Alcohol detectors in cars to be standard in CA?

[Londo_Jowo]

Gotta love the liberal/progressive mentality, it's ok to have a car that won't start unless you prove you're sober but you can't check to see if someone is in this country illegally.

 

[wuliheron]

We also require many DUIs to have these machines in their cars when they get out of prison. We don't require them for civilians. Ergo, you are suggesting treating civilians like criminals.

Your logic is flawed. We require those be installed on their cars merely because they aren't already installed on every car. As it is they sometimes borrow a friends car just so they can beat the damn thing.

 

[wuliheron]

And then the criminals get out and have these systems installed in their car because repeat offenders are common.

A driver's license is an equivalent to a medical license, a breathalyzer is not. Poor analogy.

Both are life and death public safety issues. That's not an analogy, its a simple straightforward comparison in case you don't know the difference.

In this case its a machine that doesn't know who you are and couldn't give a damn if you're trying to steal the car much less if you are drunk or not. If you aren't use to machines treating you like just another piece of meat then I suspect the future has a few surprises for you.

 

[nobodyknows]

If this were to somehow become "law", how hard would it be to bypass? Just unplug it or invent "Breath in a Can" and get rich off of it.

 

[CycloWizard]

No, the arguments of principle were laughable. Truly, tyranny has descended on the shores of America when cars won't turn on if you would be a menace to other drivers, along with committing a serious crime.

By all means though, I'd love to see how your business pans out. I want to see what the customer base of people who say to themselves 'well, I'm planning on driving drunk next week, so I better hit up the mechanic' looks like.

Like I said, no hill you won't die on, huh. I wonder what kind of support I could get on here for a detector that wouldn't turn the car on if you were Muslim.

I'm innocent until proven guilty. You want me to be physically unable to use my personal property until I pass your arbitrary test using equipment I have to pay for. My premise is simply that you need a pretty damn good reason for placing such restrictions on me. You have yet to provide anything except some hand-waving argument about how it might decrease drunk driving-related injuries. This is effectively the same argument that all of the BS countermeasures employed by TSA might decrease deaths due to airplane-based terrorist attacks. You place a burden on every citizen on the off chance that an actual perpetrator is stupid enough to get caught up in your web of easily avoidable countermeasures. I would install a countermeasure on my car purely for convenience.

If you want to save lives, a better place to start is by addressing the fundamental issue rather than just the symptom. But, as usual, the simpler approach - penalizing everyone to prevent a few idiots from being idiots - is the only one considered by the idiots in charge.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

At the risk of providing the leftist with another idea... I wonder why they focus on Breathalyzers and ignore the idea of making the driver insert their drivers license into the dash before the car will move.

(I know why - just wondering if the leftists will admit it)

 

[xj0hnx]

I'm innocent until proven guilty. You want me to be physically unable to use my personal property until I pass your arbitrary test using equipment I have to pay for. My premise is simply that you need a pretty damn good reason for placing such restrictions on me. You have yet to provide anything except some hand-waving argument about how it might decrease drunk driving-related injuries. This is effectively the same argument that all of the BS countermeasures employed by TSA might decrease deaths due to airplane-based terrorist attacks. You place a burden on every citizen on the off chance that an actual perpetrator is stupid enough to get caught up in your web of easily avoidable countermeasures. I would install a countermeasure on my car purely for convenience.

If you want to save lives, a better place to start is by addressing the fundamental issue rather than just the symptom. But, as usual, the simpler approach - penalizing everyone to prevent a few idiots from being idiots - is the only one considered by the idiots in charge.

Exactly this. Why should the populace, more specifically me, be forced to prove that I am not drunk, even though I don't even drink, to use my property because of a minutia of people that will undoubtedly find ways around these measures anyway? It's just more feel good, do nothing bullshit.

 

[wuliheron]

If this were to somehow become "law", how hard would it be to bypass? Just unplug it or invent "Breath in a Can" and get rich off of it.

These machines have been around and in use for awhile, so I suspect they aren't that easy to fake or bypass. However, I have heard of people getting someone else to breath into the device for them. No doubt that's already illegal.

 

[Craig234]

These machines have been around and in use for awhile, so I suspect they aren't that easy to fake or bypass. However, I have heard of people getting someone else to breath into the device for them. No doubt that's already illegal.

Of course it is, and of course that's an imperfection, but how many people are really going to find someone who will breath into the device for them so they can drive drunk? Few.

 

[alkemyst]

According to a fairly recent study in Wisconsin, the average drunk driver drives while intoxicated between 80 and 200 times before being caught. (depending on how good the police in that area are) That's a lot of drunk driving, and I can say that I believe the vast majority of people have either driven themselves when they know they shouldn't have, and probably knows several people who have done the same.

An arrest for a DUI is horrible for everyone involved. It sucks for the person driving, it sucks for anyone who was on the road with them before they were caught, it sucks for the state, etc. Since we already banned driving while intoxicated a long time ago, and presumably no one has a problem with that, why would verifying it be a problem?

I get the whole nanny state argument, I really do. Considering how many people are killed/maimed/etc by drunk drivers each year however, this seems like a pretty reasonable thing for a state to want to restrict. I mean, are people really going to come and fight for their ability to drive drunk and endanger other people?

Finally, if people don't want to live in California, great! You'll never know what you're missing, because it's absolutely fantastic.

Your argument is why this is nutty. Most that did the 80-200 times and were finally arrested were usually picked up in a random traffic stop or soberity check point.

They aren't hurting anyone at the levels of 'drunkeness' we have set.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

When I was in high school we had to take a substance abuse ed class. Kind of like sex ed only not as much fun. One of the stats the teacher threw out at us was that in our town, after 10pm, 80% of the people out driving were over the legal limit.

Who knows if it's true. But as I got older and started going out I came to believe that statistic.

I know that here on Maui, if you see a Cobalt, Mustang or Jeep on the road after 10pm it's a virtual guarantee that the person driving is drunk.

I don't have a point here. I'm just saying.

 

[alkemyst]

This is true in most places. From 10pm to about 4am around the weekend (Thurs-Sat) most stopped would fail a breath test.

That said most aren't killing anyone or damaging property.

 

[irishScott]

Your logic is flawed. We require those be installed on their cars merely because they aren't already installed on every car. As it is they sometimes borrow a friends car just so they can beat the damn thing.

Lol, and by that logic we only require criminals to wear handcuffs when under arrest because handcuffs aren't mandatory for the entire population.

And what do you have to say about my earlier post when I spelled out how having a detector in my car would be worthless? And don't say I can make the same argument for other features. There is not an intrusive feature on my car that does not either do me a service or serve a universally practical safety function. An alcohol detector in my car would do no service to anyone and would simply hinder me for no reason.

 

[wuliheron]

Lol, and by that logic we only require criminals to wear handcuffs when under arrest because handcuffs aren't mandatory for the entire population.

We require noncriminals to wear handcuffs all the time. Until a court of law finds you guilty you are not considered a criminal. At best, you are a suspect.

And what do you have to say about my earlier post when I spelled out how having a detector in my car would be worthless? And don't say I can make the same argument for other features. There is not an intrusive feature on my car that does not either do me a service or serve a universally practical safety function. An alcohol detector in my car would do no service to anyone and would simply hinder me for no reason.

The service it would provide is in helping to keep drunks off the road. Everyone has to do any number of things required by law including wearing cloths in public places. Personally I feel it would be nice to be able to walk around naked everywhere, but I understand if people are concerned about it being a public safety problem. Besides the occasional accident it might cause there are sanitary reasons for such demands.

 

[CycloWizard]

We require noncriminals to wear handcuffs all the time. Until a court of law finds you guilty you are not considered a criminal. At best, you are a suspect.

Fine - we'll just handcuff everyone under suspicion that they might commit a crime.

The service it would provide is in helping to keep drunks off the road.

No, it wouldn't. I've already told you why it wouldn't in a post which, of course, no one favoring this stupidity has yet addressed.

 

[alkemyst]

the laws are designed today for profit and cash flow. They know most will have a friend blow to engage the key, but they won't go on the record for it.

They also know most will then cry out when it's revealed as conspiracy doesn't exist!

 

[piasabird]

Some people dont drink beilive it or not.

Just outlaw Outlaw all Alcoholic Beverages. Are they trying to protect the average taxpayer or protect the drunks?

 

[fskimospy]

Fine - we'll just handcuff everyone under suspicion that they might commit a crime.

No, it wouldn't. I've already told you why it wouldn't in a post which, of course, no one favoring this stupidity has yet addressed.

That's because it was a really dumb point. Studies are already available on the efficacy of ignition interlocks. http://dmv.ca.gov/about/profile/rd/210_ignition_interlock_report.pdf

They are effective at reducing the DUI habits of all but the most severely addicted people. Since the vast majority of americans are not hopelessly alcoholic, it will work just fine.

 

[alkemyst]

They are effective at reducing the DUI habits of all but the most severely addicted people. Since the vast majority of americans are not hopelessly alcoholic, it will work just fine.

yeah right.

 

[wuliheron]

Fine - we'll just handcuff everyone under suspicion that they might commit a crime.

Sounds good to me. I'd also recommend killing and grinding the poorest of poor up and using them to supplement cattle feed. Best not to take half measures and to insure they don't prove a drain on society.

No, it wouldn't. I've already told you why it wouldn't in a post which, of course, no one favoring this stupidity has yet addressed.

Sometimes just establishing who is the boss is important. In this case the majority, wealthy, corporations, and special interest groups are the boss and everyone else can go to hell.

 

[CycloWizard]

That's because it was a really dumb point. Studies are already available on the efficacy of ignition interlocks. http://dmv.ca.gov/about/profile/rd/210_ignition_interlock_report.pdf

They are effective at reducing the DUI habits of all but the most severely addicted people. Since the vast majority of americans are not hopelessly alcoholic, it will work just fine.

Your posting that means one of two things:
1. You don't understand how to read scientific studies, or
2. You think that i don't understand how to read scientific studies.
Your study shows quite the opposite effect of what you intended to show.

Evaluations of IID programs in Oregon and California did not
find the programs to be effective

While the results of these IID studies are somewhat mixed, the preponderance of evidence suggests that IIDs are effective in reducing DUI recidivism, by as much as 40-95%, at least as long as they remain installed on vehicles

and, the most damning of all,

It is clear from Figure 4 that DWS/DUI drivers installing an IID have a higher risk of a subsequent crash, as a smaller proportion of them survive crash free, compared to those not installing an IID. This difference between the groups is evident throughout the study.

And I'll also point out that not a single trend found in that entire study was found to be statistically significant. In other words, the study itself found NO DIFFERENCE between drivers with or without an IID, even in the group where such a difference would be most likely to occur. For example,

Cox regression models were developed to test the relationship between IID orders/restrictions prescribed by courts for second DUI offenders, and subsequent DUI convictions. These statistical models showed that, while there was a difference in subsequent DUIs between offenders ordered to install an interlock/restricted to driving an IID-equipped vehicle, and second offenders not receiving an IID order/restriction, these differences approached, but did not reach statistical significance (p = .085). This could be restated to say that the results suggest that a court-issued IID order/restriction for second DUI offenders is related to a lower risk of subsequent DUI conviction, but do not confirm such a relationship. This finding is shown below, in Figure 5

This lack of significance is exactly why this study ended up being published on CA.gov rather than in a peer-reviewed journal, where it was no doubt rejected repeatedly because NONE of its findings indicated what the legislature required it to indicate. A p value of 0.85 means that there is an 85% probability that the miniscule difference between the two groups (with and without IIDs) occurred purely due to chance. Publication in a peer-reviewed journal would require a p value of less than 0.05, or less than 5% chance of the difference occurring due to chance. It's rubbish.

 

[boomerang]

Some people dont drink beilive it or not.

Just outlaw Outlaw all Alcoholic Beverages. Are they trying to protect the average taxpayer or protect the drunks?

The progressives already did that once. You know, the eighteenth amendment - prohibition? It worked out great.

They've got lots of great ideas for protecting everyone from things they are scared of.

 

[CycloWizard]

Sounds good to me. I'd also recommend killing and grinding the poorest of poor up and using them to supplement cattle feed. Best not to take half measures and to insure they don't prove a drain on society.



Sometimes just establishing who is the boss is important. In this case the majority, wealthy, corporations, and special interest groups are the boss and everyone else can go to hell.

Step away from the internets.

 

[1prophet]

Of course it is, and of course that's an imperfection, but how many people are really going to find someone who will breath into the device for them so they can drive drunk? Few.

Myth about using a friend to breathe in it unless they are driving with you, then they are both sober and stupid for not driving themselves.

Biggest problem I see is the cost and disproportionate amount of minorities and poor this will affect making it a nonstarter.


How Do Ignition Interlock Devices Work?

By Michael J. Scott, eHow Contributor


How Do Ignition Interlock Devices Work?
Photo: MADD

1. Staring Your Car
2. MADD Interlock Diagram
   Ignition interlock devices work by measuring the alcohol content on a driver's breath before allowing the driver to start the car. To activate the device, you blow into a cell phone-sized hand-held sensor attached to the car's dashboard. If you blow above a preset limit, the car will not start. The limit is typically a breath alcohol content (BAC) level of .02 or .04.
3. Rolling Retests
4. Ignition interlocks also require you to periodically blow into the machine as you are driving. This prevents a friend from starting the vehicle for you by blowing into the machine and then allowing you to drive off. If you blow above the preset limit, the device will start an alarm and flash your lights. It won't actually stop the vehicle, but it will make it very inconvenient to drive and will alert law enforcement.
5. Measuring BAC
6. Interlock devices typically use a similar technology to law enforcement breath testing devices. After breathing into the hand-held sensor, your breath passes over and electrical chip. If you have alcohol in your breath, a chemical reaction occurs on the chip, creating an electrical current which is interpreted by the device to determine the BAC of the driver. The higher the BAC, the stronger the current. To be accurate, the interlock must be periodically calibrated.
7. Cost
8. Ignition interlock costs are paid by the offender. Prices vary throughout the nation, but a typical cost is around $75 a month. This covers the installation cost, the monthly maintenance cost and the periodic calibration costs.

 

[wuliheron]

Step away from the internets.

Sorry, I only take orders from the majority, wealthy, corporations, and special interest groups. Like I said, everyone else can go to hell as far as they are concerned.