Convicted NY Drunk Drivers Need Ignition Interlocks 911
pickens writes "Starting yesterday in New York state, anyone sentenced for felony or misdemeanor DWI, whether a first-time or repeat offender, will have to install an ignition interlock in any vehicle they own or operate. The interlock contains a breath-checking unit that keeps the car from starting if the offender's blood-alcohol level registers 0.025 or higher, a little less than one-third of the legal limit. 'The addition of ignition interlocks will save lives in New York state,' says State Probation Director Robert Maccarone, who led the team that wrote the regulation. 'It's been proven in other states. New Mexico realized a 37 percent reduction in DWI recidivism.' Whether that will be enough to persuade more people to take a cab or find a designated driver is unknown. 'It's one more thing to make people think, it may help — it may keep a few people from getting behind the wheel,' says Onondaga County Sheriff Kevin Walsh."
Wait... (Score:4, Informative)
New York is just now getting these?
Wow, Alaska has had them for a while now.
Or is there something about this that I'm missing?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
New York is just now getting these?
Wow, Alaska has had them for a while now.
Or is there something about this that I'm missing?
Probably the logistics of implementing it in a more populous state.
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Funny)
I don't think too many states outclass Alaska when it comes to drunks!
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ahahahahahahahaha this is hilarious.
I mean, honestly, I hate the draconian nature of this, and would rather live with the consequences of not having these than have police-state laws like this, but...
Two of my idiot friends got their second DWIs recently. One of them recently enough that he's almost certainly going to have to put one of these things in, and I hope the other one as well. The less recent one rear-ended a stopped car at a traffic light--no one was injured, but he's still driving around his brand new car (brand new because he had a girl drive drunk while he was drunk and she smashed into a telephone pole... that one was new too) with a smashed up front end. He's probably been sentenced already, although tbh I don't talk to him much anymore because he's self-destructing in other spectacular ways that I don't want to be around. The more recent one went off the road and broke both his arms, almost died. He put off his court date for a month, GOD I hope he has to put this thing in.
So, as much as I don't like them ... people will drive drunk. Over and over again, for no fucking reason. I was out with one of the two a couple months before all this, at a bar. I drove down with the plan to leave the car in the public lot and get a $10 ticket, then take a cab back home and a friend would drive me to my car in the morning. Well, closing time came around and this moron asked me to drive because it was kind of cold and he didn't want to wait a half hour for the cab to get there. I said no, so he, already with one DWI and drunk (but not drunk enough that he should have that poor of decision making ability), offered to drive my car. I said fuck no, and we waited, but the whole time he hounded me about it. It's just unfathomable how stupid people get about this, and they make the decisions drunk or sober. For instance, I drove down, but only because I know myself well enough to know that I'm not going to do something stupid once I get a buzz on. Other people, as you can see by reading this thread, will do anything they can to drive drunk, like leaving their cars running outside a bar. It's fucking insane, like straight up some kind of mental imbalance. Hell, I've stopped going to bars more than once every few months because it's such a pain in the ass and I can't see any reasonable explanation for anyone doing otherwise short of being broken in the head somehow.
So yeah, it sucks, but you won't hear me bitching about the law. No, I'll be laughing as these dipshits blow their car started at the order of some beeping box, and watching with interest to see what kind of backflips they'll do to fuck their own and other people's lives up even more, for NO REASON. Addicted to alcohol? Go to the grocery store, and drink for a quarter of the price! Throw a party at your house, sleep over at others' houses when you drink there, get a motel room if you're out of town and have nowhere else to sleep. D-d-d-don't drink so fucking much! It's the sober guy that gets laid at the after-party anyway. Jesus.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's an easy one! (Score:4, Insightful)
This includes first-time MISDEMEANOR DUIs. In other words, a "convicted criminal" in the same sense as a first-time conviction for shoplifting candy bars.
In my honest opinion, this law is the real crime.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What's a "convicted criminal"? This includes first-time MISDEMEANOR DUIs. In other words, a "convicted criminal" in the same sense as a first-time conviction for shoplifting candy bars. In my honest opinion, this law is the real crime.
That's a pretty big leap. Stealing a candy bar isn't quite the same as risking the lives of everyone you encounter on the road. And then there's the argument "he wasn't THAT drunk." Come on. You don't need to drink. You don't need to drive after you drink. It's not that hard to just be responsible, and if you can't handle the responsibility, you don't get to drive without the lock.
People who use guns too irresponsibly don't get to keep guns. People who treat children too irresponsibly don't get to keep chil
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the penalty you get for endangering other people's lives. I don't mind some idiot having to waste his time after he's tried to kill my family or others on the road.
