Drunk Driving

[Bryan_Ekers]

That particular website may have a valid point that consistent standards for compiling and reporting statistics would be useful, but then they go off-roading with:

The anti-drinking and driving industry is interwoven throughout our private and public sectors. Whole federal and state bureaucracies are funded with your tax dollars for the sole purpose of making sure you get arrested for drunk driving, suffer accordingly, and repent for your anti-social behavior, namely drinking beer, wine, and or liquor. That no one was hurt, or even inconvenienced, doesn’t matter!

No, idiot, you weren’t arrested to make you repent for having a few; you were arrested because you were operating heavy machinery in public with an increased risk of clobbering yourself or others. Believe it or not, a car moving at highway speed represents a fairly significant amount of destructive potential, and if you’re stupid enough to get blitzed beforehand with indifference for the possible consequences, you deserve no sympathy.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Bryan_Ekers

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?

As should be completely fucking obvious, it compares it to the print of the vehicle owner/convict. Why bother with a thumbprint scanner at all otherwise?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

As should be completely fucking obvious, it compares it to the print of the vehicle owner/convict. Why bother with a thumbprint scanner at all otherwise?

So what happens when the scanned thumbprint doesn’t match the thumbprint of the vehicle owner/convict? Is there an unspoken assumption here that only that person can drive this car?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Yes.

[Bryan_Ekers]

That seems a bit odd. What happens when the car gets taken in for regular maintenance and the mechanics wants to drive it from the parking lot into the garage? What if the guy’s wife needs to use the car (un-PC assumption being that the convicted drunk driver is male). What if the convict does the responsible thing after having a few at the bar and lets his sober friend drive him home?

Seriously, among people who’ve gotten actual breathalyzer interlocks installed by court order, are only they allowed to operate the vehicle from then on?

Heck, if thumbprint-scanner-interlocks exist, I’d consider getting one right now, just to make sure nobody can steal my car. I’d want some kind of temporary password override, though, so I can deactivate the system to let others drive the car, but it sounds like a good idea to me. I think an under-the-door-handle fingerprint scanner was even featured in Knight Rider.

[Marley23]

@Bryan_Ekers

Seriously, among people who’ve gotten actual breathalyzer interlocks installed by court order, are only they allowed to operate the vehicle from then on?

I wouldn’t know, but I assume that anybody can drive the car as long as they blow into the tester and they are sober. I don’t see how the device would be personalized.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Bryan_Ekers

That seems a bit odd. What happens when the car gets taken in for regular maintenance and the mechanics wants to drive it from the parking lot into the garage? What if the guy’s wife needs to use the car (un-PC assumption being that the convicted drunk driver is male). What if the convict does the responsible thing after having a few at the bar and lets his sober friend drive him home?

Seriously, among people who’ve gotten actual breathalyzer interlocks installed by court order, are only they allowed to operate the vehicle from then on?

Heck, if thumbprint-scanner-interlocks exist, I’d consider getting one right now, just to make sure nobody can steal my car. I’d want some kind of temporary password override, though, so I can deactivate the system to let others drive the car, but it sounds like a good idea to me. I think an under-the-door-handle fingerprint scanner was even featured in Knight Rider.

1. If you’ve had a DUI, and the alternative is losing your license, having your vehicle restricted to one user looks like a pretty good alternative.

2. Pretty sure anyone can blow into the ones in use now.

3. You can have one for your Maybach. I don’t know of any company that retrofits them into existing vehicles, and I imagine the cost kind of outweighs the benefit at the moment anyway.

[needscoffee]

@Bryan_Ekers

Seriously, among people who’ve gotten actual breathalyzer interlocks installed by court order, are only they allowed to operate the vehicle from then on?

The person I know who had the interlock device on her car (about 7 years ago) would simply drive her husband’s car instead, leaving him to drive her car and to blow in the device. Presumably she was only allowed to drive her own car, but they had no way of checking. The most recent person I know who had a DUI (last year) had an ankle bracelet that actually could read his blood alcohol level and report it. I don’t know how it worked.

Even if a car checked fingerprints, how would it know that the person breathing into the device was the same person whose fingerprints it scanned?

On the TV show What Would You Do, there was a segment where an obviously intoxicated-appearing woman offered passersby money to breathe into her interlock device so she could drive the car. A child was inside the car. She had no trouble getting someone to take her up on her offer.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Cisco

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.

True, however we’re not strictly talking about people getting around a law.

We’re talking about people getting around a technical device to stop them from driving drunk. It is reasonable to criticize this solution on the grounds that the costs would far outweigh the benefits, especially if the technology is easy to circumvent.

