An Ignition Interlock In Every Car?

ryeguy-nm writes "Monday the New Mexico House of Representatives passed a bill that would require every car sold in the state to have an ignition interlock. This device is essentially a breath analyzer that prevents the car from being started if the driver is drunk. The bill would require that every new car sold be equipped with an ignition interlock by 2008 and every used car by 2009. Ignition interlocks require a breath test, which takes 30 seconds to complete, to start the car as well as random 'rolling retests' to discourage others from taking the test for you. These rolling retests require the driver to take the test as the car is moving. If the driver fails a retest, the horn sounds and the lights flash until the car is turned off. The bill's lead proponent is Dem. Ken Martinez who believes the bill is a quick fix for New Mexico's drunk driving problems. Opponents of the bill argue that it penalizes car dealerships and law abiding citizens who have never driven drunk. The bill makes no mention of who will have to pay for the device, but it will most likely be auto dealers and citizens who have to sell their cars. It seems to me that impinging upon the liberty of an entire state is a little bit too extreme. Perhaps tougher penalties and larger fines for people who actually drive drunk would be a better idea."

Comments

laws

[Ryntis]

it seems if they are going to do something like that, they need to get rid of the laws that can get you a DUI for just sitting in a parked car drunk.. there are so many laws that need fixed all over the country.. i think the federal government needs to force counties and states to do a lawbook housecleaning some year. Then just have a 4 page ballot one year and be done with it all.

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Most laws (basically anything not having to do with the golden rule) should sunset, but whoever proposed this law is dangerous.
me

Re:laws

[swordboy]

Here would be a good law for everyone:

Ban parking lots at establishments that serve alcohol. With the new blood-alcohol limits, it doesn't take much to put an average human over the limit. Having a parking lot at a bar is like being an accessory to the crime.

But that would limit government tax income and police revenue. So they certainly couldn't do *that*.

Re:laws

[danknight]

Well, I for one think it's a GREAT idea ! Although just maybe they should have a test run or something... all the reps should have them installed in thier own cars for a year or so and then tell us how it worked out.

Re:laws

[FlyGirl]

i think the federal government needs to force counties and states to do a lawbook housecleaning some year

How about the federal government having to do the same thing? I always liked the idea of a proposal that each governing body's laws should hav a limitation, x number of words or some such thing.

It's a sad day (and it happened a LONG time ago) when most of us hardly know ANY of the laws that we are supposed to follow. I don't have a reference, but I read somewhere that the average citizen unknowingly breaks at least 10 laws a day.

Re:laws

[Mattcelt]

I have been a supporter of "Sunset provisions" in laws for a long, long time. It seems to me that most laws should have a mandatory lifetime after which they would have to be renewed, or they would expire.

Obviously, basic issues (murder, theft, etc.) would be exempt from this sort of thing, but the majority of laws - especially those pertaining to technology - should live their useful life and go away.

Even better would be a restriction that only the core parts of a bill, not any ancillary additions (i.e., unrelated pork-barrel spending, etc.), which would have to be renewed separately.

It would mean a lot more work for congresses in the future, but that could be dealt with when the need arises.

Sunset provisions are a really good idea!!

Re:laws

[FatAlb3rt]

ya know, i've always heard that if you're gonna pass out in your car, put the keys in the glove compartment/back seat/trunk for that very reason.

are speaking from experience? ;)

Re:laws

[squiggleslash]

Most restaurants sell alcohol; it would have quite a substantial effect on that industry, they'd either have to stop selling alcohol, and lose customers that way, or stop letting their customers park there, and lose almost all of their customers outside of built-up cities. Most drinkers at restaurants will only have one or two drinks, and most will come with someone else who's capable of being the designated driver anyway.

Re:laws

[Eccles]

Why would these representatives care if their chauffeur was inconvenienced?

Re:laws

[Zeinfeld]

Most laws (basically anything not having to do with the golden rule) should sunset, but whoever proposed this law is dangerous.

Probably not since laws of this type tend to get pre-empted by federal laws. In any case the bill has not been passed into law, it is currently being considered by the Senate.

This is an election year, so time to grab headlines. Making proposals of this sort is a game the congressmen like to play. You get someone to propose some new law that would cost an industry a large sum of money. Then their lobbyists are forced to cough up plenty of cash in bribes to try and stop it.