That's a mighty tall horse you've got there... (Score:4, Insightful)
What will happen when you have one drink, get popped, and you discover that the limits are now so low that YOU are the one having to install one of these? Will you be so high and mighty then? Why not just set the limits to zero and be done with it? Drinking and driving is bad mmkay? But at some point we're going to hit bottom in this little political race to outdo one another and realize that it's a bit insane.
How about this, lets just install them in ALL cars? That will stop this problem cold won't it? See how that flies at the local bar and grill or winery why don't you. If the device detects any alcohol in your system it won't start. You okay with that? Family will be safe right? If you say no then are you advocating drinking and driving?
Re:That's a mighty tall horse you've got there... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because I should be able to have a glass of wine with dinner when I dine out and drive home after wards. I completely disagree with your implied message that the average person is a hazard to themselves or others under conditions like these. Even considering the fact that you're driving a vehicle that's more dangerous to the operator then a car, 12 hours is just crazy unless you just got smashed the evening before.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because (within the aforementioned context of a glass of wine with a meal) it's imposing an inconvenience for a negligible return in public safety.
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
Every time you drive, you endanger other people's lives - it's a matter of degree. Life just isn't supposed to be safe. Yes, yes, you can go too far, and reckless endangerment should be stopped, but not at any cost. We have a shocking tendency in America recently to give up any liberty asked for in return for the slightest sense of security. Does this law go too far? I'm not sure. But if you can't admit it's possible to go too far, you're helping invent the new safety-based fascism we seem destined for.
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree that people who give up liberty for little (general immeasurable amount of) safety need to fuck off and die. That isn't the issue here. If you get hit with a DUI, you committed a criminal act. It wasn't your own life you were endangering. This isn't a victim less drug law. You were doing something horribly dangerous to the people around you. You should damn well be punished, and punished harshly enough so that you don't do it again. A DUI isn't a victim less crime. I am all for drunkenness, just not while you are plowing around with enough kinetic energy to tear a family surrounded by a steel cage apart.
So now we come to punishment. We could toss a DUI's ass in jail, and I am all for that for repeat offenders or people who were grossly negligent. A lesser punishment than having your liberty completely stripped with jail time is to have to get one of these things put into your car. Eh, this isn't a liberty thing. Your liberty is already fucked once you get nailed with a DUI. The question is just how much liberty is going to be stripped. An annoying breathalyser is a much lesser punishment than sitting in a jail cell. I am a no holds bar, drugs for everyone, fuck worrying about terrorist, screw the children, smok'em if you get 'em, have sex often, drink and be merry sort of guy, but I am still all for these things for convicted DUIs.
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How about canned air rigged to a tube slipped over the moth piece. Every time it beeps just press the trigger on the canned air. Or do these things somehow know the difference between compressed air, canned air (fluorocarbons) and human breath?
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is done to prevent someone sober from starting the car and then having someone drunk drive the car away. If you get someone else to start your car who is sober, and then halfway through your ride, while you are drunk, your car stops and forces you to prove you are sober, you cannot proceed from that point because you are drunk. You'd need someone sober in the car at that point to restart the car, and if someone is sober in the car, the odds are likely that that person will be the driver. It actually makes perfect sense.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Or the driver's kid.
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Informative)
Perhaps you should have read the article, where it says that the interlock, "must stay hooked up for the duration of the offender’s conditional discharge or probation — anywhere from six months to five years, depending on the sentence."
It's not a "lifelong punitive impediment." It's a condition of your probation, and it ends after a set amount of time. I think that's pretty sensible - since it allows you to keep driving, which means you can keep working and have a life, but you just can't drive while drunk.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>Well sure, if you consider a lifelong punitive impediment for a misdemeanour's offence to be sensible.
Most of us do not consider the idea of making drunk driving a misdemeanor to be sensible. Personally I think we made a mistake to ever make a separate law for it. Drunk driver = reckless endangerment as much as firing a gun into the air in an urban center or deliberately not insulating an electrical wire or any other thing we do for convenience or to save costs that tends to kill people.
A helluva lot of
Re:Wait... (Score:4, Insightful)
Thus distracting the driver and increasing the possibility that he will cause an accident. At least, that's the argument that's going to be made in court any time any car with an interlock is involved in an accident. The manufacturers probably want to avoid this liability to avoid being accused of "encouraging distracted driving".
