Ignition Interlock Devices Should Be Standard on American Cars

[The Nimble Pianist]

Ignition Interlock Devices are miniature breathalyzers which are hooked up to the ignition of an automobile. One must blow into the device in order to start the car, and in some cases, must blow again every 20 or so minutes (thus preventing a drunk individual from soliciting a sober friend from starting the car for them). Here in California IIDs are usually court mandated for those who have at least two DUI offenses under their belts.

MADD is pushing for nation-wide legislation (http://autos.aol.com/article/interlock-devices-breathalyzer) that mandates IIDs for first-time offenders as well. I don't think this goes far enough; I'd like to see a universal IID law (much like the seat-belt law) which prevents individuals from even getting that first DUI.

What are some issues you see as possible impediments of such an idea coming to fruition?

[ZirconBlue]

First, I'd have to know how safe and reliable these devices are. If you're navigating heavy downtown traffic or cruising down the Interstate at 70 mph, is really safe to have to divert your attention to having to blow into a straw? And, if it gets a false positive, are you going to suddenly find your car incapacitated in the middle of heavy traffic?

I have to admit, though, that even if shown to be 100% safe and reliable, it would still be difficult to convince me that this is an appropriate action. It's sort of a pre-emptive punishment on drunk drivers, but even worse, in that it punishes everyone, not just those who would break the law.

[paximperium]

What are some issues you see as possible impediments for such an idea to come to fruition?
I see a great market for breathalyzer defeating blower devices. I get first dibs on the patent.

[Scootch]

How is blowing into a tube considered punishment? Is putting on a seatbelt punishment for being a bad driver? I may be a good driver but I there are still seatbelt laws. I think if this were implemented there would be far fewer alcohol related deaths. It wont be 100% effective, but I do think it would be effective.
But it would have to be safe, like with your example of driving down the road at 70 mph could it cause a collision or how accurate would it be. Like giving a false positive just because I had just used mouthwash.

[Fronzel]

I don't think the government should assume I'm guilty before I even buy the car.

Should there be devices that detect cell phones and refuse to start the car to prevent me from using the phone while driving?

Or reprogram the cars to turn the fuel cutoff to 55mph?

[paximperium]

I don't think the government should assume I'm guilty before I even buy the car.

Should there be devices that detect cell phones and refuse to start the car to prevent me from using the phone while driving?

Or reprogram the cars to turn the fuel cutoff to 55mph?http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/255544a15bb972e2c5.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16416)

[Kestrel]

First, I'd have to know how safe and reliable these devices are. If you're navigating heavy downtown traffic or cruising down the Interstate at 70 mph, is really safe to have to divert your attention to having to blow into a straw? And, if it gets a false positive, are you going to suddenly find your car incapacitated in the middle of heavy traffic?

I have to admit, though, that even if shown to be 100% safe and reliable, it would still be difficult to convince me that this is an appropriate action. It's sort of a pre-emptive punishment on drunk drivers, but even worse, in that it punishes everyone, not just those who would break the law.

Current interlock systems require you pull the car over and stop to do the test. Regardless of if there is a safe or legal place to pull over.

The systems are also poorly designed. A relative has one on his car that does not work if the temperature is below freezing. He carries chemical hand warmers just so he can warm up the interlock mechanism to start his car.

[Rasmus]

I see a great market for breathalyzer defeating blower devices. I get first dibs on the patent.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:7HJET4RwaitHZM:http://www.topfotoequipment.de/bilder/blasebalg.jpg


http://e-ballon.de/assets/images/cont_eballon_allgemein2.jpg

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Ignition Interlock Devices are miniature breathalyzers which are hooked up to the ignition of an automobile. One must blow into the device in order to start the car, and in some cases, must blow again every 20 or so minutes (thus preventing a drunk individual from soliciting a sober friend from starting the car for them). Here in California IIDs are usually court mandated for those who have at least two DUI offenses under their belts.

MADD is pushing for nation-wide legislation (http://autos.aol.com/article/interlock-devices-breathalyzer) that mandates IIDs for first-time offenders as well. I don't think this goes far enough; I'd like to see a universal IID law (much like the seat-belt law) which prevents individuals from even getting that first DUI.

What are some issues you see as possible impediments of such an idea coming to fruition?

How would I get home from the pub?

[SezMe]

I see a great market for breathalyzer defeating blower devices. I get first dibs on the patent.
Are balloons patented?

ETA: Gosh, isn't that Rasmus guy smart?

[paximperium]

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:7HJET4RwaitHZM:http://www.topfotoequipment.de/bilder/blasebalg.jpg


http://e-ballon.de/assets/images/cont_eballon_allgemein2.jpg
Please cease and decease with your violation of my patent and trademark for the DeBreathalyze 2000.

[ZirconBlue]

How is blowing into a tube considered punishment? Is putting on a seatbelt punishment for being a bad driver?

Just once at start-up wouldn't be so onerous, but if you had to blow in a tube every 20 minutes or so, that would get old real fast. Especially on an 8-hour trip.

But it would have to be safe, like with your example of driving down the road at 70 mph could it cause a collision or how accurate would it be. Like giving a false positive just because I had just used mouthwash.

Exactly.

[Tiktaalik]

Yeah, two years ago one of my employees arrested a guy who had his eleven-year-old drive them home (+ two other kids) since he had one of those devices. Kid had done it before. I don't think they work the way they're intended...

[The Nimble Pianist]

First, I'd have to know how safe and reliable these devices are. If you're navigating heavy downtown traffic or cruising down the Interstate at 70 mph, is really safe to have to divert your attention to having to blow into a straw? And, if it gets a false positive, are you going to suddenly find your car incapacitated in the middle of heavy traffic?

Good concerns here.

I have to admit, though, that even if shown to be 100% safe and reliable, it would still be difficult to convince me that this is an appropriate action. It's sort of a pre-emptive punishment on drunk drivers,

I see it more as a preemptive safety mechanism.

but even worse, in that it punishes everyone, not just those who would break the law.

No more than DUI checkpoints punish everyone. In fact, I'd much rather blow in a tube (or use some other means of checking BAC) than dealing with the hassle of waiting in line, pulling over, and being interrogated by police.

I don't think the government should assume I'm guilty before I even buy the car.

How is checking the BAC of all drivers prior to taking off "assuming guilt"?

Should there be devices that detect cell phones and refuse to start the car to prevent me from using the phone while driving?

When it becomes illegal and dangerous to merely possess a cell phone while driving, sure why not.

Or reprogram the cars to turn the fuel cutoff to 55mph?

Save for the speed you chose, I don't know if that would be such a bad idea.

Current interlock systems require you pull the car over and stop to do the test. Regardless of if there is a safe or legal place to pull over. The systems are also poorly designed. A relative has one on his car that does not work if the temperature is below freezing. He carries chemical hand warmers just so he can warm up the interlock mechanism to start his car.

Wow, I hadn't known that. Thank you. I think kinks in the mechanism need to be worked out prior to any proactive legislation being passed.

It might even be more efficient and safe to generate new technology which is much less invasive and much more reliable than breathalyzers.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:7HJET4RwaitHZM:http://www.topfotoequipment.de/bilder/blasebalg.jpg


http://e-ballon.de/assets/images/cont_eballon_allgemein2.jpg

That won't work. (http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/library/publications/topic/safety/iid-phase1-ch2.pdf)

How would I get home from the pub?

The same way I do: walk, take a bus, call a cab, or designate a sober driver before drinking.

