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

[Charles Kozierok]

This came up in another thread, so I'm curious what others think.

For those who don't know what these are, they're essentially small computers that you blow into; they analyze your breath for alcohol and if they judge it to be high enough that you're considered impaired, refuse to start the car.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I support them for people who have been arrested/convicted of multiple DUI/DWI.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

So... only after multiple convictions. Reasonable enough.

Unfortunately I can't edit the poll options.

 

[dank69]

I'd say one conviction is plenty. Why would more than one be needed?

 

[waggy]

2nd dui it should be installed.

though they aren't very reliable and there are ways around it.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I'd say one conviction is plenty. Why would more than one be needed?

I agree. I think zero is pushing it, but one is enough to demonstrate a sufficiently high likelihood of it being needed as a preventive measure.

 

[Mursilis]

2nd dui it should be installed.

Sounds good so far. So for how long?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I'm torn. On the one hand, I don't want to impact anyone's personal freedom until it's been proven that they have an issue with driving drunk. On the other hand, I personally have gotten behind the wheel while inebriated and unable to accurately judge my level of intoxication. I have plenty of friends who have admitted to driving drunk at some point in their lives, and only one of them was ever caught for DUI. It's a small measure that could positively impact DUI accident and fatality statistics, and it's not a serious imposition on freedom as driving while intoxicated is already an illegal act. I still don't know how I feel about making it mandatory, but I might be tempted to get such a device for my own car to ensure that I'm making responsible choices (granted, it's been years since I ever drove intoxicated, but you never know what you're liable to do if you get just drunk enough to not realize how drunk you really are). It seems the pros outweigh the potential cons, but I'm really on the fence on this one.

 

[waggy]

Sounds good so far. So for how long?

until the person dies?

1 DUI i can half way understand still very irresponsible but with the laws i can understand it. it should be expensive and loss of a driving for min 6 months.

a 2nd? nope. fuck you. no driving for a year min. then when/if you get it back you stuck with the breathalyzer.

trouble is it won't really stop many DUI's. they will just buy a car and not tell anyone or such.

 

[Emos]

Definitely after a 2nd DUI, I would keep it installed at least five years. One DUI I'm a bit torn but probably would still favor.
Where the heck is the Google self driving car already so I don't have to worry about having a second glass of wine or beer when dining out?

 

[Jaskalas]

Other - I oppose their use on ideological grounds.

All people fit to be free should be treated equally as such. Everyone else should be in jail. This is the same problem I have with sex offender registries, is that we're not treating all free men as equals. They're given labels and treated differently from us "normal" folk.

I feel the breathalyser requirement is much the same.

Before I could accept the premise of treating drunks with these requirements, I would suggest that we as a society re-think our most basic of tenets, that all men are created equal. For in our treatment of our fellow men we most certainly do not believe in our most important document. We no longer uphold it.

This conflict needs to be resolved, and I am not aware of any time in our history where we rebuked the declaration and the notion of equality. I do not believe creating laws and procuedures to strip men of their equality, even through whichever due process we derive. Threats to society are jailed or executed, all others go free. I find the use of labels on free men to be quite dangerous.


There is a poll option that skips my complaint, installing breathalysers everywhere, but who wants the added cost and hassle? No one wants to deal with it, how many really think drunk driving is enough of an issue to make that sacrifice? Am I? Are you? I don't know if I would.

By default I'm rather against the idea and I'm looking at a greater issue of poor drivers who fail to place safe operation of their vehicle above all else, phones for example.

There's a greater issue of poor drivers and how to best attend them, and it is most certainly not limited to drunks or dealt with solely by breathalysers.

• Do we still believe in Constitutional Equality?
• Labels threaten this equality, even after due process
• People who are considered a threat to society should be in jail, not set free and given labels.
• Greater issue of safe drivers, goes far beyond drinking.

 

[umbrella39]

I support them for people who have been arrested/convicted of multiple DUI/DWI.