[martin34]

I don’t think think would cost $100s of millions to develop. I think a whole car costs less to develop.

I don’t think breathalyzers get triggered by cologne. Otherwise they’re would be a whole lot of cases thrown out of court.

I don’t think a standard BAIID is the answer. It’s too intrusive and the legislation would never pass.

When seat belts became mandatory and air bags came around they weren’t required to be installed in older cars. Same with regulators and catalytic converters.

It’s a step forward.

I think technology is so advanced that we could figure something out. As for funding, possibly grants, or an added fine to offenders that goes straight to the research. (don’t know how long before those funds would get pillaged by our trusty pols.)

I can’t imagine this device costing more than $100 once it’s in mass production.

Once again, tampering with the device hopefully would disable the car, alert the police and the violater heavily fined.

What are the stats on people with no DUIs who have injured or killed people before they ever get arrested?

I think everyone has at least one story of a group of high school kids or college kids all getting killed in an accident and none had a prior.

I find it ironic that by arguing against this solution (by no means perfect) are enabling this to continue as it has been.

In '07 there were (supposidly) 37,261 Alco related accidents. Maybe we could prevent 90-95% of these and the police would have a lot more time to respond to tampering and the rare stranded in a blizzard senarios.

One accident involves the fire department, police department, lawyers, the judicial system, hospitals and more importantly family and friends. What’s the total cost of that on society?

[martin34]

@Boyo_Jim

Seriously, why would there need to be an emergency bypass? I cannot conceive of any good reason.

You live far from a hospital and you’ve had a few and you wife goes into labor.
Some sort of accident happens at home.
Your stranded somewhere dangerous. (neighborhood or natural disaster)

[Marley23]

@martin34

I don’t think think would cost $100s of millions to develop.

The drug Boyo Jim mentioned would. I’m sure the technology you’re suggesting wouldn’t cost that much, although it would cost money and make cars more expensive. None of which addresses the principle of the thing, which is that those of us who don’t drive drunk don’t want to be presumed guilty.

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

@martin34

You live far from a hospital and you’ve had a few and you wife goes into labor.

Truly, the height of ironic brilliance.

Stranger

[CutterJohn]

I read this solution a few weeks back. Far too logical to ever be implemented, but it would work nicely.

Make drunk driving legal, with a very specific limitation: You have to put a green flashing light on your car, and cannot exceed 20 mph.

If caught driving drunk without the green flashy light, or exceeding that speed limit, you are subject to the normal DUI rules.

Because people ARE going to drive drunk, most especially in rural areas. By alerting everyone around them as to their status, other drivers and pedestrians know to be wary of that person. The slow speed makes any mistakes unlikely to cause serious injury.

Oh, and regardless of legality, under no circumstances should you be able to get a ticket if you’re simply sitting in the car with the engine idling, while sleeping it off. I’ve read about that happening, and its not cool, and only encourages people to drive. On the road = DUI, not on the road, and not actively moving = not a DUI.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

You don’t think it might be a bit problematic to have people doing 20 mph on 70 mph highway at two in the morning?

[Boyo_Jim]

Maybe there shout be special drunk driver lanes, with rubber walls one each side to protect the sober drivers.

[Cisco]

@CutterJohn

I read this solution a few weeks back. Far too logical to ever be implemented, but it would work nicely.

Make drunk driving legal, with a very specific limitation: You have to put a green flashing light on your car, and cannot exceed 20 mph.

If caught driving drunk without the green flashy light, or exceeding that speed limit, you are subject to the normal DUI rules.

Because people ARE going to drive drunk, most especially in rural areas. By alerting everyone around them as to their status, other drivers and pedestrians know to be wary of that person. The slow speed makes any mistakes unlikely to cause serious injury.

Every single accident (and there would be plenty of them) would prompt a call to ban this practice. A 4,000lb hunk of metal can still easily do fatal damage at 20mph. What would you say when a legal drunk driver plows through your living room? (Happened to my best friend-- well, not the legal part.)

@CutterJohn

Oh, and regardless of legality, under no circumstances should you be able to get a ticket if you’re simply sitting in the car with the engine idling, while sleeping it off. I’ve read about that happening, and its not cool, and only encourages people to drive. On the road = DUI, not on the road, and not actively moving = not a DUI.

Now this I agree with. Some of the more draconian laws cause drunk idiots to rationalize just driving anyway. I’ve seen it happen.

[E-Sabbath]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

You don’t think it might be a bit problematic to have people doing 20 mph on 70 mph highway at two in the morning?

I wouldn’t be as much concerned about that. I’d be much more concerned about them driving the wrong way down the highway.

Which happens here on a semi-regular basis.