I love the one with the lady saying septober.have another drink lady.

While I agree that dui's are a problem, I think that the use of cell phones while driving is equally dangerous. Just drive around Tinley/Orland area and you might agree

They are all idiots.

I think people driving around under the influence of drugs are more dangerous than drunks and cell phones probably cause more accidents than drugs and alcohol combined, county and state lawmakers need to get tough on this cell phone problem before any more people loose their lives to these idiots trying to drive and talk on a phone at the same time.

From what I've seen, some of those calls never end

Ben, I wish I could have used a "none of the above" answer to your poll :-) It's not the police and judges, it is the laws that are lacking. Taking it a step further (since the laws and sentencing guidelines are set by the people) I would strongly argue that society is not ready to make DUI a serious crime. Why? Look at the statistics reported in the end of the above story....too many people have a "couple too many" a couple times a year and drive. They do not want to sit in jail for one little "oops," that everyone makes once in awhile. Our society still wants to issue a 'mea culpa' and move on if they get loaded at the company Christmas party and get stopped on the way home....it doesn't take much to blow a .08.

If it were up to me, first time offense would be a felony charge, a mandatory 90 days in jail, 1 year loss of license and a $5000 fine. A second charge should result in (among other things) a permanent revocation of one's driver's license. In order to solve the problem, the deterrents need to be much more aggressive.

One more note about the poll. I think the police are doing their jobs quite well, it's the judges who let the drunks walk out of court with a slap on the wrist

I agree Deb, drivers are more aware of the consequences for driving drunk now than ever,yet they still drive drunk .They need bigger deterrents and what you suggest makes sense.

They drive off on a continuance because our courts are overcrowded with so many cases to hear. Since DUI cases are in felony court the other cases of like murder get pushed in front. I agree that these people should not be driving but in America you are innocent until proven guilty. Also impounding the car can be a hardship for other family members if you have a spouse of driving age child that needs that car too.

Deb, you and I don't always see eye-to-eye but on this one I'm behind you 100%. It's beyond time to remind people that driving is a privilege, not a right.

I realize the article is hitting on DUIs, but check the amount who don't even have a license..Hardships do occur from these arrests, but a vehicle should be impounded and not returned to an unlicensed driver.. Who ever picks up the car should pay a minimum of $500!! If you lend your car to an unlicensed driver, you're just as guilty as the driver! A majority of these arrested don't have insurance or a license, let alone driving drunk.. Start taking the vehicle away and impounded for $500 minimum.. If you can't afford it, don't drive without a license or drunk!!

Deb only one of two things will happen to the people who have thier car "seized".
They will not be able to work-lose a job-and we get to pay them to stay home, or they will get another car and continue to drive without insurance. All of these suggestions on how to make the laws tougher may seem valid, but anyone who thinks someone getting a DUI these days is going to get a slap on the wrist is just an idiot. A DUI will easily cost you three grand on your first offense, if convicted of the DUI you will pay another fifteen hundred or so to have a breathalizer put on your car-and rent for said device. Laws get tougher, and people still do it.

I know you say you don't care what happens to a person who could be this stupid, but realistically if this person loses his car and job someone still may have to feed his family-that might be you and I. And cars that still have loans on them actually can be picked up by the lien holder if the driver just stops paying. I think a mandatory lifetime breathalizer for a second offense may be just as effective, and this guys wife, if she sticks with him, may still have a chance to get to work and get the kids to school. I am not sticking up for anyone who could make this mistake twice, I just don't want to pay for his familys welfare.

Everyone has valid points. The problem is how to keep these fools off the road. Until someone figures out a way, we all continue to be in danger

"I guess we have no alternative then to keep making the punishment so hard on them ,maybe it will stop "

Guess what? It won't stop. You can increase the penalties on all sorts of crimes and it doesn't stop or deter. Penalties are enhanced for gun crimes and guess what? Gun crimes continue. Penalties were enhanced for murders committed with guns. Guess what? Murders still continue. Courts are loaded with cases for people driving with no license, license suspended/revoked. People still drive regardless. Third and fourth DUIs are felonies now. You can make the punishment as hard as you want and it's not going to stop.

Absolutely right Ted.

Impound vehicle for DUI or having no license.. Ist occurrence is $500 fine..Goes up $500 more each conviction..These people won't be able to keep going at this rate..Won't stop the problem but it will sure put a dent in their travels and hopefully slow them to stopping it totally
!!

@ Dave>>Well, he still would have to buy another clunker, probably $500+(anything that starts nowadays is easily that!) and he would need new plates because the plates stay on the impounded car . To get plates I believe you have to have an updated insurance card which he couldn't get without a current license because of his no license or DUI conviction...This roughly adds up to almost a grand if he doesn't want to try for the original car($500+)?? This may not stop all these offenders, but at $500+ each time, I'm sure there will be quite a few who won't do it over and over!! Nothing's a sure thing to stop them, because as you said, they always find a way around the law!! Just think this might slow some of them down from repeat offenses.......

