What sort of policy do you support regarding breathalyzer interlocks on cars?

[Craig234]

Originally Posted by kevbot

An ignition interlock is/should not be something that you just blow into to start the car. I have a friend that is required to have one, and beleive me, it is an obtrusive as hell device. If it is too cold, you must warm it up before you can use it. If it is too warm, you must cool it down. When you are driving, it repeatedly asks you to blow. If it didn't do that, all you would have to do is blow once when sober and then just keep the motor running. Then at every bar you would find a parking lot full of idleing cars.

Anyway, in the USA aren't we innocent until proven guilty? Do I really have to prove to my CAR that I am fit to drive? What bac is the cut off? In the case of my friend it is .025. That's pretty low. We have plenty of laws and penalties that deal with the consequences of drunk driving already, we don't need to add another layer on top.

The devices can be made to work in various temperatures, or to be disabled if they can't.

They don't need to test while driving, IMO almost no one will 'leave the car idling at the bar'.

Yes, you're innocent until proven guilty. The device does not jail you, it's not punishment. Why can't you board an airplane without being checked for a gun? Aren't you innocent?

Yes, you have to prove to your car you're not drunk. The cutoff would presumably be .08 (for people not convicted of drunk driving), could be adjusted for states if needed.

Thousands of people killed annualy by drunk drivers, hundreds of thousands of drunk driving accidents, say you are wrong, we do need this.

[Charles Kozierok]

Originally Posted by Craig234

The devices can be made to work in various temperatures, or to be disabled if they can't.

They don't need to test while driving, IMO almost no one will 'leave the car idling at the bar'.

These are pretty flat declarations.

The course of this discussion has shown two main things to me -- first, that these devices aren't as much of a panacea as I think many are led to believe, and second, that there is virtually no support for making people with no track record of alcohol abuse need to deal with them.

[DixyCrat]

If someone leaves it running at the bar they are willfully subverting the system and should be subject to the same major penalties as anyone else that violates the system (attempted 2nd degree murder)

[Screech]

I'm fine with mandatory after 1 DUI. Definitely after multiple.

Mandatory without any problem record, eh, not really a fan; however, if you want to pay for the extra cost to put one in my car I'd be fine with it.

[EagleKeeper]

Originally Posted by Screech

I'm fine with mandatory after 1 DUI. Definitely after multiple.

Mandatory without any problem record, eh, not really a fan; however, if you want to pay for the extra cost to put one in my car I'd be fine with it.

How many people do you think have a DUI but are not caught.

I suspect that few if any are virgins the first time the LEO asks them to walk the line.

One DUI shows that you lack common sense and have no regard for the damage that you can do with a 2 ton uncontrolled weapon.

[kevbot]

I am not in any way, shape or form an advocate for drunk driving. Let's think about putting in devices to detect alcohol consumption. I sure as Hell don't want drunk idiots sharing the road with me.

For an interlock to be effective, it needs to not only know if you are drunk when you start the car, It needs to know if you are actually over the limit while you are using the car.

Ignition interlocks are computer devices. Modern cars are computer controlled. So if the only thing you have to do is prove that you are sufficiently sober to start the engine, what will stop you from drinking when ever you want? Just don't turn the motor off!

The problem, in my opinion, is that Americans can get a drivers license so easy that it is almost a joke.

I HAVE ABSOLUTLY no respect for people who drive under the influence. The problem is that alcohol is not the only issue. What about texting while driving? Eating while driving? Shaving while driving? Being tired while driving? Crap, having you period while driving... putting on makeup while drivinhg? Your boss calls while you are driving?

Should we put devices on every car that keeps you from doing anything but driving? IMHO, a slippery slope. Where do you draw the line? How about a legal system that punishes people when they do stupid things? How about nobody can use a car until the whole country comes to a consensus concerning what is acceptable? That shouldn't be too much trouble.

OK, after all that, I wish I had a good idea. I just don't want more and more stuff thrown into my car in the interest of protecting the public. I just think that people need to understand that cars are dangerous and the people who drive them are the biggest part of that problem. IMHO we have people problems, not car problems.