Any Reason Not To Have Alcohol Sensor/Ignition Interlock In All Cars?

[Kalhoun]

@CutterJohn

Indeed. You can in fact voluntarily go and get one now, but nobody has, barring an extremely insignificant minority. This tells me that people think the cost and hassle are not outweighed by the benefits of such a device, and will only get one if forced to do so.
My opinion is simply that most people don’t drive when outrageously drunk, many do so while slightly drunk, and thats a risk I’m willing to live with. Fatalities occuring from drunk driving are not all that high, and all in all is an insignificant risk that one shouldn’t lose sleep over. Likely the laws are too strict and too much effort is being spent with the laws and practices we currently have… We do not need more intrusion.

Above and beyond that, it is simply an invasion of my privacy. It may not be illegal, or unconstitutional, but damned if it wouldn’t be insulting. I’m not a child that needs my hand held by papa government, i will police myself on this matter, thank you very much.

Except I never said I thought it was a good idea to make it mandatory.

[CutterJohn]

Yeah… sorry… most of that wasn’t really directed at you, just a general response to the thread.

[Shot_From_Guns]

@begbert2

Such people do exist - my parents were both (that is, they both don’t drink and provided a separate (junkier) car to their kids to drive). When you take away the impetuses (impeti?) for them not to install the device, you open the door for much less crazy parents to seriously consider the idea.

What current impetus is there for them not to install the device? Couldn’t they go out and get one if they really wanted it?

@Kalhoun

But people drive with a breathalyzer on their vehicle all the time. They manage quite nicely. All these contingencies don’t amount to a solid reason against one as a voluntary option on a vehicle.

They manage quite nicely because they’ve been convicted of a DUI and presumably are avoiding any kind of drinking before driving. That is not the same as a person who has committed no crime and doesn’t want to have to wait 20 minutes after their last glass of wine to be able to start their car.

A lot of people seem to be missing what seems to me to be a major point of this thread. Look at the title again: “Any Reason Not To Have Alcohol Sensor/Ignition Interlock In All Cars?” In. All. Cars.

[Fiddle_Peghead]

@Shodan

I find these kinds of ideas intriguing, and wish to subscribe to the newsletter.

My mailing address is -

1600 Pennsylvania Ave
Washington, DC 20500

Regards,
Shodan

Shodan, predictably taking the opportunity to bash Obama in a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with him. :rolleyes:

[iamthewalrus_3]

@Huerta88

Do you deny the existence of a third set of people – those who think they’re okay to drive, but aren’t, and would not devise intricate workarounds but instead would say – damn, I’m apparently more messed up than I thought, better call a cab?

Have we agreed that the people who are not drunk and the people who are drunk and know it but don’t care won’t be helped by such a system? If so, there’s no longer a reason to install these into cars, much less to hook them into the ignition switch.

People who thought they were safe to drive but wouldn’t do so if they knew the truth don’t require a forced test. They just require the availability of the test (their conscience will do the rest). So if that’s the problem we’re trying to solve, give some tax credits to bars to install a few free-to-use breathalyzers.

[Kalhoun]

@Shot_From_Guns

What current impetus is there for them not to install the device? Couldn’t they go out and get one if they really wanted it?

Nothing’s stopping people from doing it. I found a website that caters to “personal use” as opposed to court-mandated. I’ll bet most people don’t even know it’s available. But offering it as a factory feature might make it less intrusive. You’d much rather have factory air in your car than the old, bulky afterthought unit. Same principle. I don’t understand the digging-in-the-heels opposition.

They manage quite nicely because they’ve been convicted of a DUI and presumably are avoiding any kind of drinking before driving. That is not the same as a person who has committed no crime and doesn’t want to have to wait 20 minutes after their last glass of wine to be able to start their car.

I don’t know why you think that some people wouldn’t want to avoid a mistake. Some people can lose their job if they get a DUI. And again, I think a lot of parents might like it as well.

A lot of people seem to be missing what seems to me to be a major point of this thread. Look at the title again: “Any Reason Not To Have Alcohol Sensor/Ignition Interlock In All Cars?” In. All. Cars.

The title of the thread doesn’t control the direction the thread takes, especially when the direction is so closely related.

[Shot_From_Guns]

@Kalhoun

Nothing’s stopping people from doing it. I found a website that caters to “personal use” as opposed to court-mandated. I’ll bet most people don’t even know it’s available. But offering it as a factory feature might make it less intrusive. You’d much rather have factory air in your car than the old, bulky afterthought unit. Same principle. I don’t understand the digging-in-the-heels opposition.

My “digging-in-the-heels opposition” is to putting interlocks in all vehicles, which was the original thread topic. If they want to offer it as a factory option, great, I just don’t think the demand is there to justify the expense from the manufacturer’s POV.

I don’t know why you think that some people wouldn’t want to avoid a mistake. Some people can lose their job if they get a DUI. And again, I think a lot of parents might like it as well.

1. Those people then presumably drink responsibly before driving.
2. And again, I think only untrusting, overly controlling parents would like it. (If you really think your kid is going to drink and drive, why would you even allow them access to a car?)
3. Again-again, I am talking about the OP’s question of reasons not to have interlocks in all cars. Certainly there are people who might like it as an option, and they have it as an option now, if not a factory one.

The title of the thread doesn’t control the direction the thread takes, especially when the direction is so closely related.

It doesn’t control the direction, but it does explain the reaction of myself and other people to which you are objecting. You may choose to muse on the feasibility of offering interlocks as an option, but you should be prepared for people to interpret that as being support for mandatory interlocks on all cars unless you explicitly say that you’re considering another scenario from the question posed by the OP.

