Optional drivers licenses

One of the biggest public issues raging in Seattle these days is whether to stop impounding the vehicles of people who are caught driving with suspended licenses. Many in the city's hippie-dippie political class, such as City Councilmember Nick Licata, think it's an act of compassion to end the impound and keep bad drivers on the streets on the grounds that a disproportionate number of people who lose their licenses are low-income minorities (Never mentioned is the number of poor people and minorities who are killed and injured in traffic accidents caused by unlicensed drivers).

The Seattle Times throws its editorial weight against the issue today. "Seattle's impound law: not fair to too many"

The offense, "Driving While License Suspended," comes in three sizes: class one, for violators with a long history of dangerous driving; class two, for violators with a short history of serious infractions, such as driving drunk; and class three, mainly those who have had licenses suspended for failure to pay traffic tickets. The argument is over the last group, which is the least serious but the largest.

I've never seen a straight answer on what sort of infractions put one in the third group. Driving at night without headbeams? Running a red light? Driving 60mph in a school zone? Wrong way on a one-way street? I have no idea. I e-mailed the following questions to all nine members of the City Council:

Which specific traffic violations would still lead to the impoundment of the violator's vehicle?

Which specific traffic violations that currently require impoundment would no longer lead to impoundment?

How would the city then penalize the above violations that no longer lead to impoundment?

What is the expected budgetary impact of these changes?

What is your position on this proposal?

That was two weeks ago, only Councilmember Richard Conlin responded. He didn't answer any of my questions, the substance of his reply was:

While I have concerns about the impact of impoundment, it is a better alternative than sending people to jail, as is permitted under state law. Therefore, repeal of the law must be combined with a clear agreement with the City Attorney that ensures that jail does not become the alternative. There must also be a clear alternative that provides for enforcement of the law and that the offending driver has an enforceable plan for payment of the delinquent tickets and for obtaining a valid license.

As Chair of the Public Safety Committee, Councilmember Licata has the responsibility for negotiating such an agreement, and I look forward to the results of his discussions with the City Attorney.

With the rest of the City Council delegating public safety to Nick Licata, we might as well make drivers licenses optional, at least for people who claim poverty and ethnicity as an excuse not to follow traffic laws.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 14, 2004 12:19 PM