by Guest » Tue Jul 13, 2010 03:22 am
In December 2007, I was arrested for a DUI. I was sentenced the following July, and the careless driving was dropped as part of the plea bargain. I'm in Montana.
Anyways, State Farm has yet not noticed, or has yet to raise my rates (in fact they have gone down slightly). I know the standard wait time for insurance purposes in 3 years; first question, is it 3 years from my arrest or from the court hearing?
Now the sticky situation. My 94 Camaro Z28 recently broke down again, and it is going to cost around $1,000 to fix. It is no longer financially viable to keep fixing her up, as bigger problems loom with the engine that will need to be addressed in the not so distance future as well. So I am stuck between a rock and a hard place; if I get a new car, State Farm is sure to find out about the DUI and will either raise my rates to exhobort levels, or just drop me completely. If I put money back into my Camaro, I'm basically throwing money at a short-term solution, and there is no guarantee it won't break down in a much more expensive fashion before year's end.
How do I go about finding out how much insurance would be for me with my DUI on record without alerting State Farm? I believe I am still under my parents insurance (I'm 27, don't judge me), so that may be part of the reason they haven't noticed?
Would it be possible for my Dad to purchase insurance on a new vehicle for me?
I can easily afford a new car around $10,000 or so, but I certainly couldn't afford to commit to a $180 a month car payment and then have my insurance quadruple.
Any suggestions?
Anyways, State Farm has yet not noticed, or has yet to raise my rates (in fact they have gone down slightly). I know the standard wait time for insurance purposes in 3 years; first question, is it 3 years from my arrest or from the court hearing?
Now the sticky situation. My 94 Camaro Z28 recently broke down again, and it is going to cost around $1,000 to fix. It is no longer financially viable to keep fixing her up, as bigger problems loom with the engine that will need to be addressed in the not so distance future as well. So I am stuck between a rock and a hard place; if I get a new car, State Farm is sure to find out about the DUI and will either raise my rates to exhobort levels, or just drop me completely. If I put money back into my Camaro, I'm basically throwing money at a short-term solution, and there is no guarantee it won't break down in a much more expensive fashion before year's end.
How do I go about finding out how much insurance would be for me with my DUI on record without alerting State Farm? I believe I am still under my parents insurance (I'm 27, don't judge me), so that may be part of the reason they haven't noticed?
Would it be possible for my Dad to purchase insurance on a new vehicle for me?
I can easily afford a new car around $10,000 or so, but I certainly couldn't afford to commit to a $180 a month car payment and then have my insurance quadruple.
Any suggestions?
Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 07:26 am Post Subject:
DUI (Driving Under Influence ) is a serious criminal offence that result the suspension of driving license.
The public offender may face the immediate loss of driving privileges, vehicle impoundment, fines, house arrest, local incarceration, and prison time, due to drunk driving accusations. While DUI lawyers have made headway in actual court cases, the number of drunk driving arrests have steadily climbed since the beginning of 1970s, thanks to newly implemented laws and programs
Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 04:38 pm Post Subject:
DUI (Driving Under Influence ) is a serious criminal offence that result the suspension of driving license.
It's actually a traffic offense unless a death or injuries to others occurs, in which case the crime can be manslaughter, or even murder (as has happened with persons who have prior DUI convictions).
Either way, it is serious. Years ago, attorneys might have gotten their clients "off" with a "wet reckless" violation instead, and a person's DMV printout might have shown 10 or 20 such violations and no DUIs. California and many other states now prohibit that practice.
If I were in charge of things, I would subject offenders to confiscation and impounding of their vehicle until the case was tried. If found guilty, the vehicle would be "seized" by the city/county in the same manner as drug offenses, and sold to raise money for law enforcement activities. If acquitted (or charges dropped), the offender can pay to get his/her vehicle out of impound. (They at least were doing something that brought them to the attention of the arresting officer, so they should suffer the consequences of that action.)
