France's Bold Drunk-Driving Legislation - Every Car To Carry a Breathalyzer 706
Zothecula writes "It is a great irony that alcohol should be legislated into becoming man's most commonly used recreational drug, as it's the only drug that causes more harm to others than to the user. This is most evident on our roads, where even in first world countries with low road tolls, alcohol still accounts for between a third and a half of road deaths. Now France is to attempt a novel solution — from July of this year, it will become law in France to have a working breathalyzer in every car on the road, with enforcement beginning November 1."
the only drug? (Score:5, Insightful)
Meth has fueled an awful lot of violent crime.
Re:the only drug? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:the only drug? (Score:5, Insightful)
Meth has fueled an awful lot of violent crime.
Correction, prohibition has fueled on awful lot of violent crime.
Re:the only drug? (Score:5, Insightful)
Correction, prohibition has fueled on awful lot of violent crime.
This is the correct answer. Be it prohibition of alcohol, meth, pot, etc... the illegal status causes a great deal of the violence.
We'd have a lot less garage explosions if methamphetamines could be produced in a professional lab somewhere, with QA and such.
Re:the only drug? (Score:4, Insightful)
Correction, prohibition has fueled on awful lot of violent crime.
This is the correct answer. Be it prohibition of alcohol, meth, pot, etc... the illegal status causes a great deal of the violence.
Yes, all of those addicts that break into peoples houses (empty at the time or not) or rob people on the streets only do it because the drugs are illegal. Remember, drugs-legal or not-fuel all kinds of crime besides just what is involved in the creation and distribution of the drugs.
Re:the only drug? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:the only drug? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, look at all those people breaking into home (empty at the time or not) to steal alcohol or money for alcohol or jewelery to pawn for alcohol.
It's legal status I'm sorry is very much the reason for the violence.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:the only drug? (Score:5, Informative)
But the price would be too high for addict to pay for, Hence why you would still have illegal meth.
The price would be dirt cheap unless it were taxed to high heaven (pun intended). However, meth is still a terrible drug even if pure, very hard on the body and very addictive. Not recommended for sane people.
I'm a cannabis smoker and I wouldn't pay more for less (and in the case of cannabis, the potency would be reduced a lot) even if it would decriminalize my usage.
If cannabis were legalized in a sane (there's that word again) way, growing it yourself would be legal. Potency (and very other variable) would be up to you, as it should be. If 190 proof Everclear is legal, why shouldn't 20% THC marijuana be? It is in fact better for you, as less smoke in the lungs is required for a given level of effect.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:the only drug? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a cannabis smoker and I wouldn't pay more for less (and in the case of cannabis, the potency would be reduced a lot) even if it would decriminalize my usage.
I would. A choice of predictable products. Ability to go to a local shop rather than cross town and deal with scary looking criminals. Certain knowledge that weed hasn't had glass added, and resin hasn't had excrement added.
Most other people would too. Remember it's perfectly possible and legal to brew your own beers and wines. And if there was an appetite for such home made beverages there'd be a market for them, and also moonshine. But most people buy commercial brands.
The homemade drug solutions only thrive during prohibition.
Re: (Score:3)
Certain knowledge that weed hasn't had glass added, and resin hasn't had excrement added.
I don't know who people are getting their weed from, but this sounds ridiculous to me. Google seems to have a lot of hits on the glass weed issue, but I'm unable to determine in a quick search whether this is real or just paranoia and urban legend. If you can't find some reputable people to deal with, you probably shouldn't be buying anything from them.
Re:the only drug? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you can't find some reputable people to deal with, you probably shouldn't be buying anything from them.
Where does one find reputable criminals these days?
Re:the only drug? (Score:5, Funny)
Congress and Wall Street.
Re: (Score:3)
He's got a fair point. If you measure criminals by the amount of money they make through illegal means, then wall street and stock exchanges around the world are the place to find the biggest ones. If you've ever traded any stock with a slow news turnover, you'll find that price moves invariably precede announcements. That's insider trading, and it's not a rarity, it's daily standard practice.
