Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

JJLebeau t1_jb55278 wrote

Reply to comment by peter-doubt in Drunk driver arrested after driving by traffic stop, complaining about officer's emergency lights in Fox Lake by Murphysburger

So why are people allowed to have a car after their license is revoked, not to mention driving with no insurance. Simply impounding their vehicles would somewhat solve part of the problem. It’s the case in many other countries.

5

JJLebeau t1_jb5y6ui wrote

“Unreasonable” would be the key word. It seems reasonable that a person without a license should not be using a car.

5

peter-doubt t1_jb5ztnh wrote

Seizure is also a word.. it's private property, and you can't simply take it. (BTW, what if it's the family vehicle?)

6

Uncynical_Diogenes t1_jb6ke2z wrote

If it’s uninsured it is not the “family vehicle” it is the “family liability”.

1

JJLebeau t1_jb61vqe wrote

Maybe the family should be more cognizant of who’s driving their vehicles, then it wouldn’t be an issue. Guns are confiscated, why not unlawfully operated vehicles.

−3

NotUnique_______ t1_jb7eh25 wrote

Because some people own multiple vehicles that have multiple drivers. I currently own 2 cars.

Also, there are things in place to restrict and make it impossible to drink and drive, like an interlock. This lady should've had one, but I'm betting her being suspended doesn't matter to her and she wouldn't even bother getting one anyway. At risk of being jumped on, I'll just go for it. I have a dui (got it while sitting in a running car, so no, I wasn't driving at the time), and this is my situation. My license is suspended and I can't drive until I get my license reinstated and have an interlock in my car.

0