Car dealers tend to be significant donors in local politics. The dealers are a group like the taxi-owners, they depend on political favors for their business. Most states have laws that prevent car manufacturers from selling direct to the customer, cutting out the dealer. The dealers also lobby to prevent increases in car purchase taxes as a quick fix for budget shortfalls. This bill probably means that some local dealers failed to pay the necessary protection money this year.

A new variation of this game is you get a bill passed in a state and then the industry is forced to pre-empt the legislation at the federal level, which extracts huge bucks.

Sure both sides play this sort of game. But it has become more blatant since the GOP won control of congress and even more blatant still after DeLay deposed Gingrich.

Re:laws

[YetAnotherAnonymousC]

Nice idea in urban areas, but that isn't going to fly in rural areas. Besides, people would just park on the side of the road.

Re:laws

[SlashDread]

The best way to make new law, is to mandate it has to replace an old one or two. Enough is enough! Of course then we will end up with 10 commandments, no nine.. no eight.. no wait a sec.. Anarchy! But thats a good thing.

"/Dread"

Re:laws

[kalidasa]

it seems if they are going to do something like that, they need to get rid of the laws that can get you a DUI for just sitting in a parked car drunk.

That's a perfectly good law (unlike the stupid ignition interlock law described in the story). If you have the keys and are in the car, you've demonstrated your intention to drive. If you're planning on having too much to drink to drive, take a cab to the bar/party/etc. so there's no issue.

Re:laws

[Boing]

Sunset provisions, are a good idea, but I see no reason to exempt quote-unquote "basic issues" such as murder or theft. It's not like, when the law against murder is up for renewal, there are going to be a lot of people saying "hey, I don't think there's nearly enough murder going on these days". On the other hand, allowing an exemption clause would just open the gates for lawmakers to describe their pet projects as "basic issues".

"Oh, restricting black people from voting is a basic issue, there's no reason to review that at any point in the future."

We just don't know what laws we currently have that are going to be deemed acceptable in the future, so why presume that we do in certain situations?

Also, I wouldn't worry about adding work for congresspeople; either they'll hate the extra work and be discouraged from making needless legislation, or they'll like it because they can reasonably give themselves higher salaries and larger staffs, and we'll still get sunset provisions. It's win-win.

Re:laws

[Ray Radlein]

it seems if they are going to do something like that, they need to get rid of the laws that can get you a DUI for just sitting in a parked car drunk.

I can hardly wait for the first time some stranded motorist dies up in Mesa country during the winter because he can't start his car to run the heater (either because of a malfunction in the interlock somewhere, or because he took a swig of booze in an effort to stay warm).

Re:laws

[the_mad_poster]

Obviously, basic issues (murder, theft, etc.) would be exempt from this sort of thing..

You underestimate what a powerdrunk government that doesn't want to give up that power can do. If you give them ANY loophole, they WILL find dirty, underhanded ways to exploit it. Look at the copyright situation. It's so assbackwards now from what it's supposed to be that the people that originally debated it would probably get sick to their stomachs if they saw how the issue has been butchered. Look at the way we tried to circumvent basic rights in this country by declaring people "enemy combatants" - an inoccuous term that just sprang into existance when convenient to take advantage of the "state of emergency" we're perpetually in. Doing things like that is like saying that the current laws don't work, so we need special ones to take their place. It doesn't matter WHY someone is criminal, if they're a criminal they're a criminal and we already have a setup to deal with them. Why do we need special exceptions for different types of criminals? They're just exploiting loopholes to garner additional power they're not supposed to have.

You can't trust the government to do the right thing - this country is based on that principle. Why do you think each of the three branches is supposed to keep the others under control? Why do you think the constitution is written in ways that suggest the framers expected the government to get out of hand? It's only natural that it will take every chance to grab more power. There should be NO exceptions. If the law isn't enforced or renewed, it dies - NO EXCEPTIONS.

Re:laws

[Drawkcab]

These are state representatives we're talking about, not federal. If they have a chauffeur, its probably the bus or cab driver.

Re:laws

[GMC-jimmy]

It never made sense to me why, in the U.S., local or state governments couldn't make a database of DUI convictions like they do for sex offenders. If you have to show I.D. to get into a bar or to purchase liquor then you could be checked against that database.
I'm *not* saying that a DUI is as bad or is better as a sex offense, just mearly that people that can't manage their own behavior can be tracked that easly already without having to create new technology.
They also already have a network for the lottery, so why not for checking for DUI convictions at the door or when served ?