The spoiled-little-kids like Lindsay Lohan deserve to have their playtoys taken away for bad behavior. If mom or dad have so little control over their child, then the "state" can exercise its "influence". She deserves far more than 90 days in the cooler . . . hair extensions and all.[/quote]
Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 06:57 pm Post Subject:
The spoiled-little-kids like Lindsay Lohan deserve to have their playtoys taken away for bad behavior. If mom or dad have so little control over their child, then the "state" can exercise its "influence". She deserves far more than 90 days in the cooler . . . hair extensions and all
Here's the problem. If someone like the OP had their car taken for their DUI, it would crush them as most people can't just put out a crappy movie to purchase 10 more playtoys. Herbie the Love Bug II and she'd be able to buy 10 Benz. The OP could be trying to put together enough to buy a 20 year old car.
Don't get me wrong, a DUI is a bad thing, but sometimes people make mistakes....and now most people have to pay for their mistakea. My DUI cost me about 12K and a job I was going for 7 years after the fact (Yes I was up front with them). Should I also have had my car taken away. You could always come over and kick my puppy while your at it.
Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 09:58 pm Post Subject:
Many people may consider such a proposal "harsh" punishment. But perhaps it would cause those same persons to not get behind the wheel when intoxicated. If not, well, then suffer the penalty.
In other places in the world, the penalty for drunk driving is lifetime loss of driving privilege, and if caught driving after license revocation, a significant prison term ensues. it's such a sufficient deterrent, that drunk driving in those countries is all but non-existent.
The whole point is this, it's not about "hurting" people who have little to spare, it's about attaching a significant penalty as a deterrent to drunk driving. Probably the single biggest reason our current penalties (in CA, a minimum 2 days in jail (usually served while awaiting arraignment) plus cash fine) fail to deter the offense is that the penalties are not substantial enough.
The prospect of permanently losing one's principal means of transportation (while still obligated to a loan perhaps) would, I think, be substantial enough to deter many.
Those who think their money can buy their way out of anything would be among the prime targets. Losing a couple of Escalades, BMWs, Mercedes, might just wise 'em up.
Posted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 10:53 pm Post Subject:
The spoiled-little-kids like Lindsay Lohan deserve to have their playtoys taken away for bad behavior.
I can't agree more!! I saw a statment made, by her. (Paraphrasing, of course)....it was 'I won't go to jail becuase I'm famous' kind of thing. I think it's discusting!! What happens if she had killed someone? Would she have the same attitude? My guess is..probably yes! My brother-in-law works for the Attorney Generals Office of California (in San Diego) he's the one who past the '3 strike Law'. Max..I'm sure you have heard of it. How can so many people get several DUI's (I don't care WHAT state their from) and STILL can legally drive?!
Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 01:22 am Post Subject:
How can so many people get several DUI's . . . and STILL can legally drive
Many cannot. But if they have access to a vehicle, the fact that they don't have a driver license doesn't stop them from driving, intoxicated or not. That's why taking a person's vehicle as part of the penalty for DUI could result in fewer arrests in the first place.
But it's the concern for the "poor" (low cash count) person who needs their transportation to get to work to support their family that prevents such radical approaches to the problem.
I see it differently. If that "poor" person has money to spend on getting drunk, they don't demonstrate (at least not to me) the desire to support their family the way the bleeding hearts suppose.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not a teetotaler. I enjoy a nice glass of wine or a cocktail under the right circumstances. But if I'm getting into a vehicle later, I'm much less likely to have one. And I rarely have two. Because I understand the ramifications, and I choose not to put others at risk of my driving behavior if intoxicated.
Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 06:58 am Post Subject:
How can so many people get several DUI's (I don't care WHAT state their from) and STILL can legally drive?!
I was an adjuster at the time I got my DUI. I got driving privileges from the court. When my probation officer asked my business hours, I was up front and told him I was on call 24 hours a day. He put it down as 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM, but that if I had to go out on a claim there would be no problem. They also gave me privileges to go to the grocery store..bank... whatever I needed to due for my day to day life. (I had no family within 4 hours). He more or less told me that as long as I was not out getting drunk and getting in my car I would be okay.
Others are just going to drive. I understand why they suspend a person's license. But is it realistic that they are not going to drive. Not that it is right, but people still have to go to work and don't always live near a bus line or have money for a taxi/driving service.
Posted: Tue Aug 03, 2010 05:20 pm Post Subject:
Others are just going to drive. I understand why they suspend a person's license. But is it realistic that they are not going to drive.
Watch an episode of "COPS" or some other police reality show in which a high speed pursuit occurs. Many times, the driver, after being caught, admits that the only reason he took off, putting lives at risk other than his own, was because "I don't have a license."
How much more stupid can a person's actions behind the wheel be than this? For some, the answer is driving while intoxicated.
Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 03:12 pm Post Subject:
.
.
The whole point is this, it's not about "hurting" people who have little to spare, it's about attaching a significant penalty as a deterrent to drunk driving. Probably the single biggest reason our current penalties (in CA, a minimum 2 days in jail (usually served while awaiting arraignment) plus cash fine) fail to deter the offense is that the penalties are not substantial enough.
The prospect of permanently losing one's principal means of transportation (while still obligated to a loan perhaps) would, I think, be substantial enough to deter many.
Max, Max, Max, Max...
To keep it short....
Its obvious you have little understanding of Alcoholism......
And your misguided suggested solution would only make the problem worse. [ yep, I know you can't imagine how that could be.. but trust me... it would]
Tell me, do you think that one day a child wakes up and decides ... Hey !! when I grow up I'm going to be an Alcoholic, and not just any Alcoholic, but the greatest Alcoholic ever. I'm going to alcoholic's school, practice every day for as many hours as I can...?
Or is it more likely that many people have a pre-determined DNA makeup that if they ever consume alcohol [even once] there lives will be consumed by a craving for it like "you" just can't imagine.
Did you know that "mentally" the first thing alcohol disables is "Judgment". That's why people under the influence do so many stupid things. They just don't know any better.
---------------
On another thought. Since about 42% of fatal automobile accidents are credited to Alcohol, wouldn't that mean that 58% of automobile deaths are caused by Sober Drivers. Maybe, just Maybe your idea of extreme fines, jail time, and confiscation should apply to *All * (drunk or sober) drivers that cause an accident that results in serious injury or death.
Posted: Wed Aug 04, 2010 05:24 pm Post Subject:
We all have opinions, and you are certainly entitled to yours by all means,
but this has nothing to do with alcoholism. And I find your "apologetic" on behalf of alcoholics unconvincing.
"It's not their fault, it's in their DNA." Please!
If a person wants (or, in your construct, has no choice but) to live a life of intoxication, that's not my concern. When they get behind the wheel, their inability to function, however impaired, frequently impacts, mars, or ends the lives of innocent persons. That's where my concern lies.
Since about 42% of fatal automobile accidents are credited to Alcohol, wouldn't that mean that 58% of automobile deaths are caused by Sober Drivers
I fail to see your point? If we eliminated drunk driving fatalities, then 100% of fatal accidents would be caused by "sober" drivers. So what? That's simply a statistic.
Should anyone who causes a fatal collision lose their driving privilege? It frequently happens. And it happens to others who cause no fatalities at all (as happened to a close friend/coworker of my wife who was convicted of "assault with a deadly weapon" when he stopped his car in front of a couple of bicycle riders). Should they lose their cars, too. Might not be a bad idea, so feel free to recommend it.
I suggested nothing about "extreme fines", except to say that the fines and penalties that currently exist are ineffective at solving the problem of drunk drivers. There have been a number of technological suggestions in recent years such as impairment/brethalyzer-type devices installed in the vehicles of convicted drunk drivers.
In California (and probably other states that I'm not aware of), the courts have upheld the right of law enforcement to conduct "sobriety checkpoints" on city streets as long as the location is "publicized" so that persons could use an alternate route to avoid being stopped. The ACLU and other groups lost on all their challenges to this practice.
A side benefit of the checkpoints has been an increased number of vehicle impoundings and driver arrests for non-alcohol offenses, such as no insurance, no driver license, outstanding warrants, drug possession, and others.
Do I feel sorry for those persons, too? Not in the least.
But the bleeding hearts start screaming about "constitutional" issues and utterly ignore the victims or potential victims of each of these drivers, intoxicated or not.
Add your comment