WA State Republican introduces DUI License Plate Bill

CDSinex · Feb 15, 2011

On Valentines Day, Washington State Rep. Norma Smith (R-10th District) introduced a bill that would require persons convicted of DUI to have special license plates on their cars and motorcycles for 3 years after their driving privileges were restored. The plates would be the standard color and design but the numbers would end with a capital “Z”, and cost an additional $100 for cars and trucks, and $25 for motorcycles.

A Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration study (2006-2008) estimates that 13.8% of Washington State drivers drive under the influence every year, ranking it 31st in the nation.

The proposed law says in part: (Not original link)

NEW SECTION. Sec. 1 A new section is added to chapter 46.16A RCW to read as follows:
The department shall create and issue a license plate, for display at the front and rear of a motor vehicle, available for persons convicted of an alcohol-related violation of RCW 46.61.502 or 46.61.504 or an equivalent local ordinance and for persons who have had their driver's license suspended, revoked, or denied under RCW 46.20.3101. Both front and rear license plates must designate an uppercase letter Z as the last symbol at the end of any sequence of letters or numbers, or both, but otherwise conform to the standards described under RCW 46.16A.200. If the vehicle is a motorcycle or moped, only one license plate must be issued.

It excludes certain vehicles.

(i) The department shall require the person to maintain the device and Z-designated license plates on all vehicles operated by the person and shall restrict the person to operating only vehicles equipped with the device and license plates, for the remainder of the period of suspension, revocation, or denial. The installation of an ignition interlock device is not necessary on vehicles owned, leased, or rented by a person's employer and on those vehicles whose care and/or maintenance is the temporary responsibility of the employer, and driven at the direction of a person's employer as a requirement of employment during working hours. The person must provide the department with a declaration pursuant to RCW 9A.72.085 from his or her employer stating that the person's employment requires the person to operate a vehicle owned by the employer or other persons during working hours.

Maxinquaye · Feb 15, 2011

I bought an armband with a pink triangle once. Still have it. Branding irons are also availible.

Shadow Dragon · Feb 15, 2011

This is a waste of money that will accomplish nothing.

Michael Wolfe · Feb 15, 2011

Shadow Dragon said:
This is a waste of money that will accomplish nothing.

Looks like they're trying to make some money, not waste it.

ETA: Actually, you're probably right. After they collect the money, they'll probably end up wasting it.

MattW · Feb 15, 2011

I think it should be for anyone with a conviction for impaired driving, whether the device is installed or not.

If you are on probation, it's not cruel and unusual punishment to notify other drivers or police that you have priors. Considering the number of people who drive on suspended licenses, it's closer to a public safety measure.

Sure, it's not perfect, but if you were behind an erratically driving vehicle with a Z at the end of the plate, wouldn't you be more likely to report them?

Is there a way they could mandate painting a scarlet A (for alcohol) on the hood and trunk?

Michael Wolfe · Feb 15, 2011

MattW said:
Sure, it's not perfect, but if you were behind an erratically driving vehicle with a Z at the end of the plate, wouldn't you be more likely to report them?

I don't know. The idea isn't very appealing to me. An erratic vehicle is no more a public safety threat because the driver already has a conviction under his belt, don't you think?

Perks · Feb 15, 2011

It's a horrible idea. As much as I am terrified and infuriated by impaired driving, the last thing we need is to brand targets for vigilantes. Awful idea.

darkprincealain · Feb 15, 2011

Yeah, I have a hard time seeing how this helps encourage people--whether they be vigilantes or alcoholics--to make smarter decisions. It seems to me it would do more harm than good in a few key ways, as Perks and Max mentioned above.

AlexPiper · Feb 15, 2011

Another argument that's been made against this law is for vehicles that aren't solely one person's. If, say, you have a single car for a household, everyone will have to drive the Z-branded DUI-plate vehicle even if they have a perfect driving record.

darkprincealain · Feb 15, 2011

Well, the employer vehicles detail also gives me major pause. Because your coworker is an alcoholic and you're required to share vehicles with same, you could be required by your job to then drive a vehicle marked with Z? Yeah, there are just too many little details here that don't jibe with reality for me.

