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

[Craig234]

I'm going to politely disagree.

I'd prefer rude agreement, but ok.

Look up European drunk driving laws. There are like 8 countries that have a 0.0% tolerance. They just don't put up with this shit. Drunk drivers kill something like 30% of all traffic fatalities. It's a HUGE problem. If you make people think twice before breaking the law they will.

Tougher standard for where to draw the line is NOT the same as draconian punishment (banned from driving for life). I doubt any country in the world does that, for a reason.

If you drink and drive and have to sit in prison for 6 months the chances of you ever doing it again are going to be pretty slim. If you drink and drive have to pay a $1000 fine and $1000 in class costs then go free your incentive to not drink and drive is very low. Of ALL my friends in the States only one has never had a DUI. I know a couple that have 3.

Actually, now, I'll politely disagree for many drunk drivers. Many of them have an underlying problem of alcoholism which doesn't lend itself well to deterrence.

Repeat drunk drivers are already facing the danger of killing themselves and others, and many who face much harsher legal penalties than you mention repeat it anyway.

If I agreed 6 months in jail would really eliminate most drunk driving, I'd probably support it.

Adding more costs to cars and more hassles because a bunch of asshats can't take a cab home is a stupid solution. That's punishing everyone for the fews mistakes. It's not equatable to seat belts or helmets at all since that's designed to simply save your own life. Drunk driving kills other people. Cars are weapons in the hands of drunks. Countries like Finland understand this and have an aggravated DUI charge for people blowing above 0.1% if I remember correctly.

You're arguing my side of the issue when you point out that drunk driving threatens others while helmets and seat belts only protect the driver - that's a reason to do more.

It is NOT punishing everyone for the mistakes of a few, any more than searching all passengers for guns is 'punishing everyone for the mistakes of a few'.

If I were saying to put everyone in jail for 6 months, that would be punishing everyone for the mistakes of a few. Using the device is not punishment, it's protection.

I'd rather you find a more 'polite' phrase than 'stupid solution'.

Between the thousands of lives lost without the devices and everyone spending seconds when they start their car to save those lives, I'd say there's a good case for saving lives.

Just suggest your better way to save them.

Just make the consequences significant enough so that "drunk driving" isn't something you do for fun in places like Arkansas anymore. Yeah I said it. My friends in Arkansas drunk drove for sport on boring weekends since they had nothing better to do in high school.

There is zero reason to drive drunk. Even a drunk person would think twice if they knew they were going to sit in jail because they were too cheap to spend $50 on a cab.

You might think that; the evidence proves otherwise for many of them. And again, they're already putting their and others' lives at risk - not much more deterrence than that.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Charles, in a friendly discussion, when one person really just 'doesn't get it', the thing to do is probably just to say that and wish them well on the issue and move on.

In my experience, friendly discussions don't involve blanket declarations that the other side "just doesn't get it". Nor do they involve labeling others as "ideological" without any justification, while simultaneously refusing to apply that label to themselves.

If you really want to discuss things amicably, you should either be prepared to defend your labels, or avoid them.

But one bit of an attempt to help you with it - so, you think it is just impossible for one person in the discussion to not be ideological while the other is? Don't answer that.

What's the point of asking me a question and then telling me not to answer it?!

There is no 'political spectrum'. Any position from 'far left' to 'far right' to 'middle' to something not on either 'side' can be 'correct' - you can't be limited to 'you have to only say what's on your part of the spectrum'.

I never said one had to be limited to anything. That doesn't mean there aren't various spectra that cover ranges of views on a number of topics.

If you're a 'liberal' with a 'left' position on something, that doesn't automatically mean it's 'ideologically' reached. It might be correct.

True, but "correct" can only be judged on issues that are fact-based. Not ones that are opinion-based.

Whether or not people should be forced to use seat belts or interlocks cannot be proven "correct" -- it is entirely based on opinions, which are in turn based on ideology, or principles, or worldview, or whatever you want to call it.

In this case, the matter is entirely one of opinion, and thus inherently based on ideology.

 

[dank69]

I'm going to politely disagree. Look up European drunk driving laws. There are like 8 countries that have a 0.0% tolerance. They just don't put up with this shit. Drunk drivers kill something like 30% of all traffic fatalities. It's a HUGE problem. If you make people think twice before breaking the law they will.

