I’m always amused by the self-pitying drunk-drivers complaining about how unfair it is that they’ve got DUIs on their records.
Folks, it’s very simple - if you’re going to get drunk, use public transit (if available) or a taxi to get home. If there isn’t any public transit, and you can’t afford a cab, then get drunk in the comfort of your own home, and limit yourself to a single beer (two at the most) when you go out. Problem solved.
Yes, I know there’s a chorus of people who’ll shout out that they don’t feel impaired at blood alcohol level whatever, or that they’re confident they can still drive, or whatever. Frankly, these claims aren’t particularly credible. People are terrible at assessing their own state of impairment. Perhaps you really do have an unusually high tolerance - but drunk driving is so dangerous that we, as a society, have a right to err on the side of caution.
As for the OP: If you have four DUIs on your record, I don’t want to even think about the number of times you’ve driven under the influence. Shame on you, sir.
We’ve discussed the possibility of requiring interlock devices on all cars in the United States before. Currently, it’s unworkable.
Ignition interlocaks are expensive, to the tune of $1500 to $2000 per unit. Also they have to be maintained and recalibrated every 60 days, and are a pain in the ass to use, particulalry the “rolling test” that retests the driver periodically while operating the vehicle. Any such law would also very likely have to be passed at the federal level to pass constitutional muster, the end result being that the vast majority of lawabiding citizens with no intention of driving drunk in the first place aren’t going to stand for the federal government requiring them to pay an extra grand or two to get the unit, get it recalibrated six times a year, and blow into it every 30 minutes or so while driving.
My daughter has a friend with an 18 month old son. The little guy is in the hospital paralyzed from the waist down and blind because some drunk driver jumped the curb and hit his stroller as well as his grandfather. The drunk who did it got a year in juvenile hall.
Frankly, if anyone drinks and drives, and injures another, I feel they should ride the bus for the rest of their life, and that’s after a prison sentence. No exceptions.
Well, at least we have the consolation of knowing that if he kills someone on DUI #5 (and keep in mind that is just the number of times he’s been caught - he gives no indication of how many times he’s driven impaired and not been caught) he’ll be really really really really sorry, honest he will, so so sorry…
I agree with the OP. These responses of “Well, you shouldn’t drink and drive anyways” are true yet completely unhelpful. Other proposed solutions along the same lines:
Solution to poverty: Get a job, you lazy bastard.
Crime: People should stop committing crimes.
Budget Deficit: Don’t spend so much/raise taxes
The fact is that no matter what, there will be a segment of the population that, for whatever reason, will continue to drive after drinking too much. Do we mandate the death penalty for first offense DUI, or look for proactive solutions like the OP?
I’ve also seen first hand the vested financial interest that some in the community have to keeping the DUI door revolving with the fines, the license restoration fees, the ignition interlock fees, the counseling fees, etc. When drunk driving arrests start going down, so does the BAC limit to keep more “drunks” in the system.
I also agree with the tiered system. All drunk driving is not equal. Stealing a pencil is not the same as stealing a million dollars. Intentional torture murder is not the same as accidentally killing someone. Why is DUI different?
Because there has to be a threshold, and quite frankly the 0.08% BAC that is the standard in most states is significantly higher than most of the developed world. If you have a BAC approaching that level (which is equivalent to having 3-4 beers in a one hour period) you shouldn’t even be considering getting behind the wheel. Even if your reaction time isn’t impaired, your judgment and ability to evaluate time-distance certainly is, as readily demonstrated by experiment.
There’s a way around this technical issue at least. Design the system so that the default status is “drivable”, that way if something breaks all that happens is that unauthorized driving becomes possible, instead of innocent people being stuck unable to drive. Something like this:
#1: As standard practice, cars are equipped with a device that can shut down the engine.
#2: Drunks and reckless drivers are required to wear an electronic bracelet that will tell the engine interlock to shut off the engine if they get into the driver’s seat.
#3: Optionally, in case of theft the owner can have a signal sent to shut the car down; or it can send a tracking signal as with the Lojack system.
While like the OP’s idea it’s probably too expensive to be really practical given the number of cars in the country, at least it wouldn’t be likely to strand anyone. I think that the real technological innovation needed lies in the realms of cheapness and reliability.
DUI is not a binary - it’s so far removed from a binary “busted or not” kind of thing that it’s not even funny.
(instert federated states, there are 50 sets of rules, cover my ass statement here)
driving while under the influence of alcohol is a no no. it doesn’t matter if you’re over or under .08. if you are impaired while downing one bud light, you’re guilty of DUI. doesn’t matter what your BAC is (but has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, bla bla bla)
the “I blew over .08” is just a second form of DUI.
you know what? there’s a simple way to fix this. don’t fucking drive while under the influence.
it is a tiered system. first time offenders get off with a fine and some mandatory education programs - programs which, frankly based on the apologist/“i’m a victim too” comments made in this thread, are sorely needed. sots who can’t help themselves face progressively stiffer penalties. here’s a tip: once you get your first freebie DUI, stop fucking drinking outside your home!
The technology referenced in the OP already exists. When I started my job we had a passive breath alcohol detector; I could put it on my desk and if the person sitting across from me had alcohol on his breath it would alert me. I haven’t seen it in years; I assume it broke and was not replaced; after a while my nose was sensitive enough that I didn’t need it anyway.
I don’t think it would work very well in a car; in that confined space it would be set off by anyone in the car with alcohol on their breath. I have also had a lot of experience with traditional ignition interlock, and I can tell you that the number of ways people have figured out to get around them renders them largely pointless. (I probably shouldn’t go into those ways to get around them in a thread started by a habitual drunk driving offender.)
My state does have a tiered system. Is this uncommon? We have “impaired to the slightest degree,” then regular DUI, then Extreme DUI, then Super Extreme.
You could make it so that the car is always drivable, but have the system send out some sort of alert to law enforcement that the person is intoxicated. Not that I think it’s a good idea.
Hopefully that would be somewhat difficult to do without getting caught. Yes, I’m sure that some would pull it off, that’s close to inevitable. But no form of crime prevention/punishment is perfect.
Or just that the interlock is broken; presumably one would have to be legally required on all cars or the vast majority of people wouldn’t bother to have one installed (that expense thing again).
So, in order to get rid of special interests who are making money off of the “game” of counseling, training, et cetera, we’re now going to set up a system of special interests who install, calibrate, and certify these systems, with the costs borne by all drivers. How is this a better solution than simply penalizing those who choose to drive drunk?
I can tell that you made those up off the top of your head, because someone with a 0.12% BAC would probably be slurring and staggering, and someone with a 0.19% BAC would be on the verge of passing out.
It is unclear how any of these proposals benefit anyone except for habitual drunk drivers like the o.p. What is my motivation to give a good whore’s fuck about the problems of people who will not be responsible for their own behavior?