Re:laws

[oiarbovnb]

Umm... hello?... If you don't have a parking lot, guess what happens...people WILL drive and they will park on the street.

Guess what then happens...no one wants to leave their car in the street and get a ticket, so they drive home... if they had the car in a parking lot, they could have left it (providing the bar allows this - which I think they should be forced to allow this by law) and took a taxi!

You must not go to bars often!

Re:laws

[danknight]

Hmm.. Good point, thats what sucks about the people who make the laws that the other 99% of us have to follow while for various reasons they are effectively exempt from them. Surely they must have personal cars though.

Re:laws

[Anonymous Custard]

Sunset provisions have their goods and bads... It's good to force a review of a laws, witht he hopes of undoing a particularly bad one, such as the Patriot Act.

But it also creates uncertainty, in that every time the administration changes, or power in the senate or house shifts parties, all the work done by the previous congress could be reversed through a "review".

Don't many laws already have sunset provisions?

Re:laws

[geekboy2k]

I believe that the parent was trying to demonstrate the absurdity of a law that tries to limit DUI's by "punishing" everyone.

Re:laws

[RockClimbingFool]

Speaking of laws, how about we enforce the ones that are out there? I hate how people always assume there is a problem with existing laws. Take gun control. There are plenty of laws in place for gun owners to register their guns, how to buy them, etc. People aren't going out and sticking up liquor stores with guns properly bought and registered.

Re:laws

[rprycem]

No it is very stupid. If I actually demonstrate intent to drive get me for that. However, I for one have once sat in my car quite drunk (keys out of the ignition except briefly to roll the electric windows down) with zero intent to drive. I called around to several people for a ride home while in said car. I was perfectly content, if need be to sleep in my car until the next morning if no ride was available. I did end up getting a ride from my roommate about an hour and a half later and he subsequently fined me for my stupidity by making me buy him a very late dinner.
Face it, people sometimes drink more then they where planning. I did in the instance above and think I handled the situation in a perfectly responsible manner. Please do not give me crap about the many others who may have not. I acknowledge that many others many not have handled the situation as well, but that is not my problem. Had I been picked up for my "actions" that night I would have fought it with every fiber of my being, and dollar I could provide to the legal profession.

Re:laws

[ichimunki]

If most restaurants are selling alcohol then most restaurants are certainly contributing to the problem of drunk driving. Personally I think rather than worrying about the restaurants' business, which is their own problem, we should focus on punishing criminal behavior with serious sentences instead of the wrist-slaps we've been giving out.

But in a country where a guy arrested for DUI can still hope to be elected president someday, how soon do you think that will happen? Instead we're going to get all these misdirected attempts to punish everyone (whether it's in-car breathalyzers or disappearing parking lots).

It's insane that in a country where simple possession of a naturally growing plant can land you a felony conviction that being found guilty of drunk driving isn't a life-destroying event.

Re:laws

[dave420-2]

Exactly. I'm not trying to cause upset here, but if there were sunset provisions on the US constitution, people wouldn't be running around the 21st century with firearms, like they were back in the 1700s... It was a great idea then, but now, it's kinda flawed. We have police, armies and strengthened diplomacy now.

I'm all for tradition, but when it causes huge amounts of pain and suffering, surely it has to go. Sunset provisions cause society (well, the judiciary, anyways) to look on laws passed in different socio-political climates, and decide whether they're suitable for now, as opposed to when they were first written.

Re:laws

[16K Ram Pack]

We have a law on licensing hours in England which means you can't drink in a pub after 11pm (+ drinking up time). It was introduced during WW1 (yes, 1) so that munitions workers would be fit for work, but was never revoked. It's silly and counterproductive, and it's taking a lot of fighting to get politicians to get rid of it.

A 'sunset provision' would have killed this by the end of the war.

Re:laws

[timjdot]

I definitely agree with sunset provisions and also the ideas that for every law written at least that much text must be removed in chucks of whole laws.

WRT the NW proposal, clearly this is to "shock-and-awe" the people. Then they'll pop out the real idea - require it for cars owned by DUI defendants. Still a large enough market to make some people rich. And not a bad idea either.

Re:laws

[slartibart]

Don't get started on the gun control issue.

Even if the 2nd amendment sunsetted, it would probably still be renewed. Americans want to own guns. A few of them shoot people with them, but the vast majority keep them for sport or self defense.

Re:laws

[Dun Malg]

That's a perfectly good law (unlike the stupid ignition interlock law described in the story). If you have the keys and are in the car, you've demonstrated your intention to drive.

Nonsense. At most you've demonstrated you're possible intention to drive. It may alternately demonstrate your intention to listen to the radio, roll down the power windows, or plug your cell phone into the cigarette lighter socket to call a cab. Keys in the ignition + seat belt, maybe, but even then the fact that you're not operating a motor vehicle makes calling it a DUI pretty fascist. It may be true that it's a lot easier to arrest drunk drivers if you can nail 'em just for sitting in the driver's seat with their keys in the ignition, but that also means that people who had no intention of driving drunk (but don't know the draconian extent of the law) get DUI's as well. The problem is the whole notion of "proactive law enforcement". By making a whole set of activities that are merely possible precursors to crime themselves illegal, the definition of criminal acts expands to include people who have hurt no one, would not have hurt anyone, and/or never had any intention of doing anything that would have hurt someone. Why not make it a DUI to posess car keys while drunk? It sounds stupid, but it makes as much sense as making it a DUI to listen to the radio or roll down the window from the driver's seat while drunk. More laws won't stop people from being criminals; more laws just creates more criminals.

Re:laws

[Whafro]

oh come on, the parent comment to which you responded HAD to have been joking. federal senators make $154,000 a year, a nice chunk of change, but not to the point where they regularly use drivers for their own transportation. state representatives usually make something in the vicinity of $30-40k a year, depending on the state, which in many cases is substantially less than the salaries of their constituents.

elected representatives don't do it for the money. they may do it for the power and influence or other less-than-morally-praiseworthy ideals, but raking in the dough while in office is not one of them.

Re:laws

[strike2867]

Its called the Supreme Court. If you have a problem with a law, it can be appealed at any time.

Re:laws

[nelsonal]

AFAIK, the only things with sunset provisions are tax breaks. Because one side can campaign on we will review these fat cat tax breaks, and the other can say we know no one will give up a tax break, lets make these tax cuts permanent. It's a win/win situation for the pols.

Re:laws

[Sepodati]

That's a stupid arguement. The people shouldn't be driving drunk, plain and simple. It shouldn't hurt restaurants at all because people should be doing the right thing already.

---John Holmes...

Re:laws

[Oliver Wendell Jones]

I can picture it now, the poor UPS delivery guy comes home from a long day at work:

Driver: {wheeze} {wheeze} Whew... {wheeze} what a {wheeze} day...

Driver's SO: Why are you out of breath? Did you have a lot of heavy boxes to deliver?

Driver: {wheeze}No... {wheeze} {wheeze} Half Life 2 {wheeze} {wheeze} and {wheeze} Duke Nuke'Em {wheeze} Forever {wheeze} both shipped {wheeze} on the same {wheeze} day {wheeze} and I had to {wheeze} stop and start {wheeze} {gasp} {cough} the truck {wheeze} four hundred {wheeze} and thirty {wheeze} two times {wheeze} while dropping {wheeze} them off...

Re:laws

[Hektor_Troy]

Speaking of the ten commandments. I believe George Carlin said it best:

Here is my problem with the ten commandments- why exactly are there 10?

You simply do not need ten. The list of ten commandments was artificially and deliberately inflated to get it up to ten. Here's what happened:

About 5,000 years ago a bunch of religious and political hustlers got together to try to figure out how to control people and keep them in line. They knew people were basically stupid and would believe anything they were told, so they announced that God had given them some commandments, up on a mountain, when no one was around.

Well let me ask you this- when they were making this shit up, why did they pick 10? Why not 9 or 11? I'll tell you why- because 10 sound official. Ten sounds important! Ten is the basis for the decimal system, it's a decade, it's a psychologically satisfying number (the top ten, the ten most wanted, the ten best dressed). So having ten commandments was really a marketing decision! It is clearly a bullshit list. It's a political document artificially inflated to sell better. I will now show you how you can reduce the number of commandments and come up with a list that's a little more workable and logical. I am going to use the Roman Catholic version because those were the ones I was taught as a little boy.

