Latest posts for the thread "Snitching on Dad"

Re: Snitching on Dad

rubyresourceress — GMT

I would love to snitch on my brother, publicly or privately, as after twenty years of DUIs he still drives drunk. But he lives in Minnesota and I do not know how to do this. Sometimes family members even get in the car while he's drunk because no one back home knows how to say no and no one wants to cause a fuss.
To me he is a tragedy waiting to happen and it will probably not be his life he takes but that of another party.
Since I pointed this out on my last visit and asked the family to help him, most of my family back home no longer speaks to me. That would mean facing their own addictions.
If you have any ideas on how to let someone in authority know, I would be grateful. I have nothing to lose, but some stranger(s) and family in Minnesota surely have their lives on the line.
I can understand why someone would want to be anonymous after my experience, but I also think it would be easy to use this system to harass people.
Why do so many things end up being a matter of law rather than community? I wish there were more ways to reach out to families in trouble, but I also know that my family would not respond to anything less than legislation.
My usual Libra/Gemini/ambivalent/ambidextrous/biped/bisexual/bifocaled/bicyclist reply: on the other hand. . . let's find a balance. Can anyone tell me what that looks like?

Re: Snitching on Dad

JustinBE — GMT

I believe that anonymous "snitching" should be allowed. Reporting on someone's bad driving is in place to protect them and the public. Anonymous reporting is in place to protect the accuser from repercussions from the accused.

It is true that people abuse the system, but that happens in program. I would rather let someone report anonymously because they would be afraid otherwise. And in those cases, it is usually a real case that is needed to be brought to light.

Re: Snitching on Dad

Missy99 — GMT

Having been the victim of anonymous complaints regarding dog barking -- my neighbor used to get mad at me and say "You'd better _______ or I'll call Animal Control again," I'm not a big fan of anonymous reporting. This neighbor knew exactly how far she could go (that with the third complaint I'd get a citation and have to go to court), so she used that information every time she got upset with me about something (like asking her kids not to throw things at my dogs in their kennel). With respect to Mr. Snitchweasel saying just take the test again, that argument seems like the justification for the patriot act -- if you don't have anything to hide, why do you care if someone listens to your conversation? Citizens have the right to not be harassed by the law. Having just moved my father with Alzheimer's across the country and taken away his car, I know how hard that process is, but creating a method for citizens to harass each other isn't the answer.

Re: Re: Snitching on Dad

Snitchweasle — GMT

I have seen many incompetent drivers of all ages. I can almost always spot an elderly or unskilled driver from a block away because they are the one's driving 15 or 20 mph BELOW the speed limit, changing lanes without looking or simply assuming that they "own the road." I'm sure they tell themselves that they are fine drivers because they have never had an accident. That however, does not make them good drivers. I think ALL drivers should have an on-the-road driving test every 5 to 10 years regardless of age.

Re: Snitching on Dad

mydogatemyemail — GMT

What I am hearing from the guests is that politicians don't want to directly tackle this issue because of the potential fallout from elderly voters at the ballot box with no real regard for public safety.

Re: Re: Re: Snitching on Dad

taildragerdriver — GMT

Even if that is true it is hard for me to accept this level of disrespect for people. I believe we should treat each other with respect and it would solve a lot of problems.

Just my opinion but still think it is an unfortunate and obnoxious thing for our legislators to do to us citizens.

Re: Re: Snitching on Dad

abrahamgriswold — GMT

To answer that, driving is considered a privilege and not a right. Therefore, driving or accustations about your driving is not protected under the constitution. The right to face your accuser only applies to criminal matters.

Re: Snitching on Dad

taildragerdriver — GMT

This is an interesting to me because as I understand it the US constitution garentees you get to face you accuser how can this be legal.

To me this law should be eliminated it seems to be like the old communists and other dictatorships some unknown person reports you, you are a traitor and off to jail you go. If you can't face you accuser the police should have to varify the actual driving problem by the police officer seeing the problem.

