Drunk driving

Remove all ads!

Driving without insurance already IS a crime in the U.S. However, most people who do not have insurance and are driving aren't just scofflaws, but rather they can't afford the price of insurance. So, if they are driving without insurance, you can try to sue them for the money, but if they couldn't afford insurance in the first place, they probably can't afford to pay the damages to you either.

Ah, I see. If you want to go into that level of detail, no the other guy's insurance company didn't pay all of my costs. They paid for the following:

1. The actual cost of repairs to my vehicle.
2. The cost of a rental vehicle to use while my vehicle was being repaired.

I was however, not compensated for the gas use and time of having to drive my vehicle to the repair shop, drive it home from the repair shop, or the time holding on the phone waiting for an insurance agent. I don't inlcude the cost of gas driving back and forth to work those days, because I would have spent that money even if I was using my own car.

Here's something that had to have happened at some point. What happens if your vehicle is in the shop, you have been granted a rental vehicle because the other guy was at fault, and then someone else hits your rental car? What happens then? Would you be granted another rental car or not? I mean technically, the second person causing the accident would be liable to the rental company, not you (unless you were injured in the accident).

 

I would think that the insurance of the one who hit the rental would cover the damage. The rental company would then issue you a second car, if you so wished, and that would be paid by the insurance of the one who bumped your car.

 

Well, if it's a crime, then it is still a better way for him to pay to you in the scene of the accident and then say byebye, without calling the police. This is often used in other cases too, if due to your role in the situation calling police wouldn't be too lucky for you, you can try to agree with the person who you crashed with.

Since law-related questions of insurance were mentioned, I think one thing should be made clear, for those who perhaps don't understand it entirely.

The insurance you mention in the text I quoted is the third-party liability (the compulsory insurance) I am sure. This is what each car-owner is required to have. This applies when you cause accident and your insurance company will pay to the person whose car you caused the damage to.

There is another type of insurance as well, the accident insurance, this is not required, not ordered by the law. If you want, you can have one, unfortunately not cheap, especially not for bigger cars. This will pay the damage to you when your car get damaged in an accident.

 

Acutually you don't have to have insurance in Ohio, well at least thats how it was last time I was there, but times change...

 

Not even basic collision insurance Cesard? What happens if you damage another person's vehicle in an accident? I find it almost impossible to believe that is the case, because the courts in Ohio would be stuffed to the gills with people making claims against other individuals who they got into an accident. This is especially true considering that auto insurance also pays the medical bills of anyone injured in the accident.

To echo's Baronius's comments, yes there are two types of insurance. One is if you damage someone else's car and/or injure someone in another vehicle - and like he said - I think that is compulsary in all states. The other pays for damage you do to your car in an accident, and is optional in most cases. In Maryland, where I live, it's a little different. In Maryland carrying both types of insurance is required if you owe more than 50% of the cost of your vehicle. So for me, I have to have both types of insurance on my car, because I took out a 5-year loan on that car. I'm currently in the 2nd year of paying it back, and I have not yet reached the 50% mark.

Generally, it's a good idea to carry both types of insurance on your car if you still owe ANY money on the car. The last thing you want to do is wreck your vehicle to the point where the damages exceed the vehicles worth. In such a case, you either have to pay more than your vehicle is worth to get it fixed, or continue to make payments on a vehicle that is unable to be driven. On the other hand, if you're driving a old, beat up car, you owe nothing on it, and you know if you got into a wreck you'd most likely just sell your car to a junk yard anyway, then you really don't need that second type of insurance.

Except that it's also a crime to leave the scene of an accident without calling the police if someone is injured. Generally, you always want a police report because it is the police who determine who is at fault in an accident. In the case of an injury to one or more people involved, a police report is REQUIRED.

 

Yeah, if you would have spent that money even if using your own car, it wouldn't have been right to include it. But the perpetrator should still have to pay for your phone calls, dribing to the repair shop etc. The victim of an accident should not lose a single penny on it. Ideally, not earn a single penny, either. I'm all in favour of extremely scrupulous full compensation, even for mental anguish, but no freebies.

 

Drunk driving is more of an disease than anything. There are two major drunk driving groups that cause trouble.

a) Teenagers
b) Alcoholics

The former is really not that much of a problem since you can't really control them and they are usually so shocked after their first accident that it will remain their last. Alcoholics are something Finland has great problems with since they can't be kept away from the steering wheel unless they are thrown to prison and I just don't think that would be productive. There they would just cost a pile of money for the society. Taking away their driving licences has also proved ineffective because they tend to get their hands on cars one way or the other. I tend to lean to putting them in prison because they are such a danger or force them to a anti alcoholic program or something similar. Either way both are uneffective and cost a lot.

