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

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

What would be the best national policy regarding breathalyzer interlocks?

  • No change -- leave as a sentencing option in DUI convictions only.

  • Require installation on all cars owned by anyone convicted of a DUI.

  • Mandatory installation on all cars.

  • Other (please explain).


Results are only viewable after voting.

skyking

Lifer
Nov 21, 2001
22,382
5,347
146
I posted a source that said 1/3rd of the fatalities and injuries were repeat offenders.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,129
30,523
136
That is a different stat, signing. Craig is saying that for every person caught driving drunk, 74 others are not caught. Personally, I would have thought even more get away with it.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0
That is a different stat, signing. Craig is saying that for every person caught driving drunk, 74 others are not caught. Personally, I would have thought even more get away with it.

It may be a different stat, but Craig has provided nothing (unless I missed it) to back up that number.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
C
It may be a different stat, but Craig has provided nothing (unless I missed it) to back up that number.

The issue isn't my number, it's the argument. I'm using an estimate I heard some time ago of how many drunk drivers are caught. The other poster is using 'repeat offenders'.


===================================================

If you can not back up your number, estimate or something you heard; then it should not be posted/used/referenced within any of your arguments

Guideline #6
Use links to support your argument, but not to make your argument. This is especially true of media -- people are not going to sit through a long video without first being given a good idea why they should (and usually not even then).
Thank you

EK
Admin
Discussion Club Moderator


Glad that abuse got caught. 1 in 75 is my recollection from a traffic school class long ago, a conservative figure for my argument. In fact, the figure according to an LA Times claim is 1 in 500 in CA, and as low as 1 in 2000 in other states - strengthening my argument further about the need for devices in all cars because if only in convicted people's cars so few would be caught.

If I don't use 'facts' much in following posts, this is why.

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-11-02/news/mn-57803_1_drunk-driving
 
Last edited:

Dr. Zaus

Lifer
Oct 16, 2008
11,764
347
126
If the penalty for drunk driving was being taken out of your car and shot in the head, and at every stop-light there was a cop doing breathalyzers of folks stopped: Then no one would drive drunk.

How far we move from instant-total penalty and constant-total surveillance depends on how much drunk driving we are willing to accept in exchange for limited surveillance and limited penalties.

I think a very high penalty, along with the ability of everyone to check their own alcohol level before driving (so no one can say they were un-willfully ignorant), would save a lot of lives at the expense, only, of those that willfully choose the consequences they will receive.
 
Last edited:

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
166
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
LA Times says as few as 1 in 500 times, the driver is caught. http://articles.latimes.com/1994-11-02/news/mn-57803_1_drunk-driving
Personally, I think that's on the low side - but I don't think the 1 in 75 is really that far from the truth. I've been in bars and have observed that the majority of patrons drive away. They may be below .08, but the vast majority are certainly above .04, which they could arrive at with just a couple of drinks within a couple hours.

Anyway, (wow, for a moment, I forgot what this thread was about), I would base a decision to the OP on the best data possible for the amount of property damage & lives were expected to be saved versus the cost of installing these on all vehicles.

Or, perhaps, only consider how much property and how many lives would be saved - that didn't belong to the drunk drivers.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
If the penalty for drunk driving was being taken out of your car and shot in the head, and at every stop-light there was a cop doing breathalyzers of folks stopped: Then no one would drive drunk.

That's neither correct, nor moral, nor practical. It goes to not understanding the problems many who drive drunk have. As I said before, they're already risking their life. Top that.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0
Just as a point of order...

When someone makes a specific claim, even using a specific number, it is entirely reasonable for someone to ask where the number came from. This is standard procedure in discussions, because such numbers form the premises for arguments, and the arguments cannot be properly addressed if the premises are not supported.

I don't think this means we want to have to interecede every time a number is posted without a link. But if someone requests a source, it should be provided. If that's not possible, then the person should change it from a claim of fact to an estimate or a recollection, or retract the number.

In this case, the percentage of drunk drivers not caught is central to the argument of whether or not mandatory interlocks on all cars is a reasonable precaution or not.

Honestly, this doesn't seem that complicated.

As to the specific matter here, I'm convinced that whatever the particular number, it's very high. (Note that DrPizza's story is nearly 20 years old.) But I'd still like to understand better how they can claim to estimate something like this. What are they counting as "drunk driving but not being caught"? It does matter.