Re: Snitching on Dad

artkohn — GMT

I understand that it can be difficult to discuss difficult topics with our aging family members. However, it is an error to create laws that erode everyone’s civil liberties in order to compensate for families that are unable to live up to their difficult responsibilities.

Re: Re: Snitching on Dad

abrahamgriswold — GMT

It sounds like your guest is the victim of the abuse of the system and that is unfortunate. However, I think that the majority of the use of the law is well intentioned and is very important. In our family, we recently had a situation where my grandmother demonstrated that she should not be driving. But since we were all her children or grandchildren, she felt she did not listen to us about her driving. It wasn’t until we contact the DMV and they intervened, did she stop driving.

I would like to stress that the confidentiality was very important. My grandmother suffers from a number of issues and does not like to accept help. If she knew that we contacted the DMV that would decrease the likelihood that she would trust us to help her on other issues.

I think that his law is important and should remain the way it is. However, I do agree that law enforcement should have their name public when they report.

Re: Snitching on Dad

Justmy Thot — GMT

I've been taking care of elders in my family, and I still disagree with this policy. It is too easy to use it to harass people who are simply disliked. It also promotes a kind of deception in caregiving that is very common, where the caregiver pretends to agree with an elder who is in denial about their decreasing abilities. I totally agree with Mr. Rohter that elders should be tested more often, and that this anonymous reporting policy should be dropped.

Re: Snitching on Dad

penguin_or — GMT

I think the current reporting mechanism doesn't go far enough - requiring that you personally know a bad driver is a big obstacle to public safety, which is the real goal of reporting bad drivers. My wife observed an elderly man driving very dangerously in the Tigard area about 3 years ago and tried to report him, by his car make and license plate. She was of course refused under the current DMV reporting laws. Two weeks later, this same man and car were on the news, having run off the side of Hwy 99W, killing a mother and her child when he did.

Should every such report cause a reported driver to be tested? Probably not. But at some threshhold, I think the answer is yes.

Re: Snitching on Dad

LanceUppercut — GMT

Doesn't it seem a little ridiculous to devote a show to this topic? It's sour grapes between a neighborhood of country folk. More news please.

Re: Re: Snitching on Dad

artkohn — GMT

Why should I give up my privacy rights because you are afraid of your mother?

Re: Snitching on Dad

orourkek — GMT

My mother was 85 and with early dementia and would get lost while driving and a couple of times fell asleep at the wheel. She has always been a very independent person and loved to drive. My brother and I reported her because we could not get her to quit driving and we were afraid she would hurt herself or others. She would have been "madder than a wet hen" had she known it was us!

Re: Re: Snitching on Dad

lovincasper — GMT

I totally agree with this suggestion. I have written a letter to the state and stated to people I know, that as everyone gets older, you tend to forget the laws of the road and pick up bad habits. Why not re-test when they renew? This way the State can add new questions regarding laws that are instituted or common issues that are being reported. This way the State doesn't have to pay for billards to inform drivers of a new law.

If you are willing to put yourself behind a moving vehicle and put lives at stake then you should be knowledgable on how to operate that vehicle within the laws and rules of the road. Just because you "think" you're a good driver or driven for many years, doesn't make you a great driver.

Re: Re: Snitching on Dad

mydogatemyemail — GMT

I agree with you, however the problem is that the elderly vote in a greater percentage than the general public. Elderly political groups have fought frequent testing tooth and nail because they realize that a larger portion of the elderly would not pass such exams. Politicians don't have the guts to pass such legislation for fear of facing the elderly at the ballot box.

Re: Snitching on Dad

echolynch — GMT

Why should ANYONE, ESPECIALLY police officers be able to report drivers anonymously? Why don't we have mandatory re-tests EVERY time the DL expires? Of course it is a hassle and time consuming, but while everyone THINKS they can drive, my time working in and driving ambulances prove otherwise.