If you drink and drive and have to sit in prison for 6 months the chances of you ever doing it again are going to be pretty slim. If you drink and drive have to pay a $1000 fine and $1000 in class costs then go free your incentive to not drink and drive is very low. Of ALL my friends in the States only one has never had a DUI. I know a couple that have 3.

Adding more costs to cars and more hassles because a bunch of asshats can't take a cab home is a stupid solution. That's punishing everyone for the fews mistakes. It's not equatable to seat belts or helmets at all since that's designed to simply save your own life. Drunk driving kills other people. Cars are weapons in the hands of drunks. Countries like Finland understand this and have an aggravated DUI charge for people blowing above 0.1% if I remember correctly.

Just make the consequences significant enough so that "drunk driving" isn't something you do for fun in places like Arkansas anymore. Yeah I said it. My friends in Arkansas drunk drove for sport on boring weekends since they had nothing better to do in high school.

There is zero reason to drive drunk. Even a drunk person would think twice if they knew they were going to sit in jail because they were too cheap to spend $50 on a cab.

I take issue with the bolded statement. I had a friend who spent 6 months in prison for DUI. He lost his license for almost 10 years. It took him less than a month after getting his license back to start drinking and driving again on a regular basis. It took him less than 6 months to end up in jail again. It is definitely not enough to just up the consequences.

 

[randomrogue]

So where we disagree is that you feel the cost and time of a breathalyzer is not an inconvenience and that harsher penalties would not deter an alcoholic?

Ok, one of my friends who got a DUI didn't know he was an alcoholic until he took the court mandated courses. We all knew but he needed someone professional to tell him. How about we leave it at 6 months for the first offense and if they discover that you're an alcoholic during counseling you lose your license indefinitely until you are rehabilitated?

Neither one of us wants drunk drivers on the road.

I don't understand the problem with simple logic. If you are drinking and you chose to drive you lose your privilege to drive. Simple. Logical. Done. It's not that hard to not drive while drunk.

If you knew that you were going to lose your license for years, have a hell of a time getting to work, pay enormous fines, go to jail for 6+ months, and maybe even lose your car only the bottom of the barrel in our society would get behind the wheel.

 

[Craig234]

So where we disagree is that you feel the cost and time of a breathalyzer is not an inconvenience and that harsher penalties would not deter an alcoholic?

Ok, one of my friends who got a DUI didn't know he was an alcoholic until he took the court mandated courses. We all knew but he needed someone professional to tell him. How about we leave it at 6 months for the first offense and if they discover that you're an alcoholic during counseling you lose your license indefinitely until you are rehabilitated?

Neither one of us wants drunk drivers on the road.

I don't understand the problem with simple logic. If you are drinking and you chose to drive you lose your privilege to drive. Simple. Logical. Done. It's not that hard to not drive while drunk.

If you knew that you were going to lose your license for years, have a hell of a time getting to work, pay enormous fines, go to jail for 6+ months, and maybe even lose your car only the bottom of the barrel in our society would get behind the wheel.

No, using the device is absolutely an incovenience - just one that is relatively minor and justified.

I'm not sure you appreciated my point about the lack of effectiveness with increasing the punishment - but see the post above from Dank for an example.

 

[randomrogue]

I'm trying to see how the USA's fatalities compare to other nations but am not getting anything yet.

Think about this for a second too, as an additional idea.

What if we raised the driving age to 18 and lowered the drinking age to 18? One of the problems is that Americans are very immature and still feel "invincible" when they learn how to drive. Drivers ed at 15 was a giant joke and I had my first major car accident at 17. We're not adults in any shape or form. In addition if you've ever been overseas and compared the maturity rate of Americans to those of countries with lower drinking ages you'll see a remarkable difference. If Americans could legally drink earlier they would mature like everyone else instead of being highly irresponsible 21 year olds. They would have it out of their system way before then. Food for thought.

 

[Craig234]

If Americans could legally drink earlier they would mature like everyone else instead of being highly irresponsible 21 year olds.

I disagree with that sentence. There are larger cultural issues with the differences between the country, the drinking age isn't a fix.

 

[randomrogue]

Why do you disagree?

Take a 16-20 year old American and place him/her in Europe and note the differences.

 

[EagleKeeper]

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.
,

Agree with waggy; allow one pass IF no damages/injuries to anyone or property.

Second DUI follows waggy comments.

Flag is placed on driving record that any vehicle registered to offender's household requires breathalyzer.