The problem with all the "lets just charge them more or take their cars" scenarios is that more and more people can't afford to get their license back anyway, so they just drive uninsured and without a license. If you take their car they will get another. Dave get off your high horse, I am not letting people drive drunk, we need solutions not just "make them stop-they are killers" no crap sherlock. I know some pretty smart, good people who have made the mistake of driving while intoxicated and been caught. Statistics say for every person who gets a DUI that same person has driven 100 times while intoxicated-and not gotten a DUI-think about that! So to anyone on here who acts like they have never heard of a friend or family member or co-worker get a DUI, or at least maybe driven home after a wedding at a .08, I call complete B.S. on you! This is a huge problem everywhere, and these so called killers have been around a long, long time.

Unfortunately I know someone who got 4 DUIs in a period of 15 months. The last time she had her youngest child with her and she had a breathalyzer thing in her car. Guess what? She used to just have her kids blow in it for her. Her kids told me this themselves. She finally was sentenced to spend some time in jail...a whopping 30 days for the DUI and child endangerment and then she was released. Not her first charge of child endangerment either. She has no probation, no random urine tests, nothing. She just doesn't have her license, but she still drinks like a fish. I'm sure she's driving her car here and there because they didn't confiscate it. She moved to another town so the cops wouldn't know her car. Great system we have. Someday she will kill somebody. How is someone with 4 DUIs not still in jail??

That is scary. where is DCFS also?

unfortunately, it costs too much to keep them locked up. DCFS has a hard enough time keeping children from crack-addicted parents. No, you don't have to have a valid driver's license to get insurance on a vehicle or to even plate one. It's a random drawing Springfield does to red flag people and require them to produce such. I know of such a person all of this applies to. He's been pulled over 90 days ago in Oak Lawn, posted bond and got his truck out of impound, 60 days ago same scenerio in Chicago Ridge, same scenerio 30 days ago in Hometown, and, yes, he gets his child every other weekend. Sickening!!!!!!

MM you do need a license to get insurance. Other people can have insurance on a vehicle but it would not cover any non-licensed driver-thus it would make no sense. Any non-licensed driver is driving without insurance....period.

Mason Insurance on 95th offers insurance to non-licensed drivers. You just tell them you are not the primary driver. No one has to present a license at all.

Wow!!!!This same person just had an accident October 10, 2011. His insurance now is Safeway. Anyone heard of that company?

What person Lori? And Mike insurance is useless if you get in an accident and don't have a license. I guess if you have full insurance and your car gets hit while being parked somewhere that would help-but other than that an un-licensed driver would never be covered.

mm's person of interest. can someone just take his truck away from him? he's had three DUIs which resulted in the suspension. Now, he's had three driving on a suspended in 90 days and one accident

Have you-all read the announcements?

Why don't we just ban cars altogether? then all the wreckage on the highways will stop, no one will be hurt or die in car crashes and we will all be happy.

How about good mass transportation ,high speed rail,great bus coverage .Oh that's right, all the budgets were cut ,too bad,so sad.There is always walking and riding your bicycle.

it's my understanding that you can get a dui on a bike too in Illinois because it is considered a vehicle

well then, you probably could get busted for public intoxication if you are a walking drunk.Lets go back to prohibition.

I have noticed in most or all of our comments ,nothing has been said about the responsibility of the bar or liquor store that sells the alcohol. What if, when a patron went into a bar, he or she , had to leave their license with a 25. deposit, when he or she leaves the bar they have to take a Breathalyzer test to get their license and deposit back ,if they don't pass the test, the deposit will go for their cab fare .If you want to buy from a liquor store ,blow before you buy ,if you don't pass you don't get the alcohol. The cost of the breathalyzers could come from convicted dui offenders

Russ, you've got a valid point. I would think it would be easier for a bartender to spot an intoxicated person than it would be for a clerk in a liquor store. If someone comes in sober and buys a ton of booze, the clerk has no idea on how many people will be consuming it. Someone obviously already is a different story. I believe the law says that a bartender and or establishment can be held liable if it's obvious the offender was intoxicated and they continued to serve them. It would be nice if that law was enforced more stringently. But we can also take issue with people who are with a friend or relative and let them get behind the wheel knowing that they were drunk. Drinking for the most part is a social activity, so most people are never alone when they drink. People need to stand up and act like an adult and tell them, you're not driving, if you try we'll call the police. No one wants to be the bad guy, but I'd rather have someone mad at me instead of someone's death or serious injury on my conscience.

Deb, I think we agree where the responsibility lies .I think we all need to be more vigilant of potential drunken drivers.Sometimes it is not obvious when a person is over the limit .I wonder if people would be willing to test themselves before they leave a bar to see if they are legal.