Drunk Driving and Breathalyzers in Vehicles

[HoustonFarrier]

Here's an idea, legalize drugs (marijuana) and TAX the SHITZ out of it to help pay for welfare. People are using this stuff, so why not legalize it and make it a revenue from it!

Sounds great...until one of them gets in a car high and kills a relative...then how great an idea is it? We have enough drunks on the road, we don't need to compound THAT problem.

We DO have the technology in existance to STOP drunk driving......just no one has the guts to make it mandatory.

Steve

[WashingtonBay]

You want breathalyzers on all vehicles Houston? :huh:

[HoustonFarrier]

You want breathalyzers on all vehicles Houston? :huh:

It'll pretty much wipe out drunk driving :) I think the price we would have to pay is certainly worth the human lives it would save.

Steve

[WashingtonBay]

It'll pretty much wipe out drunk driving :)

That's a big MAYBE.

I actually know something of these machines. Can we break this out to a new thread?

There.... broke it out.... I need the practice learning how to do that anyway...

Give me a little bit and I'll write up something on this issue.

[WashingtonBay]

A long time ago now (ten years ago?)... right around the time these breathalyzers became law in Washington, I got a DUI.

I was single then and had a habit of not going straight home after work. It was a good arrest.

I had a breathalyzer ordered on my vehicle, initially for a year... I did successfully argue to reduce this to six months.

I'll just describe some of how it works in application, so you can decide if you want one of these things on your car.

The units themselves I'm sure have a cost. I don't know what that is, mine was 'rented'. The cost to me was high because of the cost of of paying that rent and paying for monthly calibration and downloading of it's data. It cost about $75 a month I think, ten years ago. While the data download would not be necessary in a non-court ordered installation, the regular calibration of it probably would be needed from time to time. If it quits working right, your car won't start.

It doesn't really measure alcohol. It measures CO2. Somehow for reasons others understand better than me, among the effects of alcohol are increases in CO2 in our breath. Which means smoking around it will also cause it to beep a false positive.

So, for whatever reasons, do other pollutants in the air.... like gas fumes. So people reported trouble starting their cars at gas stations. Others reported it would lock them out if they'd had orange juice or other citrus fruits or citrus drinks. I did have some false positives for reasons unknown.

Some of that might be a calibration issue, as the court-mandated devices are set to be triggered for very low amounts. .03-.04, much less than the legal limit, they are set to detect the lowest measurable amounts.

It requires a good solid breath. People with asthma would have trouble, as would those who have a cold. You have to be able to blow pretty solidly nonstop without interruption for more than 10 seconds. Try it.

Even given all that, the machine is easy to fool by taking many deep breaths of fresh air and/or flushing your mouth with ice water. There is a reason court-admissible breathalyzers require some strict procedures prior to the test, including watching the person closely to make sure they do not eat, drink, or vomit anything for at least 15 minutes prior to the test. Because any of that will make the test invalid, one way or the other.

The test only requires that someone blow in it... there is no guarantee it will be the driver. In fact, I heard tell of people intentionally taking their kids with them if they'd had a drink, so the kids could blow into the machine for them.

The court mandated machines were set to test you before the car was started, and then again every 15 minutes going down the road. This is to prevent you from just having someone else blow in it before you get on the road. You had to keep it up. If you failed to respond to it beeping at you, or you failed the down-the-road test, it would have a series of increasing warnings that were logged, but it would also after a few failures and warnings make your horn start honking until you turned the car off.

Those are the factors I can recall now... It was a part of my life I've not thought about for awhile.

I do think it is an overall good idea for drunk drivers. Having that unit on my car did change my habits. I developed a visceral panic if I ever found myself 'feeling' the effects of a drink if I was not at home. I felt stuck. Trapped there. Like a Pavlov dog. I still have that today, whether I'm driving or not. I rarely drink at all any more.

I have real problems though, with putting it on all vehicles, because they are a PITA. There are lots of times it can fail to work right and strand us someplace, perhaps just when we need to get somewhere the most. It's an ignition interlock that is highly sensitive and highly susceptible to malfunction, that will make your car inoperable if it does.

I don't usually support increasing everyone's hassle factor just to keep us safe from a few. But there's my experience, as grist for the mill. :)

[starkitten]

Unfortunately like WB said above they are notorious for giving false positives - no cough medicine, no perfume, no mouthwash - you would be surprised at what can set them off.

[WashingtonBay]

Oh - yeah - I forgot about perfume and air fresheners.

[HoustonFarrier]

The technology has gotten WORLDS better. They even have sensors now for steering wheels that can sample your skin. Most of the breathalyzers are now just puffs of air....not long samples.

In 1974, I lost the best friend I ever had in this world to a drunk driver. We were walking to school, he was 10 feet ahead of me, driver hit him. While I am generally in favor of less regulation and more freedom.....we, in this country have paid a very DEAR price for drunk drivers freedoms...and it's high time to stop. We HAVE the technology, and it is not that expensive....hell, I HAVE to wear a seatblet...I HAVE to wear a helmet on my scooter......

Steve

[starkitten]

Well unless something has changed in the last year (my sister currently has one and hers fails alot) and she does have to breathe for 10 seconds into it. It also needs to be recalibrated every couple months. I also think the 'rolling' retests are dangerous. You have to continue to drive and blow into it for 10 seconds hard - really taking your attention off the road in my opinion.

I am definitely in agreement for some safety measures, but I'm not sure what is currently being used (at least around here) would work very well.

[Syble413]

WB, this is a very interesting thread. One question though,..... Have they not improved these devices over the last 10 years? It seems to me that they would have had ample time over 10 years to work out at least some of the false positives & so forth.

[WashingtonBay]

Well, it's probably true that the technology has gotten better (whether or not this has trickled down to the devices actually still in use) but I'm still a real skeptic about whether we'd want to impose it on all of us. We should not have to buy a machine that has intentional complexities built into it that will cause daily delay to me going where I need to go, and may cause my car to not function at all, even if I'm NOT drinking.

I am a big fan of it for anyone convicted of drunk driving. Because put there long enough, it WILL change habits.

[gaited07]

Sounds great...until one of them gets in a car high and kills a relative...then how great an idea is it? We have enough drunks on the road, we don't need to compound THAT problem.

We DO have the technology in existance to STOP drunk driving......just no one has the guts to make it mandatory.

Steve


Of course there would have to be VERY strict LAWS concerning this. As an example, never outside a residence, NEVER OPERATE MECHANICAL equipment. And stricter punishments. If laws was broke, to FIRST time offenders would get imprisonment (min. of 2 years) 2X law breaker would get 6 years, 3X would get life. I would also make ALL of the low risk prisoners do road clean up, disaster clean up, community service (real service) and etc. to help off set the costs of their imprisonment.
I also agree with the method of the Breathalyzer on the car system. This would work on alcohol and weed. With todays technology, we can make anything we want and make it work.

[Hobo]

I rarely drink in the first place, REFUSE to get behind the wheel even after one drink and I will also REFUSE to buy a vehicle with a breathalizer device in it. Should that item become required in new vehicles I'll never buy another car again.

( and I NEVER do drugs)

[HoustonFarrier]

We should not have to buy a machine that has intentional complexities built into it that will cause daily delay to me going where I need to go, and may cause my car to not function at all, even if I'm NOT drinking.
Is that inconvience worse than someone dying at the hands of a drunk driver? I guess one would need to balance the odds of that inconvienence causing YOU harm vs the odds of a drunk driver causing harm. IMHO, not a tough choice....but that's just me.

Again...I HAVE to wear a helmet on my motorcycle, it takes time to put it on, time to take it off...show me ONE instance where a rider having a helmet on SAVED THE LIFE of someone else? NEVER. And, they aren't cheap either.

I am a big fan of it for anyone convicted of drunk driving. Because put there long enough, it WILL change habits.
Not the hardcore alcoholics....they go until they kill themselves or their liver dies.

I think the new technology they are working on is a good start. I'm glad they are working on it, and, hopefully, they can provide a good working solution.

Steve

[gaited07]

Well, it's probably true that the technology has gotten better (whether or not this has trickled down to the devices actually still in use) but I'm still a real skeptic about whether we'd want to impose it on all of us. We should not have to buy a machine that has intentional complexities built into it that will cause daily delay to me going where I need to go, and may cause my car to not function at all, even if I'm NOT drinking.

I am a big fan of it for anyone convicted of drunk driving. Because put there long enough, it WILL change habits.

I agree, this device should ONLY be on KNOWN OFFENDERS and Known marijuana Purchasers, AT THEIR (owners) EXPENSE, NOT THE TAX PAYERS.

[WashingtonBay]

I also agree with the method of the Breathalyzer on the car system. This would work on alcohol and weed. With todays technology, we can make anything we want and make it work.

I don't think that's true. There is no test I know of to measure current marijuana intoxication level. Only urinalysis which measures whether it's been used in the recent past. That's why there's no legal limit for marijuana use. Because they can't measure it.

[HoustonFarrier]

If laws was broke, to FIRST time offenders would get imprisonment (min. of 2 years) 2X law breaker would get 6 years, 3X would get life

That'll be tough.......half the population would end up in jail :p

Steve

[starkitten]

I want to start off by stating I am not a fan of taking guns away ;) However couldn't you use the same arguement for that HF. If I make so that no one has a gun won't that guarantee me a person won't do the wrong thing with a gun and kill me? Just like a driver making the wrong choice kill me....

