DUI Interlock cited as causing accident-here come the lawyers

[danceswithcats]

A convicted DUI driver passed out while behind the wheel, and blames the interlock device for his accident.

Others from around the country relate similar complaints.

Question: Does the positive effect on public safety through the installation of these devices outweigh the risk created by diverted attention from proper driving?
I'm still trying to decide.

To the Mods-I put this in the Pit, anticipating strong opinions and possible language. Relocate if you feel otherwise.

[Frank]

I don't see much of a point in using them while driving. Before starting the car? Yes, a wonderful thing. But it is a severe distraction while driving, and what does it do if you fail? Shut the engine off while you're going 75 mph down the highway?

[World Eater]

Originally Posted by This Year's Model

I don't see much of a point in using them while driving. Before starting the car? Yes, a wonderful thing. But it is a severe distraction while driving, and what does it do if you fail? Shut the engine off while you're going 75 mph down the highway?

Huh?

Simple, you get in the car and blow into the doodad. If you're sober enough the car starts, if you're not, it don't start.

[Jadis]

This Year's Model, the reason that periodic testing is required and not just when the car is to be started is to prevent drunk people from having a sober buddy blow for the test and get the car started and then drive off. As for the periodic testing being a distraction, as stated in the article, people always have the option of pulling over. If they do fail the test, they have a window of opportunity to get out of traffic and stop the car before the ignition locks, the engine does not shut down instantaneously.

[Q.E.D.]

Originally Posted by World Eater

Simple, you get in the car and blow into the doodad. If you're sober enough the car starts, if you're not, it don't start.

You didn't read the linked article, did you?

Drivers must also perform the test periodically while their car is in motion.

[World Eater]

Whoops, thanks Jada I missed that.

[World Eater]

Hmmmmm the server just warped out on me, neat.

Anyway, no <hanging head in shame> I didn't RTFA.

Carry on.

[Frank]

Originally Posted by Jadis

If they do fail the test, they have a window of opportunity to get out of traffic and stop the car before the ignition locks, the engine does not shut down instantaneously.

Well, that's what I was wondering. Thanks. I no longer object to testing while driving.

[danceswithcats]

Originally Posted by Jadis

As for the periodic testing being a distraction, as stated in the article, people always have the option of pulling over. If they do fail the test, they have a window of opportunity to get out of traffic and stop the car before the ignition locks, the engine does not shut down instantaneously.

[Devil's advocate] On a two lane country road with which the operator is not familiar, perhaps it is raining, and nighttime visibility prevails, I'd suspect that pulling off the road (where there is no shoulder) creates a signifigant hazard to the original operator and other motorists. [/Devil]

[Ethilrist]

dances--They don't necessarily state all the individual ways this works in all jurisdictions, but there's a basic understanding that I've seen pretty much every where I go that drivers are responsible not to do stupidly dangerous stuff while they're behind the wheel.

Getting a bunch of tickets is supposed to get the message across that they're blowing it. Having the device installed in their car is supposed to get the message across that they're really blowing it. This device makes it more difficult for them to control their car. If they can't drive it in the dark, or in the rain, or on a narrow road, I'm okay with that.

I wear glasses. I'm not supposed to drive without them. If my glasses get so dirty for some bizarre reason (soda explosion, for example) that I can't see clearly, I have the option of taking them off and trying to get them clean while still driving, or pulling over before trying to clean them.

Being a sober driver, this is not a hard decision for me to make.

[buttonjockey308]

I know there's going to be a huge legal fracas around this, but the program seems like an incontrovertable success. If you're enough of a menace that you actually have one of these devices court ordered onto your vehicle, then perhaps the testees should stop complaining, and simply pull over and park to do the test. After all, the state didn't put you there, you driving drunk put yourself there.

Now, as far as the 79 year old lady with shortness of breath, I gotta wonder how sane it is that she's driving in the first place, much less on a DUI.

[Oy!]