[The Nimble Pianist]

Yeah, two years ago one of my employees arrested a guy who had his eleven-year-old drive them home (+ two other kids) since he had one of those devices. Kid had done it before. I don't think they work the way they're intended...

I don't think appeals to cases where individuals go to great lengths to circumvent the IUD make great arguments against them. By the same means, I could argue against DUI laws and the punishments on offenders simply by pointing out a few anecdotes about those who still drive drunk despite the ramifications.

[Tiktaalik]

I don't think appeals to cases where individuals go to great lengths to circumvent the IUD make great arguments against them. By the same means, I could argue against DUI laws and the punishments on offenders simply by pointing out a few anecdotes about those who still drive drunk despite the ramifications.

What? Now we're talking about birth control? I don't get the connection.

The anecdote was intended to point out that there are issues with the pass devices, not the end-all reason.

[Beanbag]

Nimble, if you think this is such a good idea, then I'm forced to think that you have some serious cognitive issues. I see a California nanny-state flag in your sig -- that explains a lot.

I agree that drunk driving is dangerous. The obvious solution is to do away with alcohol. Oops, tried that once, didn't work. Too much money involved. It would work as well as, say, the war on drugs.

If you're going to be serious about drunk driving, then you need to come down HARD on the offenders, not piddly-ass-to-death the people who behave responsibly.

Gadgets break. They always do. I work on aircraft instruments, one of the MOST tightly controlled and conservatively-designed industries in the world. You know what? Even with all the controls, inspections, procedures, and actually giving a damn about what I'm doing, I KNOW the units I repair WILL fail eventually. The same with your interlocks. Check out the stats for airbags. How many "uncommanded inflations" happen each year? How many DON'T inflate when they should? Tell that to somebody stuck in a blizzard because his interlock system crapped out because it's cold.

I don't drink. Period. Hate alcohol. And I don't think I should have to cough up the couple hundred dollars it would add to the cost of a vehicle just because you think it's a good idea. MADD wants them? MADD can pay for them. And you as well, since I'm sure you want to support your "good idea." Not so good now? Yeah, a lot of good ideas don't seem so good when it hits YOU in the wallet.

I have a suggestion that you add the following phrase to your sig: ANYTHING NOT FORBIDDEN IS COMPULSORY. It seems to fit your mindset.

Beanbag

[Ladewig]

So I wouldn't be able to start my car after I gargled with Listerine?

Don't put one in my car - I don't drink.

[bruto]

The safety issue of having to respond to some nagging device while driving has been addressed already. First cost and periodic maintenance come to mind as questions also. I rarely drink, but even when I did in my youth, I've never driven drunk since I got my license in 1965. I was often a designated driver long before the term came into use, happily abstaining from a second beer so I could be sure a good driver was at the wheel. Why should I pay for a breathalyzer because the prevailing culture, poor education, existing laws and the public budget for enforcement are so flawed that repeat offenders are driving around without licenses until they kill someone? I'm willing to pay my share into the public pot for the public weal, but this is different. I'll pay what it takes to put the cops on the road, and give them the equipment to bag drunk drivers, and I'll happily pay for better education, but I don't see why I should be my own cop or pay for my own bondage and discipline.

The youngest of the vehicles I drive is 11 years old. Who is going to pay to maintain this crap? Rust just crept into the wiring harness of one of my cars and killed the signals. I never found the problem, and had to bypass the harness. Still, when it went, I could drive home with hand signals. What happens when the 20 minute breathalyzer conks out some rainy night far from home? Can I call my local MADD office to come pick me up?

The utilitarian logic of MADD"s initiative could be stretched to apply to almost anything. Of course gun control is already in there, but why not cell phone interlocks, compulsory credit counseling for everyone who has a credit card, helmet laws for toddlers in their yards, obesity intervention (after all, obesity kills, no question about that!) and on and on. Where the line ought to be drawn will vary from one point of view to another, and of course, some people will be quite all right with banning of everything that shoots stabs or slices, others will bristle and yell "nanny state" at everything from seat belt laws to sewage ordinances, but my general take on this is that whenever I hear someone say "there ought to be a law," chances are very good that there really ought not to be.

[Fronzel]

How is checking the BAC of all drivers prior to taking off "assuming guilt"

I dislike the assumption that I am fixing to operate my vehicle drunk unless they are there to make sure I don't.

[The Nimble Pianist]

What? Now we're talking about birth control? I don't get the connection.

The anecdote was intended to point out that there are issues with the pass devices, not the end-all reason.

Thanks. Understood now.

[The Nimble Pianist]

Nimble, if you think this is such a good idea, then I'm forced to think that you have some serious cognitive issues. I see a California nanny-state flag in your sig -- that explains a lot.

Wow. You got all that from a flag? Grow up.

I agree that drunk driving is dangerous. The obvious solution is to do away with alcohol. Oops, tried that once, didn't work. Too much money involved. It would work as well as, say, the war on drugs.

I'm not advocating prohibition.

If you're going to be serious about drunk driving, then you need to come down HARD on the offenders, not piddly-ass-to-death the people who behave responsibly.

I agree, in principle. Question is: Does it work? (I don't know). Anyone have any stats on DUI arrests versus DUI penalties?

Gadgets break. They always do. I work on aircraft instruments, one of the MOST tightly controlled and conservatively-designed industries in the world. You know what? Even with all the controls, inspections, procedures, and actually giving a damn about what I'm doing, I KNOW the units I repair WILL fail eventually. The same with your interlocks. Check out the stats for airbags. How many "uncommanded inflations" happen each year? How many DON'T inflate when they should? Tell that to somebody stuck in a blizzard because his interlock system crapped out because it's cold.

I don't drink. Period. Hate alcohol. And I don't think I should have to cough up the couple hundred dollars it would add to the cost of a vehicle just because you think it's a good idea. MADD wants them? MADD can pay for them. And you as well, since I'm sure you want to support your "good idea." Not so good now? Yeah, a lot of good ideas don't seem so good when it hits YOU in the wallet.

Now if you had just left this in your post, and left your assumptions about me and my "cognitive issues" out, I would have said that you had a good post. I never said this was a "good idea". It's something that has crossed my mind numerous times and I posted it here hoping that the good folks of JREF would rip the idea to shreds using reason (which some have). I didn't come here looking for affirmation or an ego stroke.

Now that a few posters have informed me that IIDs tend to malfunction, I concede that breathalyzers are likely not the best way to prevent drunk driving.

By the way, MADD isn't proposing to put IIDs in every car. They're proposing a nation wide mandate that first time DUI offenders have these in order to drive as a condition of their probation.

I have a suggestion that you add the following phrase to your sig: ANYTHING NOT FORBIDDEN IS COMPULSORY. It seems to fit your mindset.

You just had to cheapen your post a little more, didn't you?

[The Nimble Pianist]

I dislike the assumption that I am fixing to operate my vehicle drunk unless they are there to make sure I don't.

I'm not working on that assumption. I'd simply like to see some kind of proactive measure which better prevents those from putting mine and others' lives in danger by driving drunk.

No different than how the DMV takes your finger prints when you apply for a license. I don't take that as an assumption on their part that I'm going to commit a crime.