ETA: Or at least, there has been a paucity of relevant thought put into those details.

shadowwalker · Feb 15, 2011

It would never pass anyway - too many politicians would have to have it...

Seriously, adding the humiliation factor doesn't really do anything to people with continuing offenses. If the threat of jail, fines, etc, doesn't stop them, why should something like this? And yes, it adds the threat of vigilantes and the stigma being attached to innocent family members.

Don · Feb 15, 2011

I figure it this way. The states are broke. The politicians can no longer propose new programs that A) cost money and B) buy votes.

So their only options are C) stupid programs that raise revenue or D) intelligent legislation that actually improves the society they control.

Well, okay, so they've only really got one option. My bad.

In any event, we can expect a lot more C-class legislation to be rolling out of state houses across the country -- as evidenced by the threads we've been seeing lately.

CDSinex · Feb 15, 2011

darkprincealain said:
Well, the employer vehicles detail also gives me major pause. Because your coworker is an alcoholic and you're required to share vehicles with same, you could be required by your job to then drive a vehicle marked with Z? Yeah, there are just too many little details here that don't jibe with reality for me.

ETA: Or at least, there has been a paucity of relevant thought put into those details.

Actually the opposite is the case.

Sec. 3. (2) The display of Z-designated license plates is not necessary on vehicles owned by a person's employer and driven as a requirement of employment during working hours.

The link I posted to the text of the bill seems to have gone south, here is a different one.

In Washington State 43% of traffic fatalities involve alcohol or drug impaired drivers. Driving is not a right. Here DUI charges range from a Gross Misdemeanor, to a Class C Felony. I don’t see a problem with making a condition for allowing convicts the privilege of driving that they must have the letter Z on their license plates for three years.

Maxinquaye · Feb 15, 2011

Driving may not be a right, but there is a right to not being put on shaming display. The stock is not an ingredient in modern justice. The key bit of that legislation is that the once convicted must share his conviction with all employers in order to get that get-out-of-the-stock-card for the company car. What will be the result of an employee approaching an employer to declare s/he has a criminal record?

veinglory · Feb 15, 2011

I am sure stigmatising people and any member of their family dependent on the same vehicle really helps them with their mental health/addiction recovery.

Magdalen · Feb 15, 2011

America is creeping away from me in a creepy, crawly way. Scary!

blacbird · Feb 15, 2011

I'm all for it. I've long advocated the requirement that people convicted of a variety of driving offenses be required to display "IDIOT" license plates. Hell, in my state we have special license plates for veterans, disabled veterans, purple heart recipients, supporters of certain kids' programs, etc. Surely we can do this as well.

Hallen · Feb 15, 2011

Dumb law for many of the reasons stated above.
The majority of problems are caused by repeat offenders. A single DUI, although bad, is not necessarily indicative of a person with a problem, just somebody who made a mistake. And, with the blood alcohol level as low as it is, the vast majority of people who drink have probably driven with DUI levels of alcohol in their blood.

Impared driving is a very serious problem. This zero tollerence mentality is typical of government attempts to fix it. We try to be too nice to the repeaters and the ones who are blind drunk and driving. Yet it seems we go really hard on the person who is no more impaired than somebody who has worked a 12 hours shift at the hospital. If you hurt someone or are so drunk you can't see straight, then pull their license. Done deal. If you get unlucky after having one beer prior to driving to the store from more hamburger buns, then pay the fine, do the classes, and then see what happens.

And even that won't really work since the really bad ones are all driving on suspended licenses anyway.

And finally, driving is a right, just like walking down the street is a right. It's just that government regulates driving and can therefore remove that right from you if you don't play nice. It's not the other way around. The government does NOT grant rights. It can only take them away. The old axiom of driving is a privilege not a right is all fine and dandy from a perspective of being responsible, but it's technically incorrect.