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, I had to drive a friend's car around with one of these as a favor (getting the breathalyzer rechecked monthly or something while they were on vacation - pretty strict). While I didn't mind it at start-up, it was downright dangerous while driving. The intervals didn't seem random at all, it was always 5 minutes apart, and it gave you like 10 second window to start the test or it would report a failure to the authorities. So the whole pull-over and test is bullshit, whenever it beeped, whether it was on a curve or straight-away or heavy traffic, I had to sit there and breath as hard into it as possible while still paying attention to it. Imo, whatever the brand name of the device was, it was a terroristic little thing not suited for safe-driving at all.
BTW, I think the idea is good in theory, just the particular implementation I had was stupid, at least 2 minute should be given to pull over, and it should beep and light up like Vegas just because of 10 seconds coming and going.
Of course, I wasn't used to this car, it was a manual on top of that, something I don't drive often, which may have made it harder than it seemed.
Re:Wait... (Score:4, Interesting)
There are no standards and no safety compliance labs that examine those devices. As far as I'm concerned, those devices are safety critical and should undergo testing similar to safety critical medical devices.
The way it is, it's pretty much a free-for-all. The peddlers, um, vendors of those devices are in the same league as school textbook publishers [textbookleague.org]. They do absolutely shittiest job that'll pass the scrutiny of a bunch of incompetents. And no, increasing the number of incompetents so as to get more ratings to average from doesn't increase the quality of the average. It's still shitty.
I'm all for such devices, but what you claim is par for the course, and unless there is strict regulation, and obligatory regulatory compliance, things won't change. Same applies to breathalyzers and their crapload of code. Oh, and voting machines too.
Re:Wait... (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, that'll just work great on the 10-lane freeway at 80MPH.
Re:Wait... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds like DUIers should avoid those roads then.
Uhhh...what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the opposite is usually true. Here in BC the legal limit will be dropping from
In the end, I don't really care either - I'm just a little miffed MADD continues to push the laws towards their prohibitionist ideals and there's nothing you can do about it without looking like a drunk.
Amen (Score:3, Insightful)
MADD is a quintessential example of an organization that has completed all of its original goals, but continues to exist simply for its own sake.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is drunk driving 0? Even close to it? Then it hasn't accomplished all of its goals. Its goal has always been to eliminate drunk driving. Getting ti treated as a serious crime was step 1, not the end.
Re:Amen (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Amen (Score:5, Interesting)
When I was in school someone distributed DAMM stickers. That's Drunks Against Mad Mothers. I laughed but apparently the faculty found it a hanging offense or somesuch.
Re:Amen (Score:5, Insightful)
NATO is probably a better example ;)
Re:Uhhh...what? (Score:4, Informative)
They often to not allow people with convictions to cross the border, or more recently they charge a fee to let you in.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.burglin.com/defense.php [burglin.com]
Looks like it takes at least six months and lots of digging for paperwork. Oh, and $200CDN.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A few years ago I looked into this. I was going to Seattle to visit someone and we were thinking of driving up to Vancouver. I had a DWAI a handful of years back, and I somehow came across the fact that this might prevent me from entering at the border.
After reading what others have said, what I gather is that it all comes down to the discretion of the border guard. If they feel like running your name, they can. Not that they will, but it's their choice. If they run your name and see you have a conviction
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Problem is, you are - demonstrably - physically impaired even with very low levels of alcohol in your blood, low enough that you'll say "But I'm not even drunk, what do you think, I'm a pussy who can't hold my liquor?"
If you have a BAC of .03 - .06, effects are reduced concentration, mild euphoria, and relaxation;
When you get into the BAC range of .06 - .10, effects at this point on the "average" physiology includes damping effects on reasoning, depth perception, peripheral vision, and glare recovery.
Beyond
Re:Uhhh...what? (Score:4, Interesting)
Interestingly, though, I'll point out the statistics that say that young males up to ~25 are the MOST likely to die in a car accident, despite their "reflexes" - why? Because they drive more aggressively, and are more prone to risk-taking. By that measure, the 50+ people who have 30 years of driving experience are demonstrably safer, despite your claims that their reflexes are worse.
It's not always about reflexes. Sometimes it's about having the experience to know how to respond to a situation (e.g., turning into a skid), and older drivers are more likely to have that wisdom.
But for the record, I would support mandatory license re-testing in order to renew a license, as well - you must pass a basic skills test every few years to maintain your license, regardless of your age.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So you admit you're already off your peak performance at the times you normally drive, and use that to justify why dulling your senses even more is no big deal?
"I'm already only 70% effective, and that's pretty much the same as 50% effective, so what's the point?"
Somebody on Slashdot fails at math.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's not pretend that the increasingly rigid and unthinking drunk-driving regulations are about the endangerment of others. We're looking at puritanical prohibition masked by reasonless application of rigid standards, leveraging inaccurate measurement devices.
