undefined

points

by calgoo7 hours ago |

comments

by doubled1127 hours ago|

[-]

Drunk driving is already illegal. Doesn't seem like that rule stopped them. Why would this rule?

I've had my license suspended. It was just speeding. It's my only traffic ticket, let's not focus on that too much.

Do you know what was stopping me from getting in my car and driving it to work? Absolutely nothing.

by 6 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

deleted

by irishcoffee7 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

So, you think someone that illegally drives drunk will magically decide to abstain from driving because they don't have a license? Really?

by jasonlotito7 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Yes. I think there are people who would not drive without a driver's license. I don't think magic would be involved.

You are free to backup your claim that magically _everyone_ that illegally drives drunk will not abstain from driving becasue they don't have a license.

by EvanAnderson5 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

This is an anecdote. My experience working adjacent to criminal justice gives me the feeling it's indicative of a given mind-set. It certainly would be interesting to see what kind of statistics exist for recidivism

On 2019-04-19 my wife's car was struck, while she was driving, by a driver who was driving under suspension. The driver had a bench warrant out for their arrest for failure to appear in court on a previous driving under suspension violation.

I searched my local court database and found this driver had driving under suspension or driving in violation of restriction charges on: 1999-07-12, 2000-01-27, 2000-02-03, 2000-02-14, 2000-05-03, 2001-07-23, 2011-07-13, 2013-07-10, 2013-10-24, 2016-03-10, 2016-05-23, 2016-08-15, 2016-09-09, 2018-04-09, 2018-05-03, and 2019-04-19 (when my wife was struck).

The driver has since had additional driving under suspension charges on: 2019-08-15, 2022-04-29, 2022-08-18, and 2025-10-21.

The driver had served jail time for some of these violations, too.

I tend to think a significant fraction of people who don't respect the law prior to conviction don't begin to respect the law after conviction.

(My wife wasn't injured, fortunately. The other driver was also driving without the state minimum required liability insurance, so we ended up eating the cost of the crash, too. This also seems to be indicative of a general disrespect for the law.)

by BXLE_1-1-BitIs14 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Here in Canada a Family Protection clause is common in insurance policies which covers you and your family in the case of hit and run, uninsured or under insured up to your liability limit.

by EvanAnderson21 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

We'd actually paid for an "uninsured motorist coverage" endorsement but discovered that it really didn't cover anything material. Shame on me for not digging into the details when I added the endorsement. I've become a more savvy insurance consumer.

by irishcoffee6 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

> Yes. I think there are people who would not drive without a driver's license. I don't think magic would be involved.

That isn't what I said, you're misrepresenting me. That isn't very nice.

I said someone who _already broke the law_ in a very provable way, most likely doesn't give a fuck about driving without a license.

> You are free to backup your claim that magically _everyone_ that illegally drives drunk will not abstain from driving becasue they don't have a license.

I didn't say everyone. There you go again, making shit up and putting words in my "mouth" as it were. This isn't a good-faith conversation. Take care.