Let's start with the first three:

I AM THE LORD THY GOD THOU SHALT NOT HAVE STRANGE GODS BEFORE ME

THOU SHALT NOT TAKE THE NAME OF THE LORD THY GOD IN VAIN

THOU SHALT KEEP HOLY THE SABBATH

Right off the bat the first three are pure bullshit. Sabbath day? Lord's name? strange gods? Spooky language! Designed to scare and control primitive people. In no way does superstitious nonsense like this apply to the lives of intelligent civilized humans in the 21st century. So now we're down to 7. Next:

HONOR THY FATHER AND MOTHER

Obedience, respect for authority. Just another name for controlling people. The truth is that obedience and respect shouldn't be automatic. They should be earned and based on the parent's performance. Some parents deserve respect, but most of them don't, period. You're down to six.

Now in the interest of logic, something religion is very uncomfortable with, we're going to jump around the list a little bit.

THOU SHALT NOT STEAL

THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS

Stealing and lying. Well actually, these two both prohibit the same kind of behavior- dishonesty. So you don't really need two you combine them and call the commandment "thou shalt not be dishonest". And suddenly you're down to 5.

And as long as we're combining I have two others that belong together:

THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTRY

THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S WIFE

Once again, these two prohibit the same type of behavior. In this case it is marital infidelity. The difference is- coveting takes place in the mind. But I don't think you should outlaw fantasizing about someone else's wife because what is a guy gonna think about when he's waxing his carrot? But, marital infidelity is a good idea so we're gonna keep this one and call it "thou shalt not be unfaithful". And suddenly we're down to four.

But when you think about it, honesty and infidelity are really part of the same overall value so, in truth, you could combine the two honesty commandments with the two fidelity commandments and give them simpler language, positive language instead of negative language and call the whole thing "thou shalt always be honest and faithful" and we're down to 3.

THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR"S GOODS

This one is just plain fuckin' stupid. Coveting your neighbor's goods is what keeps the economy going! Your neighbor gets a vibrator that plays "o come o ye faithful", and you want one too! Coveting creates jobs, so leave it alone. You throw out coveting and you're down to 2 now- the big honesty and fidelity commandment and the one we haven't talked about yet:

THOU SHALT NOT K

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

We have police, armies and strengthened diplomacy now.

[sarcasm] Right. We have the UN too, so no real need for each country to have a seperate government.[/sarcasm]

It's partially _because_ of police and armies that personal ownership of firearms is still relevant today; they're a hedge against totalitarian governments. Ask the Jews of Germany, circa 1950.

It always worries me to see someone suggesting that the constitution be edited down to nine amendments, but it's always heartening to see how many people really support firearm ownership after the fascist suggestions are made. You don't ever realize that they're there until you try to take their rights away.

Sunsetting laws are a good idea, though. They would eventually cause a constant examination of the laws and hopefully a shorter criminal code would be the result. The only danger is that some people might try to redefine the meanings of basic human rights like the right to live and the right to self defense.

Re:laws

[mini me]

I live out of town, but the nearest city to me, not many drinking establishments have parking lots. So it means parking on the street, or in a nearby pay lot.

As far as I can tell, the government (Ontario) almost encourages drinking and driving. They make no effort to allow people to find out their BAC before getting in the car. Instead of the cops sitting a mile down the road from the bar, how about they stand right outside the bar and check people on the way out. Better yet, make breathalizers even more accessable than that. Every bar should have one, or even personal ones. I think a lot of people end up driving because they think they are okay, but have no way of knowing for sure. Granted they shouldn't drive at all, but that will never happen.

The other problem is that the affermentioned city, and most other places I've been to, enforce that all cars must be off the streets at 3AM. What better way than to promote drinking and driving? The driver maybe doesn't want to move their car after they had one too many. But they have no choice, or pay the parking fine.

If government really wanted to stop drinking and driving they could almost eliminate it by making a few small changes. But I think they'd rather have the money come in, and risk a few deaths.

Re:laws

[liquidsin]

You have most certainly NOT demonstrated intent. If that were the case we'd do away with the laws for carrying a concealed weapon and just call it "attempted homocide". And now, anecdotal evidence (this happened to a friend of mine - in Canada, so YMMV). Friend went to bar, got too drunk, got in his car to sleep it off. A cop knocked on his window at about 5am or so and told him he would let it go this time, since he was actually asleep, but told him if he was going to do this again to lock his keys in the trunk (and hopefully have a trunk release) so that he could demonstrate that he had no intention of going anywhere. Had the cop not been so friendly, he could have actually been charged under that law, even though the officer could clearly see he was sleeping, and the keys were not in the ignition. Is that fair? Is that "intent to drive under the influence of alcohol"?