[The Nimble Pianist]

The safety issue of having to respond to some nagging device while driving has been addressed already. First cost and periodic maintenance come to mind as questions also. I rarely drink, but even when I did in my youth, I've never driven drunk since I got my license in 1965. I was often a designated driver long before the term came into use, happily abstaining from a second beer so I could be sure a good driver was at the wheel. Why should I pay for a breathalyzer because the prevailing culture, poor education, existing laws and the public budget for enforcement are so flawed that repeat offenders are driving around without licenses until they kill someone? I'm willing to pay my share into the public pot for the public weal, but this is different. I'll pay what it takes to put the cops on the road, and give them the equipment to bag drunk drivers, and I'll happily pay for better education, but I don't see why I should be my own cop or pay for my own bondage and discipline.

The youngest of the vehicles I drive is 11 years old. Who is going to pay to maintain this crap? Rust just crept into the wiring harness of one of my cars and killed the signals. I never found the problem, and had to bypass the harness. Still, when it went, I could drive home with hand signals. What happens when the 20 minute breathalyzer conks out some rainy night far from home? Can I call my local MADD office to come pick me up?

The utilitarian logic of MADD"s initiative could be stretched to apply to almost anything. Of course gun control is already in there, but why not cell phone interlocks, compulsory credit counseling for everyone who has a credit card, helmet laws for toddlers in their yards, obesity intervention (after all, obesity kills, no question about that!) and on and on. Where the line ought to be drawn will vary from one point of view to another, and of course, some people will be quite all right with banning of everything that shoots stabs or slices, others will bristle and yell "nanny state" at everything from seat belt laws to sewage ordinances, but my general take on this is that whenever I hear someone say "there ought to be a law," chances are very good that there really ought not to be.

Good points. I now concede that breathalyzers aren't the way to go.

[Beanbag]

Wow. You got all that from a flag?
No, from reading your posting.
Grow up.
Join the line.
I'm not advocating prohibition.
Never said you were. However, no alcohol = no drunk drivers.

By the way, MADD isn't proposing to put IIDs in every car. They're proposing a nation wide mandate that first time DUI offenders have these in order to drive as a condition of their probation.
Funny. I seem to remember that being the subject of the OP, putting them in every vehicle. Perhaps I misread, or the wording might have been obtuse.

You just had to cheapen your post a little more, didn't you?
Nah. I just decided to deal with the passive/aggressive style of social management that you seem to be espousing. Seems that the solution you're discussing involves imagining the worst possible type of behaviour in a person, and then treating everyone as if they were that type of person. Sort of the lowest common denominator. Doesn't matter if you're NOT one of those irresponsible persons -- you'll still get treated like one. Makes it simple for the nannies. That way they don't have to deal with individuals, just move the herd along.

Let's see -- there is the family in one city who believes that ALL peanut products should be banned from their city because their child is allergic. People have suggested "fat police" and taxing hi-calorie snacks because being overweight isn't good for you. Same for red meat. Some people don't like fur. So, why don't you and the other Right-Thinking Folk come up with the List of Acceptable Practices for everyone, and we'll just ban everything else? Or maybe add some useless checks and rituals that make you feel good.

In short, take your garbage guilt and spread it on your front lawn so it'll grow nice and green. Now go play somewhere else. Adults are trying to live here.

Your choice of wording is what I base my opinion of you on. A lot of the visual clues are missing in a forum text interaction. Read what you want into mine.

Regards;
Beanbag

[LONGTABBER PE]

Ignition Interlock Devices are miniature breathalyzers which are hooked up to the ignition of an automobile. One must blow into the device in order to start the car, and in some cases, must blow again every 20 or so minutes (thus preventing a drunk individual from soliciting a sober friend from starting the car for them). Here in California IIDs are usually court mandated for those who have at least two DUI offenses under their belts.

MADD is pushing for nation-wide legislation (http://autos.aol.com/article/interlock-devices-breathalyzer) that mandates IIDs for first-time offenders as well. I don't think this goes far enough; I'd like to see a universal IID law (much like the seat-belt law) which prevents individuals from even getting that first DUI.

What are some issues you see as possible impediments of such an idea coming to fruition?


Speaking as former LE and an Engineer, the law may come to fruition but then its a case of effectiveness. Here are some potential problems.

1) the device and its reliability- all it will take is one lawsuit where the device failed and caused an accident or other circumstance.

2) the device being able to be overcome.

Anything can be jumped out ( with a signal still sent to the device making it "think" its still operating- we do this 10,000 times a day in industry when various interlocks and other sensors fail) Any E&I or controls tech or good mechanic will be able to do it

"fooling" the device- i can assure you with 100% certainty that this device can be fooled for about a $50 investment at any Radio Shack. ( see above and what I do)

Heres how-( for those who dont work with instrumentation)- these devices basically have 3 inputs ( the high end ones i have seen) air pressure/volume, vibration ( humming) and temperature ( body)

These are not "smart" devices and cannot differentiate between 98 degrees from your breath or 98 degrees from a heater coil and rheostat. It cannot differentiate between a human hum and a piezio device. It cannot differentiate between pressure/flow from human lungs or a fan or small pump.

If they become "law"- expect to see prints and parts lists all over the internet that any hobbyist can build in an afternoon.

I can guarantee you that the parts to do all this are on the pegboard at every Radio Shack. Build it, plug it to the cigarette lighter ( or hot lead) and drive. A little bit of experimenting to match the set points of the sensors and you are done. No more complicated that tuning a stereo.

Dont think about getting caught- LE arent ( and legally cannot) going to search every vehicle. The mechanics arent going to report you. The inspector cant because even if he sees suspicious wiring- he cannot legally investigate it. ( not to mention that the jumper does NOT have to be placed at the device- it can be anywhere in the ignition circuit)

Not to mention "nanny" devices and laws generally motivate people to get around them because of "big brother".

[GlennB]

Gadgets break. They always do. I work on aircraft instruments, one of the MOST tightly controlled and conservatively-designed industries in the world. You know what? Even with all the controls, inspections, procedures, and actually giving a damn about what I'm doing, I KNOW the units I repair WILL fail eventually. The same with your interlocks. Check out the stats for airbags. How many "uncommanded inflations" happen each year? How many DON'T inflate when they should? Tell that to somebody stuck in a blizzard because his interlock system crapped out because it's cold.


Can I recruit you for the next "robot car" debate ? ;)

[LONGTABBER PE]

Good concerns here.



I see it more as a preemptive safety mechanism.



No more than DUI checkpoints punish everyone. In fact, I'd much rather blow in a tube (or use some other means of checking BAC) than dealing with the hassle of waiting in line, pulling over, and being interrogated by police.



How is checking the BAC of all drivers prior to taking off "assuming guilt"?



When it becomes illegal and dangerous to merely possess a cell phone while driving, sure why not.



Save for the speed you chose, I don't know if that would be such a bad idea.



Wow, I hadn't known that. Thank you. I think kinks in the mechanism need to be worked out prior to any proactive legislation being passed.

It might even be more efficient and safe to generate new technology which is much less invasive and much more reliable than breathalyzers.



That won't work. (http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/library/publications/topic/safety/iid-phase1-ch2.pdf)



The same way I do: walk, take a bus, call a cab, or designate a sober driver before drinking.

Not saying your ideals arent good but there are other considerations

>>>I see it more as a preemptive safety mechanism.

Just like gun control reduces crime and prohibition. There is no device or law that will ever overcome the decision to act of a human being. It has never worked and it never will.

>>>No more than DUI checkpoints punish everyone. In fact, I'd much rather blow in a tube (or use some other means of checking BAC) than dealing with the hassle of waiting in line, pulling over, and being interrogated by police.