I will say I lean more towards support of mandatory interlocks if the numbers are as high as suggested.
 

Dr. Zaus

Lifer
Oct 16, 2008
11,764
347
126
That's neither correct, nor moral, nor practical. It goes to not understanding the problems many who drive drunk have. As I said before, they're already risking their life. Top that.

They don't know that they are risking their life; and for the most part are too drunk to know they are drunk. They also run off of the improper heuristic "i've driven worse and lived, I must, therefore, be able to drive like this" or worse "I drive better when I'm drunk" and "drunks are more likely to survive a car accident".

There are two things that influence the impact of a law: Penalty strength and perceived probability of enforcement. Even if shooting folks in the head for driving drunk, and checking everyone all the time, didn't stop some people: It would put an end to the depressed/suicidal drunks by the first red-light and thus dropping their influence on driving fatalities to nearly zero.

Moral/Practical... well, that's the point then isn't it? What's the line where it goes from 'public welfare' to immoral, what's the line where it goes from 'an investment in safety' to impractical?
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0
Here's something that people might find interesting. I'll concede up front that I don't have a source, it was something I heard about years ago. So take it as you will; I think it's an interesting insight into the mind of a drunk driver.

Some people did a test in a parking lot with those orange pylons. What they would do was put the pylons a certain distance away, and ask people who were entirely sober, and people who were "a little" drunk, to drive between them.

Then they would move the pylons a bit closer together and have them do it again.

From what I recall, both sets of people had no problems getting through the pylons, even when they were close together. However, at one point, they actually moved the pylons so close to each other that it was physically impossible for the car to get through -- and here's where they saw the difference. The sober people would notice this and either refuse to try, or point out that they thought it impossible but try anyway. Whereas more of the "buzzed" drivers just barrelled on through without thinking there was any issue at all.

The moral of this particular story is that it is judgment that goes first, not physical ability to drive. And that's important to bear in mind in any potential solution to this problem. It suggests that methods that stop people from driving drunk are likely to be far more effective than penalties applied if they get caught.

Something I just thought of -- with the computers in cars these days analyzing everything, maybe at some point they'll put in a routine that checks for typical drunk driving behavior and flashes a light up on the dash. Could help with those who do care but don't realize what they are doing...
 
Last edited:

skyking

Lifer
Nov 21, 2001
22,382
5,347
146
Honestly, this doesn't seem that complicated.
That point ----------> whoosh
Over my head. That was my mistake. I'll be the first to admit it. I focused in on accidents/convictions vs instances of undetected DUI.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
166
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
On the other hand (to switch the argument a little bit) - if drivers are only caught 1 in 75 times, or 1 in 500 times (which I don't believe), that means that nearly 74 in 75 of those drivers get home without causing an accident.

Things that make you say "hmmmm." Perhaps the BAC is set too low?
 

skyking

Lifer
Nov 21, 2001
22,382
5,347
146
I doubt that. It is more a matter of individual performance and luck. My father, for example, could function at a very high level with a very high BAC. Nothing to be proud of, just the culmination of a lifetime of excessive drinking.
He got two DUI convictions because other drunks hit HIM.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
I doubt that. It is more a matter of individual performance and luck. My father, for example, could function at a very high level with a very high BAC. Nothing to be proud of, just the culmination of a lifetime of excessive drinking.
He got two DUI convictions because other drunks hit HIM.

There are a lot of drunks who can hide it, but are still impaired on things like reaction times.

Of course, alcohol also makes people think they're not impaired when they are.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
On the other hand (to switch the argument a little bit) - if drivers are only caught 1 in 75 times, or 1 in 500 times (which I don't believe), that means that nearly 74 in 75 of those drivers get home without causing an accident.

Things that make you say "hmmmm." Perhaps the BAC is set too low?

No, it's not. It's set by the multiple increases in the chances of having an accident as I recall (I could post the number from memory but don't feel like getting a link).

Let's say your odds of getting an accident sober are 1 in 100,000. Hypothetically, if your odds are four times higher at 0.08%, that drops to 1 in 25,000.

Now how many cars are on the road driving? Quadrupling the number of people killed in accidents annually by four - it's already in the thousands - is not really acceptable.

Even if it doesn't 'sound bad' to have your chances go from 1 in 100,000 to 25,000, losing thousands of more lives a year says otherwise.

But that is part of the illusion why people 'feel ok' to drive - they'll probably get home ok.

It's 'no big deal' for them to do it a 'bit tipsy' compared to the hassle of finding alternate transportation - except they're taking people's lives into their hands.

The same thing really applies to any of these things that increase the chances of an accident a little such as speeding and dangerous lane changes - 'no big deal'. But with the tens of millions of cars on the road, the odds add up and you get into the thousands of people killed - with millions of accidents a year.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0
On the other hand (to switch the argument a little bit) - if drivers are only caught 1 in 75 times, or 1 in 500 times (which I don't believe), that means that nearly 74 in 75 of those drivers get home without causing an accident.

I thought about that myself, but I don't think it really implies that.

It just means that in most cases, people are drunk enough that they increase their chances of being in (or causing) an accident, but the right set of circumstances just didn't arise.

This is true of all sorts of driving problems. I can recall one instance where I forgot to check something and if my wife hadn't been in the car, there's a good chance I'd have caused something bad to happen...
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,221
4,452
136
The same thing really applies to any of these things that increase the chances of an accident a little such as speeding and dangerous lane changes - 'no big deal'. But with the tens of millions of cars on the road, the odds add up and you get into the thousands of people killed - with millions of accidents a year.

This is my argument. Driving while intoxicated raises the odds of an accident, just like any number of other bad driving habits such as talking on a cell phone or eating while driving. Why do we pick out drunk driving for special treatment while we let all these other sometimes more dangerous driving conditions go unaddressed?

What we need is not some gizmo to address this one issue, what we need is a comprehensive plan to make people understand that driving is a dangerous endeavor that needs to be taken seriously, along with a plan to weed out those that are unable or unwilling to be responsible drivers.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
No, mine is not. See my sig, by the way, for my position on ideology.

I do not consider ideology to be the enemy at all, but rather a slavish, unquestioning devotion to ideology, especially a bad ideology (bad being a subjective word, I admit freely). I think it is good to have core principles, and even better to frequently question why you have them in the first place.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
This is my argument. Driving while intoxicated raises the odds of an accident, just like any number of other bad driving habits such as talking on a cell phone or eating while driving. Why do we pick out drunk driving for special treatment while we let all these other sometimes more dangerous driving conditions go unaddressed?

What we need is not some gizmo to address this one issue, what we need is a comprehensive plan to make people understand that driving is a dangerous endeavor that needs to be taken seriously, along with a plan to weed out those that are unable or unwilling to be responsible drivers.

You can't have perfect consistency, and it's wrong to oppose a good policy on the grounds that not every issue is handled in some uptopian but impractical way.

Let's take two - drunk driving versus eating while driving.

Now, I don't have any facts on the relative difference of the dangers, but it's clear eating while driving is a lot less dangerous because they do look at what causes accidents.

But there are other factors. One is that there is 'some utilitarian benefit' to eating - such a minor argument it can be pretty much tossed.

Another is the popularity of the activity - much of the public wants the 'freedom' to eat while driving. It matters - ultimately it's a political issue.

Another is that SOME eating can be done 'relatively safely'. So you're trying to divide up 'safe eating' versus 'unsafe eating', an impossible task. Rather, this issue is left to the more general rule of 'drive safely' and accountability for causing bad things to happen; not perfect, and not enough to address drunk driving.

And finally there's the enforcability issue. You could make 'any' eating a ticketable offense, but that's neither justified by the danger nor going to pass any election.

So, there are all kinds of reasons why one is treated differently - one the public (correctly) views as more dangerous and unjustifiable and practical to ban.

Your suggestion for 'some public education' as a REPLACEMENT for these devices is effectively saying 'do nothing, you choose the thousands of lives lost'.

I'm all for the education being added - but the fact is it's not going to have anywhere near the impact the devices would, in my opinion. The devices are exactly what we need.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,221
4,452
136
You can't have perfect consistency, and it's wrong to oppose a good policy on the grounds that not every issue is handled in some uptopian but impractical way.

What I am saying is that drunk driving is a symptom to a much larger problem, that we do not take the dangers of driving seriously.

I do not dispute that drunk driving is dangerous, or even more dangerous them most other driving habits. But treating a symptom is not the answer.


Your suggestion for 'some public education' as a REPLACEMENT for these devices is effectively saying 'do nothing, you choose the thousands of lives lost'.

I'm all for the education being added - but the fact is it's not going to have anywhere near the impact the devices would, in my opinion. The devices are exactly what we need.

I believe that a well tailored education program backed by enforceable rules, like the ones I outlined in my previous post about enforcement being focused on outcome instead of trying to monitor behavior, will be the ONLY thing to have any appreciable effect.

Although really, just needs to focus on getting to the point where we can give up control of cars to automated vehicles, I think at this point we can do that almost as fast as getting breathalyzers in a significant number of cars. It feels like we are discussing what type of hitching post is best for our horses while Henry Ford pumps out Model Ts.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0
I think a combination of approaches is needed.

Take smoking. It has been greatly reduced through a mix of education, bans on smoking in public, higher taxes and other measures.
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
According to a study by Car and Driver, texting and driving is far worse that drinking and driving.

Maybe we should have a device that ensures that the drivers cell phone is off in order to the drive a car.

http://www.straighttalklaw.com/blog...driving-washington-personal-injury-lawyer.php

A recent study by Car and Driver suggests texting while driving is even more of an impairment than drinking and driving. The Study took place on an airport runway and measured the reaction times of two males ages 22 and 37 while texting vs. while intoxicated at the 0.08 legal limit.
The test subjects were monitored driving at both 35 mph and 70 mph- undistracted, reading a text, sending a text and while intoxicated. A light mounted on the windshield served as a simulated break light- which was controlled by a passanger in the car. The test subjects were measured by both reaction time from when the light was activated and the extra distance they traveled.
The results were not encouraging. While driving under the influence the drivers took an extra 4 feet to stop at 35 mph and an extra 7.5 feet at 70 mph. This increased substantially when texting to 25.5 feet at 35 mph and 23.5 feet at 70 mph.
Considering how society views texting vs drinking these results are a little disconcerting. Recent studies by the National Safety Council suggest that 28% of accidents are caused by drivers texting behind the wheel yet a large portion of the population considers texting safer and less harmful than driving intoxicated.
I do not condone drunk driving- it has caused injury to far too many people, but I do think this puts text messaging and driving into perspective. The reason the number of distracted driving incidents is so much higher than drunk driving is simple -it is socially acceptable to drive distracted while drunk driving is frowned upon. Only when the public becomes aware of the consequences of driving distracted will these statistics alter.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
What I am saying is that drunk driving is a symptom to a much larger problem, that we do not take the dangers of driving seriously.

I do not dispute that drunk driving is dangerous, or even more dangerous them most other driving habits. But treating a symptom is not the answer.

Actually, it is.

Try this. Thousands of people in the US are murdered each year.

Now, you might say, that's just a symptom of some people not having good morals and respecting others, and what we need is to get people to not want to murder.

Hey, I'm all for it. You do it and you're right, that solves the problem without the need for so many police efforts after the fact.

One small thing - can you practically do it and prevent the murders? Oh, no you can't.

And your "utopian, impractical" idea of just getting all these drunk drivers to be more responsible, you can't do either to solve the problem.

So your choices are - do nothing about all the thousands of people killed by drunk drivers you can't correct; or, use my devices to save thousands of lives.

Like I said, I'm all in favor of also trying your approach; it's not enough.


I believe that a well tailored education program backed by enforceable rules, like the ones I outlined in my previous post about enforcement being focused on outcome instead of trying to monitor behavior, will be the ONLY thing to have any appreciable effect.

Then why don't you show why the devices will not have an appreciable effect?

It's kind of like saying 'prison will not have an appreciable effect on preventing crime'. One boggles. Of course it does. If criminals were just let go, we'dhave more crime.

Although really, just needs to focus on getting to the point where we can give up control of cars to automated vehicles, I think at this point we can do that almost as fast as getting breathalyzers in a significant number of cars. It feels like we are discussing what type of hitching post is best for our horses while Henry Ford pumps out Model Ts.

If that were practical, I'd be all for it.
 
Last edited: