And in these modern hectic days of fast food, answering machines and one-night stands, as soon as one person discovers how to beat the system, the method gets spread across the internet in days or hours. A technological arms race with self-centered drunks will ensue, with benefits that escape me.
Yes, because the police have nothing better to do than “escort [drunks] to the hospital” every time one of these devices is tampered with or reports due to malfunction. How many false positives is this device going to create, and at what cost? I’ve I’m wearing a particularly aromatic cologne, or have just rinsed with mouthwash is it going to prohibit me from driving?
This is a poorly thought out proposal, and the responses in favor of it in this thread have only reinforced that position.
Stranger
Heck, I’d be waiting for the irony moment of a cop who arrests a drunk driver but can’t start his cruiser while the drunk is in the back seat, belching beer and whiskey fumes.
Your iPhone is designed for interconnectivity with other devices, and hence accepts inputs which allow you to jailbreak it. There’s no reason a BAC detector needs to accept external inputs (other than, say, breath). I suppose you could install a mod chip or something, but it’s not hard to design a anti-tamper system.
Fair point. (For that matter I am surprised nobody has jumped on me for saying “stealing” movies, which is not a point I’m going to debate here.) Still, I don’t think this would be the ironclad solution the OP proposed.
Ah, but whose breath? The driver? The sober passenger next to the drunk driver? The drunk passenger next to the sober driver?
Fuck it, just automate the cars. We’re gonna need the tech anyway as the baby boomers enter their seventies and being their senile, half-blind magic carpet rides through shopping malls and bus stops.
shrug Add a thumbprint scanner to the BAC meter or something.
I wonder if a pressurized can of air sprayed into the tube would fool it?
Ah, but whose thumb…?
My point being that five minutes after these things are installed, somebody somewhere will be looking for ways to bypass them, and not necessarily because they want to keep (or can’t summon the will to resist) driving drunk - as I’d assume of somebody with 4 DUIs on his record - but because it’s a challenge. Because it’s there.
This is so fucking dumb. Now we’re creating a cottage industry of fingerprint scanners, anti-anti-breathalyzer countermeasure designers, bla bla bla just because some people can’t help themselves?
Look, cars are mechanical devices. there is just no way that you won’t be able to bypass, permanently, a breathalyzer interlock device because, at the end of the day, it has to be connected to some part of the ignition system. worst comes to worst, that entire ignition system can be replaced.
If you’re going to have a court order ensuring that a drunk driver’s car has to have a breath-testing ignition interlock, it’s probably not a particularly big deal to make the driver appear at a police station (or wherever) for a monthly inspection.
As far as whose thumb: the drunk driver’s. Obviously.
It would probably cost hundreds of millions of dollars to develop, or more, if it went that far. But the point I was trying to emphasize was this part:
except we’re no longer talking about ignition interlocks for only the convicted. we’re talking about them for everyone as a baseline.
I’m not. I think that’s a really shitty idea.
How will the machine know it’s not the thumb of the driver’s kid, who was quietly playing his PSP in the back seat while the old man got loaded at Frank’s? Will the thumbprint scanner compare the print just to the person with a DUI conviction, or will it need some kind of wireless database access to check all such convictions, and maybe the general DMV database to make sure the person trying to start to car is legally authorized to drive it?
If a drunk driver manages to trick the breathalyzer, what keeps him from pressing his index finger to the scanner, letting the machine conclude “well, I’m not getting an alcohol reading, and that’s not Dave-the-Drunk’s thumbprint, so somebody other than Dave is driving the car, so… okay, let’s go.”
Personally, I’m okay with a geometric scale of punishment. Minor fine for first offense. Major fine for second. Mandatory jail time for third. Mandatory prison time for fourth… and full public disclosure of all details and posting the convict’s name and picture to a public-access database that will alert a bartender if the convict tries using a credit or debit card. Heck, why not put the fancy technology at the relatively small number of bars, rather than in millions of cars? Wanna buy a drink? Thumbprint, please… Oh, you’ve got two DUIs? If I serve you and you get a third tonight, I’ll be fined, so take the ginger ale or get the fuck out.
Good idea as far as it goes; the major problem being that people aren’t restricted to getting alcohol at bars. Still, I think it would help.
You are right that the hardcore drunks will find a way around it. Where it would be helpful is with the guy who has a few but figures he can handle it, or the girl who knows she shouldn’t be driving but really wants to get home that night. If they saw their BAC right in front of them, it might be enough to change their minds.
I’m not saying this whole thing is a good proposal, but just because some can circumvent it doesn’t make it worthless.
It is has been evidenced even in this thread that perfectly sober people (I’m giving the benefit of the doubt) believe that even a blood alcohol level at the threshold at which the vast majority of the population shows a measurable level of impairment is not a cause to defer from operating a motor vehicle. What makes you think that someone who is intoxicated and subject to less than rational judgment processes is going to take heed of an elevated BAC?
The average person can process about 0.02-0.03% BAC per hour; that means that you can have 1 to 1.5 drinks (a 4oz glass of wine, 12 oz. 5% beer, or a 1 oz shot of 80 proof alcohol) per hour and maintain a constant BAC. So if you’ve been at the bar for three hours and had four beers you’re probably good (unless you lack the enzyme to break down alcohol). If you’ve been at the bar for an hour and and four or five drinks, you’re very likely not good to drive. If you’ve lost count of how much you’ve had to drink, how much time is passed, or how many fingers the officer in front of you is holding up, then you should call a cab or find a non-vomited covered sofa to crash on for the night.
It all goes back to Rule #1: Whenever there is any doubt, there is no doubt.
Stranger
I’m not coming down on any side of this, but I just want to point out that “people will get around it” is a poorly reasoned excuse to not make a law. It could be applied to virtually every law, code, and regulation in existence.
Statistics can be made to say anything.
If you were sober, talking on your cell phone and drove over the sidewalk and killed a drunk pedestrian sitting on a bench, it is officially an “alcohol-related” fatality.
If you were the designated driver, fell asleep at the wheel and hit a tree, your drunk passenger made that an “alcohol related” death.
It is a number that someone pulls out of their ass in order to fulfill an agenda and garner contributions.