Re:laws

[kaisyain]

Or maybe it means you got kicked out of the house by your wife for drinking and you're sleeping it off if your own car parked in your garage? And you have your keys because your keys are always in your jacket?

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

The citizen has a natural and inalienable right to self defense and to the means of self defense.

The possession of arms distinguishes the free man from the slave.

The possession of arms breeds independence, self-respect and civic responsibility.

An armed citizenry reduces the incidence of criminal activity.

The armed citizen is not compelled to rely upon the assistance of the State for all protection.

The armed citizen forestalls the rise of a tyrant from within the State.

A citizenry accustomed to the use of arms and provided with their own personal weapons can come to the assistance of the State as a militia, either to subdue domestic turmoil or to repel a foreign invader.

The Second Amendment is not an Archaism

Read: http://www.goines.net/Writing/QUIS_CUSTOD_IPS_CUST ODES.html

Re:laws

[n()_cHIEFz]

Dude, obviously you don't live in New Mexico, most of the reps. and senators here drive pickup trucks. I'm not kidding either.

Re:laws

[kalidasa]

And how many people have been arrested for DUI asleep in their own garage? How many?

Re:laws

[doctor1]

Wow, I like this idea, danknight! Make all congressmen and senators have this gadget installed on all of their current and new cars within 30 days after the President signs it into law. I guarantee that a rider like this would change the minds of those that would vote for such a law. If they really wanted to stop folks from DUI'ing, then they should force those that have been convicted of a DUI to have this installed on all of their cars.... Hmmm... I wonder how many guys on Capitol Hill would get snared by that? ;)

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

if you argue with gun "enthusiasts" enough, it always ALWAYS boils down to the "it's constitutionally protected" argument.

No. It almost always boils down to the "I have the right to defend my own life" argument. The "it's constitutionally protected" argument is the equivalent of the "I'm your mother, that's why you can't have any cookies" argument. It's still true and valid but used mostly when someone is too dense to understand other reasons.

if someone steals my tennis racket and pepper-spray, they're going to have a hard time robbing a bank with it.

Bank robbers are almost always caught. Because of this, the reponse of a bank to a robber's threat is to comply totally. Bank robbers commonly use a handwritten (often poorly spelled and hard to read) note to stick up banks. By your argument, pencils and paper should be outlawed for no better reason than a bank robber might be able to use them to rob a bank.

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are drunk, you are not in a condition to decide whether or not you can drive. Getting into the car puts you in a position in which you could drive if you wanted to - the only thing stopping you are your inhibitions against drunk driving. And what's the first thing to go when you've been drinking?

Re:laws

[mirio]

Or more realistically, legislators will vote for these laws because if they don't, during their re-election campaign or any subsequent campaigns, their opponent will run an ad saying "Senator voted to allow drunk drivers on our streets".

And we're talking about state politics here...I love how you snuck in the GOP in general and DeLay/Gingrich. But since you brought it up (and at the risk of being modded flamebait):

The DNC does exactly the opposite. They just buy votes by promising their constituency they'll give money to them that they took at gunpoint from someone else (welfare, "universal" healthcare, etc).

They vote to take money away from states in the form of taxing that states' citizens then force those states to comply with national regulations in order for that state to get it's money back. Without taking the money from the state to begin with, they would have no constitutional authority to force these things on states. Yes, both sides are guilty here too (No Child Left Behind) but we all know who is worse at it.

This is not extortion?

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously it is, as by your logic every nation in the world without guns every 3 feet is swarming with evil communists or something. In fact, the less guns a country has, the safer it is to be in there. How anyone can argue that point is beyond me. The facts are there. Just because Charlton "Moses" Heston says people who favor gun control are fascists doesn't make it so. If guns were banned in the US, the number of homicides would drop substantially. Those facts you can't argue. The fact you do implies an alterior motive.

Re:laws

[Kaboom13]

Exempting basic laws is probably a good idea. Consider all the crap that gets passed due ot it being attached to neccesary budget bills. In most cases failure to pass these bills could theoretically shut down the government, so both sides get in a sshoving match over how much they can get away with. Imagine if they got the chance every couple years to attach things to murder laws. At best you give the minority party a great chance to fillibuster to get their way on something else. It's best to do it right once with some iron-clad law anyone can usderstand then open it up to constant revision and loopholing.