I'm not suggesting that people should drive drunk (and I definitely don't drive after having anything more than a glass of wine with dinner, as cabs are comparatively cheap), but we need to take a step back any time there is a mandatory penalty and l
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't the general public you know. We're talking about convicted criminals who actually drove on public roads while actually drunk. Likely more than once, since they're only convicted if they're caught.
I'm all for liberty and etc, but I have exactly zero patience for letting anyone that's been anywhere near alcohol drive next to me at 70mph. Driving isn't something to mess around with, you can go out to get some milk one day and never come back.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.ou.edu/oupd/bac.htm [ou.edu]
http://www.drunkdrivingdefense.com/general/bac.htm [drunkdrivingdefense.com]
http://www.bestduidefense.com/BACCHART.htm [bestduidefense.com]
Those are three of the first responses on google. And according to those, 3 drinks in an hour will put you at about a
About Time (Score:2, Insightful)
This is one area the government needs to interfere in.
Re:About Time (Score:5, Funny)
Right, next you'll be asking for building and fire codes. I swear, you liberal nanny types are never satisfied!
The expense of the interlock... (Score:5, Insightful)
is one thing that bothers me. $70-125 to install and another $70-110 per month isn't cheap, especially on top of the major bump in car insurance that they already ate. Given that drunk driving convictions skew to lower income, this has real potential to put even first-time offenders into bankruptcy.
The fact that it triggers on as little as 1/3 of the legal limit is also troubling. Maybe they should trigger at slightly below the legal limit, but 1/3? They couldn't get convicted of a DWI at that number, and yet you're going to shut off their car?
I'm just waiting for the day when the "reenact prohibition" assholes get enough power to try to make these things mandatory in all cars. After all, if it "saves lives", why not make everyone blow into the damn box to start the car, and at random times?
Insert obligatory "won't someone think of the children" bullcrap here too.
Re:The expense of the interlock... (Score:5, Insightful)
$70-125 to install and another $70-110 per month isn't cheap, especially on top of the major bump in car insurance that they already ate
Yeah, that is pretty outrageously expensive. I bet it'd be cheaper to call a cab.
Re:The expense of the interlock... (Score:5, Insightful)
$70-125 to install and another $70-110 per month isn't cheap, especially on top of the major bump in car insurance that they already ate
Yeah, that is pretty outrageously expensive. I bet it'd be cheaper to call a cab.
If only people were able to do this kind of deductive reasoning while they were drunk, we'd be able to completely eliminate drunk driving.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's called planning ahead. Set aside the cab money while your sober, or plan to have someone pick you up.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
$70-125 to install and another $70-110 per month isn't cheap, especially on top of the major bump in car insurance that they already ate
Yeah, that is pretty outrageously expensive. I bet it'd be cheaper to call a cab.
That would be a great idea... if only the small, tiny fact that you can still blow a positive on those tests the morning after. [vancouversun.com] You've slept it off, but your breath will still hold enough traces to show your loaded to hell and back again.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, just when they are drunk. Thus avoiding this device being placed in their automobile.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The expense of the interlock... (Score:5, Interesting)
One thing I am learning over and over from anyone who seriously rides motorcycles is that even one drink is enough to lower reaction time and impair your thought processes. Why shouldn't this also be something that is applied to ANY motor vehicle is beyond me. But - I can also understand being out and about and having a drink. Say at a sporting event or even just a good wine with dinner. The key here is make sure you know how much you're consuming and WAIT enough time for your body to get rid of it before you start up any machine that could kill you or others.
I see plenty of things while riding that make me cringe - yea, you're good, wearing a helmet and all - but you aren't wearing anything else but sneakers, shorts and a wife beater. Yea, your head will be fine.....
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
One thing I am learning over and over from anyone who seriously rides motorcycles is that even one drink is enough to lower reaction time and impair your thought processes.
Being awake for 8 hours is enough to lower reaction time and impair your thought processes.
Being awake for 16 hours is enough to lower reaction time and impair your thought processes 3x as much as having one drink.
A chronically sleep deprived person is essentially driving permanently drunk [cnn.com].
Then again, I don't know too many assholes who w
Re:The expense of the interlock... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unlike being tired, or having low blood sugar, having an alcoholic drink is 100% avoidable and voluntary in *every single case*. Choosing to drink and drive is choosing to needlessly endanger other people on the road.
These people have already provably shown that they lack the judgement to make good decisions about their safety and those around them. So it seems proportionate to me to require them, and only them, to demonstrate that they have changed their behavior for some reasonable period of time.
This isn't a civil liberties thing, it's using technology to do something that demonstrably benefits society: not punishing, but changing antisocial behavior.