As I understood the article, this device isn't being inflicted on everyone; just those with a history of drunk driving. Speaking as a person who a) has had a DUI (to my deep and lasting shame) and b) believes that DUI should be treated as attempted murder unless it can be demonstrated that the situation was literally life and death, I don't think this is too much of an imposition.

DUI is, to my mind, one of the few crimes for which harsh deterrents would actually work, because it almost never arises that someone needs to drink and drive, and because so many people who are not otherwise habitual criminals engage in it. If you knew, for example, that if you were caught, you would get six months in jail, no appeals, no ifs ands or buts about it (except for the very rare life-and-death situation, which could be proven), I think you would think VERY seriously about driving while drunk, or putting yourself into a situation where you'd be inclined to do so.

I have no problems with seriously inconveniencing or even minorly endangering an habitual DUI. After all, s/he has endangered the rest of us a great deal more!

[Casey1505]

Tried to post this before, but the server went on its' union-mandated break...

Drivers must also perform the test periodically while their car is in motion.

This is an asinine condition, if that is how it was worded. It is unfortunate that it took an injury and a lawsuit for the state to to see that flaw. Pull off the road, put the car in park, blow in the tube, catch your breath, continue on. If the driver has to do this every hour while driving, perhaps the system can be rigged to prevent the car from being taken out of park in the case of a positive read.

[Liberal]

More unintended consequences as a result of bumbling Politburo planning. I say it is time to eliminate so-called public property, and let people either enjoy or suffer the consequences of their own decisions.

[Homebrew]

Are you saying that laws against drunk driving are misguided? Are you suggesting that in Libertopia there would be no laws against drunk driving?

[Zakalwe]

Originally Posted by Liberal

More unintended consequences as a result of bumbling Politburo planning. I say it is time to eliminate so-called public property, and let people either enjoy or suffer the consequences of their own decisions.

Huh? This sounds exactly like a case of the person who commits the crime suffering the consequences of their decision. If you drive drunk, you can't drive without proving you're sober. What does public/private property have to do with it?

[pravnik]

I have some safety concerns with the way the things currently work. In a suburban or rural area having to pull over to operate the thing might be only a minor hassle, but in heavier traffic pulling over immediately isn't always an option. The mechanism for the ignition lock is a little tricky to use to make sure people don't try to cheat it. The user first has to sharply inhale, then exhale somewhat forcefully for several seconds, all into a little straw near the steering wheel. Having to take your eyes off the road, fiddle with something down by the steering wheel, and do a little breath trick on a moment's notice to keep your car in operation could potentially endanger the driver and those around him. I understand that at least one person has been killed attempting to use the device in heavy traffic.

The benefits probably outwiegh the risks, but that's only a consideration if the risks cannot be eliminated. Maybe a grace period might lessen the risk, say, the vehicle will shut off within a few minutes if the driver doesn't blow.

[WhyNot]

Originally Posted by Liberal

More unintended consequences as a result of bumbling Politburo planning. I say it is time to eliminate so-called public property, and let people either enjoy or suffer the consequences of their own decisions.

Wow. Just....wow. (And I usually agree with you...ssh, don't tell.)

But WTF? Are you seriously suggesting that some drunk behind the wheel of a car is not a danger to my child and me when we're using the same road? In rush hour traffic, were I have literally no shoulder, no room to evade (and furthermore shouldn't have to?)

Sorry, but our roads are public property. If Joe Lush wants to get wasted and drive around his own property where it's clearly marked that other cars are not allowed to drive, then I totally agree with you. Let him kill himself. But if he's on MY roads - nuh-uh, sorry!

[danceswithcats]

Folks, let me restate my perspective. I do not condone or support operating under the influence. Whether or not repeat offendors should retain operating privileges or not isn't germane to my OP.

I'm questioning whether or not the corrective measure outweighs it's own intrinsic risk.