[WashingtonBay]

Is that inconvience worse than someone dying at the hands of a drunk driver? I guess one would need to balance the odds of that inconvienence causing YOU harm vs the odds of a drunk driver causing harm. IMHO, not a tough choice....but that's just me.

I understand, and many of our rights get nibbled away on by motives that are exactly that tempting. What's the quote? Those who would give up liberty for safety, deserve neither. - Ben Franklin.



Not the hardcore alcoholics....they go until they kill themselves or their liver dies.

I think the new technology they are working on is a good start. I'm glad they are working on it, and, hopefully, they can provide a good working solution.

SteveThey can keep drinking, the habit it will change is it's connection to driving. I don't have a problem with it being mandated for some period on drunk drivers.

[HoustonFarrier]

I want to start off by stating I am not a fan of taking guns away ;) However couldn't you use the same arguement for that HF. If I make so that no one has a gun won't that guarantee me a person won't do the wrong thing with a gun and kill me? Just like a driver making the wrong choice kill me....

Not quite. I am not saying take away the alcohol...I am saying take away the ability to drive while drunk. If you look at raw numbers....drunk driving kills FAR MORE PEOPLE than guns.....it's not even close. And, for what it's worth, there IS technology in existance that would limit anyones ability to fire a given weapon.

One cannot solve ALL the ills of a given society. BUT...drunk driving REALLY is a simple one to fix, or at least to deter to almost non-existence...if we, as a society, just would have the guts to fix.

Plus, with a gun.....I can have one too, and STOP you before you shoot me. In a car, or me on my motorcycle, I am screwed......

Steve

[gaited07]

Quote:
Originally Posted by gaited07 http://www.baywindfarm.com/forum/images/styles/beige/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.baywindfarm.com/forum/showthread.php?p=36486#post36486)
I also agree with the method of the Breathalyzer on the car system. This would work on alcohol and weed. With todays technology, we can make anything we want and make it work.

WashingtonBay: I don't think that's true. There is no test I know of to measure current marijuana intoxication level. Only urinalysis which measures whether it's been used in the recent past. That's why there's no legal limit for marijuana use. Because they can't measure it.

Again, with todays technology, I'm sure we could invest something that would work. I understand that there is nothing yet, but technology is amazing when they want to be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gaited07 http://www.baywindfarm.com/forum/images/styles/beige/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.baywindfarm.com/forum/showthread.php?p=36486#post36486)
If laws was broke, to FIRST time offenders would get imprisonment (min. of 2 years) 2X law breaker would get 6 years, 3X would get life

That'll be tough.......half the population would end up in jail :p

Steve

Your probably right LMAO!!!!:hysterical::hysterical:

[Hobo]

I would be Ok with requireing for LIFE a breathalizer for any individual convicted of even one DUI.
in my area we've had 6, 7 and 8 time convicted DUI drivers killing people. One guy with 6 convictions was driving in a GOVERNMENT vehicle when he killed a family of 5

[HoustonFarrier]

IThose who would give up liberty for safety, deserve neither. - Ben Franklin..

Exactly what LIBERTY is that? The LIBERTY to get drunk, and cause death to an innocent person, for the sake of YOUR personal liberty to drink and drive?

Keeping it in the context of drunk driving.....what is worse...possible inconvenience or possible death?

And for the record...his EXACT quote was.....(bold is MY emphasis)

"..those who would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety....."

Steve

[WashingtonBay]

The liberty lost is the cost and complication of buying and maintaining this finicky piece of equipment, for people who have been convicted of NOTHING, and requiring people to use this thing to use their vehicles, every day, numerous times a day, again, when they've been convicted of nothing.

[IrisGreen]

I don't know all the laws but here in California that have pretty stiff penalty's for driving drunk. Not stiff enough I think but stiff. They have to do community time picking up trash, pay a few THOUSAND dollars in fines, go to classes and I think they might put a Breathalyzer in there car too. But, all this doesn't stop the real alcoholics from driving drunk. They get convected more then once and finally get there license taken away for a year or two I think.


I think there should be jail time, fines, community service, Breathalyzers in the car for a full year, and a sign put on there car that states something like this:

Mandated Breathalyzer Equipped Car


That one wasn't very good but I would like some kind of big decal put on there car that advertises they have a Breathalyzer in there car because they put our lives in danger. You would be surprised how fast that would catch on and how embarrassed people would get having to drive around with that for a year. You won't look so cool to your friends with that decal on the side of your nice ride. lol

Around here people get popped for drunk driving all the time and they will even tell you about it like it's no big deal, ohh I have to pay some fines and bla bla. Or this is my second time getting poped... Apparently they didn't learn the first time and it's like a badge of honor to them. Make them feel stupid with a big decal on there car like they have for driving school cars "student driver". Put a decal saying "Convicted Drunk Driver" or something.

[gaited07]

I would be Ok with requireing for LIFE a breathalizer for any individual convicted of even one DUI.
in my area we've had 6, 7 and 8 time convicted DUI drivers killing people. One guy with 6 convictions was driving in a GOVERNMENT vehicle when he killed a family of 5


I agree that a person convicted, first time, should be required to obtain at his/her own expense a auto Breathalyzer.
A second offender, sorry, you need to go away!!! PERIOD!!! Send them to a hospital to help with dependency (again, not on tax payers note, but offenders) take ALL VEHICLES AWAY and SELL THEM at auction to help FUND hospitals/prisons, etc.
As for the above person that was a KNOWN OFFENDER, someone was NOT doing their job. This person should be in PRISON, LIFE with possible death penalty.
I know this happens ALL over the country, but we need stricter laws to these offenders/KILLERS!!!

[HoustonFarrier]

The liberty lost is the cost and complication of buying and maintaining this finicky piece of equipment, for people who have been convicted of NOTHING

Well...I couldn't find that particular liberty in the constitution.......

Is that an essential liberty? ... or merely another PITA consequence of living in a society with a weak law enforcement mentality?

In order to get a drivers license, I HAVE to pass an eye test. I have NEVER failed an eye test, yet I can't get a drivers license UNLESS I pass this test EVERY TIME. Am I losing a liberty?

In order for me to register a motor vehicle, I HAVE to purchase insurance. I have NEVER caused an accident, yet I HAVE to purchase insurance. Am I losing a liberty?

In order for me to drive a motorcycle in Texas, I HAVE to wear a helmet OR attend and pay for out of my pocket a Motorcycle Safety Course AND pay for a sticker to put on my bike, even though I have done nothing wrong. I HAVE to use that helmet numerous times a day, every day.

What liberty have I lost again?

Steve

[WashingtonBay]

RE Iris's post:

It has pleasing implications, except, like even the breathalyzers... they have to actually own the car.

And then of course, if there's a couple, even mom will have this shame when dropping the kids off at school in the family car.

Of course, Steve's plan would put them on all our cars.... So there would be no shame.

Perhaps our cars can also take a blood sample and test us for high cholesterol before letting us enter a McDonald's drive thru. ;)

[Syble413]

I rarely drink in the first place, REFUSE to get behind the wheel even after one drink and I will also REFUSE to buy a vehicle with a breathalizer device in it. Should that item become required in new vehicles I'll never buy another car again.

( and I NEVER do drugs)


LOL....You guys are moving fast on this topic today. I have to leave for work but here's some 'food for thought': Suppose these devices are installed on new cars but only activated (by manufacturers, gov't or other powers that be) if someone driving that particular vehicle is convicted of DUI.

I can't wait to see where this thread has gone by the time I get home tonight.:cool:

[gaited07]

I think there should be jail time, fines, community service, Breathalyzers in the car for a full year, and a sign put on there car that states something like this:

Mandated Breathalyzer Equipped Car


I would like some kind of big decal put on there car that advertises they have a Breathalyzer in there car because they put our lives in danger. You would be surprised how fast that would catch on and how embarrassed people would get having to drive around with that for a year. You won't look so cool to your friends with that decal on the side of your nice ride. lol

Around here people get popped for drunk driving all the time and they will even tell you about it like it's no big deal, ohh I have to pay some fines and bla bla. Or this is my second time getting poped... Apparently they didn't learn the first time and it's like a badge of honor to them. Make them feel stupid with a big decal on there car like they have for driving school cars "student driver". Put a decal saying "Convicted Drunk Driver" or something.


Very good ideas!
Just like the sex offenders being registered. Same thing should apply with this!
Public embarrassement might curb some and the jail/prison time would take care of the rest.

[WashingtonBay]

Well...I couldn't find that particular liberty in the constitution.......

Is that an essential liberty? ... or merely another PITA consequence of living in a society with a weak law enforcement mentality?

In order to get a drivers license, I HAVE to pass an eye test. I have NEVER failed an eye test, yet I can't get a drivers license UNLESS I pass this test EVERY TIME. Am I losing a liberty?

In order for me to register a motor vehicle, I HAVE to purchase insurance. I have NEVER caused an accident, yet I HAVE to purchase insurance. Am I losing a liberty?

In order for me to drive a motorcycle in Texas, I HAVE to wear a helmet OR attend and pay for out of my pocket a Motorcycle Safety Course AND pay for a sticker to put on my bike, even though I have done nothing wrong. I HAVE to use that helmet numerous times a day, every day.

What liberty have I lost again?

Steve

Several. Your money, the fruit of your labor, is indeed a loss of liberty when it is taken from you. We're supposed to strictly limit those kinds of takings to those essential functions of government.

We've already nibbled away... yes, seat belts, insurance and helmets are a nibbling away, because it transfers responsibility for our own safety from us to the government. Where does that end?

[oursarge]

The technology has gotten WORLDS better. They even have sensors now for steering wheels that can sample your skin. Most of the breathalyzers are now just puffs of air....not long samples.

In 1974, I lost the best friend I ever had in this world to a drunk driver. We were walking to school, he was 10 feet ahead of me, driver hit him. While I am generally in favor of less regulation and more freedom.....we, in this country have paid a very DEAR price for drunk drivers freedoms...and it's high time to stop. We HAVE the technology, and it is not that expensive....hell, I HAVE to wear a seatblet...I HAVE to wear a helmet on my scooter......

Steve

I don't know what the answer is I just wanted to say I'm so sorry about your best friend. It's a hurt that never goes away. My best friend lost her brother to a drunk driver, he was also my friend, we grew up together. It was awful. A friend of my husband's lost half of her family to a drunk driver. I wish there was some way to stop it.

My brother in law is an offender. He has had accidents, he has had his license taken away, has done jail time, has gone to AA, nothing stops him. Even the threat of loosing his daughter didn't stop him. It's a disease there seems to be no cure for. One time when he ended up in jail my other brother in law came to tell us and I told him don't be asking for bale money because he was where he belonged. Then when he was going to court ordered AA my mother in law came over and said we had to our part and drive him there. Being the B*&^% I am I told her WE DO NOT HAVE A PART. We did not tell him to get in a car while drunk and have an accident, thankfully not killing anyone, we did not tell him to punch out a cop, where is our part in all of this? I told her we will take him and hope that maybe something will get into his head to change him but it didn't. The day the court ordered AA meetings were over he was back to his old ways. I told my husband he's on his own from now on. I like him but I don't like his ways when he's drunk. I'm not saying I am better than him I just don't know what else there is to do for him.

The problem is everywhere. Our friend's son has about no friends his age because he doesn't drink or take drugs. I was shocked when I found out the kids who are doing drugs pretty much right in the open. People come to the stable smelling like breweries. I feel like calling the State Police and having them sit there and pick up some people who are drinking and driving and drinking and riding.

I have no problem with people drinking some but I wish they would not drive. I wish there was some way to prevent it but Idon't know what the answer is. I can see with my brother in law there is no answer, he is 50 yrs old now and has been this way since I met him when I was 21 and he was 19. It's sad because when he is sober he is a good guy but drunk not so good. I don't want him killing himself and I really don't want him killing some innocent family just out for a ride like he almost did one night. He hit a grandmother with her grandchildren. They all went to the ER but nobody was hurt thankfully.

OK rant over. I am truly sorry about your friend, it's a heartbreak that never goes away. I talked to my friend not long ago and she was telling me that Aug. was the 20th anniversary of loosing her brother and it still hurts so bad. I miss him too, he was such a cute kid.

I don't know about the thing in the car but I wish there was some kind of cure for people who have a drinking problem. I would love to see my brother in law cured.

[WashingtonBay]

I don't know about the thing in the car but I wish there was some kind of cure for people who have a drinking problem. I would love to see my brother in law cured.

I really don't think it's been helpful to treat it like a disease, one they're told can never be cured in AA. I think it actually keeps people thinking like alcoholics the rest of their lives. I saw a lot of it when I was going through all the processes I had to go through. AA could be another whole thread.

Yes it can be cured. Tomorrow. By behavior alone. That makes it not a disease. It's a bad habit, it's a dangerous habit, it's a destructive habit, but it is a habit nonetheless, IMHO.

[IrisGreen]

RE Iris's post:

It has pleasing implications, except, like even the breathalyzers... they have to actually own the car.

And then of course, if there's a couple, even mom will have this shame when dropping the kids off at school in the family car.

Of course, Steve's plan would put them on all our cars.... So there would be no shame.

Perhaps our cars can also take a blood sample and test us for high cholesterol before letting us enter a McDonald's drive thru. ;)

You could have a magnetic decal that was white and had a big red X on it and when the convicted driver drove that car they would have to put there magnetic decal over the X that said the saying on it. So, only the person that got convicted would have to drive around with the decal but the cops would be able to see the car with the X on it and know it's in the "program" and if they want pull it over and make sure it's not the convected driver driving it with out the the proper decal over the X.

I hope that makes since. Plus, it would be a warning to the rest of us.

[HoustonFarrier]

Several. Your money, the fruit of your labor, is indeed a loss of liberty when it is taken from you. We're supposed to strictly limit those kinds of takings to those essential functions of government.

We've already nibbled away... yes, seat belts, insurance and helmets are a nibbling away, because it transfers responsibility for our own safety from us to the government. Where does that end?

Well, in the case of insurance, it's not taken from me...I DO pay that voluntarily. It does not transfer any responsibility from me.....it protects me from others LESS responsible....or from those who truly have an accident.

The helmet does not transfer any responsiblilty away from me....again, I volunteer (although in protest), because I like to ride a motorcycle.

I guess I see this from a differing aspect, having lost a loved one.....I don't see having to do a breathalyzer to start my car as being so intrusive, or not so much as any of the others things I have to do in life....knowing it may very well save my life from a moron who drinks and drives. I HAVE, by the way, been hit by a drunk driver.....but I was lucky, my Ford Bronco, with a lift kit and HUGE tires was no match to his Mercedes. But, had I been on a motorcycle, I would be a statistic.

Like I said before, I am a staunch fighter of individual freedoms....but there are exceptions to every rule :)

Steve

[WashingtonBay]

Interesting idea Iris. I think it would have been very heavy handed on someone like me who didn't really NEED any added shame, but perhaps not for a repeat offender. I was able to keep secret my DUI from my boss and others in the workplace by being discreet about using it leaving the work parking lot. Had I been forced to drive around with this big X on my car it might have had a bad impact on me.

[gaited07]

Okay, here is another idea.
If not a public display (which I think is a great idea) why not a micro chip installed on either the vehicle or the individual or even a mandated micro chipped Alcohol/drugs MEMBERS ONLY Card which only a police officer would be able to scan/detect?

[WashingtonBay]

Like I said before, I am a staunch fighter of individual freedoms....but there are exceptions to every rule :)

Steve

Indeed... people are quirky and everyone has their faults and inconsistencies!

I am very sorry on your friend, and I understand how such a senseless tragedy can impact our point of view. My step-father was shot once in a domestic neighborhood disturbance, and after that, felt citizens shouldn't own guns. If you argued with him he'd show you his scars. For him it was personal.

When we make laws for everyone, it's better if it isn't personal. Because personal involvement makes some really bad law.

[WashingtonBay]

Okay, here is another idea.
If not a public display (which I think is a great idea) why not a micro chip installed on either the vehicle or the individual or even a mandated micro chipped Alcohol/drugs MEMBERS ONLY Card which only a police officer would be able to scan/detect?

Done... very simply. During the time the breathalyzer was required I had an asterisk* on my license that showed that. Plus it would have come up on any data they received when they pulled me over.

[HoustonFarrier]

Okay, here is another idea.
If not a public display (which I think is a great idea) why not a micro chip installed on either the vehicle or the individual or even a mandated micro chipped Alcohol/drugs MEMBERS ONLY Card which only a police officer would be able to scan/detect?

Won't stop that person from getting drunk and killing someone....just makes it easier to ID them at the morgue.

Steve

[HoustonFarrier]

When we make laws for everyone, it's better if it isn't personal. Because personal involvement makes some really bad law.

But I don't think we should not stop trying to find a solution...or rule out anything. It always seems that the truly innocent are the ones who get killed in drunk driving accidents. If it was drunks killing drunks it wouldn't bother me so much.:)

Steve

[WashingtonBay]

Agreed. I definitely think there can be great improvements including these devices for convicted drunk drivers. I'm a big fan of them, over and above some of the less-than-helpful ideas we've had such as court-mandated treatment. I'm just not sure we all deserve to have those things imposed on us, all the time, for the sake of catching a few.

[HoustonFarrier]

for the sake of catching a few.

......hundred thousand......:)

As of 2007, according to the NHTSA, over 100,000 ignition interlocks are in use...and that covered only 20% of the cases that they COULD have been used in.

There were over 13,000 deaths from drunk driving accidents in 2006.

Steve

[WashingtonBay]

......hundred thousand......:)

As of 2007, according to the NHTSA, over 100,000 ignition interlocks are in use...and that covered only 20% of the cases that they COULD have been used in.

Steve

Well part of making a law that we seem to often fail at, is actually enforcing the law.

I got mine reduced easily because I had a good lawyer. I'm the only one in my 'group' that had a good lawyer, the rest had court appointed ones. Those who can afford it, can get out of this stuff. Those who can't, can't afford the device in the first place, so they end up either unable to drive, or driving in violation.

[HoustonFarrier]

Well part of making a law that we seem to often fail at, is actually enforcing the law

Agreed....but what do we do when this happens?

Steve

[oursarge]

I really don't think it's been helpful to treat it like a disease, one they're told can never be cured in AA. I think it actually keeps people thinking like alcoholics the rest of their lives. I saw a lot of it when I was going through all the processes I had to go through. AA could be another whole thread.

Yes it can be cured. Tomorrow. By behavior alone. That makes it not a disease. It's a bad habit, it's a dangerous habit, it's a destructive habit, but it is a habit nonetheless, IMHO.

I never thought of it that way but it's probably true since they are saying they can never be trusted to not drink then they always feel like they will and that they are damaged and can't stop? I don't know since I never thought of it that way because I've always been told it was a disease that can't be cured. I don't drink at all, I neverl liked the taste. Anyway I actually like your way of thinking better, a bad habit which I wish would change. My mother in law always enabled him as far as making excuses for him etc. I know he's her "baby" but she didn't do him any favors.

I have never been to an AA meeting, we used to drop him off then pick him up. He was always bored by them except he was shocked that some kids who were 12 and 13 were at the meetings. I sound like I don't like him, the thing is I do like him. I don't like what he does at times. I wish his behavior would change. He would make someone a great spouse if it wasn't for the drinking. He is a hard worker, he can cook, he can clean, he helped raise a beautiful, kind, and special daughter. It's just that he drinks and that seems to ruin everything else for him. He did move away from here and likes where he is living now. I know he's holding down a good job but I don't know if he's quit drinking.

[WashingtonBay]

Agreed....but what do we do when this happens?

Steve

I don't know. For every good idea, there are complications in making it actually work the way we intend. Life's messy.

[WashingtonBay]

I never thought of it that way but it's probably true since they are saying they can never be trusted to not drink then they always feel like they will and that they are damaged and can't stop? I don't know since I never thought of it that way because I've always been told it was a disease that can't be cured. I don't drink at all, I neverl liked the taste. Anyway I actually like your way of thinking better, a bad habit which I wish would change.

I appreciate that, and I of course also know people whose drinking is not 'normal'. It is harder for some people to control themselves and their drinking.

But AA has a lot about it that is not right either. For starters, mandating AA attendence from the courts has only drowned those meetings with a lot of people who don't want to be there and get in the way of those who do.

And in the end, those who really are successful at AA have just exchanged one aspect of drinking controlling their lives to another aspect of drinking controlling their lives. One can argue that the second is healthier, but it is just as compulsive.

[shelsnsaus]

It would be nice if punishments were at least equal across the board, same offense same punishment type thing (first offences not all offences). Here is my experience with the system in the same county, same judge, same summer.

Two kids, yes kids, but that is a whole different argument. The first we will call A, he is my friends wayward son. No job, has a kid that he doesn't pay child support on, has more addictions than alcohol, was voluntarily in a rehab that he walked from, is currently homeless, steals from family friends etc. In a nutshell, NOT a good kid. Got convicted of a DUI and walked. No jail time, no fines (since he is indigent the judge showed leniency), his "sentence", probation (his mother has received several notices that he doesn't check in, she doesn't even know where he is), 100 hours community service (he's done none), shock trauma team course (he never showed). Yet they are still trying to find him to give him a second chance to start/complete some of his sentence. He was sentenced back in May. His accident involved hitting another vehicle (thankfully there were no injuries), and that was how he got caught.

Second kid, we'll call him B, same age - underage, was in complete agreement with what he'd done. Prior to court he'd joined AA (not court mandated). The same judge as above, gave him 6 weeks in jail (he did get work release), plus fines that the above never got. He had to pay room and board + meals at the jail (since he had a job). It cost him plenty, and he has definitely learned his lesson. He got caught with the DUI at a random traffic stop. He'd never had so much as a speeding ticket prior to this, and never been in any other trouble.

I'm not sure if breathalyzers in vehicles would stop the first kid at all, it definitely would have worked for the second kid. However, regardless, kid A is still on the roads. Kid B can't afford to be back on the road yet, but his lesson was learned, and he doesn't drink at all anymore. Of course this could change as time goes on, he is fresh out of jail, however it isn't likely that he'll forget what he went through anytime soon. Kid A, pretty much just doesn't care and a mandated breathalyzer isn't going to change that.

[WashingtonBay]

It's always true, shelsnaus, that threat of punishment only works on those who have something to lose that they value. That's why it worked on me.... not so much on some of the others who weren't going anywhere before they got arrested.

[HoustonFarrier]

I'm not sure if breathalyzers in vehicles would stop the first kid at all.

How so? Provided the device works as it should, how will he be able to drive a car that won't start? It surely won't stop him from drinking...but it WILL stop him from driving, if it is standard equipment.

Steve

[WashingtonBay]

How hard would it be to just take the thing out and put in a standard ignition? I mean... there's an awful lot of cars on the road that don't have them. How would you enforce getting them put in all these vehicles?

[shelsnsaus]

NOTHING anyone has done has fazed this kid. He truly doesn't care. He has his sob stories for those who are new to him, and they fall for it at first. Right now, he is driving his girl friends car, who knows where he is living. The breathalyzer thing is on his car. He just drives someone elses, he doesn't care what will happen if he's caught. The courts are aware and doing nothing about it. They are trying to give him another chance to comply. Besides if it were mandated, there are lots of other drugs out there for those determined to be screwed up. Drugs that affect judgment and make driving just as dangerous, and drugs that the breathalyzer system can't detect. For those determined to be screw ups, there isn't a lot you can do to stop them. Heck, this kid is now under investigation for check fraud, his lawyer has advised him to get a job and to comply with the first orders, or he will end up with jail time. It doesn't matter to him. Jail is the best place for him and those like him, but somehow being indigent, even if its by choice, gives him a lighter sentence.

A better argument might be for stricter initial sentencing, and for those, that show no remorse or a likelihood to be a repeat offender, NO second chances. At the very least, sentencing should be followed through and monitored, if they don't comply throw their butts in jail, make them work for the room and board. Monitor the classes they attend, force them to be involved or lengthen the sentencing. The courts are way to lenient to start, at least here, and they don't follow through well with those on probation. Don't punish the general population, punish those who break the law. PUNISH them, don't just send them on their merry way.

[HoustonFarrier]

How hard would it be to just take the thing out and put in a standard ignition?
If it's in a new car, well, ever tried working on one of them..it's a nightmare:eek:

I mean... there's an awful lot of cars on the road that don't have them. How would you enforce getting them put in all these vehicles?
I would imagine for older cars, it would be a phased in approach, much like they did with the catalytic converters. You would have 'x' number of months to get one installed, or buy a new car. I know I sold my old Mustang when time came for catalytic converters.

Steve

[WashingtonBay]

But like gun law, the only ones who will comply with the phase in are those who try to be law abiding. Those who don't care, those who you most want to get, still won't care.

If you outlaw standard ignitions, only outlaws will have standard ignitions... :)

[HoustonFarrier]

But like gun law, the only ones who will comply with the phase in are those who try to be law abiding. Those who don't care, those who you most want to get, still won't care.

How many cars on the road now (other than certified antique cars) don't have catalytic converters and/or other pollution/emission control stuff?

How many don't have seatbelts?

How many don't have turn signals?

Steve

[WashingtonBay]

You're talking decades though, to age all these vehicles off the road, and an assumption that the devices will not be easily bypassed.

Unless of course your next step is to require we all stop at ignition checkpoints. :p

[HoustonFarrier]

You're talking decades though, to age all these vehicles off the road.

It's better than what we are doing now :) If my actions can save my great grandchildren....then it was worth it !

Steve

[WashingtonBay]

Steve, you're hopeless :)

[HoustonFarrier]

Steve, you're hopeless :)


:hysterical:

In the immortal words of Popeye"......I am what I am, and that's all the I am..." LOL

Steve

[Tiz]

Tomayto/tomahto. Hopeless/Tenacious. It all makes the world go 'round.

I'm a "Where's there's will, there's a way." advocate. Maybe the device could read the user's iris as they blew into it.

[42many]

The problem is that the consequences aren't of great enough impact to cause a change in behavior. You can create as many laws and device restrictions as you like, but someone who WANTS to bypass them WILL until they are stopped.

If someone got a DUI *1* time and it made a decent sized impact, then they might think twice. If someone gets a DUI *2* times, that should pretty much be it. There should not be any ability for a judge to grant leniency or change sentencing or whatever - if you really want it to be considered a bad thing to do, the consequences have to be solid, across the board, XX times you are out.

I can only compare it to kids - the kids will keep pushing you as long as they figure there is a 1 out of 100 or better chance of getting their way (note - possible exaggeration!! No studies done!! :) ). Even though it could be an extremely long shot, if they figure that there IS a shot (to get that extra TV show, candy, book, whatever) they'll keep trying. If they learn that there IS NOT a chance, they learn not to ask. My kids know exactly what they can good-naturedly badger me on and what is strictly "answer given, drop subject".

What I'm saying, I guess, is that it is kind of a wink and handshake deal for repeat-DUI offenders right now. Why is that? The best place to start "fixing" a DUI issue is at a current known source - those already doing it, doing it often, and doing it without anything but token consequences. If you nail people and nail them HARD for these things, other people will learn...

I agree with what someone (Hobo?) mentioned above. I don't drive drunk, I've never had a DUI, I've never done street drugs, and I absolutely WOULD NOT at this point in my life buy or opt into or accept any program requiring a vehicle I drove to utilize a breathalyzer.

Just because we have given up and agreed to all of the govt enforced requirements such as seat-belt wearing, helmet wearing, etc doesn't mean they are RIGHT. I wear a seat belt under protest to laws requiring it, for instance - I think it is the right thing to do, and I would likely wear one anyway for safety, but I adamantly disagree that the govt should require me to do so (same with helmet wearing on motorcycles). I know there are ongoing battles about helmet wearing on horses here - if the govt mandated that you wear a helmet while riding a horse, would that be okay? Or would it only be okay down the road after those of us who think it shouldn't be wither away? Why add more stuff like that?