Mara · Feb 15, 2011

As Don said, this looks like another nickel-and-dime way to raise a little revenue.

blacbird · Feb 15, 2011

Hallen said:
If you hurt someone or are so drunk you can't see straight, then pull their license. Done deal. If you get unlucky after having one beer prior to driving to the store from more hamburger buns, then pay the fine, do the classes, and then see what happens.

In reality, this is pretty much the way it works. You don't get thrown in prison for a first-offense DUI if no harm is done. But we are often far too tolerant of serial offenders. In my town we just had a woman in her 40s imprisoned for something like 25 years, after killing another motorist while so drunk she couldn't even remember getting in her car. It was her seventh offense. Her license had long been suspended. She was on probation and wasn't even supposed to drink, let alone drink and drive. The sentencing judge said he was imposing the maximum confinement he could not as a "punishment", but just to keep her away from the public, she was such a menace. Why exactly it took the death of an innocent person to get to that point, given this woman's record, is beyond me.

Hallen said:
the really bad ones are all driving on suspended licenses anyway.

True enough, but getting caught driving without a license does add more penalties to whatever other offense has been committed.

Hallen said:
And finally, driving is a right, just like walking down the street is a right.
. . .
The old axiom of driving is a privilege not a right is all fine and dandy from a perspective of being responsible, but it's technically incorrect.

No, it isn't. Driving a car is a privilege with special requirements for demonstrating capability, and has long been regulated because of the public hazard involved. It's no different from requiring special permits for licenses to drive an 18-wheeler, or operate various kinds of construction equipment. Even as such, the requirements for auto driving are so minimal that nearly everybody can manage to pass. Are you seriously proposing that driving have no licensing requirement?

And let's also remember that certain criminal offenders do get sentenced to house arrest, with electronic monitors, not to mention incarcerated, and thereby most certainly do lose their "right" to walk down the street.

Prozyan · Feb 15, 2011

Maxinquaye said:
Driving may not be a right, but there is a right to not being put on shaming display. The stock is not an ingredient in modern justice.

Just curious, but do you feel the same about the sex offender registry?

veinglory · Feb 15, 2011

The registry is not intended to punish, shame or discriminate against the offender, but allow others to avoid him/her. Of course that is not how it is always used.

Prozyan · Feb 15, 2011

I would personally say a scarlet letter is a scarlet letter, regardless of intent.

Devil Ledbetter · Feb 15, 2011

Perks said:
It's a horrible idea. As much as I am terrified and infuriated by impaired driving, the last thing we need is to brand targets for vigilantes. Awful idea.

Agreed. Public humiliation isn't all that effective for addicts battling compulsive behaviors anyway, is it? My understanding is that shame can fuel the cycle of substance abuse. If they want to do something effective, they should provide these folks some real help.

shadowwalker · Feb 15, 2011

blacbird said:
I'm all for it. I've long advocated the requirement that people convicted of a variety of driving offenses be required to display "IDIOT" license plates. Hell, in my state we have special license plates for veterans, disabled veterans, purple heart recipients, supporters of certain kids' programs, etc. Surely we can do this as well.

But again - someone who is a repeat offender is not going to be swayed by a letter on their plates. And his/her entire family will be subjected to the 'infamy' just for having that license plate in their driveway or if they have to drive that vehicle. The person who is truly sorry for their first offense will be ashamed enough already. The rest will continue to behave recklessly because they don't care.

Drunk driving won't be curtailed (I doubt it will ever stop) until we make drinkers into the same "pariahs" as smokers. Let me know when that happens... :sarcasm

WA State Republican introduces DUI License Plate Bill

Imagine something clever here.

That cheeky buggerer

Jambo Bwana

Company Man

Jambo Bwana

delicate #!&@*#! flower

Wayward Wordsmith

empty-nester!

All Living is Local

Imagine something clever here.

That cheeky buggerer

volitare nequeo

Petulantly Penitent

Mostly annoying

Clever User Title

Are you one, Herbert?

volitare nequeo

Are you one, Herbert?

Come on you stranger, you legend,

empty-nester!