 

True, if your license is suspended, it doesn't affect your knowledge of HOW to drive. Just because they take your license away doesn't mean they take your car away, especially if the car is used by someone else besides the drunk driver. Also, driving without a license has no consequences if you don't do something that would cause you to get caught. Police don't just randomly pull people over - unless they commit a traffic violation, or if there is something wrong with their vehicle (like a tail light that isn't working that the driver might not even be aware of, or driving with expired tags for example).

 

In my experience, my parents friends are a lot more likely to drink and drive than my own, yet I wouldn't say they were alcoholics.

 

Same here. Here, you also have to call the police if the dealt damage exceeds the 10 times of the minimal wage, or if any public property (such as a street lamp post) is damaged.
Yes of course the police is needed to decide who made the fault, this is exactly what I wanted to say: if you have made the fault and it's more advantageous you to pay than to call the police, then you can attempt to agree with the other person. It's another question that this can be illegal.

Well, the accident-insurance (the non-compulsory) is required here either in special cases. For example, the car I drive was bought via leasing, and per the leasing contract you need to have this type of insurance (as well).

 

I work in a bar and we often have people drive home drunk. There has been a movement to seriously punish bars if someone drives drunk after becoming drunk at that establishment.

The problem with this movement is we have been delt a serious amount of responsibility but given no power to enforce this. We can not prevent a patron from driving home drunk, we can not prevent them from getting in their car, we can not take their keys off them, we can not hold them in the establishment by force. We have no legal powers to stop this person from driving drunk yet we can be charged if they are caught. In other words we shouldn't serve people alcohol. Pity it's the purpouse of the establishment.

 

Why not minimum 2 years in prison for a first offence. You put people at risk, you are kept away from them for a long time. Too much crowding in prisons? Build more prisons and hire more guards. Make the prisoners work while they are there. This would reduce unemployment and welfare...

 

Because that would lead us to a similar punishment system they have in the US which is both expensive and uneffective. The fear of punishment do not keep people away from the steerinwheel because they are drunk, and alcohol blinds their judgement. Additionally it's not within the human rights to have labour camps as prisons.

 

But if people are in prison, they aren't collecting welfare. That's a savings right there. Also, perhaps they could cut cost on the food that is served. As people are taken out of the workforce, they need to be replaced. That further reduces the strain on welfare. If that doesn't work, then eliminate Drunk driving as a charge--and replace it with reckless endangerment!

 

Except of course it costs probably about 10 times as much to keep them in prison?

 

The numbers you see for the cost of prisoners is variable. It goes anywhere from about $35,000 annually to $60,000 annually, depending on where you look. But regardless, that's still more than they would receive via welfare.

 

Then they need to cut the cost down. Maybe cutting food rations (not to the point of starvation, but enough to save money). Why do they need televisions? What other things do they get that they really don't need? How else can you save money on incarceration? At the risk of going off topic, if it costs more to keep a prisoner than it does to keep someone on welfare, then someone's priorities are messed up.

But the point is that the prevailing opinion on Drunk Driving has to change. If the attitudes go lax and lenient, then it will continue to plague us and kill thousands of innocent victims every year. If it's treated as a dangerous crime, then perhaps it can be reduced greatly...

 

You're right. Because many of the people who do drive drunk are the sorts of people who don't commit other crimes and who would definitely be deterred by penalties such as losing licences, fines, and imprisonment. You'd only be left with the hard core who don't care about that sort of thing and they're the only ones you'd actually have to lock up.

 

I'm not so sure. As with all penalties, losing licences and fines are only effective after you've been caught. As long as you're thinking you can get away with it you might commit the crime nonetheless - for most people it's a simple cost-benefit-analysis. Only after you've been caught at least once you begin to realize that the costs (of the fines) might actually be higher than the benefits (of getting home comfortably).

And the thing about drunk driving is: nearly everyone who commits drunk driving is regarding himself as fully capable of safely steering his car. Maybe not up to his usual splendor, but certainly better than most mortals. I drive better when drunk than you are driving when sober, y'know.

Lock them up? Tsktsktsk.

Gnarfflinger, I'll grant you (sic!) that someone locked up can't kill anyone with his car. Apart from that the proposition is .

For starters, here's an idea of how direct costs are generated by the penal system:
- Personnel Costs (including pensions and government aid for insurances): 73%
- Neuter Administration (including Assets, lease, vehicles, training of the staff and maintenance): 18%
- Assignment and Allowances (including further education of prisoners, compensations and ministration): 7%
- Investments (including hardware like tv sets and other gadgets): 2%

(From http://www.bwl.tu-darmstadt.de/vwl/forsch/veroeff/papers/ddpie_121.pdf [for the records, as this is in german]. I'm sure you can produce something similar for Canada or the US.)

Now, what was your idea of cutting costs again?

 

Just wondering - how does your country's government handle anti-drink driving advertising? I know Australia has some really, really graphic and realistic TV adds which I have heard have had effect. Sure - it might be somewhat akin to shock tactics - but hell, it'll be a lot more of a shock when you're in a crash...