Flag on license also alerts car rental agencies.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I'm not sure how well stuff like that transfers between cultures, just as I'm not when it comes to gun issues.

I have read in the past that cultures where alcohol is not made into a giant taboo -- such as Jews and Italians -- tend to have fewer issues with underage drinking.

 

[Craig234]

Why do you disagree?

Take a 16-20 year old American and place him/her in Europe and note the differences.

You didn't say 'place them in Europe' Read your own quote.

That's what I disagreed with.

 

[randomrogue]

It can be a very tough comparison for a number of reasons. My drivers license cost me $200 for classes and $12 or something for the test. Europeans pay a King's Ransom, have effective mass transit, and many don't get their driver's license until they're much older. I have friends that got courses paid for as a birthday present. Their 30th birthday.

However the drinking part is pretty easy to compare. We all start drinking at roughly the same age. Maybe a bit younger in Europe since it's more accepted there. Definitely younger in Eastern Europe. The difference is that in America you have to hide it, can't go to bars, and it resembles playing with firecrackers behind your parents back and having sex in your car instead of adult like behavior.

I went to the bars when I was almost 19. Legally. I was already a year behind my friends and the maturity difference was significant. Then being back in the states and hanging out with my friends there was like being around little kids. I don't think we reached the same level of maturity until about 25. Women tended to mature faster. Guys were still acting like little kids at the bar: unable to hold their liquor, starting fights, and acting like they were in high school.

 

[randomrogue]

One last thing. A breathalyzer will only address part of the problem.

Drugs accounted for 40% of DUI related deaths in CA in 2010.

 

[skyking]

One last thing. A breathalyzer will only address part of the problem.

Drugs accounted for 40% of DUI related deaths in CA in 2010.

do you have a source for that?
I'm not contesting that it does exist at all. I have an opinion that the actual wording is more likely "drugs other than alcohol were present", rather than an assumption that in 40% of cases no alcohol was present.
There is a vast difference. In my experience, many abusers are running about on a veritable cocktail of drugs and alcohol.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I went to the bars when I was almost 19. Legally. I was already a year behind my friends and the maturity difference was significant. Then being back in the states and hanging out with my friends there was like being around little kids. I don't think we reached the same level of maturity until about 25. Women tended to mature faster. Guys were still acting like little kids at the bar: unable to hold their liquor, starting fights, and acting like they were in high school.

There's a reason car rental places use 25 as a cutoff.

The difference in attitudes towards alcohol go far beyond minimum ages though. Wine is just part of the culture in many parts of Europe, kids are used to seeing it around, even trying it sometimes well before legal age, it's just not a big deal.

In Jewish traditions, it's the same to a lesser extent. Wine is used cermonially so kids are used to seeing it. Nobody gives kids full glasses of wine to drink, but sips are no big deal. And sometimes a bit more than that when the kid is no longer a kid but a young teenager.

This removes much of the "rebellion" aspect of drinking, IMO.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

do you have a source for that?
I'm not contesting that it does exist at all. I have an opinion that the actual wording is more likely "drugs other than alcohol were present", rather than an assumption that in 40% of cases no alcohol was present.
There is a vast difference. In my experience, many abusers are running about on a veritable cocktail of drugs and alcohol.

It's hard to find stats. This is from the CDC:

• In 2010, 10,228 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.1
• Of the 1,210 traffic deaths among children ages 0 to 14 years in 2010, 211 (17%) involved an alcohol-impaired driver.1
• Of the 211 child passengers ages 14 and younger who died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes in 2010, over half (131) were riding in the vehicle with the alcohol-impaired driver.1
• In 2010, over 1.4 million drivers were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics.3 That's one percent of the 112 million self-reported episodes of alcohol-impaired driving among U.S. adults each year.4
• Drugs other than alcohol (e.g., marijuana and cocaine) are involved in about 18% of motor vehicle driver deaths. These other drugs are often used in combination with alcohol.5

Note the mention of overlap -- some (many?) people use both.

 

[skyking]

That was my point exactly.

 

[skyking]

My take on it:
I see far too much opportunity for failure of a full mandate across the board.
Mechanical things fail. No matter how much you wish to argue the point, just look at all the brand new cars on tow trucks heading to the dealer.
Now you implement this car crippling device across the board and sit back. It will be no time at all before you see a story similar to this hypothetical one:
"3 killed at railroad crossing accident; father unable to start stalled car due to breathalyzer interlock failure".
It is a squeaky wheel kind of story, great for manufacturing outrage.
I do agree that convicted drivers should have them installed. They are far more likely to offend so the cost is perfectly justified, IMO.