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

All cars off of the streets at 3AM---you mean all parked vehicles must go home? Or that it is illegal to drive after 3AM?

Dear God, let's hope I never need tylenol for a migraine at 3:15! ;)

Re:laws

[dave420-2]

Jewish people having guns in the 1950s wouldn't stop anything. Poland had guns, and they got shat on. So did France and most of Eastern Europe. They even had tanks, air forces and aircraft carriers. Your argument is so fatally flawed it stopped being an argument before you even raised it. Guns kill people. Less guns, less deaths. No government tanks are going to roll into your bathroom if you decide to not "pack heat" on the toilet. By your logic, the rest of the civilised world is crawling with murder and opressive governments. Take a look in the mirror, buddy - no-one's jealous of the US.

Do you even know what the UN does? If you think it's a global government, you need to stop watching so much Fox.

Re:laws

[SlamMan]

This assumes that those of us that do like to drink are too irresponsible to have a designated driver.

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, the less guns a country has, the safer it is to be in there. How anyone can argue that point is beyond me. The facts are there.

I call. Show.

Re:laws

[ObiWanKenblowme]

Actually you've demonstrated that you want to sit in your cars and still have posession of your keys. Don't misinterpret this in any way as saying that drunk driving isn't terrible, but until you start the car in motion, you shouldn't be guilty of DUI.

Re:laws

[duffbeer703]

Maybe the BAC limits are the problem, and not the parking lots.

If the cops spent more time pulling over shitty drivers, drunk or not, the highways would be far safer than they are now.

Re:laws

[xtheunknown]

Because drinking for people over the age of 21 (in most US states) is legal, it is drinking and driving that is illegal. Therefore, making people get checked against a database of drunk drivers won't work. Unless you assume that everyone that is arrested for DUI will drink and drive again, and everyone that was convicted of DUI shouldn't be able to drink.

The basis for our (USA) entire legal system is that you have to commit a crime before you are arrested and prosecuted. It's called due process. I am opposed to any law that assumes that just because you have commited a crime in the past, you will commit the same crime in the future and should therefore have your liberties curtailed just in case.

This proposed New Mexico law is ridiculous. We are getting to the point in this country that in order to protect ourselves from perceived dangers (terrorists, drunk drivers, sex offenders) we are willing to surrender our rights.

The only use of ignition interlocks I even remotely support is for convicted repeat drunk drivers. They would have to pay for them and if caught driving (drunk or otherwise) any vehicle not equipped with an ignition interlock, the penalty would be stiff.

We have laws concerning DUI, let's just enforce them.

I object to having my life inconvenienced because other people break the law. Hell, if we're going to do this, why not mandate governors on every car to limit speeds to 65 or 70? Or put speed limit transmitters in every speed limit sign and automatically slow cars down.

This is just plain stupid.

Re:laws

[strictnein]

If most restaurants are selling alcohol then most restaurants are certainly contributing to the problem of drunk driving.

Don't be dumb. That's like saying a hardware store that sells pipes is contributing to people building pipe bombs.

On one hand, it's a true statement. On the other hand it's an absolutely stupid statement.

Re:laws

[the_2nd_coming]

yeah...because mandatory sentencing has helped reduce crime so much. NOT

Re:laws

[operagost]

RTFA - it's the state of New Mexico. It's not a federal law.

Re:laws

[operagost]

We have police, armies and strengthened diplomacy now

All the better to oppress you with!

Are you a fool? The King's armies were used against the American colonists in the first place! That's why that amendment exists! No, I'm not going against a tank with my pistol, but that's not relevant to the discussion.

Re:laws

[Richthofen80]

Seriously, our 'great' senator from Massachusetts (no not the one running for president.) might have a lot to say about the issue, given his history on the subject of drunk driving.

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Go ban guns and I'll carry a sword.
Go ban swords and I'll carry a knife.
Go ban knives and I'll carry a pointy stick.
Go ban pointy sticks and I'll use my finger to push through your eye socket and into your brain.
Go ban fingers...

Get the idea yet jock-o?

Re:laws

[ichimunki]

No it's not. But you're right. I misstated that. It should read "drinking in restaurants is contributing..." That would have been more consistent with the rest of my statement saying that it is the drunk drivers who should be punished, not the restaurants or other drivers.