How to make the system accountable

mydogatemyemail — GMT

I can only think of one method, although many people will disagree with my proposal, that would affect change in this legislation: use publicly available name, address, and birth dates to report the governor, state congressmen, and local news reporters. Once these people start getting reported without cause, the legislation will be changed to prevent abuse. Until high profile politicians start being targeted with this reporting system, the law won't be changed.

Re: Re: Snitching on Dad

mydogatemyemail — GMT

I agree with you, however, your drug example is a bad one because that is exactly what police in Oregon do when you report a suspected drug dealer. Given example, the man who paid his taxes in Southern Oregon last month, his cash smelled like weed, the clerk reported this to the police, they got a warrant, and they entered his home.

Re: Snitching on Dad

jaikenone — GMT

Taking the driving test isn’t irrelevant! It’s a hassle! And further more it’s prosecution with any proof of guilt. If somebody turns you in anonymously, without proof, for having illegal drugs hidden in the walls of your house, do you think cops should be allowed to come in and tear up your home? Whatever happened to the concept of innocent until proven guilty?

Re: Re: Snitching on Dad

mydogatemyemail — GMT

Hmm, doesn't your suggestion change the basis of all American law that you are presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty?

Re: Snitching on Dad

Snitchweasle — GMT

If he is a capable driver, then a test is irrelevant. You take the test, you pass, problem solved. The DMV rule isn't about anonymity, it's about the safe operation of a vehicle. He should stop whining and take his medicine.

Re: Re: Re: Snitching on Dad

AndrewPDX — GMT

Let's make it free.

Re: Re: Snitching on Dad

mydogatemyemail — GMT

Vehicle registration is a public record. You take the license plate down to the DMV, filled out a form, pay a small fee, and they will give you the data.

Re: Snitching on Dad

AndrewPDX — GMT

A complaint just starts an investigation. If your neighbor is firing off his gun, should the police decline to investigate if you don't feel safe giving your name? Why should drivers get special immunity?

I might consider requiring names for complaints against drivers in return for drivers giving up their anonymity. How about making vehicle registrations public, so that the next time I see an unsafe driver, I can use the license number to look up his or her name and address on the Internet?

Re: Snitching on Dad

Sarah Jane Rothenfluch — GMT

Update: The public comment period about the DMV's confidential reporting system is open until this Friday. If you would like to share your thoughts with them please go to: http://ego...ions.shtml

Snitching on Dad

Sarah Jane Rothenfluch — GMT

[Posted by Sarah Jane Rothenfluch]

LISTEN TO "Snitching on Dad" (24MB MP3)

My father is in his eighties and is an excellent driver. But what would I do if he weren't so good behind the wheel? In Oregon I could confidentially report him to the Department of Motor Vehicles. They'd ask for my name, for his name, and for some information detailing why I thought he was an unsafe driver. Then they'd mail my dad a letter stating that he had 60 days to come in to be retested. If he failed to appear he's risk license suspension.

Oregonians have had this right to confidentially report unsafe drivers since 1987. Since 2003 police officers have had the same power.

But that might be changing. Last month the Oregon Transportation Commission temporarily took that power away from police officers. They're welcoming public comment on their decision until Friday. At which point they'll reconvene and discuss whether this temporary change should hold. Meanwhile an Oregonian from Lane County argues that the DMV should perform more mandatory testing and drop this idea of confidential reporting altogether.

What do you think? Do you want the right to report your dad if he's a bad driver? Should you be able to do so in confidence? Or should you just have to face your dad and tell him to get off the road? What rights do you want if someone reports you?

GUESTS:

Scott Rohter: The main complainant against the DMV's confidential reporting
David House: Spokesperson for the Oregon Department of Motor Vehicles
Brad Benfield: Media Relations Manager for the Washington Department of Licensing
Gerald Cohen: State Director, AARP Oregon

Photo credit: Misswired / Flickr / Creative Commons