I don't know how these devices function, e.g. how frequently they require a clean sample, and how long after a sample is not supplied/failed sample is supplied, that they go into lockout mode, and the result of same.

Pulling a car off the road isn't always as easy as it sounds, and this is one of the hypothetical situations in my head. Where I live, 'off the road' is at most 2 feet, unless you want to be towed out. As such, I can't clear a lane, and by partially blocking a lane, I impose a hazard on drivers from either direction.

Could the system cut off ignition while in the middle of a left turn across traffic? Don't know.

Hopefully someone with knowledge of the device perameters will post.

[Frank]

Originally Posted by danceswithcats

I don't know how these devices function, e.g. how frequently they require a clean sample, and how long after a sample is not supplied/failed sample is supplied, that they go into lockout mode, and the result of same.

Pulling a car off the road isn't always as easy as it sounds, and this is one of the hypothetical situations in my head. Where I live, 'off the road' is at most 2 feet, unless you want to be towed out. As such, I can't clear a lane, and by partially blocking a lane, I impose a hazard on drivers from either direction.

Could the system cut off ignition while in the middle of a left turn across traffic? Don't know.

I found this from an Idaho website

If the driver has not been drinking and starts the vehicle, there will be a randomly timed retest while the vehicle is moving. The purpose of this test is to prevent drivers from drinking while driving. If the rolling retest detects alcohol, the driver will hear a signal that they have failed the test, and will have to pull the vehicle off the road and stop driving. If the driver ignores the warning and continues driving, the vehicle's horn will begin honking, and the headlights will flash until the vehicle is pulled over and the motor is turned off.

And, here is the site of a company that makes them. It says the circumvention alarm simply sounds the horn.

I can't find anything that says how long you have to take the test once you're asked to. I'm a lot more at ease with the idea of a rolling retest than I was, but I think it wouldn't hurt to make it easier to take.

[Gorsnak]

Seems simple enough to me. If they think it's not safe having to blow into these things, they can just forfeit their licenses altogether. Don't like it? Should have thought of that before you got that 4th DUI. Problem solved.

[zamboniracer]

Yes, let's blame the lawyers and the drunk drivers, rather than discuss the merits of whether or not the interlock device is flawed even if well intentioned.

Seems to me that there ought to be a better failure mechanism than having the car shutdown, such off the top of my head an on-star type thing sending a signal to the police or to 911.

[kaylasdad99]

Interlocks can be designed to work in both directions. It should be a trivial matter to design the periodic retest so that it will not operate unless the vehicle is in "Park" (or some manual-transmission equivalent, such as "neutral," with the emergency brake set).

[matt_mcl]

Originally Posted by Zakalwe

What does public/private property have to do with it?

The fact that Liberal has chosen to participate in this thread.

[Typo Negative]

Why use the interlock devices? Why not just bar these irresposible, dangerous folks from driving?


BTW, I think the rationale behind having to blow in it every so often is that drunks often drink while they are driving. At least, I did.

[danceswithcats]

Since the Dope is about fighting ignorance, I did some research on these devices. I was surprised to learn how many companies make them! The second thought was-holy crap-that means there is a helluva market for these things!

Apparently the Government has been working on this since the 1980's-the National Highway Transportation Safety Association has a standard for what these devices should be capable of, and they have an official Guvmint acronym (of course): BAIID. Blood Alcohol Ignition Interlock Device.

Depending upon where you live, the devices are set up to restrict and monitor your operating activity. A number of states have accepted these products, and of course, no two have the same piece of legislation-too damned simple.

They all seem to have these features:

• Power interrupt logging
• Backup data retention
• Sample before start authorization
• Regular or random rolling retest
• Emergency stall restart
• Restrictable hours of operation
• Circumvention alarm-horn or horn and flashing lights

The devices themselves are about the size of a cellphone, so although annoying to have to use while driving, I'm happy that they don't just shut the car off. If you fail a rolling retest, the horn sounds, and once you shut the car off, it locks out for a predetermined period of time.

They also require humming, along with suck and blow (no-I'm not going there) on the sample tube to preclude bogus samples.

Users must return to an authorized service facility for regular recalibration and download of the stored data, which is when they find out if you've been trying to beat the device.

[LVgeogeek]

Originally Posted by spooje

Why use the interlock devices? Why not just bar these irresposible, dangerous folks from driving?

Yes the government can take away the driving priviledges of DUI offenders, but unfortunatly that does not stop them from getting behind the wheel of a car. In Nevada, if you are pulled over and arrested for DUI/DWI, your license is suspended automatically for 6 months, repeat offenders their license is revoked permantly with mandatory jail time.

DL revocation unfortunatly does not keep repeat offenders off the road. There plenty of auto accidents (no I don't have specific numbers) here where the accident causer was drunk and was driving under a suspended/revoked license.
It would be nice if the drunks would stay off the road and their place in car should be only in a passenger seat!

I am agreeing with you, it would be nice for people not to have to fear the drunk driver. I worry about it alot here because this is Las Vegas and booze is available 24/7/365.

I don't think little breathalizer systems in cars that require testing while in motion are going to keep people from driving drunk or drinking and driving. I think they are more of a distraction that a deterrant. I think there just needs to be stricter enforcement of laws already in place rather than "gimmicky techno gadget" style enforcement.

[greenfox79]

Originally Posted by buttonjockey308

I know there's going to be a huge legal fracas around this, but the program seems like an incontrovertable success. If you're enough of a menace that you actually have one of these devices court ordered onto your vehicle, then perhaps the testees should stop complaining, and simply pull over and park to do the test. After all, the state didn't put you there, you driving drunk put yourself there.

Now, as far as the 79 year old lady with shortness of breath, I gotta wonder how sane it is that she's driving in the first place, much less on a DUI.

OK I have no idea how old this thread is and I'm BRAND new here but I saw this and I am NOT starting a flame just a few facts:

I was born, raised, "from" the E. coast. The laws are DIFFERENT there. I moved to California. ONE "malt" and you are LEGALLY drunk!!! Before I got a STEP further let me get it out now:

DO NOT DRINK AND DRIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But... what is legally "drunk"? Everyone's body is different. I passed the field. I failed the breath/AND/needle-to-the-arm Blood test by THEIR state standards. i didn't know...

moving on.. took it like "a man".,... but my hired PAYED FOR lawyer is a cali idiot so I got "screwed" and allacuted to a few things I didn't understand, one of which the breathalizer interlock device.

Let me tell you about this thing.... cologne sets it off. MOUTHWASH sets it off. It's the NEW scarlet letter!

Facts:

FIRST TIME offender- if it had been in MY state, I would not have been "drunk".

MOVING ON:

It's a MONEY MAKING factory set up by MADD and it's affiliates. The road to hell, right?

LASTLY: this thing is VERY DANGEROUS to drive with and HERE's why in three simple reasons:

1) The device "aborts" often if you don't blow HARD AND LONG- we're talking a MIN. of 6-7 seconds and UP TO 10 seconds of HARD breath. I smoke cigs. OK, let's ASSUME that's my fault, too, moving ON:

2) The aborts are not fails or passes; they are just aborts; it takes time to reset; you have to do it WHEN THE CAR STARTS, then randomly in 5-10 minutes, then randomly in 20-40 minute increments from there on in. If you take medication like I do (LEGALLY prescribed), it can cause a fail. OK so I take meds, IT's ALL MY FAULT!!! here's my final reason why this damn thing is a death trap:

REASON #3 and my PROOF: it is NOT hands free! The beeps are not very loud so you really can't listen to radio and the glare (any Cali rez. knows this) ... it's SUNNY- the L.E.D's do NOT show up if there's a HINT of sun out there, so you either have to "cup" the device to see if the light is on, or you have to "listen" for the beep, which means usually holding it as I drive. There is NOTHING hands=-free about the "rolling retests" because, ok, perfect example, HEAVY but moving traffic on the cali-overloaded-highways, and idiots swerving in and out, and bikers riding between the lanes (legal in this state), you're trying to do ALL This SH&+ *AND* pull over 3-to-SEVEN lanes within the "random" 2-3 1/2 minutes it GIVES you to "blow" before your horns and lights go crazy??!?! So you do it in stop-and-go traffic because you CANNOT get "over" in the specified time, so you do it there, all the while trying to read a "LED" light and/or LISTEN for a sound, all the time. Yeah, it's a deterrent in that I'm afraid to drive my car!!!! and how about this "jerry's final thought":?

What would YOU DO if a car started going crazy, (in heavy 7 lane + carpool lane traffic)- in other words, you're driving along, all happy and cozy, and this car, in GRID LOCK starts honking crazy, and every light on the d@mn car blinking this way and that.... wouldn't you be the LEAST bit curious?!? So.. yeah, you're either blowing for 6-10 seconds and HOPING the dude/dude-ette in front of you doesn't brake slam OR you're the "lookie-loo" that SEES the idiot (*me*) with horns and sirens and lights a blazin' cuz' I couldn't "legally" get over 6 1/5 to 7 lanes in THICK cali traffic within a few minutes?!?

Come on, see it for what it is.. .a hundred bux a month to the companies (you can only use certain ones, remember that!!! LOL!!! and a hundred bux a month to uncle s(l)am. so there it is.

I am, in dragon-slayer sense, DONE with this particular topic- to the hilt.

The proof? :

-○ƒin○-

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by greenfox79

OK I have no idea how old this thread is.

Do you have an inability to read and understand dates?

The dates on all previous posts are quite clearly listed as 2004. If that's the level of your investigative ability and attention to detail, i'm not sure how convincing the rest of your argument is likely to be.

[Bosstone]

Wow, that one Liberal post was like a speedbump, since I hadn't immediately noticed the dates.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by Bosstone

Wow, that one Liberal post was like a speedbump, since I hadn't immediately noticed the dates.

For me, it was the OP.

Because danceswithcats not only hasn't posted for a long time, he actually died about two and a half years ago.

[poker in the rear]

Originally Posted by greenfox79

OK I have no idea how old this thread is and I'm BRAND new here but I saw this and I am NOT starting a flame just a few facts:

I was born, raised, "from" the E. coast. The laws are DIFFERENT there. I moved to California. ONE "malt" and you are LEGALLY drunk!!! Before I got a STEP further let me get it out now:

DO NOT DRINK AND DRIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But... what is legally "drunk"? Everyone's body is different. I passed the field. I failed the breath/AND/needle-to-the-arm Blood test by THEIR state standards. i didn't know...

moving on.. took it like "a man".,... but my hired PAYED FOR lawyer is a cali idiot so I got "screwed" and allacuted to a few things I didn't understand, one of which the breathalizer interlock device.

Let me tell you about this thing.... cologne sets it off. MOUTHWASH sets it off. It's the NEW scarlet letter!

Facts:

FIRST TIME offender- if it had been in MY state, I would not have been "drunk".

MOVING ON:

It's a MONEY MAKING factory set up by MADD and it's affiliates. The road to hell, right?