[Kalhoun]

@Shot_From_Guns

My “digging-in-the-heels opposition” is to putting interlocks in all vehicles, which was the original thread topic. If they want to offer it as a factory option, great, I just don’t think the demand is there to justify the expense from the manufacturer’s POV.

Then you should respond to those who favor that. I’ve made it quite clear I do not.

1. Those people then presumably drink responsibly before driving.

Presumably. And yet people make mistakes.

2. And again, I think only untrusting, overly controlling parents would like it. (If you really think your kid is going to drink and drive, why would you even allow them access to a car?)

Don’t you think every parent of a kid who died in an alcohol-related accident assumed their kid wouldn’t make that mistake?

3. Again-again, I am talking about the OP’s question of reasons not to have interlocks in all cars. Certainly there are people who might like it as an option, and they have it as an option now, if not a factory one.

Jesus…it’s another aspect to the discussion. Why are you carrying on about it?

It doesn’t control the direction, but it does explain the reaction of myself and other people to which you are objecting. You may choose to muse on the feasibility of offering interlocks as an option, but you should be prepared for people to interpret that as being support for mandatory interlocks on all cars unless you explicitly say that you’re considering another scenario from the question posed by the OP.

You’d have to be reading someone else’s post to get that out of it.

[Shot_From_Guns]

@Kalhoun

Then you should respond to those who favor that. I’ve made it quite clear I do not.

You have now, yes, but it wasn’t always obvious that you were arguing in favor of making it an option on cars, versus the original question of why it shouldn’t be included on all cars.

Don’t you think every parent of a kid who died in an alcohol-related accident assumed their kid wouldn’t make that mistake?

… So then why would they choose to install an interlock? Either you didn’t make a point that supported yourself here, or I just plain missed it.

You’d have to be reading someone else’s post to get that out of it.

You *already said *that you didn’t understand why people were digging in their heels over it. Clearly, you were confused that people didn’t understand that you were talking about a different hypothetical than the OP.

[Kalhoun]

@Shot_From_Guns

You have now, yes, but it wasn’t always obvious that you were arguing in favor of making it an option on cars, versus the original question of why it shouldn’t be included on all cars.

My first post in this thread (#7):

I knew a guy who drove a blow-mobile. He said it cost about $800 to install it.

I think if they made it optional equipment, many people would go for it.

… So then why would they choose to install an interlock? Either you didn’t make a point that supported yourself here, or I just plain missed it.

Bolding mine.

You *already said *that you didn’t understand why people were digging in their heels over it. Clearly, you were confused that people didn’t understand that you were talking about a different hypothetical than the OP.

You’ll have to show me the post that gave the impression that I wanted all cars automatically equipped with a breathalyzer. I found at least six posts that made it clear it would be elective. The rest of the posts were directed at the germophobe issue.

[Shot_From_Guns]

@Kalhoun

Bolding mine.

Okay, I’ll make my response clearer, then. Saying that parents never expect their kids to drive drunk is not an argument for why they would choose to install an interlock on their child’s car–it’s an argument for why they wouldn’t bother.

You’ll have to show me the post that gave the impression that I wanted all cars automatically equipped with a breathalyzer.

You were responding to people who were giving, in line with the OP’s question, reasons why not to have interlocks in all cars. That would be what gave the impression.

[Kalhoun]

@Shot_From_Guns

Okay, I’ll make my response clearer, then. Saying that parents never expect their kids to drive drunk is not an argument for why they would choose to install an interlock on their child’s car–it’s an argument for why they wouldn’t bother.

And as I said earlier, most people don’t even know these devices exist.

You were responding to people who were giving, in line with the OP’s question, reasons why not to have interlocks in all cars. That would be what gave the impression.

You evidently have some reading comprehension issues, as well as difficulty following a conversation that allows for veering slightly from the precise wording of the OP. There’s no test here. If you want to continue your crusade against my related idea on the subject, take it to the pit. I’m done with you.

[Huerta88]

@Shot_From_Guns

in line with the OP’s question, reasons why not to have interlocks in all cars.

FWIW, having heard how much the technology costs (I was thinking some three dollar sensor), the OP no longer considers that as even viable or potentially desirable.

[Shot_From_Guns]

@Kalhoun

And as I said earlier, most people don’t even know these devices exist.

I still don’t see how “most people whose kids are injured while drunk driving never expect their kid to do it” relates to “most people don’t know you can have an interlock device installed” or supports “most parents would install one on their kids’ cars.” There is just no chain of reasoning there, and repeating the same things over and over isn’t going to make one appear.

You evidently have some reading comprehension issues, as well as difficulty following a conversation that allows for veering slightly from the precise wording of the OP. There’s no test here. If you want to continue your crusade against my related idea on the subject, take it to the pit. I’m done with you.

You think I have a crusade against your related idea (despite my having clearly stated that I have no objection to offering interlocks as an option, but that I don’t think it’s going to be viable from the standpoint of the manufacturers), and I’m the one with a reading comprehension problem? Oooookay. :rolleyes: I’m not even going to go back to address your misunderstanding of the other part of my post (demonstrating where you’d said things that could be interpreted as being in favor of putting interlocks on all cars), because clearly you’re viewing this as some kind of personal attack.

[Bone]

Welcome to the Straight Dope, scottk. You may not have realized this is rather old thread and the person you are replying to hasn’t posted in about 5 years. I’m going to go ahead and close this thread, however if you’d like to open a new one on related matters feel free.

[/moderating]