Re:The expense of the interlock... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Then again, I don't know too many assholes who weave in and out of traffic back and forth in large cars.
One time on my morning drive a half-ton came out of nowhere behind me. He swerved around and sped off not two seconds later. I remember thinking this guy was going to get himself killed. About two minutes down the highway I watched the truck careen through the air and land upside down in the ditch. He hit an ammonia trailer being pulled by a half-ton that had just turned onto the highway. I did my due diligence and called 911 but he was already dead by the time he landed.
Another time I was behind two s
Re: (Score:2)
One thing I am learning over and over from anyone who seriously rides motorcycles is that even one drink is enough to lower reaction time and impair your thought processes. Why shouldn't this also be something that is applied to ANY motor vehicle is beyond me. But - I can also understand being out and about and having a drink. Say at a sporting event or even just a good wine with dinner. The key here is make sure you know how much you're consuming and WAIT enough time for your body to get rid of it before you start up any machine that could kill you or others.
I see plenty of things while riding that make me cringe - yea, you're good, wearing a helmet and all - but you aren't wearing anything else but sneakers, shorts and a wife beater. Yea, your head will be fine.....
Agreed. But it's not just alcohol that impairs reaction time. Low blood sugar, especially for diabetics, recreational drugs... hell, I bet pregnant woman are prone to over-reacting*. I say anyone who is not in absolute 100% shouldn't be able to drive in the name of safety. That is why I'm advocating, in addition to a breathalyzer test, a piss tester installed in every vehicle. If your urine shows up good then you can drive. Too high of cholesterol... could have a heart attack while driving... car won
Re:The expense of the interlock... (Score:5, Funny)
Not good enough. What about people with slower than average reaction times? Too young (say, under 35) to have good judgement? To old (over 50, perhaps) to think fast? And worst of all are inexperienced drivers. No one should be allowed behind the wheel until they've logged at least 100 hours behind the wheel.
Re:The expense of the interlock... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The expense of the interlock... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you'd RTFA, you'd find out that the device is part of their "conditional discharge" (i.e. probation) (you'd also find an answer to your bankruptcy concern). Don't want to use the device because you feel it infringes too much on your personal liberties? Fine. Stay locked up.
People with money can get out of jail and people without have to stay in?
Doesn't sound like equal treatment under the law to me.
Re:The expense of the interlock... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
is one thing that bothers me. $70-125 to install and another $70-110 per month isn't cheap, especially on top of the major bump in car insurance that they already ate. Given that drunk driving convictions skew to lower income, this has real potential to put even first-time offenders into bankruptcy.
The fact that it triggers on as little as 1/3 of the legal limit is also troubling. Maybe they should trigger at slightly below the legal limit, but 1/3? They couldn't get convicted of a DWI at that number, and yet you're going to shut off their car?
I'm just waiting for the day when the "reenact prohibition" assholes get enough power to try to make these things mandatory in all cars. After all, if it "saves lives", why not make everyone blow into the damn box to start the car, and at random times?
Insert obligatory "won't someone think of the children" bullcrap here too.
That's $70-$125 a month to rent the device, plus $100 to install, plus $100 to remove. That's highway robbery. I guess the company that makes these things has a good lobbyist. We'll ignore the fact that this has been a dismal FAILURE in New Mexico as less than half of the people that would normally be required to have one, avoided it by simply telling the judge they don't drive or don't own a car.
I'd much rather focus on the idiots driving with the cell phones glued to their ear. Statistics show they ca
Re:The expense of the interlock... (Score:5, Informative)
Are you being sarcastic? MADD wants ignition interlocks in all vehicles.
http://blog.owidefenselaw.com/?p=61
Re:The expense of the interlock... (Score:4, Insightful)
But then you knew that already and are fully aware that nobody is suggesting that every single vehicle be equipped with one.
You forgot the word "yet." The counterargument from these religious fundie assholes - and yes I HAVE heard them discussing this - is "well if you build them into every car, it'll be cheaper by economy of scale" and "it's just like requiring a seat belt and that's a safety device too."
These fuckers would love - just LOVE - to have the damn things loaded into every single car, and required to be checked up and maintenanced when you get your car emissions-tested.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You are correct in saying that people reacting less negatively to many smaller changes than to a single large one is not a fallacy. The fallacy part is the idea that one step on the slope inevitably leads to the next.
1/3rd the limit? (Score:4, Interesting)
Ok... I'm fairly ambivalent to whether such ignition locks are a good idea or not, but this part strikes me as odd:
"The interlock contains a breath-checking unit that keeps the car from starting if the offender's blood-alcohol level registers 0.025 or higher, a little less than one-third of the legal limit."
Exactly why can't you drive a vehicle in situations when it would be entirely legal to operate it? If you have a dui, is the legal limit for driving lowered for some reason that I'm not aware of.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly why can't you drive a vehicle in situations when it would be entirely legal to operate it? If you have a dui, is the legal limit for driving lowered for some reason that I'm not aware of.
Because the driver has a proven history of Driving Under the Influence. Its not hard to have undetectable blood alcohol. I do it all the time.
Re:1/3rd the limit? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know that I totally agree with it, it just is part of the gig. I guess another way to look at it probation is almost like being in jail without the guards, steel bars and bad food (well maybe not the last one, I guess). You still have the system up your ass.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Driving while intox is much, much lower than it was back 30 years ago. The big issue these days in law enforcement isn't the drunks, it's the people smeared on drugs. There's been a huge jump in crashes relating to people either smeared on prescrip meds, or smeared out on stuff like LSD, coke or heroin.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
First step: get this put in for "DWI convicted" people.
Second step: get them made mandatory in all cars.
First step: jail convicted criminals.
Second step: jail everyone!
Hm, something's amiss...
Couldn't you (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey, and the law against murder doesn't stop bullets from killing people either. Lets not enforce that, it doesn't work.
It doesn't need to be 100% effective, it needs to be effective enough to seriously reduce the recidivism rate by enough to be worth the cost. And statistics say that it does.
To Answer Logistic Questions (Score:5, Informative)
So to address people's questions: you have to make a sound with your voice as you blow and you have to blow strong while making that sound. I think it's calibrated to your voice so if you try a dust buster (not going to make the force needed) or your child you're not going to get your voice. The kid might work if you have enough time for them to try different ranges but it has to be a long continuous breath of full air.
To address the questions about drinking after you start the car, the system will beep loudly indicating you must blow into it again while you're driving or your vehicle will shut off. This happens once every 20-40 minutes.
To answer the questions about why it's 1/3 the legal limit, my (now ex) girlfriend had also been ordered by her program to not drink for a year. If you blow anything recognizable, it locks out you out of your vehicle and reports it. If you don't believe me look at how they keep track of starts [smartstartinc.com]. This isn't something for you to wonder if it's okay for you to drive or to test your friends with. She was warned by other friends with DUIs (that's DUI) that they will get you the morning after if you still have alcohol on your breath.
A month before she blew this, she was in the lowest range and then she blew right on the edge of this range that demanded this. I know there's a lot of people out there that have been negatively affected by drunk drivers but in most states the punishment really can be life destroying. I avoid it by using public transportation in DC when I drink but not everyone has that option.
I'm not against these things being used in serious cases. But your first offense with a DUI
Re:To Answer Logistic Questions (Score:5, Insightful)
. where do we draw the line?
Every time you get into a car drunk and endanger other innocent people on the road. Exactly how many times am I supposed to let your old girlfriend try to kill me and/or my family before we crack down?
Re:To Answer Logistic Questions (Score:5, Insightful)
But you know what's really gone unchecked? Texting while driving is as bad or worse than drinking and driving [cnbc.com].
And therefore we should be softer on drunk drivers.
Yes, that logic is truly brilliant. Well done!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But you know what's really gone unchecked? Texting while driving is as bad or worse than drinking and driving [cnbc.com].
And therefore we should be softer on drunk drivers.
Yes, that logic is truly brilliant. Well done!
We should be consistent. Don't be extra-hard on people who are approaching being drunk just because being drunk is something low-class people do. Have the same deterrent for everything with the same level of endangerment.
BAC in a certain (low) range, talking with a hands-free phone, going 5-15 mph faster than traffic, eating "clean" foods (bagel etc)... all the same minor deterrent. BAC in a higher range, texting or maybe using a handheld phone, eating messy food (that require more attention), going 20+ mph
Re:To Answer Logistic Questions (Score:5, Insightful)
#1 first offense doesn't mean the first time the person did it, only the first time they got caught
#2 you can still kill somebody the first time you drink and drive, it's not like the first time you do there's a magical force field protecting you/the pedestrian or something
#3 it's not that hard: if you drink YOU DO NOT DRIVE, period. take a cab, take transit, have a designated driver, you name it, risking other people's lives because you are too cheap to take a cab is ridiculous, you had the money to buy drinks, you should have the money to get home without endangering others.
From my perspective there is no line to draw, first time 5 years w/o a license, second time lose your license forever, period.
Re:To Answer Logistic Questions (Score:4, Insightful)
#3 it's not that hard: if you drink YOU DO NOT DRIVE, period.
And then what happens when every bar and restaurant outside of a major city goes out of business due to a complete loss of alcohol sales? No problem there, right? This is MADD's true agenda: back-door prohibition.
Re:To Answer Logistic Questions (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem isn't that people go to the bar, drink themselves sloppy, and crawl to the car amidst warnings not to drive, then zig-zag down the road (yeah, some are that bad, most aren't).
The problem is someone who has a couple drinks talks for a while, feels fine and ends up one hundredth over the limit 15 minutes later and they would be just under the limit. Had the machine been calibrated perfectly they might have been under. Truthfully, they probably were fine to drive (and better fit for it than some other people on the road) and wouldn't have been pulled over except for the roadblock, but the law is the law (and no, I have never gotten a DUI). With the legal limit creeping downward, that scenario becomes more common.
Zero tolerance is almost inevitably the wrong answer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think perhaps fixing the issue with non-poverty requiring driving should be more important than interlocks. If we had decent public transit there would be far less DUI.
Re:To Answer Logistic Questions (Score:5, Interesting)
In rural America the only way to get around is by personal vehicle. Granted, that doesn't excuse a drunk driver, but there aren't always buses or trains or even taxi cabs out in the middle of nowhere. You must find a sober driver to get you home. A few years ago (and still may be true in some areas) it wasn't unheard of for a police officer to give drunks a ride home.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This sounds incredibly dangerous
You think so?
please tell me it's not just an instant cutoff with a timer.
Do you really think the designers didn't think of that? Maybe they could hire you as a consultant for $1000 and hour...
Re:Couldn't you (Score:4, Informative)
Not possible. Friend of mine just got off one of these.
The way it works is...suck suck suck beep blow. You must blow for x seconds...when it beeps, then you have about 1/2 second to suck.
After watching her go through all this crap, my recommendation is - if you have the option of restricted license + breathalyser, or no license for a year...suck it up and go with the no license. It's just not worth the expense/trouble.
So you start drinking .. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So you start drinking .. (Score:5, Informative)
My experiences show how to reduce BAC. (Score:4, Funny)
I drink and drive all the time. I also drink and shoot on the clay-pigeon range.
SOME of us still hold our liquor and are sane and responsive faster than anyone else. It's about your metabolism: if you do an hundred jumping-jacks after getting drunk, then you'll metabolise the effects out of your body as sweat. I don't trust anyone on the road that can't handle liquor; those are that people we should be worried about. Everyone should drink a beer before entering a car because it calms their nerves and prevents all the kinds of over-reaction driving that you see when big-rigs fishtail out of control and such.
The reason why there are so many laws against Alcoholic beverages is because it all carried-over for when the Irish arrived into America and the governments hated them so-much that they looked for every which-way to tax the most beneficial (when used in moderation) beverages. It's no different than how they're about to ruin the Marijuana industry by legalizing it and taxing it. They would prohibit paper-products if only it earned them more money, but then the French invented the ba'day to remove feces with water. It's constantly a game of taxes where governments look for ways to TAP into sources of money in all the ways of assuring their survival in a world that is lawful without the privileged gangmembers known as government. At-least recently from His-Story books, we can reveal that governments and similar privilege gangs of associated psychopaths are responsible for all the genocides and war.
The more you know...
Universally stupid. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because there are other things it also checks for to ensure the gas its analyzing is from a breathing person.
These things have been in use for a while, they kinda know the tricks of the trade and how to detect anything short of someone else blowing in it for you ... and that they deal with by retesting after so long of driving.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As for "someone else blowing in it for you", if you're a sober passenger in a car with a convicted drunk driver, and you'd rather help them fake out the analyzer rather than taking the wheel yourself, you deserve to die in a car crash, and you deserve a manslaughter conviction if someone else dies.
How far is too far? (Score:2)
Within five minutes of starting the car, the interlock will order the driver to pull over and restart the car. For longer rides, drivers will be required at random times to stop the car and restart. Maccarone said this feature is intended to prevent drivers from drinking after they start the car.
That's not only inconvenient, but it also seems like it could cause more problems than it solves. This seems inefficient, is it absolutely necessary to take their precautionary measures this far?
Ineffective? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:C'mon people, this is Slashdot! (Score:5, Informative)
I used to install ignition interlocks, so i'll try to answer your questions:
'Hacking' an interlock isn't very practical as they usually require unique hardware that would be a pain to duplicate.
Bypassing them is not at all difficult. I could easily do it in 20-30 seconds with a pair of scissors or side cutters. However the unit will know that you're driving without having taken a test, which is a huge black mark on your report.