LASTLY: this thing is VERY DANGEROUS to drive with and HERE's why in three simple reasons:

1) The device "aborts" often if you don't blow HARD AND LONG- we're talking a MIN. of 6-7 seconds and UP TO 10 seconds of HARD breath. I smoke cigs. OK, let's ASSUME that's my fault, too, moving ON:

2) The aborts are not fails or passes; they are just aborts; it takes time to reset; you have to do it WHEN THE CAR STARTS, then randomly in 5-10 minutes, then randomly in 20-40 minute increments from there on in. If you take medication like I do (LEGALLY prescribed), it can cause a fail. OK so I take meds, IT's ALL MY FAULT!!! here's my final reason why this damn thing is a death trap:

REASON #3 and my PROOF: it is NOT hands free! The beeps are not very loud so you really can't listen to radio and the glare (any Cali rez. knows this) ... it's SUNNY- the L.E.D's do NOT show up if there's a HINT of sun out there, so you either have to "cup" the device to see if the light is on, or you have to "listen" for the beep, which means usually holding it as I drive. There is NOTHING hands=-free about the "rolling retests" because, ok, perfect example, HEAVY but moving traffic on the cali-overloaded-highways, and idiots swerving in and out, and bikers riding between the lanes (legal in this state), you're trying to do ALL This SH&+ *AND* pull over 3-to-SEVEN lanes within the "random" 2-3 1/2 minutes it GIVES you to "blow" before your horns and lights go crazy??!?! So you do it in stop-and-go traffic because you CANNOT get "over" in the specified time, so you do it there, all the while trying to read a "LED" light and/or LISTEN for a sound, all the time. Yeah, it's a deterrent in that I'm afraid to drive my car!!!! and how about this "jerry's final thought":?

What would YOU DO if a car started going crazy, (in heavy 7 lane + carpool lane traffic)- in other words, you're driving along, all happy and cozy, and this car, in GRID LOCK starts honking crazy, and every light on the d@mn car blinking this way and that.... wouldn't you be the LEAST bit curious?!? So.. yeah, you're either blowing for 6-10 seconds and HOPING the dude/dude-ette in front of you doesn't brake slam OR you're the "lookie-loo" that SEES the idiot (*me*) with horns and sirens and lights a blazin' cuz' I couldn't "legally" get over 6 1/5 to 7 lanes in THICK cali traffic within a few minutes?!?

Come on, see it for what it is.. .a hundred bux a month to the companies (you can only use certain ones, remember that!!! LOL!!! and a hundred bux a month to uncle s(l)am. so there it is.

I am, in dragon-slayer sense, DONE with this particular topic- to the hilt.

The proof? :

-○ƒin○-

Damn, are you drunk right now?

[greenfox79]

Originally Posted by danceswithcats

Since the Dope is about fighting ignorance, I did some research on these devices. I was surprised to learn how many companies make them! The second thought was-holy crap-that means there is a helluva market for these things!

Apparently the Government has been working on this since the 1980's-the National Highway Transportation Safety Association has a standard for what these devices should be capable of, and they have an official Guvmint acronym (of course): BAIID. Blood Alcohol Ignition Interlock Device.

Depending upon where you live, the devices are set up to restrict and monitor your operating activity. A number of states have accepted these products, and of course, no two have the same piece of legislation-too damned simple.

They all seem to have these features:

• Power interrupt logging
• Backup data retention
• Sample before start authorization
• Regular or random rolling retest
• Emergency stall restart
• Restrictable hours of operation
• Circumvention alarm-horn or horn and flashing lights

The devices themselves are about the size of a cellphone, so although annoying to have to use while driving, I'm happy that they don't just shut the car off. If you fail a rolling retest, the horn sounds, and once you shut the car off, it locks out for a predetermined period of time.

They also require humming, along with suck and blow (no-I'm not going there) on the sample tube to preclude bogus samples.

Users must return to an authorized service facility for regular recalibration and download of the stored data, which is when they find out if you've been trying to beat the device.

I'm sorry. I pulled a "n00b" and didn't read the whole thread before I responded. My bad. My WORDS may explain, but this man's various list (in California it's six companies, and only THREE service my area, and only TWO would take me- remember- NO FELON HERE! First time offender.)

Either way, if the "corporation list" that was sum-mated above does not prove some manner of distrust between "corporate socialism" and "government-based capitalistic symbiosis" then I do not know what does.

PEACE!

[Bosstone]

Originally Posted by mhendo

For me, it was the OP.