I am in agreement with this so long as the offender has to pay for the technology. For some it is our last line of defense against their repeated drunken driving. I don't drink but I do drive a lot too and from work and feel we should be protected against repeated drunk drivers more than we are. I see the end result all the time in the ER and it's a tragedy that is easily avoidable.

 

[GreenMeters]

• Threats should be in jail, not free.

Everyone and everything is a threat.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Sounds good so far. So for how long?

How about...

A number of years equal to the cube of the number of DUI infractions.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Personally I think we are going at it in the wrong direction altogether. Everyday I see people doing dangerously stupid things behind the wheel of a moving vehicle. Things that endanger the lives of themselves and others.

I think the problem is that people in general do not take driving serious enough. Even our laws don't take driving seriously. With the exception of DUI/DWI our laws treat driving dangerously on par with littering.

My suggestion would be to change a significant number of the traffic laws to be outcome based, with harsh penalties for bad outcomes.

If you are found to be the cause of a wreck, even if it is just single vehicle, for any reason what so ever, you are liable for all damages and get a strike against you. If it is a particularly severe wreck, you can get 2 strikes (definitions of severe would have to be hashed out). Kill someone, you get 3 strikes and automatically get charged with criminal negligence.

This changes the assumption that wrecks are accidents and states instead that is there is a car wreck someone did something criminal. It takes 'Accident' out of car accident and makes it a car crime.

The strike system would be simple, you get your license suspended for one year for each strike against you, 1 year for 1 strike, 2 years at 2 strikes, 3 years at 3 strikes. At 4 strikes you are deemed irrevocably to dangerous to be allowed to drive and your drivers license is permanently revoked.

The last part of my plan would be to make driving with out a license a felony.

 

[Retro Rob]

After the first.

The amount of damage/death cause by drunk drivers is enough to implement this.

 

[Mursilis]

Other - I oppose their use on ideological grounds.

All people fit to be free should be treated equally as such. Everyone else should be in jail.

Nice idea, but awfully expensive. I'm certainly OK with non-jail sentences for certain cases if it would save taxpayers some money and free up cell space for people who NEED to be kept away from the rest of us.

 

[Craig234]

I know I'm in a small minority in advocating mandatory devices.

But that's usually the case with change.

Seat belts were unpopular at first, so were helmet laws, so were mandatory seat belt laws.

Hell, the popular consensus not that long ago was that there's no such thing as spousal rape - the man is entitled - or for another example, interracial marriage which now has 96% support only had 20% support in 1967 when the Supreme Court forced it on states and a decade before that support was 4%.

People aren't used to thinking of spending a few seconds to get the protection for everyone from drunk drivers when they start their car. So it's a huge infringement!

I think if we had it and people were used to it and the roads got a lot safer, you would see numbers a lot closer to helmet laws, most support, more 'libertarians' resent it.

Change isn't easy. Even very good change.

 

[Jaskalas]

Everyone and everything is a threat.

Right, I should have clarified.

People who are considered a threat to society should be in jail, not set free and given labels.

 

[dank69]

Personally I think we are going at it in the wrong direction altogether. Everyday I see people doing dangerously stupid things behind the wheel of a moving vehicle. Things that endanger the lives of themselves and others.

I think the problem is that people in general do not take driving serious enough. Even our laws don't take driving seriously. With the exception of DUI/DWI our laws treat driving dangerously on par with littering.

My suggestion would be to change a significant number of the traffic laws to be outcome based, with harsh penalties for bad outcomes.

If you are found to be the cause of a wreck, even if it is just single vehicle, for any reason what so ever, you are liable for all damages and get a strike against you. If it is a particularly severe wreck, you can get 2 strikes (definitions of severe would have to be hashed out). Kill someone, you get 3 strikes and automatically get charged with criminal negligence.

This changes the assumption that wrecks are accidents and states instead that is there is a car wreck someone did something criminal. It takes 'Accident' out of car accident and makes it a car crime.

The strike system would be simple, you get your license suspended for one year for each strike against you, 1 year for 1 strike, 2 years at 2 strikes, 3 years at 3 strikes. At 4 strikes you are deemed irrevocably to dangerous to be allowed to drive and your drivers license is permanently revoked.

The last part of my plan would be to make driving with out a license a felony.

I could get on board with something like this.

 

[Jaskalas]

People aren't used to thinking of spending a few seconds to get the protection for everyone from drunk drivers when they start their car. So it's a huge infringement!

Infringement is if it's not applied to everyone. Hassle if it is.

What I'm against is a law akin to only wearing seat belts if you've been labeled an unsafe driver.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Infringement is if it's not applied to everyone. Hassle if it is.

What I'm against is a law akin to only wearing seat belts if you've been labeled an unsafe driver.

Seat belts and helmets are a hassle too, but we put up with the requirement of using them for the overall improvement in safety they offer. The more I think about it, the more a mandatory breathalyzer makes sense for all cars. Sure, there are ways around it, just as there is nothing to prevent you from driving around without a seat belt on (annoying beeping aside). But it's a minor inconvenience that would help cut down on accidents and fatalities. And it's being applied to everyone equally, so there's no infringement on anyone's liberty. Apart from the cost of installing them in cars (and we could just make them mandatory on new cars 5+ years down the road and grandfather in old cars), what harm is there?

 

[Craig234]

Seat belts and helmets are a hassle too, but we put up with the requirement of using them for the overall improvement in safety they offer. The more I think about it, the more a mandatory breathalyzer makes sense for all cars. Sure, there are ways around it, just as there is nothing to prevent you from driving around without a seat belt on (annoying beeping aside). But it's a minor inconvenience that would help cut down on accidents and fatalities. And it's being applied to everyone equally, so there's no infringement on anyone's liberty. Apart from the cost of installing them in cars (and we could just make them mandatory on new cars 5+ years down the road and grandfather in old cars), what harm is there?

And the mandatory seat belts and helmets only protect the person doing it, while the devices protect other drivers (us from drunk drivers).

 

[Charles Kozierok]

But that's usually the case with change.

Of course, sometimes a good idea is just before it's time, and is resisted because people dislike change.

But sometimes, it's because it's just a bad idea.

I am not entirely opposed to the idea of mandatory breathalyzer interlocks. But the devil would be in the details, and there are a number of other actions I'd want to see taken at the same time.

All people fit to be free should be treated equally as such. Everyone else should be in jail. This is the same problem I have with sex offender registries, is that we're not treating all free men as equals. They're given labels and treated differently from us "normal" folk.

I feel the breathalyser requirement is much the same.

I understand the objection, but I think there are two important difference:

1. Driving is a privilege, not a right. Being able to live in peace and make a living is, if not a right, something our society thinks everyone should have. A sex offender registry can make it impossible for someone to get a job or find a place to live. An interlock does not make it impossible for someone to drive.

2. If you're a former sex offender, you're on that registry for life, and you continue to have to deal with negative effects forever, even if you never offend again. If you're a former DUI convict, as long as you don't try to drive drunk again, you live your life normally. At worst, you have some embarrassment if someone sees the device. (Maybe there's even a way around that.)

The breathalyzer doesn't punish former offenders so much as reduce the odds of repeating the act.

It's also worth pointing out that while it may be objectionable to treat people differently after they've commited a crime than before, when it comes to serious crimes with a high rate of recidivism, the alternatives are:
- Let people who are likely to kill or assault again run free; or
- Lock these people up for life.

I can't see how either is an improvement.

And the mandatory seat belts and helmets only protect the person doing it, while the devices protect other drivers (us from drunk drivers).

Which is why the state has no valid reason forcing people to wear them.

 

[Murloc]

I think DUIs should make you lose your license progressively more until complete revocation so there's no need for this, just make the license suspension for DUIs longer right from the first violation if you want.