Of course they aren't often pursued, rarely caught, rarely convicted and the punishments are small compared with cri
Re:the only drug? (Score:4, Interesting)
I never heard of the "glass in the weed" thing before, but hearing about it now it seems clear where it started -- in the ghetto, and is certainly false. Dealers often call high quality dope "glass" these days. Easy to see how this might confuse some into thinking somebody would put glass in weed.
However, back in the '70s people would often take shitweet (not weed with shit in it, weed that wouldn't get you high) and add PCP to make it give you a high. I don't know if this is still done, but I suspect it probably is. Also, there are often other contaminants from carelssness, such as jimson weed*, spider webs, insects, etc, especially in low grade smoke.
However, these days you can tell good weed from the smell of the baggie.
*Jimson weed is a nasty high and will ruin your dope
Re: (Score:3)
Google seems to have a lot of hits on the glass weed issue, but I'm unable to determine in a quick search whether this is real or just paranoia and urban legend.
It's real. In France the penalties for weed are higher than for resin for exactly the reason that weed does sometimes come with glass beads, and when smoked it is a significant heath concern.
If you can't find some reputable people to deal with, you probably shouldn't be buying anything from them.
"Reputable people to deal with" is the main reason why once there are legalised sources, people will use them.
Re: (Score:3)
Remember it's perfectly possible and legal to brew your own beers and wines. And if there was an appetite for such home made beverages there'd be a market for them, and also moonshine.
I have a friend who makes beer, but making good home brew is quite a bit of work and while the ingredients are fairly cheap not all the equipment is. So he does it as a hobby, but if he were to allocate the full cost it'd be pretty expensive. Us friends might barter a little but he doesn't sell any, that's why there is no market. If you wanted to do it on a scale where it makes sense, you'd quickly get noticed. The equipment you buy, the amount of ingredients, the customer network and so on. And if you want
Re:Desoxyn (Score:5, Funny)
... Ritalin (methylphenidate hydrochloride) and Desoxyn (methamphetamine hydrochloride) ...
The French don't meth up their children.
They give them fine wine.
Châteaux Silence le Enfant
Re:the only drug? (Score:5, Insightful)
That is a common line of thinking among those who haven't thought things through.
1) When you make a highly-desired commodity illegal, you create organized crime. Mafia bosses who have no qualms about sending your children home minus a few digits just to make a point wind up receiving tremendous economic power from people who want the item. This level of crime is far worse, and far harder for the police to protect against, than random muggings by petty junkies.
2) You assume that once it becomes legal, demand will increase significantly. This is very fallacious. Most people who desire to use drugs already do so, whether it is legal or not. The only people who refrain from using drugs due to their legal status are precisely the sort of people who are responsible enough to keep their use under control. Furthermore, the current (illegal) users who are the type that would lose control and start mugging people to fuel the habit are already doing so. So, even if usage increases, crime does not increase.
3) Once legal, it can be taxed to fund addiction clinics and other support services that users can now turn to without fear of legal punishment. So, that naturally helps to control the problem and further reduce crime.
Re:the only drug? (Score:5, Funny)
When you make a highly-desired commodity illegal, you create organized crime.
Organized crime? I disagree. I'm a druglord, and believe me. My office is a mess!
Re:the only drug? (Score:5, Insightful)
2) You assume that once it becomes legal, demand will increase significantly. This is very fallacious. Most people who desire to use drugs already do so, whether it is legal or not. The only people who refrain from using drugs due to their legal status are precisely the sort of people who are responsible enough to keep their use under control.
Legalization might not change the behavior of adults, who are likely to retain the stigmatization of use, but will change behavior of the maturing generation. A substantial amount of alcohol use among slightly underage and newly legal drinkers is binge drinking, especially in places where alcohol is freely and readily available. Marijuana and other drugs may also be "available," but there is a great difference between having to know the right people or places to score, and having a tray of joints laid out at the fraternity door. There are certainly people who don't enjoy the taste of alcohol, but still drink to be more at ease socially, or to mimic the behavior of people around them. Some of those people will switch from legal alcohol to legal marijuana. Some of the people who have 'a couple shots' at home before going out to the bars or clubs, will also switch.
Finally, I would suggest that a lot of people over the age of 25 refrain from drug use because of the legal consequences, and disagree with your claim that most of the people who would use marijuana already do. The reason you doubt this is the reason they used to call marijuana a 'gateway drug.' The behavior has become normalized, at least within your social group. Once you normalize a criminal behavior, it supposedly becomes easier to break more serious laws. To migrate from schedule 8 to schedule 7 or schedule 3.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1) When you make a highly-desired commodity illegal, you create organized crime. Mafia bosses who have no qualms about sending your children home minus a few digits just to make a point wind up receiving tremendous economic power from people who want the item. This level of crime is far worse, and far harder for the police to protect against, than random muggings by petty junkies.
The fact of the matter is that junkies still
Re:the only drug? (Score:4, Insightful)
3) Once legal, it can be taxed to fund addiction clinics and other support services that users can now turn to without fear of legal punishment. So, that naturally helps to control the problem and further reduce crime.
While true, this is not very realistic. The taxes would probably go to funding road maintenance or (inclusive) into some politician's pocket.
Re:the only drug? (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder what the penalty would be for hacking your OWN car that you own in France..to disable or spoof said breathalizer?
I can forsee the new 'kits' to fix these new mandatory attachments released shortly after the law goes into effect.
Hey, if they don't want us out drinking and driving, why do they not just BAN establishments outside the home from serving alcohol?
A bit of hypocrisy to allow establishments, who serve NOTHING but alcohol (the common bar) with large parking lots which allow people to drive there, and park their cars and go inside and partake of the product the bar is serving....and then get pissed off when those people get back in their cars to drive home or to another bar (or somewhere to get laid).
Why bother? (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder what the penalty would be for hacking your OWN car that you own in France..to disable or spoof said breathalizer?
Why bother - as far as I can tell from the factual details (hidden amongst the highly biased propaganda and dubious science in the article) the law will only require people to carry a breathalyser. There is no mention that you will be required to use it or that it is hooked up to the car's ignition. It is just there in case you want to check whether you are over the limit. While the article waxes on and on about how people will have to buy new ones every time they go for a drink or buy two so they can test a friend etc. as far as I can tell the only effect will be that french cars will have a new object shoved into their first aid kits.
Re:the only drug? (Score:4, Informative)
Obviously, you didn't RTFA. The requirement is to simply carry a breathalyzer in the car with you so you can check your own blood alcohol level before you drive. The requirement isn't for the type of device that prevents you from starting your car without passing the test first.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:the only drug? (Score:4, Informative)
Unfortunately meth causes crime not just for the purposes of getting cash to pay for it. The drug itself causes some amount of psychosis and paranoia that can lead to violent crime.
Re:the only drug? (Score:5, Insightful)
Meth has fueled an awful lot of violent crime.
Ever seen those Faces of Meth advertisements? It's quite harmful to the user as well as the bystander. Alcohol on the other hand encourages severe lapses in judgement and reaction when operating heavy machinery, which usually kills people nearby but leaves the drunk unaffected, if only because liquor makes their body a doughy mass to be thrown about while sober people tense up and break bones and crap.
Re:the only drug? (Score:5, Funny)
Alcohol on the other hand encourages severe lapses in judgment and reaction when operating heavy machinery, which usually kills people nearby but leaves the drunk unaffected
Then the obvious solution is to get the sober drivers off the road.
Re: (Score:3)
No, the obvious solution is to get the human out of the driver's seat. The only reason alcohol is a problem on the roads is that cars don't drive themselves. In ten or fifteen years, the drunk driving deaths will begin to rapidly converge towards zero. (Amusingly, unless current drunk driving laws are revised, it will probably still be illegal to sit in the driver's seat while drunk even if you're not actually driving the vehicle because
Re:the only drug? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think self-driving cars will really take off until manufacturers are protected from lawsuits and municipalities find better ways to fund police departments (presumably self-driving cars wouldn't speed, run traffic lights, fail to signal turns, etc...).
Say self driving cars were to suddenly become popular and also assume that road deaths plummet. Thousands of lives are saved every year. Say also that a new car comes out with a software bug that leads to hundreds of deaths. Even though the net benefit is thousands of lives saved, the glitch that kills a hundred will lead to crushing lawsuits. What manufacturer wants to take on that kind of liability?
Not quite... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think self-driving cars will really take off until manufacturers are protected from lawsuits
Correction, self-driving cars will really take off when manufacturers do not need protection from lawsuits. If they need to be protected from lawsuits then their system is not good enough.
Re:Not quite... (Score:4, Insightful)
Try randomly running out into the road from the sidewalk, alternatively from behind street corners, large parked cars and other cover at high speed and see how long it takes until you end up dead or in the hospital. I can guarantee you those unmanned cars are going to end up running some people over, just like manned cars do. They are going to run into freak oil spills or blow a tire in 130 km/h on the Autobahn and other surprise conditions. And even medical equipment sometimes fails spectacularly. That's even assuming you can guarantee optimal behavior in every case - which you can't - and that there's no bugs which I think is near impossible in a system with so many fuzzy variables. People will sue over all sorts of sensor input that maybe, possibly the car could have reacted to. I don't think you'll get anywhere until you have a law to not judge computer drivers harsher than human drivers. Like, would you have convicted a human of driving recklessly under the circumstances? If no, then case dismissed.
Re: (Score:3)
Have you forgotten about cirrhosis of the liver? Not to mention divorce, child and spousal abuse, well, I guess that goes back to harm to other people. But alcohol isn't exactly harmless either.
Re:the only drug? (Score:5, Insightful)
Alcohol is far from the only drug that encourages severe lapses in judgement. Hell, I wouldn't even put it at #1 for that--go pop 10-20mg of Ambien and don't immediately get in bed. Have fun calling all your exes and fishing your keys out of the toilet in the morning. Don't step in the bowl of tomato soup with raw hamburger crumbled in it next to your bed.
I've never tried it myself so I can't speak for the actual effects like I can for Ambien, but people suck dick for crack. I've wanted a lot of things really really bad, and I've never considered sucking a dick for it--tell me those people are making that decision without personality modification. I can tell you that when you do coke, you're not yourself, not by a longshot, and it's easy to make terrible decisions on that too. I've seen my share of fights started or exacerbated by it. Just about any drug seems to shut down inhibitions. Maybe it's a part of the brain that's just not as able to cope with slightly-off chemistry, I don't know, but I do know they all have an effect to some degree.
Other drugs get lumped in with alcohol because when you're on other drugs, there's a good chance you're drunk too, and it's easy to test if you're currently drunk. The other tests only really tell if you're a user of those. I've also seen the cops show up when people were on stuff other than alcohol, and they had no clue, so chalk up at least a couple coke/other-induced incidents that aren't on the records.
The fact is, every drug I know of changes your personality to some degree or another. Pot is a major outlier, in that it has a very small effect (in an experienced user) and although it may make someone's thought process "dopey", it doesn't significantly effect the higher, rational decisions like, "should I fight this fucker for not passing me the frisbee?" or "should I steal this car?" But just because pot is relatively (not totally, not by a long shot, and I love me some weed) benign, don't let that fool you into thinking alcohol is the only drug that needs to be carefully controlled.
Re:the only drug? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think a lot of reason that "people suck dick for crack" is that among the demographic who wants to smoke crack but can't afford to, "sucking dick" is just generally considered an easy way to make money.
It's really not that crack is so desirable, it's just that sucking dick is the skillset and occupation they can most easily engage in to make money quickly.
good thing they don't have laws in france (Score:2)
I know france isn't the US and they write their own laws, but isn't this basically "Guilty until proven innocent"?
Re: (Score:3)
Guilty of what? Being required to have a breathanalyser in the car is no different than being required to have e.g. seatbelts.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it *is* different. No amount of caution can stop you from being in an auto accident, and having seatbelts in the car can save your life if you are.