Because danceswithcats not only hasn't posted for a long time, he actually died about two and a half years ago.

Yikes. I thought the name sounded familiar, but it didn't immediately click.

[thelurkinghorror]

The problem with zombies. I bet a lot of people are scratching their heads, going "who is This Year's Model?"

And I think the majority of US states classify 0.08% as arrestable. Some may get you anyway if you're >0% and less than 0.08% because you're "impaired."

Some mouthwash has alcohol in it. When using a "real" breathalyzer, you are supposed to not have had a drink in 30 minutes or so, or the numbers will be inaccurately high. Mints supposedly, too.

And stop drinking, or have a drink, whichever will reduce the usage of so many capitals.

[Rachellelogram]

If they're SOOO unsafe, we could take the interlocks off the market and just revoke drivers' licenses for 12 months after a DUI conviction. Sounds like a win-win to me.

[Dendarii Dame]

I wasn't able to find a link, but I remember reading years ago about a man who took his five year old along when he went to the bar so she could blow into the interlock when they came home. She was killed when he ran into another car. (He survived.) This wasn't an urban legend, because the article was about his conviction.

[The Great Sun Jester]

Originally Posted by rachelellogram

If they're SOOO unsafe, we could take the interlocks off the market and just revoke drivers' licenses for 12 months after a DUI conviction. Sounds like a win-win to me.

Because license revokation keeps people from driving. Silly girl.

I've long wished people could be chipped. Put a reader in the car that positively identifies the driver (heck, the occupants too), info is sent to The Government who decides whether the person is eligible to drive that class of vehicle, the car is told whether or not to allow the driver to start & drive away. DUI offenders no longer have to worry about blowing to drive, and The Government no longer has to worry about blowers borrowing someone else's car--their right, and ability, to drive has been suspended.

But the paranoid 1984 types will always be a barrier to such simple and effective safety measures. Chickenshits.

[Jenaroph]

Originally Posted by Inigo Montoya

Because license revokation keeps people from driving. Silly girl.

I've long wished people could be chipped. Put a reader in the car that positively identifies the driver (heck, the occupants too), info is sent to The Government who decides whether the person is eligible to drive that class of vehicle, the car is told whether or not to allow the driver to start & drive away. DUI offenders no longer have to worry about blowing to drive, and The Government no longer has to worry about blowers borrowing someone else's car--their right, and ability, to drive has been suspended.

But the paranoid 1984 types will always be a barrier to such simple and effective safety measures. Chickenshits.

Heh. Wonder how long it would take Anonymous to hack the system and flag every government official as a DUI offender. And how long it would take that to get sorted out.

[Joey P]

Originally Posted by mhendo

For me, it was the OP.

Because danceswithcats not only hasn't posted for a long time, he actually died about two and a half years ago.

Any thread with Q.E.D. in it does it for me.

[madmonk28]

Virginia is about to require first time DUIs to get the device
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...d4S_story.html

[Loach]

Originally Posted by mhendo

For me, it was the OP.

Because danceswithcats not only hasn't posted for a long time, he actually died about two and a half years ago.

"Exactly, not only is he dead, he's six thousand miles away!"

[Rachellelogram]

Originally Posted by Inigo Montoya

Because license revokation keeps people from driving. Silly girl.

My point is that the device is a privilege that allows DUIers to drive when otherwise they wouldn't be allowed on the road at ALL. If it didn't exist, the alternative would be license suspension or revocation for the duration. By your argument, what's stopping someone with a DUI conviction from buying a new car and driving it? Or borrowing their husband's or kid's or friend's car? Or stealing a car? It's not possible to put an interlock on every vehicle a DUIer might one day have access to.

[asterion]

Originally Posted by mhendo

For me, it was the OP.

Because danceswithcats not only hasn't posted for a long time, he actually died about two and a half years ago.

Maybe he's come back as a Pit-posting zombie.

I miss the guy.

[njtt]

Originally Posted by Jadis

As for the periodic testing being a distraction, as stated in the article, people always have the option of pulling over.

Ah yes, because people who deliberately drive drunk can be trusted to always behave responsibly.

[Projammer]

So we equip all cars with card readers like the ones they use at stores and restaurants. You swipe your DL to start the car. Suspended license? No driving for you! Your friend swipes theirs so you can drive? They just documented themselves as an accomplice.

[MsRobyn]

Originally Posted by rachelellogram

If they're SOOO unsafe, we could take the interlocks off the market and just revoke drivers' licenses for 12 months after a DUI conviction. Sounds like a win-win to me.

In Pennsylvania, it's both. After the second DUI, you lose your license for a year AND you have to have the interlock for a year after that. At a cost of $1200 or more per year, and a monthly fee to download the information from the device.

Originally Posted by Inigo Montoya

Because license revokation keeps people from driving. Silly girl.

I've long wished people could be chipped. Put a reader in the car that positively identifies the driver (heck, the occupants too), info is sent to The Government who decides whether the person is eligible to drive that class of vehicle, the car is told whether or not to allow the driver to start & drive away. DUI offenders no longer have to worry about blowing to drive, and The Government no longer has to worry about blowers borrowing someone else's car--their right, and ability, to drive has been suspended.

But the paranoid 1984 types will always be a barrier to such simple and effective safety measures. Chickenshits.

It would be awesome to have an interlock with more precise biometrics. This would protect the poor sap who got the DUI in the first place, as well as spouses who rely on the same car. Besides, it's not like everyone and their mother has them in their cars; they're a punishment for a crime for which someone was convicted. I'm normally opposed to invasions of privacy, but this is something I'm OK with.

Originally Posted by rachelellogram

My point is that the device is a privilege that allows DUIers to drive when otherwise they wouldn't be allowed on the road at ALL. If it didn't exist, the alternative would be license suspension or revocation for the duration. By your argument, what's stopping someone with a DUI conviction from buying a new car and driving it? Or borrowing their husband's or kid's or friend's car? Or stealing a car? It's not possible to put an interlock on every vehicle a DUIer might one day have access to.

Because information from the interlock is downloaded, and if the information from the device doesn't jibe with what the probation office has, the person is called in for a little chat as to why. For example, if the PO knows that the person works approximately 25 miles from their house, and that the mileage that the device has registered is a lot lower than that, the person is asked some rather pointed questions as to why that is. If, for example, he's lost that job or his hours have been reduced, he has to get documentation that that is the case. Or the car might be in the shop for repairs. But whatever the case, the burden of proof is on the person, not the PO. If the person can't prove to the PO's satisfaction that he's only driving his own car, he's in trouble. In PA, where I live, that means a 90-day sentence in the county pokey.

That said, it's still not a perfect system. But there are safeguards to make sure it doesn't happen often.

[Jonathan Chance]

Off topic. This thread smarts. I still miss Paul.

[Moonlitherial]

Originally Posted by Projammer

So we equip all cars with card readers like the ones they use at stores and restaurants. You swipe your DL to start the car. Suspended license? No driving for you! Your friend swipes theirs so you can drive? They just documented themselves as an accomplice.

Oh I like this but even better, instead of a swipe you need to insert it and leave it there while you're driving. No swiping someone through and heading off in different directions.

[Wheelz]

Despite the hysterical tone of his post, greenfox79 actually has a point IMO. Everything I've heard about these devices is that they are unreliable at best and unsafe at worst. They are also huge cash cows for states and a small number of hand-picked businesses, which pings my cynicism meter regarding the real reasons behind their implementation.

Though I certainly don't think DUI offenders should get off scot-free, I do believe in second chances. And having to go through some inconveniences to earn a second chance is OK. But taking financial advantage of folks who've made a mistake is not OK. The whole setup just kind of rubs me the wrong way for some reason.