 

[waggy]

There's a reason car rental places use 25 as a cutoff.

The difference in attitudes towards alcohol go far beyond minimum ages though. Wine is just part of the culture in many parts of Europe, kids are used to seeing it around, even trying it sometimes well before legal age, it's just not a big deal.

In Jewish traditions, it's the same to a lesser extent. Wine is used cermonially so kids are used to seeing it. Nobody gives kids full glasses of wine to drink, but sips are no big deal. And sometimes a bit more than that when the kid is no longer a kid but a young teenager.

This removes much of the "rebellion" aspect of drinking, IMO.

I grew up having a glass of wine or some beer with dinner. alchohol is not a big deal if you are used to it.

I think a big part of it is kids are away from parents, nobody telling them what to do adn they go wild.

I was one of the few that didn't feel the need to go out every weekend and get wasted. i would have 1-2 and be done (heh most times).

even now i rarely drink more then 2 beers.

 

[skyking]

You are fortunate, Waggy. Many simply cannot drink in moderation. I find it far easier to not drink at all, for example.

 

[Craig234]

My take on it:
I see far too much opportunity for failure of a full mandate across the board.
Mechanical things fail. No matter how much you wish to argue the point, just look at all the brand new cars on tow trucks heading to the dealer.
Now you implement this car crippling device across the board and sit back. It will be no time at all before you see a story similar to this hypothetical one:
"3 killed at railroad crossing accident; father unable to start stalled car due to breathalyzer interlock failure".
It is a squeaky wheel kind of story, great for manufacturing outrage.
I do agree that convicted drivers should have them installed. They are far more likely to offend so the cost is perfectly justified, IMO.

Of course the convicted are far more likely to offend - and you only catch 1/75 of the problem.

How many lives will be lost to 'mechanical problems' versus how many will be saved?

That's an incredibly tiny thing to use to deny saving thousands of lives a year.

 

[Craig234]

One last thing. A breathalyzer will only address part of the problem.

Drugs accounted for 40% of DUI related deaths in CA in 2010.

I'd agree - and not see that as a reason not to do it.

 

[Jaskalas]

We can see places with real lack of freedom - Cuba, China, the old East Germany, North Korea... Uganda or Iran if you're gay... Afghanistan if you're female...

But what I see from some here are equating those issues of freedom with using environmentally bad light bulbs, drinking big sodas, not wearing a helmet on a bike.

First, I said from the beginning this is an ideological opposition to it. I hope that remains clear.

Second, I'm not mentioning those. I'm saying we betray our tenet of equality by having the government weigh, measure, and label us all. Yes I recognize the due process involved, which is supposedly enough, but all we really need is a mob with an axe to grind. Piece by piece we will add more labels, to place more undesirables under, eventually we're all labeled one thing or another and absolutely on one is treated equally.

Does having a due process involved make that better, what if that process was not determined by the people - but by a ruling class with permanent incumbency? If our system is broken where a third party cannot rise, true change cannot occur, then who is it to say we are at liberty to decide this due process?

To me, the whole notion of people committing crimes, but being released is a grey area we're using to treat people differently in ways that were never meant to be. I for one don't recall learning how we arrived at our present course - if society ever discussed the practicality of throwing away equality.

If it is not us who control these labels, then who is to say how they are used. We might all agree to go after the drunks and have them use special cars designed for them, but I'm not limiting my view of what is only before me. I'm seeing the implications of how this will be used for other things. It establishes or maintains a precedence I'm not comfortable with.

Logically it's fine, there are benefits to society, but at what cost? I caution you to not overlook the price we pay for our benefits.

 

[skyking]

Well said.

 

[skyking]

Of course the convicted are far more likely to offend - and you only catch 1/75 of the problem.

How many lives will be lost to 'mechanical problems' versus how many will be saved?

That's an incredibly tiny thing to use to deny saving thousands of lives a year.

your "1/75th" is patently incorrect.

"About one-third of the drunk driving problem – arrests, crashes, deaths, and injuries – comes from repeat offenders. At any given point we potentially share the roads with 2 million people with three or more drunk driving offenses."

http://www.madd.org/drunk-driving/about/