The misrepresentation of that is that DUI stops arent "everywhere" "EVERYTIME" you get in a car.

>>>How is checking the BAC of all drivers prior to taking off "assuming guilt"?

Potentially a very serious infringement of the 4th Amendment. DUI is a crime ( making it a govt issue) and the mandatory checking of people without probable cause or reasonable suspicion would make a very strong 4th argument ( and 5th if the instrument flagged because like with Intoxilizers- it would have to be calibrated and purged/baselined and such)

>>>Save for the speed you chose, I don't know if that would be such a bad idea.

sure, on a busy highway and you pass or whatever and your engine shuts off. You lose power steering, power brakes ( except the 1 shot booster) and forward momentum ( slows quickly) and the loaded 18 wheeler vaporizes you.

Fuel shutoffs- excellent idea

>>>It might even be more efficient and safe to generate new technology which is much less invasive and much more reliable than breathalyzers.

What technology? The only 2 ways is check the blood or breath

>>>That won't work

Mine will- I can assure you

[SezMe]

Speaking as former LE and an Engineer, the law may come to fruition but then its a case of effectiveness. Here are some potential problems. <snip>
I do not dispute any of your snipped claims. What I do wonder about is how many drunk drivers will go to the effort of implementing those "work arounds"? How many are smart enough? Capable?

[Rasmus]

That won't work. (http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/library/publications/topic/safety/iid-phase1-ch2.pdf)

I didn't think it would be quite as simple - but I am sure it will be simple enough.

LONGTABBER PE seems to be way more knowledgeable here, and any solution I'd have come up with would have been much cruder - but I am sure you could easily bypass the thing. And we are talking about people that already chose to commit a crime by driving drunk. I don't think they will tend to shy away from fooling these controls, either.

[TragicMonkey]

I keep getting prompts from Windows to download an application called "Windows Genuine Advantage". I understand the point of this program is to run a process to "protect" me from having a pirated copy of Windows. The process will run itself periodically to make sure my copy of Windows isn't stolen. It will take up space on my harddrive, and consume bandwidth to do so.

I have no objection to buying a legitimate copy of Windows. Which, in fact, I did when I bought this computer years ago. It's still a legitimate copy of Windows today. I'm not a thief, and I resent Microsoft trying to put a program on my computer that assumes I am. Who the hell do they think they are, that they can treat lawabiding consumers who have done everything they are supposed to do like thieves and criminals?

Same thing here. I have never driven drunk in my life, and I never will. Why the hell should I be required to have a device in my car that assumes I am a drunk driver?

Perhaps everyone should be put into government-mandated chastity devices to prevent them from committing rape? The devices can unlock if every twenty minutes you can demonstrate to it that you're either not having sex or the sex is consensual. And don't you dare deride my analogy, because doing so would prove that you don't care about the seriousness of rape.

[Lonewulf]

Funny. I seem to remember that being the subject of the OP, putting them in every vehicle. Perhaps I misread, or the wording might have been obtuse.
The Nimble Pianist != MADD.

Allow me to quote the OP:


MADD is pushing for nation-wide legislation that mandates IIDs for first-time offenders as well. I don't think this goes far enough; I'd like to see a universal IID law (much like the seat-belt law) which prevents individuals from even getting that first DUI.

Yes, quite "obtuse", as in, not at all.

In short, take your garbage guilt and spread it on your front lawn so it'll grow nice and green. Now go play somewhere else. Adults are trying to live here.

This is amusing. The Nimble Pianist politely made a proposal in the OP, and even, when dealing with rational debate, has come to the conclusion that his proposal was wrong; an attitude that I would consider skeptical behavior. He does not deserve this kind of hostility.

[quixotecoyote]

I like the "Schlock Mercenary" solution.

http://www.schlockmercenary.com/d/20020829.html

Safety devices difficult to circumvent while drunk (so our current tech isn't there yet) and if you disable it while sober and THEN drive drunk, you get executed.

The prosecution will counter by arguing that it isn't Manual Operation Under the Influence that you are going to be humanely (if rather publicly) executed for. It's the fact that you deliberately made such an irresponsible act POSSIBLE by putzing around with your ride.

Of course since I'm anti-death penalty, the consequence needs to be tweaked a litle.

[LONGTABBER PE]

I do not dispute any of your snipped claims. What I do wonder about is how many drunk drivers will go to the effort of implementing those "work arounds"? How many are smart enough? Capable?

I would say potentially 100% of them. Heres why.

What is a "drunk driver"?

A person who was pulled over and blew over the legal limit. ( which in most states is way below impairment level)

Said person is rarely "drunk" 24 hours a day- 7 days a week. They normally work and have lives.

Any intrusive device is going to become cumbersome, embarrassing and generally annoying. ( not to mention the cost, time to blow it and the periodic checks)

Then there are the times the device fails and what not.( let them be late for work or other engagement because it has to warm up or whatever)

Thats MORE than enough motivation for a person to seek solution and start googling and asking around.

That covers the "going to the effort" part

As to the "smart and capable" part- the average handyman or higher would have no problem figuring such a thing out. All anyone else has to do is seek out any electrician, electronics shop, mechanic or tinkerer and have one built.

Then again, an even more simple solution is simply to drive a different car and not even concern yourself with it. ( the logic of why legislators think having "one" device on "one" car means much as most people have multiple vehicles- its not like you can remove them because if you could- you defeated the purpose of having it because you would never put it back)

[Cayvmann]

I do not dispute any of your snipped claims. What I do wonder about is how many drunk drivers will go to the effort of implementing those "work arounds"? How many are smart enough? Capable?

You don't have to be very smart to hire someone else to do it. I would guess that most habitual drunk drivers would try to implement these workarounds, but a LEO might be able to give some insight to how far drunks will go, to continue living a drunk life, and drive.

[Rasmus]

I like the "Schlock Mercenary" solution.

http://www.schlockmercenary.com/d/20020829.html

Safety devices difficult to circumvent while drunk (so our current tech isn't there yet) and if you disable it while sober and THEN drive drunk, you get executed.

I haven't bothered with the link yet, but

- especially alcoholics can be quite capable whilst drunk.
- how would you prove that people were sober whilst comitting the crime - especially since they would be drunk when found out?

... never mind that the punishment should fit the crime and that it seems quite silly to punish e+the making possible of crime X more harshly than crime x itself.

[Cainkane1]

Ignition Interlock Devices are miniature breathalyzers which are hooked up to the ignition of an automobile. One must blow into the device in order to start the car, and in some cases, must blow again every 20 or so minutes (thus preventing a drunk individual from soliciting a sober friend from starting the car for them). Here in California IIDs are usually court mandated for those who have at least two DUI offenses under their belts.

MADD is pushing for nation-wide legislation (http://autos.aol.com/article/interlock-devices-breathalyzer) that mandates IIDs for first-time offenders as well. I don't think this goes far enough; I'd like to see a universal IID law (much like the seat-belt law) which prevents individuals from even getting that first DUI.

What are some issues you see as possible impediments of such an idea coming to fruition?
What about people like me who don't drink but use an asthma inhaler that has alcohol as one of its propellants? Or a person who gargles with listering?

[Lonewulf]

I haven't bothered with the link yet, but

- especially alcoholics can be quite capable whilst drunk.
- how would you prove that people were sober whilst comitting the crime - especially since they would be drunk when found out?

... never mind that the punishment should fit the crime and that it seems quite silly to punish e+the making possible of crime X more harshly than crime x itself.