It is very, very easy to not drive drunk. Why should the majority of us who manage to live our lives in such a way that we run no risk of driving drunk pay for breathalyzers?
Re:good thing they don't have laws in france (Score:5, Insightful)
a problem occurs if you dont think that you are drunk, but in fact you are over the limit. A device like this could help.
I learned a good lesson long ago to solve the "maybe" issue... If you arent sure if you are too drunk to drive home, order a shot. Now you are certain.
Re: (Score:3)
Because other people often end up paying when people like yourself end up flying out of their windshield.
Re:good thing they don't have laws in france (Score:4, Insightful)
Using the breathalyzer as a "can I drive" magic 8 ball is absolutely not what you should be doing.
Which is why this law is if anything going to cause an increase in accidents. Right now responsible people will err on the side of caution, and on the whole people tend to be responsible.
Instead of "I've had a drink so I wont drive" it'll be as you say, "I'm under the limit so I can drive", irrespective of whether they're safe to drive or not.
Me, I've played racing games after half a litre of vodka. I know I can drive while drunk, as long as the car bounces off things and corners remain optional.
who's paying for it? (Score:5, Insightful)
who will be paying for it to be installed in my car? (speaking as a theoretical Frenchwoman... haven't lived in France since 1997). Those things are expensive, and beyond the means of some people who own cars.
Re:who's paying for it? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
So roughly an extra $1500 to have a car for 5 years?
wow.
Re:who's paying for it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people seem to be thinking it's an interlock device, rather than a standalone breathalyzer. In that case, assuming $1 per car trip, driving every day and a minimum of two trips (one to destination, one back home), it would be ~$730/year or more.
But since that isn't the case, then the point is moot. It's a couple bucks a year at minimum, more if you get pulled over and are forced to use them a lot.
My problem is efficiency. If it's not an interlock, how is it in any way improving public safety? What's the point? Why not just have the police carry around breathalyzers? That way, there's no chance the driver won't be able to take the test, and you won't have millions of people wasting money on these portable--
Oh. There it is. It's just a way to get money for the breathalyzer manufacturers, as well as for the government to pat themselves on the back for a job well done in "improving public safety" with this do-nothing legislation.
Re:who's paying for it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:who's paying for it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
like drunk people are suddenly going to start making good decisions?
Yes. Many people want to be responsible but are at the stage of drunkenness where they are in fact impaired yet aren't so impaired that it's obvious even to the drunk person themselves. People who have had a few drinks, but aren't stumbling or slurring their words and so think they're okay when in reality they are not.
Having a quick and easy way to check BAC would be a boon to the large number of people who do in fact want to be responsible but before were limited to either trusting their own judgment whe
Re: (Score:3)
Oh. There it is. It's just a way to get money for the breathalyzer manufacturers, as well as for the government to pat themselves on the back for a job well done in "improving public safety" with this do-nothing legislation.
Kind of like the safety seal industry that rose up around the Tylenol scandal.
Safety seals simply aren't.
Re: (Score:3)
I live in France. I doubt that the idea is to get money to companies but simply that if someone is drinking and goes to drive, if they have such a thing in the car they're more likely to use it to check if they should drive or not then if they don't have something to check with them.
I know I will.
Re: (Score:3)
Part of the problem is, there's a stigma attached to having a breathalyzer. Seems weird, but I got one for those times when I wasn't sure, and everybody who I told about it looked at me like my head was on fire. Some of them, right before they stumbled out of the bar to drive home.
Maybe your social circle is different, but people are, in general, fucking stupid. We'll purposefully pick the worst ways to do things out of bravado, or inertia, or whatever other dumb reason we can pull out of our ass. This law
Re:who's paying for it? (Score:4, Insightful)
Going out drinking 5-6 times a week? Dude, if the GP is doing that, then guess what- they have an alcohol problem.
Re: (Score:3)
You need two because if you use one of your disposable devices, then you no longer have a working breathalyzer in your car.
Re:who's paying for it? (Score:5, Informative)
As far as the breathalyzer required by French authorities, a US$2.00 disposable item will be acceptable, but already everyone is being encouraged to buy such items in pairs so that one can be used to test, or for a friend to use, and still to have the required one to drive home with.
To which you replied:
Those things are expensive, and beyond the means of some people who own cars.
I wonder who these people who can afford French petrol and diesel prices, but can't afford $4 are.
Re: (Score:3)
I believe the GP meant that breathalyzer interlock devices were required. And those are indeed expensive.
The summary doesn't make the distinction, and of course no-one on /. RTFA.
The GP's assumption and concern makes sense. Requiring disposable breathalyzers in all cars doesn't seem like it would do anything to prevent drunk driving. Installing interlocks in all cars would, but is very expensive and introduces a large burden on the entire driving populace.
Re: (Score:3)
I'll tell you (Score:3)
I wonder who these people who can afford French petrol and diesel prices, but can't afford $4 are.
Probably same as the Americans who can afford American gas prices, but can't afford a mandatory $500/month insurance policy on top of it.
Re: (Score:3)
If it's going to cost $2 every time I want to start my car, that would significantly increase the costs of running a vehicle.
I was going to make a point about the hassle of having to go get new ones when you need them, but I assume they'd start selling them at gas stations so you just pick them up when you're fueling up.
Re: (Score:2)
FTFA:
As far as the breathalyzer required by French authorities, a US$2.00 disposable item will be acceptable, but already everyone is being encouraged to buy such items in pairs so that one can be used to test, or for a friend to use, and still to have the required one to drive home with.
If you can afford fuel you can afford a $2 breathalyzer.
Re:who's paying for it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not pointless for those who make/manufacture the tests. Basically guaranteed income.
Give an alternative for non drinkers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This. $2 is still $2. Why should I spend my $2 on something I am never going to use, just because the nanny state wants to nanny some other group of folks?
In a country that drinks wine like water? (Score:3, Interesting)
I can't think this is a good idea. At least in the US, where our BAC limits are 25% of what actually impairs driving. Don't get me wrong, I'm not for anyone driving drunk and injuring or killing someone else (what you do to yourself I do not care about) but the whole BAC thing is an estimate that is cut in half for "good measure" then cut in half again.
You can read more about the whole "Drunk Driving Exception" here [duicentral.com]
Re: (Score:2)
THIS
Besides, there will always be idiots who will crash their car after using mouthwash, and then more idiots that will go "OMG DRUNK DRIVER"
What I think would work:
- Mandatory (lower) speed limit depending on the BAC. Wanna drive after 1 scotch? No problem, but you're not going over 35MPH
- Actively training drivers to driving while impaired.
And of course, proper public transportation or affordable taxis so that getting home at night is not an issue.
Re: (Score:3)
I nearly asphyxiated from laughing so hard, but SWEET JEEBUS, it was worth it.
That was the funniest thing I've read on Slashdot in years. Thank you, sir.
Re:In a country that drinks wine like water? (Score:5, Informative)
" Listerine mouthwash, for example, contains 27% alcohol."
"Seven individuals were tested at a police station, with readings of 0.00%. Each then rinsed his mouth with 20 milliliters of Listerine mouthwash for 30 seconds in accordance with directions on the label. All seven were then tested on the machine at intervals of one, three, five and ten minutes. The results indicated an average reading of 0.43 blood-alcohol concentration, indicating a level that, if accurate, approaches lethal proportions. After three minutes, the average level was still 0.020, despite the absence of any alcohol in the system. Even after five minutes, the average level was 0.011."
