Virginia is about to require first time DUIs to get the device
“Exactly, not only is he dead, he’s six thousand miles away!”
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.
Maybe he’s come back as a Pit-posting zombie.
I miss the guy.
Ah yes, because people who deliberately drive drunk can be trusted to always behave responsibly.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Off topic. This thread smarts. I still miss Paul.
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.
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.
My friend blew a 0.09 after being pulled over for speeding at 4 in the morning taking drunk people home from a gathering at his house. This was after sleeping off the night of drinking that ended at 10 pm for him when he decided to go to bed.
He was forced to get an interlock device to avoid having his license suspended for a year. It didn’t play too nicely with his older car, frequently having issues when it was cold outside. He was stranded more than once due to a dead car battery cause by the faulty installation by the company. There were only two choices for providers, and both were extremely expensive, especially for a college student working full time. He also was required to pay for and attend some sort of MADD sponsored meeting/conference which he summed up as “You are the scum of the earth for driving above the limit”.
I see interlock devices as a feel-good measure to make MADD happy and funnel money into well connected companies.
Leaving aside for a moment the issue of whether the interlock is a good idea, you understand, i assume, that a person’s blood alcohol level doesn’t automatically become less dangerous just because he’s had some sleep? If the alcohol is still in your system it can still impair your driving, and the fact that he stopped drinking at 10pm doesn’t change the fact that he was still over the legal limit at 4am.
Bet he wishes he could take back a couple of those decisions now…
I don’t think I’d lose any sleep if all those with the devices found them problematic. Let them take the bus or walk.
Who do you feel should have paid for the use and monitoring of the interlock device?
I do realize that sleeping doesn’t magically negate alcohol. He thought he was clear but obviously wasn’t.
He greatly regrets that whole event, and is still kinda pissed at some of the people involved. He drove to prevent really drunk people from driving because they wanted to go home.
It isn’t always an option to take the bus or walk, especially for people who live in rural Arkansas. Not everyone lives in a big city or even a city.
I think that the drivers should have to pay for any expenses, but the expenses are ridiculously high due to a lack of competition. When you have only 2 companies that can do it and they have the backing of the courts, they basically charge whatever they want.