It's a link to a science fiction humor-based webcomic, and the safety electronics are so complex that you'd have to be VERY capable while drunk to fiddle with them. The "crime" is deliberately disabling the electronics so that your vehicle can veer into other vehicles, creating a huge hazard; as the electronics function "perfectly" (it is science fiction, after all), there is no reason to do this unless you really do want an MOUI accident.

Note that this isn't the same as a breathalyzer. This is basically safety electronics on a whole 'nother scale.

It's science fiction, 1000 years in the future. Somehow I doubt they have to have the same standards we do.

[quixotecoyote]

It's a link to a science fiction humor-based webcomic, and the safety electronics are so complex that you'd have to be VERY capable while drunk to fiddle with them. The "crime" is deliberately disabling the electronics so that your vehicle can veer into other vehicles, creating a huge hazard; as the electronics function "perfectly" (it is science fiction, after all), there is no reason to do this unless you really do want an MOUI accident.

Note that this isn't the same as a breathalyzer. This is basically safety electronics on a whole 'nother scale.

It's science fiction, 1000 years in the future. Somehow I doubt they have to have the same standards we do.

As I said, the tech isn't there yet. :)

[Cactus Wren]

First, I'd have to know how safe and reliable these devices are. If you're navigating heavy downtown traffic or cruising down the Interstate at 70 mph, is really safe to have to divert your attention to having to blow into a straw? And, if it gets a false positive, are you going to suddenly find your car incapacitated in the middle of heavy traffic?

Or, say, on Route 93 between Ely and Wells (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=40.040232,-114.710999&spn=1.013528,2.469177&t=h&z=9) late at night?

Edit: Or here (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=36.013092,-114.732757&spn=0.008366,0.01929&t=h&z=16)? Or here (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=35.026588,-111.73851&spn=0.016939,0.038581&t=h&z=15)?

[MysteryMammal]

What are some issues you see as possible impediments of such an idea coming to fruition?

Another thing that can go wrong with your car. Really, I'd be ticked if the thing went on the fritz and prevented me from using my otherwise operational vehicle. What are the failure rates of these things? How easy to by-pass are they? How much will my local garage bill me to fix it? Will I be legally allowed to fix it myself if it breaks?

[LONGTABBER PE]

You don't have to be very smart to hire someone else to do it. I would guess that most habitual drunk drivers would try to implement these workarounds, but a LEO might be able to give some insight to how far drunks will go, to continue living a drunk life, and drive.

Well, I'll try to give you my experience ( I grew up in the south and a beer drinking hellraiser then later an MP/LEO in my earlier days and been on both sides of the blue light)

First lets remove the "demonization" element from a drunk driver.

TV, movies, "selective shows such as COPs" ,agenda driven organizations such as the ADD types ( insert initial up front as suits your group) have created the "image" that each and every "drunk driver" is a total slosh that cant hold a job etc.

In reality- the "textbook" drunk driver ( such as described above) is around 1% of the whole.

In legal terms, a "drunk driver" is a person who blows over the legal limit and depending on state law, the number of times caught makes 1 an "habitual offender". ( usually 2 of more convictions- but jurisdictions vary)

Do people go out and are not "drunk" by a functional standard but blow the limit and get charged? Yes, of course

Do people go out and get polished to the point of total incoherence and loss of human intelligence? Yes, of course

Do people fall somewhere inbetween? yes of course.

I've personally been all 3 ( may as well admit it even tho I dont drink much now- but when i was younger....) and I have arrested all 3.

At the end of the day, these "drunks" are mostly "weekend" drunks ( Fri and Sat are universally the highest DUI nights) and thats when most get caught.

During the week- many dont drink, drink at home or whatever. Some are career bar stools too.

The point of the above was defining the term "drunk driver"- it can be anybody. The only person who wears the tag is the person who gets caught. A habitual offender may not lead a "drunk life" and since alcohol doesnt discriminate- a habitual offender can be anyone from the town "Otis" to a Doctor.

Now, getting caught

DUI field points ( we call them wolfpacks) are largely ineffective ( except for awareness) because someone always calls a radio station and they announce locations on the air and many bars in the South have scanners and the bartender tells people and such. People know where they are at and often avoid them.

Now, driving while drunk. I personally have heard ( and used) every excuse in the book. ( you would have to get creative to come up with something the average patrol officer hasnt heard in his first year)

Short answer is that there is no excuse for driving while under the influence- but it happens. Why?

Some test fate, some dont care, some dont realize the level they are impaired and so forth.
OK, they get behind the wheel- how do we get them?

No officer "knows" what he will find for a stop so we:

look for obvious signs such as too fast,slow ( most DD's drive BELOW the limit) and erratic operation. Depending on the extent, that may be enough right there.

The next is the 10-28 ( tag)- if it comes back with a prior- thats a good indicator too

Or we get close and observe the reaction

Then theres the timing and experience. ( you see a red truck at the local bar Friday as you pass all night and then hes going slow at 0300- thats a good indicator too)

In the south where i was, you got to know them by name almost. Its what they did.

That long preamble was necessary to understand the answer to the OP

The ones who are "accidental" drunk drivers ( the people who dont drink much or often but were unfortunate enough to get popped) will probably endure and put up with the device for the duration of their probation.

Those who are more rigorous WILL find ways to defeat it because they feel it "controls" or otherwise interferes with what they are going to do.

Dont worry about them being drunk and doing it because if they can fumble for their keys and stagger to the car and crank it will be able to hook it up. Anyone who cannot wont be driving drunk because they will be passed out.

They will get/build/ come up with whatever while they are SOBER.

Hell, other than simply getting a different vehicle- the next easiest thing would be to go to the junk yard and buy another ignition module ( thats where most install to) and jump the OEM one.

Dont think for a second that shadetree Slim with his handy dandy Chilton manual who has a beat up 83 Ford PU with a$1000 stereo and "starship package" lights ( because he is also the local volunteer fireman) cant do that in short order. he would probably invite his buddies over and drink beer while he did it ( for bragging rights) and show 'em" he "dun" it.

[ZirconBlue]

No more than DUI checkpoints punish everyone. In fact, I'd much rather blow in a tube (or use some other means of checking BAC) than dealing with the hassle of waiting in line, pulling over, and being interrogated by police.

Maybe our respective locations are coming into play. I'm 37 years old, and have never even seen a DUI checkpoint, much less been stopped at one.

No different than how the DMV takes your finger prints when you apply for a license. I don't take that as an assumption on their part that I'm going to commit a crime.

Again, I have never been fingerprinted when getting a license. (I have been fingerprinted only once, when I took a job with a bank.)


This is amusing. The Nimble Pianist politely made a proposal in the OP, and even, when dealing with rational debate, has come to the conclusion that his proposal was wrong; an attitude that I would consider skeptical behavior. He does not deserve this kind of hostility.

I concur.

[NoZed Avenger]

I do not dispute any of your snipped claims. What I do wonder about is how many drunk drivers will go to the effort of implementing those "work arounds"? How many are smart enough? Capable?

I don't know, either. From memory, though the initial seatbelt warnings stayed on until a seatbelt was fastened -- and not just for a few seconds. The reason they changed (at least in part) is that the constant warning bell/buzz was annoying enough that a lot of people went ahead and disabled the entire sensor. With a warning of a few seconds, it was considered annoying, but not enough to have people bother to learn how to disable the sound or sensor and actually do it.

