrest system beyond its current level. Currently these bracelets are monitored and when someone leaves the authorized perimeter, law enforcement is notified. Many times by the time an officer arrives the person is in the wind, and we have wasted more money. Let the ankle bracelet work like a dog’s shock collar; try to leave your house, you get tazed by the bracelet. Like the current ankle bracelet program, leaving the assigned property requires advanced notice and the permission of the court.

I know it seems pretty harsh, but it does keep the streets safer by making the penalties draconian. The shocking ankle bracelet may seem cruel at first glance, but give it some real thought. Is society better served with putting a drunk in prison with hardened criminals where we will support them, or by agreeing to stay at home with family and letting the family support them and suffering a shock if they should stray? Is not the drunk also better served?

If while D.U.I. you cause property damage, injure or kill someone, the penalties need to be even stiffer. We as a society must demand that these laws change to protect the innocent lives lost on a daily basis. My personal opinion is that anyone who causes a loss of life while D.U.I. should never drive again, as well as facing all other appropriate charges.

Distracted Driving.

This is a tough one to address. Most states have now passed or soon will be passing legislation that bans the use of handheld cell phones. Penalties vary from place to place, but most laws only allow a fine. I’m not sure these laws will have much effect unless the penalties become painfully expensive. This is another area where repeat offenders need to face draconian penalties. Like someone caught D.U.I. and having caused property damage, injury, or death, similar penalties should apply as well as any other appropriate charges.

Bluetooth phones remain legal, although how less distracting they are is debatable. Newer vehicles have complex entertainment and communication systems that will continue to distract drivers, and these systems will become more complex exponentially through necessity every year. One thing the handheld ban will curb is texting while driving, until voice texting becomes standard equipment on newer vehicles.

I do not think there is a way to approach this problem other than sticking with the bans and making the penalties painful. People will continue to use new technologies in ways that were not considered, and we as a society need to adjust our laws to keep up with these changes.

The last couple of generations have been raised in an age of technology that older generations only dreamed of. Because of this they are born multi-taskers. They can surf the web while having multiple chat sessions, and a phone conversation all while texting three friends at the same time. To them the addition of driving to the list seems irrelevant. We need to help them understand that adding driving puts them and all those around them in danger. Not an easy sell, but we must keep trying and providing a good example.

One note on distracted driving; when all of this started I thought it was ridiculous. I considered what the driver of a Model T Ford had to do to operate the vehicle. You had a parking brake/shifter on the left next to the seat. You have clutch, brake, and gas pedals. On one side of the column you had a lever to adjust fuel mixture; on the other side you had a lever to adjust timing, and you had to work all of these as you drove down the road. Talk about distracted driving! But my reasoning was flawed because cars today are more powerful, and the streets are much more crowded.

So, what’s the bottom line? As a society we must insist that penalties for D.U.I. offences be made so painful that even the worst drunk won't risk driving, and if they do, justice needs to be swift and the penalties severe. I think the same should hold true for distracted drivers.

And most importantly; driving is a privilege, not a right.