Re:In a country that drinks wine like water? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed. I just pulled a small 3.2 fl oz sample I just got from the Dentist of "Listerine: Total Care"
It's got an expiration date in 2012, and the label lists ingredients as:
Active:
Sodium Fluoride 0.0221% (0.01% w/v fluoride ion)
Inactive:
Water, Sorbitol Solution, Alcohol (21.6%), flavors, poloxamer 407, sodium lauryl sulfate, phosphoric acid, sucralose, dibasic sodium phosphate, FD&C red no. 40, FD&C blue no. 1
Directions are:
Vigorously swish 10 ml (2 teaspoonfulls) of rinse between your teeth for 1
Re:In a country that drinks wine like water? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In a country that drinks wine like water? (Score:5, Informative)
I can't think this is a good idea. At least in the US, where our BAC limits are 25% of what actually impairs driving.
What are you talking about? While I do drink and think .08% BAC is a little low, it is true that driving performance begins to deteriorate after as little 1 or 2 drinks. If you really think the legal limit should be .32, and that anyone below that level is okay to drive, you are absolutely nuts. By .20 you are obviously and inarguably drunk.
The Frecnh drink a lot of wine, true, but I don't think most people in France condone drinking 3 bottles of wine before going for a drive.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
At least in the US, where our BAC limits are 25% of what actually impairs driving.
Lies. There's plenty of research to support that any alcohol in a person's system has a deletrious effect on driving ability. citation [nhtsa.gov] Mine is from the National Highway Traffic Administration. Yours... is from some attorney trying to make his clients feel better about having just been busted weaving through traffic after having crashed into two other cars, run over his girlfriend, and was still sucking down beers and singing "yankee doodle".
Mind you, I think that 'intoxication' needs to be matched against
"Novel solution"? (Score:5, Insightful)
A truly novel solution (not that I'm suggesting this) would be something like "Kill someone while drunk driving? Spend the next 18 months cleaning puke off the toilets in bars."
Re: (Score:3)
France with breathalyzers in every car, UK with cameras on every square inch of the country...
You have to wonder why some politicians in the US idolize western Europe.
If we follow their model, eventually we'll all have a government minder following us around with a clipboard.
Re:"Novel solution"? (Score:4, Funny)
Oh noes teh $2 breathalyzer! Such an infringement of your rights. Next they will demand you have a working horn and maybe even some road flares.
Re:"Novel solution"? (Score:4, Insightful)
They don't have the TSA, they actually have healthcare.
If you look hard enough you can find good ideas everywhere. Europe has a couple of glaring examples of good ideas the US should be copying, and a lot of bad ideas it shouldn't. A 2 dollar breathalyser that you must have in your vehicle that costs thousands, with fuel that costs about that much per litre isn't exactly an onerous requirement. It's more of a "am I too drunk to drive? Oh... I guess I am" device, which, for 2 dollars is about a reasonable tradeoff. It's a weaker (and cheaper) requirement than needing to have working headlights, which seems fairly reasonable.
What's required is a $2 disposable breathalyzer (Score:5, Informative)
Okay, for those who didn't bother to read the article...
All that's required is a $2 disposable breathalyzer. If you don't have one in your mandatory car safety kit, the fine will be $14.
Next up: (Score:2, Insightful)
Assumptions (Score:3)
Using a breathalyzer to measure somebody's ability to drive a car is fraught with assumptions, which means, horrifyingly, what's now illegal is the indicators rather than the behavior.
The DUI Exception to the Constitution [drunkdrivingdefense.com]
Unfounded story (Score:5, Informative)
I watch French TV and read French newspapers every day. I should know. The fact is that this is still under discussion, and then only for those drivers who have had several times a positive alcohol test. Further, there is a presidential election coming next spring. It is not the time to take such measures.
In short, this news report is BS.
A simpler solution (Score:2)
France has a widely-deployed mass transit system. The simple solution would be to treat cases of particularly reckless driving, including drunk driving, very seriously with a revocation of the offender's driver's license for X years (a permanent revocation for repeat offenders). It gets the point across that driving is a privilege, and it sidesteps the expense of installing breathalyzers in every vehicle.
Between a third an a half? (Score:2)
alcohol still accounts for between a third and a half of road deaths.
If a drunk pedestrian walks into the road and is killed by a car, is that included in this statistic? If so, how does a breathalyzer in the car help?
If a driver has one beer, and a different driver runs a red light and kills them both, is that included? If so, how does a breathalyzer in the car help?
Drunk driving is evil, but let's be clear about justifications for such intrusive laws.
Yes, but in France... (Score:5, Funny)
The in-car breathalyzer is not there for the reason you are assuming...
In France you'll have a minimum BAC before they'll let you operate a car.
Also, it will detect if you have been drinking Italian wine and scold you.
Doesn't seem that bad to me (Score:2)
The thing about drunk driving is, it's based not on whether you can safely drive but an arbitrary blood alcohol level. Some people drive better with a quart of booze in them, some people are terrible drivers all by themselves. If you're a dangerous driver, you're a dangerous driver and it doesn't matter to me (or whoever you kill) if it's because you're drunk, tired, texting, or chinese.
In foreign countries, I have seen breathalyzers in bars -- put in a quarter, get your reading. It's right next to the
Car Owners will rebell.... (Score:2)
Not only is this a burden financially to those law abiding citizens, it will not work. Unless a breathalyzer is registered to a particular vehicle, there will be nothing to enforce a high breathalyzer test result. And for those who really want to avoid prosecution, drivers will get random breathalyzers completed with normal level. And if these units are electronic, and kept in your own car, don't think for a minute that people won't have found a way to tamper with them so that results clear the driver.
Bold? Not really (Score:2)
The problem here isn't liquor, it's the culture that allows drunks to run around mowing people down and then letting them get back in the car
More harm to others? Really? (Score:5, Informative)
A common sense regulation? WTF! (Score:2)
Okay, I'm ready for the berating. I have no issue with this type of regulation. It's something proactive that backs a current law, and helps with the enforcement of laws. While some may say it's intrusive, it's no more intrusive than some drunk getting behind the wheel and putting themselves on a road where other people will be at risk.
A different common sense regulation to me is a governor on motorized vehicles to prevent insane travel speeds. I always wondered why publicly sold vehicles are capable of
Re: (Score:3)
When comon sends makes no sense (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The law will prosecute you to the fullest extent if you're slightly over the legal alcohol limit, but could care less that a blind old lady shouldn't be driving on the roads. So alcohol is more dangerous than incompetent drivers? I've seen more accidents from people who don't pay attention to the road because they are too busy playing with the radio, eating a burger and fries, putting on makeup, etc. etc. I've driving intoxicated before, and I was very careful driving when I was, but you can't always avoid an idiot on the road. but because I had a few drinks, it's automatically my fault.
In 1981 my 17 year old cousin was brutally killed by someone just like you. DWI is a serious crime and deserves severe penalties- much much more severe than the penalties we have now. Drinking and driving is NEVER a good idea and no matter how "careful" you are. If you're out on the road, driving while intoxicated you absolutely deserve to be punished. If you injure or kill someone while out on the road, you should spend the rest of your life behind bars. DWI is a totally preventable crime and one that
So, a hypothetical... (Score:5, Interesting)
Jacques get in his car, decides to use his $2 breathalyzer which says he is under the legal limit.
He drives off and ends up killing a family of four in a crosswalk.
Which of these is going to be the case:
A) The fact that he used the breathalyzer and it indicated he was not over the limit is a sufficient defense against a charge of drunk driving.
B) The fact that he used the breathalyzer indicates he felt there was a chance he was over the limit, and is thus sufficient proof that he was impaired.
G.
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't. They're just single use breathalyzers. They aren't ignition control devices. It's more of a "am I too drunk too drive, lets find out" than a "I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that".
Re: (Score:3)
Obviously, absent a method to fire said bullet a bullet is the wrong tool to use to kill someone. That doesn't mean that other tools are unsuitable, however. All of them, though, require some human intervention in order to make it murder or manslaughter. (As opposed to something like a rock slide killing some one, of course.)
A firearm is a tool designed for few purposes, including to kill. The issue arises when it is used against a person unlawfully, not when it is created. To willfully ignore that is
Caffeine isn't a drug... (Score:3)
It's an essential nutrient. :)