I am guessing this would be considered at least that annoying. And, instead of just a small percentage of the population with the devices, you've got millions. Suddenly, a huge market for work-arounds and a larger number of people that have an incentive to spend some time looking at them who would otherwise not care.

Dunno. It's all speculation.

[Rasmus]

Another thing that can go wrong with your car. Really, I'd be ticked if the thing went on the fritz and prevented me from using my otherwise operational vehicle. What are the failure rates of these things? How easy to by-pass are they? How much will my local garage bill me to fix it? Will I be legally allowed to fix it myself if it breaks?

What happens if you are out of town, in a different state or - heaven forbid - abroad when the time comes to service the device? Will it lock down my car somewhere in Mexico or Canada, too?

What if i really fail to prove i am sober three times in a row? It says the device needs to be serviced. What if that happens in the middle of some desert?

(The idea is, after all, that someone would try this whilst drunk, right? Even then they should be allowed to get into their car once they are sober again, right? Suppose I only had the one beer, or two, and am not certain whether I am below the legal limit... testing should be okay, right?)

[ServiceSoon]

Toyota is developing a breathalyser system with photo identification.

For the record I disagree with requiring everybody to use this device when it is only a small percentage of the population that has a problem. It's like registering everybody as a sex offender before they have committed any such crime. The idea is a waste of money, which could be spend in other places (unless your a gov official whose cousin owns the rights to such a system) and is equally just plain dumb.

[SezMe]

Will I be legally allowed to fix it myself if it breaks?
I doubt it. Apparently when it goes in for maintenance, stored information is uploaded to some central location. They're not going to let you finagle with the device if there is any chance of that info getting lost or changed.

[Beanbag]

The Nimble Pianist != MADD.
Thiss is amusing. The Nimble Pianist politely made a proposal in the OP, and even, when dealing with rational debate, has come to the conclusion that his proposal was wrong; an attitude that I would consider skeptical behavior. He does not deserve this kind of hostility.
Lw, I think you missed the key phrase in the OP, namely:

"I don't think this goes far enough; I'd like to see a universal IID law (much like the seat-belt law) which prevents individuals from even getting that first DUI."

Parse that out carefully. As I see it, he just said he wants to put such a device in every car, regardless of whether the person drinks at all.

Sure, Nimble isn't MADD. It seems he (or she) is even more unreasonable. THAT is what I got out of the OP. YMMV.

Yeah, I stepped out of my normally reserved operating mode in this forum and went semi-nuclear. I think the subject deserved it. Again, YMMV. I don't like being nickeled and dimed to death with other people's bright ideas that don't stand a hoot in hell of working.

Trust me -- if I hadn't taken the OP seriously, I wouldn't have responded at all. The fact that I did bite down hard means I feel strongly about the subject. Apply any solutions to the irresponsible, not to the society at large.

ETA: and BTW, I sent the post BEFORE Nimble stated he'd rethought his position.

And in case you're wondering, I fully support seat belt laws. THAT is an example of a workable good idea.

Beanbag

[LONGTABBER PE]

Toyota is developing a breathalyser system with photo identification.
For the record I disagree with requiring everybody to use this device when it is only a small percentage of the population that has a problem. It's like registering everybody as a sex offender before they have committed any such crime. The idea is a waste of money, which could be spend in other places (unless your a gov official whose cousin owns the rights to such a system) and is equally just plain dumb.

Yeah, I've read about that and retinal scans and galvanic sensors.

Its no secret I think the devices are not only a bad idea but unreliable on several different fronts as well as can be a liability but speaking soley as an engineer on their technology.

1) lets say the photo/eye identifier- what happens when another person uses the vehicle? How is this system going to be loaded? Is it going to work if someone changes their appearance,hairstyle or whatever?
Who is going to absorb the cost of this system? ( this will drive the vehicle cost up a good bit)

2) Lets say it works- I know when I ran intoxilyzers- the procedure after each blow was to purge the machine and restore it to baseline before each test before it could be considered valid. What is the provision for doing that here? ( if you dont purge it, it could hold a reading as long as the contaminated air is in it or that prior reading can affect subsequent readings)

You gonna need a purge kit too? ( with refills of course)

3) as others have mentioned- what about certain mouthwashes and OTC medications such as Nyquil that skew the actual breathalyzers? Those devices will obviously give false positives with these too.

4) what is the lockout period? lets say you blow a positive. How long does the device render the vehicle inoperative? Suppose the wife needs the car? How does it reset/purge?

There are a lot of major failure modes here.

[Lonewulf]

I'll deal with this part first:

ETA: and BTW, I sent the post BEFORE Nimble stated he'd rethought his position.

Posts edited to snip out unnecessary content:

Post #22, Yesterday, 05:17 AM (~3 hours before your post)
Now if you had just left this in your post, and left your assumptions about me and my "cognitive issues" out, I would have said that you had a good post. I never said this was a "good idea". It's something that has crossed my mind numerous times and I posted it here hoping that the good folks of JREF would rip the idea to shreds using reason (which some have). I didn't come here looking for affirmation or an ego stroke.

Now that a few posters have informed me that IIDs tend to malfunction, I concede that breathalyzers are likely not the best way to prevent drunk driving.

Post #24, Yesterday, 05:28 AM (~3 hours before your post)
Good points. I now concede that breathalyzers aren't the way to go.

Post #25, Yesterday, 08:26 AM
In short, take your garbage guilt and spread it on your front lawn so it'll grow nice and green. Now go play somewhere else. Adults are trying to live here.

(The post I criticized)

It seems that, given the time stamp, you're wrong on this one, unless it really did take you 3 hours to send the message. In which case, I apologize, but it sure seemed like you were ripping on him after he admitted he was wrong. It's very possible that you did not see his message before you posted, though.

Now to continue

Lw, I think you missed the key phrase in the OP, namely:

"I don't think this goes far enough; I'd like to see a universal IID law (much like the seat-belt law) which prevents individuals from even getting that first DUI."

Parse that out carefully. As I see it, he just said he wants to put such a device in every car, regardless of whether the person drinks at all.

Sure, Nimble isn't MADD. It seems he (or she) is even more unreasonable. THAT is what I got out of the OP. YMMV.

Let's rehash a bit. You made this claim about MADD:

Post #17

I don't drink. Period. Hate alcohol. And I don't think I should have to cough up the couple hundred dollars it would add to the cost of a vehicle just because you think it's a good idea. MADD wants them? MADD can pay for them. And you as well, since I'm sure you want to support your "good idea." Not so good now? Yeah, a lot of good ideas don't seem so good when it hits YOU in the wallet.

Obviously, The Nimble Pianist came to the conclusion that you were claiming that MADD was making his own proposal. He told you that MADD was not, and that was when you claimed it was obtusely worded, or that you were probably mistaken. It's possible to make a mistake like that without doing it intentionally.

MADD was talking about first time drunk drivers; if you drove drunk yourself, frankly, I don't care how strongly you feel, I think something should be done to prevent first time drunk drivers from being second time drunk drivers. What The Nimble Pianist thought didn't factor into this, because you made a direct statement against MADD in that snippet of the post he was responding to.

Yeah, I stepped out of my normally reserved operating mode in this forum and went semi-nuclear.

I'm glad you can admit that.

I think the subject deserved it. Again, YMMV. I don't like being nickeled and dimed to death with other people's bright ideas that don't stand a hoot in hell of working.So what? Libertarians have come up with worst things (and so have some other extremists), and yet many can deal with them rationally and civilly. I'm probably not one to talk about civility, given my own behavior on this forum, but I'm usually able to admit my wrongdoing when someone else is able to concede a point or show civility themselves (okay, not even that's always true, but do you REALLY want to emulate my behavior?)

