DUI Plates

[Lone Gunman]

Drunken Drivers May Get Special DUI Plates


Email this Story

Nov 16, 12:30 PM (ET)


CLEARWATER, Fla. (AP) - A Florida state senator wants to require convicted drunken drivers to have license plates that start with "DUI."

The proposed law would also require bright pink license plates on vehicles driven by people with restricted driving privileges due to convictions for driving under the influence.

"Maybe it will embarrass people and keep them from drinking and driving," State Sen. Mike Fasano said. "Maybe they'll think twice."

The bill also says police "may stop any vehicle that bears a DUI plate without probable cause to check the driver."

Ohio and Michigan have similar laws in place. Other states have debated the issue, but failed to pass it due to privacy reasons.

"Pink plates would hold out individuals for punishment as well as ridicule. We are very opposed to it," said Larry Spalding, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union in Florida.

About 840,000 of Florida's 15 million licensed drivers have an active DUI sanction on their driving records, said Frank Penela, Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles spokesman. A small percentage of those have limited driving privileges, such as permission to drive only to and from work, Penela said.

"It could take two years to get the support, but I think it's worth the effort," Fasano said. "If I can't get a House sponsor, then maybe I can get it passed in the Senate and attached to a larger transportation bill."

---

[K C Muffin]

I don't so much care what color they are, but I do think it would be a deterrent - especially among young adults (older teens and 20's), because peer pressure at that age is tough. I saw some folks on the local news last night speaking out about it. Some of the older people they interviewed thought it would be a good idea The younger folks had an unusual reaction. They thought that the colored tags would make them stand out (imagine that!) and it would be unfair.

The only problem is if a person's car is tagged, but they trade cars with someone whose car isn't tagged. Of if someone else in the family has to drive the tagged car. Those aren't huge problems - I still think it would be a good idea. If it's a money issue, let's just put stickers on their tags instead of making them buy a new tag. But let's identify them some way.

[Lone Gunman]

I agree I don't care too much about the color although a pink tag would draw attention. An indentifying sticker would at least let everyone know who they are. As far as the younger people saying it would make them stand out, isn't that the whole point? As far a being unfair you're never too young to learn that life isn't always fair.

[Highwayman]

OK, let me ask this. Can we force everyone that has bounced a check to have checks and ID’s that are marked to reflect they are a rubber check writer?

I think I know what we would be told if we wanted to tattoo the foreheads of rapists and child molesters.

[dustinwadams5]

"I think I know what we would be told if we wanted to tattoo the foreheads of rapists and child molesters."

That it was a good idea?

[Flying Dutchman]

Ok, I will weigh in but not to argue, simply to open discussion.

OK, let me ask this. Can we force everyone that has bounced a check to have checks and ID’s that are marked to reflect they are a rubber check writer?

We probably could if writing bad checks caused death and destruction. Unfortunately, I do not know of anybody dying from bad checks although I know of store owners wishing to kill them.

I think I know what we would be told if we wanted to tattoo the foreheads of rapists and child molesters.

If there was a way to mark them so that whenever they were around women and children, which is when they would pose a threat, then it is a great idea. Drunk drivers only pose a threat when driving so marking their vehicle is about as good as you can do.

[Highwayman]

Part of the reason for the bad check comparison is that lots of folks have screwed up and bounced a check once or twice. Many can relate to doing it. Would they want to be blacklisted for an arithmetic error? It’s hard to find any way to defend a drunk driver. But there are drivers that screwed up once by being one beer over the limit, didn’t cause an accident and never repeated the mistake. Is it fair to lump them in with a repeat offender that is just shy of comatose and has caused harm? It’s easy to go after the drunk driver because that action has no defense. My concern is where do we draw between public safety and outright harassment.

[agnostic]

bleh. screw the pink and all that crap. i could care less if my license plate was pink. the only point that digs to success here is .."The bill also says police "may stop any vehicle that bears a DUI plate without probable cause to check the driver."'

That would be the only deterrent in my book, honestly. and take that from a 20 year old drinker.

[Flying Dutchman]

Many people are blacklisted for bad checks. I know I can't get a checking account due to my ex and our account. I do see where you are going, though, with being harassed or labled for one mistake.
I guess I would be the wrong person to actually discuss this issue because of friends that I have lost to drunk drivers. I also dealt with them for many years and grew tired of the whining and total lack of responsibility they showed. There is no excuse, like you said, for it.
I thought that a good program for those convicted of a DUI was to go to a meeting with parents who have lost loved ones to drunk drivers. Make them go and talk to someone who is crippled by a drunk driver. Make them spend a day watching photos of dui accidents and the victims. Nothing like peeling a body out of a dashboard to give you some perspective. Make them go and talk to some children who lost a parent to a drunk driver. Explain to them that it was no big deal or that they just lost count of how much they drank. I am sure the kids would be very sympathetic.
While everyone makes mistakes, I am sorry but a DUI is not a mistake. A DUI is deliberate.
Just my 2 cents. Thanks for letting me rant a bit.

[Highwayman]

Rants are good Dutch. Your 2 cents worth is worth more than 2 cents.

I just think that before we go on an all out attack on DUI folks, we need to ask if we’re going overboard. I’ve heard the story about some guy that staggered out of a bar and realized he had no business driving. It’s the middle of winter, so he starts the car to run the heater and stretches out in the seat to sleep it off. Got busted for DUI because he operated a motor vehicle under the influence. Or the guy driving that realized he was drunk and pulled over, got out and was sleeping on the grass. Busted because he drove there. Do we give these guys any credit for not making a bad situation worst or lump them in with the ones that plow into another car that kills a whole family? If serious and repeat offenders have their driver’s license revoked, why would we issue them license plates in the first place?