Bypassing them and not getting caught on report day is orders of magnitude more difficult, because if your mileage doesn't match the expected test-rate you'll be flagged for inspection. And, at least when/where I installed them, we put tamper seals on pretty much every connection between car and interlock. Cut into anything, and we would know.
As for the test itself, it's not nearly as simple as "blow and drive". You have to take a full breath, seal your lips around the mouthpiece, hum, and exhale an entire breath quite rapidly. Air pumps (balloons, tires, etc) just won't cut it. It's something most people need to practice in order to perform reliably, and I witnessed many, many cases where people just could not get the hang of using the devices even months after install. Suffice to say it is not something a child would be able to perform regularly. A young teenager might be able to pull it off with some practice, if you're lucky enough to own, er, have one.
Also, temperature and humidity are not (as far as I know) measured as a part of the test. The devices I worked with actually had a small heating element inside the head unit in order to maintain a standard test temperature (which sucks in a cold winter). As for humidity, it was usually a bad thing (especially in colder climates) because it would interfere with the very small microphone inside. Air pressure and sound were the two most critical aspects of a successful test. Like Goldilocks, it had to be not too hard and not too soft, and the hum not too quiet and not too loud. Something most people can reproduce fairly often, but very very difficult to simultaneously recreate both elements mechanically.
So the TLDR version is this: The devices were not designed to be infallible, just secure enough to make cheating your way around them a bigger pain in the ass than calling a friend or a taxi. Circumventing them isn't really worth it, especially considering the penalty for getting caught was almost always taking a pair of scissors to your provisional drivers license, a monetary fine, and boot out the door. YMMV.
What the thing really needs (Score:4, Funny)
Let me get this straight... (Score:4, Insightful)
What if the driver fails to comply? Will the interlock kill the engine? Or will it just keep "ordering the driver to pull over and restart the car"? I can picture a disembodied electronic voice repeating, "STOP! OR I SHALL TELL YOU TO STOP AGAIN!"
The former is probably just as dangerous as someone driving drunk. (No engine = no power steering, no ABS, &c.) The latter is irritating, but comically ineffective, unless it notifies the police as it's doing so.
Re:Let me get this straight... (Score:4, Informative)
The ones here in VA flash the lights and beep the horn, notifying everyone around you something is wrong...just like a stolen car alarm.
Monthly, reports are sent to your drunk school. So if you disable it, they don't get that report and you are in violation.
I made prediction 10 years ago. 10 years from now (Score:4, Insightful)
10 years ago I typed somewhere on the net, and I could probably find it if I tried really hard, that the way things were going, pretty soon someone would require a breathalizer wired into the ignition of a car to make it start after have a DWI. Lots of folks told me I was full of sh*t and it would never happen. Our culture has changed so much in the last decade that now having an interlock seems like a good thing to do to lots of people. Hardly anyone can remember that only 10 years ago almost no one at all would have supported this.
Now my new prediction. In 10 years ALL cars will require breath testing before it will start. I'll try to remember that I put it on slashdot... but will I still be able to search for anonymous postings then? Probably not. I guess that's my second prediction for the next 10 years.
There are some areas where stop and restart. (Score:3, Interesting)
There are some areas where the needing to at random times to stop the car and restart. Is not that safe or easy to do.
Also what about valet parking? Need to kill it and restart the car or the valet can go to jail for starting the car?
And why are the monthly fees + install why can you just buy this? What about the day when car comes with this build in?
My DUI (Score:5, Interesting)
I myself got a DUI three years ago. First time offense, I had my license taken away for a year and if I wanted it back that second year I would have had to go with an interlock device. I decided to forgo driving another year to bother with the costs of the device and by that second year I had already adjusted my lifestyle to accommodate not driving.
I don't begrudge anyone but myself, I even thanked the officer who stopped me (two blocks from my house going to the gas station late at night to pick up some snacks, stopped due to headlight out). I'm glad I got stopped because as everyone already knows that was the first time I got caught, not the first time I had risked going to the store after some drinks like that.
I had to pay a large fine, I had to attend education classes, a victims panel and I had to meet with a diversion officer once a month for a year. It changed my life. I was lucky to afford the large costs, I know it would've completely broken a lot of other people.
I also believe that people who text and talk on phones while driving should be held to the same standard as DUI. People who are morally outraged about DUIs do not bother me, but the ones who are morally outraged and then don't bat an eye when they reveal to me they text all the time while driving make me stabby.
Re:Driving Privilege (Score:4, Insightful)
its interesting how so many US folks are happy to have this, to mitigate the danger for cars, but are simply unable to comprehend that allowing the average idiot to own a gun is a bad thing.
As far as I am concerned driving is a right, and I would copntinue to do so regarless of what the legal system says licence or not.