Trust me -- if I hadn't taken the OP seriously, I wouldn't have responded at all. The fact that I did bite down hard means I feel strongly about the subject. Apply any solutions to the irresponsible, not to the society at large.


Then disagree with it. The problem wasn't that you disagree with The Nimble Pianist, but you "bit down hard" during a playfight. He wasn't pushing his idea with much strength and he all but admitted that he was willing to admit he was wrong from the beginning; he conceded points and asked for people's opinions. It's possible to give an opinion without being abrasive with the person that's asking for it.

And in case you're wondering, I fully support seat belt laws. THAT is an example of a workable good idea.

I wasn't wondering myself, but that's a good point to start with.

Personally, I think that the argument is a lot stronger for first-time drunk drivers to have a breathalyzer installed in their car, although I'm wary about the 20-minute lock down bit; I don't want anyone on the road with a stalled engine.

Anyways, look, seriously, I'm really not one to criticize others on this point, and I must admit that; I don't want to sound preachy or self-righteous, either. I just don't think that The Nimble Pianist deserved the abrasiveness, that's all. YMMV.

EDIT: Yes, I make a lot of edits. So sue me. ;)

[LashL]

What are some issues you see as possible impediments of such an idea coming to fruition?


Well, let's start with the Constitution.

:rolleyes:

There is one heck of an impediment to such a ridiculous idea coming to fruition.

[Piscivore]

Gadgets break. They always do. I work on aircraft instruments, one of the MOST tightly controlled and conservatively-designed industries in the world. You know what? Even with all the controls, inspections, procedures, and actually giving a damn about what I'm doing, I KNOW the units I repair WILL fail eventually. The same with your interlocks. Check out the stats for airbags. How many "uncommanded inflations" happen each year? How many DON'T inflate when they should?

That's why I don't have airbags. Or power windows. Or antilock brakes, or any damn chips in my car. (okay, I have a few transistors controlling the fuel injection, but they're barely more complicated than Annette Funicello's beach party radio). "Reprogramming" :D

I wonder if one of those interlocks would even work on my car. :)

[LONGTABBER PE]

Well, let's start with the Constitution.
:rolleyes:

There is one heck of an impediment to such a ridiculous idea coming to fruition.

I agree.
The obvious work around for someone convicted is as a condition of parole which would be covered. That person was tried and convicted so the precedent is set for a monitoring device.

However, for the general public at large- theres a MAJOR 4th Amendment concern.

Granted "probable cause" is very "loosely" interpreted by the USSC and gives an officer a lot of leeway but we still have to have "something" but I cannot see anyway a mandatory requirement would survive challenge on those grounds.

[bruto]

That's why I don't have airbags. Or power windows. Or antilock brakes, or any damn chips in my car. (okay, I have a few transistors controlling the fuel injection, but they're barely more complicated than Annette Funicello's beach party radio). "Reprogramming" :D

I wonder if one of those interlocks would even work on my car. :)Since it's a Bosch point/condenser setup with that wimpy little single-voltage coil, it probably won't start anyway unless you're sober enough to find the point file under all the trash on the floor. :D

[INRM]

I personally think this strikes me as being kind of a pre-emptive punishment which I think is generally a bad idea in most cases.

Not to mention it penalizes a great many people like myself who have never driven drunk in my entire life based on the actions of some jerks and idiots who have.


INRM

[Piscivore]

Since it's a Bosch point/condenser setup with that wimpy little single-voltage coil, it probably won't start anyway unless you're sober enough to find the point file under all the trash on the floor. :D
:D

[MikeMangum]

Ignition Interlock Devices are miniature breathalyzers which are hooked up to the ignition of an automobile. One must blow into the device in order to start the car, and in some cases, must blow again every 20 or so minutes (thus preventing a drunk individual from soliciting a sober friend from starting the car for them). Here in California IIDs are usually court mandated for those who have at least two DUI offenses under their belts.

MADD is pushing for nation-wide legislation (http://autos.aol.com/article/interlock-devices-breathalyzer) that mandates IIDs for first-time offenders as well. I don't think this goes far enough; I'd like to see a universal IID law (much like the seat-belt law) which prevents individuals from even getting that first DUI.

What are some issues you see as possible impediments of such an idea coming to fruition?

I'm constantly amazed at how willing people are to curtail the freedoms of others.

[Piscivore]

I'm constantly amazed at how willing people are to curtail the freedoms of others.

I'm not. It goes all the way back to the dominance games that drove our primate ancestors.

[Arus808]

Ignition Interlock Devices are miniature breathalyzers which are hooked up to the ignition of an automobile.

Fatal Flaw. what prevents someone from having their child blow into the tube or a passenger?


ETA: as addressed, these types of systems are already unreliable, since they can fail simply in cold weather; or even hot weather? what about thsoe that take medicine that contain alcohol or gargle with mouth rinse that contain alcohol

this is a punishment first then innocent later type of device.

who's going to maintain the calibration of these machines in the cars? Are car mechanics going to do so? Wouldn't a mechanic simply just figure it out and disable it ? What about those who rebuild cars, are they now required to install a system like this into their cars? What about cars restored that are over 70 years old? From the 60's?


bad idea from the get go


Might as well just outlaw alcoholic drinks.

[quixotecoyote]

I'm constantly amazed at how willing people are to curtail the freedoms of others.

I'm constantly amazed at how willing people are to assume others want to curtail freedoms.

[Beanbag]

With VERY rare exceptions, once a law goes on the books, it's rarely ever removed. That's why it's dangerous for blue-sky bright ideas to be turned into law.

Beanbag

[Darth Rotor]

Ignition Interlock Devices
Should be banned.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I've read this entire thread.

I need a beer.

[LONGTABBER PE]

I'm constantly amazed at how willing people are to assume others want to curtail freedoms.

Thats because there are so many examples of it- ask any Democrat

[quixotecoyote]

Thats because there are so many examples of it- ask any Democrat

Oh you mean the champions of civil liberties over the last century? I just might.

[bruto]

Oh you mean the champions of civil liberties over the last century? I just might.Yes, but in the process they limited our freedom to enslave, discriminate, exploit, lynch, poison, railroad and rob our weaker neighbors. Fricken commies.

[Dorian Gray]

I see a great market for breathalyzer defeating blower devices. I get first dibs on the patent.It's hard to get a patent on... another person blowing into the breathalyzer.

[Rasmus]

It's hard to get a patent on... another person blowing into the breathalyzer.

Someone has to say it: Blowjobs?

[Yoink]

I would say potentially 100% of them. Heres why.

What is a "drunk driver"?

A person who was pulled over and blew over the legal limit. ( which in most states is way below impairment level)

Said person is rarely "drunk" 24 hours a day- 7 days a week. They normally work and have lives.

Any intrusive device is going to become cumbersome, embarrassing and generally annoying. ( not to mention the cost, time to blow it and the periodic checks)

Then there are the times the device fails and what not.( let them be late for work or other engagement because it has to warm up or whatever)

Thats MORE than enough motivation for a person to seek solution and start googling and asking around.

That covers the "going to the effort" part

As to the "smart and capable" part- the average handyman or higher would have no problem figuring such a thing out. All anyone else has to do is seek out any electrician, electronics shop, mechanic or tinkerer and have one built.

Then again, an even more simple solution is simply to drive a different car and not even concern yourself with it. ( the logic of why legislators think having "one" device on "one" car means much as most people have multiple vehicles- its not like you can remove them because if you could- you defeated the purpose of having it because you would never put it back)

I know a lot of people who would be willing to risk driving after they've had a few drinks and they think they might or might not be over the limit. I don't know many people who would be willing to drive if they knew for a fact that they were over the limit.

Personally, I've come close to buying a breathalyzer just so I can be sure whether or not I'm "legal" to drive. I'd be pretty happy if my car came equipped with one. I wouldn't be happy if it required that I blow into it every 20 minutes.

ETA: I'm amazed at the number of people in this thread who seem to be perfectly happy to drive while legally drunk.

[CORed]

No more than DUI checkpoints punish everyone. In fact, I'd much rather blow in a tube (or use some other means of checking BAC) than dealing with the hassle of waiting in line, pulling over, and being interrogated by police.

I'm going to go with none of the above. IMO, both are an unacceptable violation of civil rights.

[Arus808]

DUI checkpoints have been tested and deemed legal by several courts on the issue of civil rights. DUI checkpoints no more violate anyone's civil rights, than someone being stopped by a cop following behind them, then pulling them over.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Oh you mean the champions of civil liberties over the last century? I just might.

Not hardly- civil liberties for the democrats mean creating priviledge for a particular class in order to buy their vote.

[Bob Klase]

DUI checkpoints have been tested and deemed legal by several courts on the issue of civil rights. DUI checkpoints no more violate anyone's civil rights, than someone being stopped by a cop following behind them, then pulling them over.

It's legal for the checkpoint to pull everyone over without probable cause. It's not legal for the cop following you to pull you over without probably cause. So I missed the point of that comparison.

[LONGTABBER PE]

I'm going to go with none of the above. IMO, both are an unacceptable violation of civil rights.

Even tho I personally agree with both of your points- the USSC has ruled numerous times that checkpoints and minor traffic stops are not a violation.

This device, on the other hand- if required to be put on all cars, I dont see how it could pass muster against a 4th amendment challenge.

[LONGTABBER PE]

It's legal for the checkpoint to pull everyone over without probable cause. It's not legal for the cop following you to pull you over without probably cause. So I missed the point of that comparison.

Thats 100% correct but an officers probable cause can be as little as "reasonable suspicion" and backed up by no more than turning without a signal, suspicious head movement in a vehicle or almost anything.

[Dorian Gray]

Someone has to say it: Blowjobs?Only if the passenger got paid. Otherwise it's just a blowhobby.

[ZirconBlue]

ETA: I'm amazed at the number of people in this thread who seem to be perfectly happy to drive while legally drunk.

I must have missed some posts. Can you point out these people?

[Safe-Keeper]

OK, so while I learned quite a bit from the discussion, I want to be a bitch for a few secs and respond to a couple posts here...

Nimble, if you think this is such a good idea, then I'm forced to think that you have some serious cognitive issues. I see a California nanny-state flag in your sig -- that explains a lot.

I agree that drunk driving is dangerous. The obvious solution is to do away with alcohol. Oops, tried that once, didn't work. Too much money involved. It would work as well as, say, the war on drugs.

If you're going to be serious about drunk driving, then you need to come down HARD on the offenders, not piddly-ass-to-death the people who behave responsibly.

Gadgets break. They always do. I work on aircraft instruments, one of the MOST tightly controlled and conservatively-designed industries in the world. You know what? Even with all the controls, inspections, procedures, and actually giving a damn about what I'm doing, I KNOW the units I repair WILL fail eventually. The same with your interlocks. Check out the stats for airbags. How many "uncommanded inflations" happen each year? How many DON'T inflate when they should? Tell that to somebody stuck in a blizzard because his interlock system crapped out because it's cold.

I don't drink. Period. Hate alcohol. And I don't think I should have to cough up the couple hundred dollars it would add to the cost of a vehicle just because you think it's a good idea. MADD wants them? MADD can pay for them. And you as well, since I'm sure you want to support your "good idea." Not so good now? Yeah, a lot of good ideas don't seem so good when it hits YOU in the wallet.

I have a suggestion that you add the following phrase to your sig: ANYTHING NOT FORBIDDEN IS COMPULSORY. It seems to fit your mindset.

Beanbag
Fantastic post that cleared up a lot. Good points all. Only thing is... wait, there's something nagging...

Oh, yeah, it's devoid of respectand has more insults and hyperbole than facts, and seems to be, in basics, an attack on a fellow forumite for daring to not know as much about the subject as you.

Grow up.

The utilitarian logic of MADD"s initiative could be stretched to apply to almost anything. Of course gun control is already in there, but why not cell phone interlocks, compulsory credit counseling for everyone who has a credit card, helmet laws for toddlers in their yards, obesity intervention (after all, obesity kills, no question about that!) and on and on. Where the line ought to be drawn will vary from one point of view to another, and of course, some people will be quite all right with banning of everything that shoots stabs or slices, others will bristle and yell "nanny state" at everything from seat belt laws to sewage ordinances, but my general take on this is that whenever I hear someone say "there ought to be a law," chances are very good that there really ought not to be.You want some lubricant for that slippery slope?

I'm constantly amazed at how willing people are to curtail the freedoms of others. Yeah, now the nanny state's not even allowing you to operate your vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. What's next, a law prohibiting me from selling narcotics to kids:rolleyes:?

[Beanbag]

OK, so while I learned quite a bit from the discussion, I want to be a bitch for a few secs and respond to a couple posts here...

Fantastic post that cleared up a lot. Good points all. Only thing is... wait, there's something nagging...

Oh, yeah, it's devoid of respectand has more insults and hyperbole than facts, and seems to be, in basics, an attack on a fellow forumite for daring to not know as much about the subject as you.

Grow up.
Amazing how you managed to miss Nimble's "there, there, I know better than you" approach to social engineering. It was clearly stated that he (or she) thought IID's were a good idea and should be mandatory on all vehicles. I've parsed that sentence several times, and it comes out the same way each time. I don't like that kind of thinking. It smacks of having no respect, and basically implies that I (and most other adults in this world) are incapable of acting in a responsible manner.

There are practical limits to what can be enforced on a population. Prohibition (why does it have to be alcohol-related? Well, because it's probably the best example of Right-Thinking People enforcing their morality on the rest of the world) shows just how far people will go to work around what they think is a ridiculous law. Same as pushing abstinence-only sex ed: it doesn't work, because people are human.

Seat belt laws, IMO, are a good thing. I support them.
A drunk driver who still has his (or her) license after three DUI's is NOT a good thing. Take the license, take the car, punish the offender, but DON'T pull the rest of the people who act responsibly DOWN to the same level as the offender.

There seems to be a trend to dodge personal responsibility these days. I own up to, and take ownership of my actions, and deal with whatever consequences happen, both good and bad. You found my posting devoid of respect and insulting? You're damned right it was.

Have a nice day.

Beanbag

[Beanbag]

BTW, my previous post will be my last post on this subject. The odds of IID's being installed on all vehicles are unlikely at best.

Consider it to be a red cape waved in front of my face. I react to it like when a pompous chief of security told me he was there to keep me honest. MY reaction? Up yours. I don't need you to keep me honest, any more than YOU need someone to keep YOU honest. Funny how he turned red and didn't have any comeback to that one.

Beanbag

[CardZeus]

BTW, my previous post will be my last post on this subject. Beanbag


:cool::boggled: