State to impound drunk drivers' cars

[bwana]

Well Creed does have a point. It's scary how much power is being entrusted with cops that a person no longer has a chance to defend himself. If the cop says jail due to outstanding fines, then jail it is. If he says impound, then impound it is.

Let's forget about the drunk driving issue for a second and think about this, things are becoming more and more like a Judge Dredd type scenario. No wonder the court system isn't working for us - the cops are already entrusted to make judgements. Funny how I don't see these laws being extended to impound unroadworthy taxi's which are far more dangerous

Since when did the courts relinquish determination of guilt or innocence? Sure - the outstanding fines is one thing but if a warrant has been issued then that's more than justifiable and preventable. Pay the fines . . dont go to jail.

 

[Koos Custodiet]

I would say this is fine - take a drunk driver's car!

Beware the slippery slope.

If it's "take the car and give it to charity"... but in the USA they can sieze stuff that may be related to drugs and sell it for department funds... can you see where this heads? Property confiscated to pay for the xmas bash?

http://www.fff.org/freedom/1093d.asp

I say we need to make the police work. They're trying to make things easier for themselves -- siezing the car means they don't have to go through the whole court process etc -- but you would have to, if you wanted to prove your innocence.

Koos

 

[Highflyer_GP]

Bwana some people don't receive their warrants, or they receive it after the due date because of administrative incomptencies. Yet these people are treated like common criminals too.

Don't get me wrong I agree that drunk drivers should have their cars impounded, if you know that you're driving then you don't drink - it's as simple as that. What I'm saying is that sometimes innocent motorists might be arrested by a cop and doesn't stand a chance because that cop is entrusted by law to make certain decisions (such as outstanding fines).

I also want to know why the idea of impounding isn't extended to unroadworthy taxi's? They're just as dangerous as a drunk driver, maybe even worse if they have cardboard brakes and a spanner for a steering wheel.

 

[Turbo_Aspiration]

3 beers and is 100% capable of driving

There was a doc on sabc a few years back on alcohols effect on the body. They monitored a bunch of people (guys and girls, they went to a club for the night i think). Some of them were totally out of it and still within the legal limit. This was a brit doc tho and im really not sure how their legal limit differs from here.

I get what you're saying but the point is that there has to be a general limit. If you can handle 3 beers, it doesn't mean i can. I'm sure the limit we have is there for a reason. If you had kids and they went to school on a bus: say you knew the bus driver had 3 beers every morning, would you put your kids on that bus?

 

[chiskop]

I say we need to make the police work. They're trying to make things easier for themselves -- siezing the car means they don't have to go through the whole court process etc -- but you would have to, if you wanted to prove your innocence.

Who says they don't have to go through the "whole court process"??

The one publicised case in which this was threatened (and I can't remember the eventual outcome) was a serial drunk driver.

No one is threatening to take your car, with out due process, for the first time you're over the limit.

Beware the slippery slope, indeed.

 

[Angelo]

We don't have a public transport system in SA so what are the people supposed to do when their cars get taken away?

There are millions of people without cars and they still manage to get to work.

 

[Highflyer_GP]

There are millions of people without cars and they still manage to get to work.

They're either willing to put their life in jeopardy by trusting the poor public transport infrastructure, or they are unaware that their life is in jeopardy. I'm not willing to take that chance - I trust my driving better than a taxi/bus driver's, and I know better than to allow myself to be thrown from a train.

 

[Creed]

I don't believe in drunk driving and I do agree that more should be done to stop it but there are pleny of corrupt police officers out there and it seems they are working in syndicates, laws like these invite abuse.

An example, you just bought a brand new BMW, a corrupt cop sees it and pulls you over, he then has your blood drawn and presto a few bribes later the report says that you were over the limit.Your car is then taken from you and from there it's open market to the corrupt civil servants.

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20061027034141434C686980

Maybe I'm just paranoid

 

[noxibox]

There was a doc on sabc a few years back on alcohols effect on the body. They monitored a bunch of people (guys and girls, they went to a club for the night i think). Some of them were totally out of it and still within the legal limit. This was a brit doc tho and im really not sure how their legal limit differs from here.

I get what you're saying but the point is that there has to be a general limit. If you can handle 3 beers, it doesn't mean i can. I'm sure the limit we have is there for a reason.

The limit we have is somewhat arbitrary. This is why some people have been trying for a long time to get them to switch to impairment testing. Impairment testing would also allow them to hammer people who drive under the influence of other drugs or even just while too tired. But impairment testing is more hassle and they can't be bothered to do it.

 

[icyrus]

I also want to know why the idea of impounding isn't extended to unroadworthy taxi's? They're just as dangerous as a drunk driver, maybe even worse if they have cardboard brakes and a spanner for a steering wheel.

Very good point. As far as I am concerned there should be frequent roadblocks around major cities. They should pull people over and impound any car that doesn't meet strict road worthiness rules.

I'm pretty sure a very large percentage of cars on our roads would not be considered road worth in any first world country.

 

[RobinStobbs]

Car confiscation

Good! Great! If only the government can and will impliment this. I rather think it's a damp squib since they have never been able to enforce the wearing of seatbelts or talking on cell 'phones. An so our traffic chaos increases. Sic transit gloria mundi!

 

[Claymore]

dude 5% is nothing

when i wake up and go to shop because we need mjilk or something liek that im prolly driving at 50%

whats bad is when you can see straight or when some ppl drink they drive super fast

i think 2 beers and your over is crazy

ive never heard of someone doing something stupid after 3 beers?

come on now lets get real here

i think that you should be fined and jailed due to the intoxication level, i mean 1 beer a night is crazy absolutly crazy is you ask me

but it is the law and lucky i have a g/f


im pretty sure by the time ive been pulled over and jailed because i had a 3 beers that cops work could have used for catching murderers and rapists not some bloke who has 3 beers and is 100% capable of driving

Dude, don't post when drunk!

 

[supersunbird]

Here is a question:

Say I leave my car at home and my girlfriend gets totally drunk and then in her state decides she has the muchies for a pizza and decides to drive to romans and she gets pulled over and get convicted for drunk driving? Now what would happen to MY car?

I didnt reasonably know/expect her to get drunk and then drive my car.

 

[Syndyre]

I doubt it could be taken away as its not you that committed the offence and you couldn't reasonably be accused of aiding her in committing it either.

 

[jontyB]

Everyone seems to be missing the point here. The courts will take into account the seriousness of the crime, as well as the circumstances surrounding that crime.

This is a very good thing, it will force people who otherwise don't give a **** to stop driving under the influence. Drunks do not deserve to be driving their own cars.

@supersunbird: if your drunk girlfriend does that, you can effectively open a case of vehicle theft against her. Anyway, the courts will keep her liable and under civil action you can claim your losses from your soon to be ex girlfriend.

Edit: Furthermore, from an insurance perspective: if your girlfriend wrote off your car in her drunken splendour, then your insurance will not pay out, and you will suffer the consequences. It is then up to you to launch civil claims against her to compensate you for your loss. But the main point obviously is that if she is DUI, then she is breaking the law.

 

[Nod]

Here is a question:

Say I leave my car at home and my girlfriend gets totally drunk and then in her state decides she has the muchies for a pizza and decides to drive to romans and she gets pulled over and get convicted for drunk driving? Now what would happen to MY car?

I didnt reasonably know/expect her to get drunk and then drive my car.

She should have ordered a pizza over the phone, and get it delivered. But when you're drunk you don't think straight

As long as it's not up to the cops interpretation of the law, I don't have a big problem. But they should worry more about trucks driving in the wrong lines, people talking on phones while driving, unroadworthy vehicles, pedestrians on highways, etc. Once they start to actually enforce these laws, they can focus on other money generating schemes.

 

[bwana]

She should have ordered a pizza over the phone, and get it delivered. But when you're drunk you don't think straight

As long as it's not up to the cops interpretation of the law, I don't have a big problem. But they should worry more about trucks driving in the wrong lines, people talking on phones while driving, unroadworthy vehicles, pedestrians on highways, etc. Once they start to actually enforce these laws, they can focus on other money generating schemes.

I think you underestimate the importance of getting drunk drivers off the road - its more than just a money making scheme.

 

[jontyB]

As long as it's not up to the cops interpretation of the law, I don't have a big problem.

Two very important things that I hope will clarify this.

1. A police official may only impound your vehicle in special circumstances. One of these is when you are driving under the influence to such a degree that you are endangering your own and other motorist's lives. There are various other times when the police will impound a vehicle, but generally this happens only when you are arrested on the spot.

2. The forfeiture of your vehicle can not be ordered by any legal entity other than an official court of law that has such jurisdiction.

So, a court is the only body through which you will lose your car.

The due process will be this:

You're horrendously drunk again. You get busted for a second time by a police official. You are arrested on the spot, and your vehicle is impounded. You appear in court during which an application is made to the court to seize your vehicle under this specific Act. The court grants then issues the state a warrant to seize your assets (in this case your car).

There is a massive difference between the impounding of your vehicle and the forfeiture of your vehicle under the Act, and law enforcement may only enact the first.

 

[Nod]

But, does drunk driving cause more accidents than all of those combined (or a big enough portion)?

 

[Nab]

It wouldn't matter if the penalty was public flogging, a R50 admission of guilt and ur gone. That said, bad law enforcement can't be blamed for societies lack of resposiblity. Let's face it, most drunk drivers are smart enough to afford a car and booze, they just like to think they belong to the heavies club where alcohol hydrogenase flows so freely through their veins that no booze could hamper their superior driving skills. Its a numbers game, if they keep it up and they will be sorry, not as sorry as the victims though.