Re:laws

[LittleGuy]

I can hardly wait for the first time some stranded motorist dies up in Mesa country during the winter because he can't start his car to run the heater (either because of a malfunction in the interlock somewhere, or because he took a swig of booze in an effort to stay warm).

I'm betting more on an accident caused by a distracted driver who has to take a "rolling retest" on a busy highway instead of concentrating on the road. And this, in the midst of banning cell phones (both handheld and not) because they are a distraction.

Also, to a lesser extent, people who have to take up to and extra 30 seconds to start up a car, but don't have that luxury due to an emergency (hospital, flight out of fear, etc.)

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, when you're writing something and put quotes around it you don't actually have to type out "quote-unquote" (see how I just did it there). The actual qotation marks themselves serve that purpose.

Re:laws

[Dun Malg]

They also already have a network for the lottery, so why not for checking for DUI convictions at the door or when served ?

"DUI" doesn't necessarily mean "drunk driving". I have an acquaintance who got a DUI for being under the influence of methamphetamine. Putting aside the absurdity of the fact that the US Air Force gives its pilots speed to make them more attentive, but civilians on speed are considered DUI, the real fun came later: the judge ordered him to attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. One could argue the applicability of AA to other drug problems (most of the alcoholics at the meetings I've attended dabbled in coke or speed too-- but mostly just to stay awake and drink more), but the primary focus of AA is (surpise) alcohol. This guy, although he was a speed user, never drank. Didn't smoke either. He had to endure weeks of pointless alcohol-centric support before the judge would let him attend meetings that were at least for drug addicts. Alcohol may be the most popular DUI drug, but it certainly can't be assumed. You're saying people should be denied access to a bar for driving to work on speed?

Then there's the question of appropriateness. Is it reasonable to prohibit DUI convicts from purchasing alcohol? They already have their driver's licenses revoked. Why not cut just cut off their hair and tattoo "DUI" on their scalp? That'd make it easy to ID them. Why the fixation on punishment? DUI's don't happen because they aren't punished harshly enough. True, DUI rates would drop if anyone blowing a .08 or higher was just shot in the head there on the side of the road, but is the result worth the cost?

There's also the issue of feasibility. The lottery network doesn't require instant access to a central database which must be able to differentiate between alcohol DUIs and non-alcohol DUIs. Lottery terminals just record numbers and report them back. This doesn't even address the issue of people with DUIs in other states. Is this to be a big national database? Administered by whom? Also, such terminals don't magically appear for free-- their cost is offset by the purchase of lottery tickets. "DUI terminals" would just be another absurd cost piled on businesses to saddle them with the task of enforcing what is ultimately bad law.

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

He means parked cars on the street. You need it in Ontario or the snowplows can't clear the streets properly.

Re:laws

[Skynyrd]

As far as I can tell, the government (Ontario) almost encourages drinking and driving. They make no effort to allow people to find out their BAC before getting in the car.

I don't need yet another thing for the government to do for me. If you aren't able to judge your ability to drink, buy a breatalizer.

Better yet, make breathalizers even more accessable than that.

You can buy a DOT certified breathalizer for about $100. A DUI in California costs about $10,000 by the time you're done with it. Hmmm. Going to have a drink now and then, don't rely on the govenrnment, do it yourself. You can also buy "go/no-go" strips for less than a dollar. Put one in your mouth and you're over/under depending on the color.

Sorry, but I hate hearing what the government should "do for us". Arrrrrggggghhhhh!!!!

Re:laws

[ObiWanKenblowme]

Assuming you can get appeals courts at each level of the process to agree to hear the case. It's not as simple as some random citizen saying "That's a bad law, I'm taking it to the Supreme Court."

Re:laws

[Boing]

Consider all the crap that gets passed due ot it being attached to neccesary budget bills.

That's a valid concern, but you're focusing on the symptom, not the disease. Attaching unrelated riders to bills is its own problem that should be dealt with accordingly. There's no reason to twist the valid parts of the legal process to accommodate that flaw.

If the law against murder got sunsetted because some congressperson wanted to attach a rider for increased tollbooth maintenance funding, I think we'd see the legislation drafting process undergo some much-needed reform very quickly.

Re:laws

[thedillybar]

If you have the keys and are in the car, you've demonstrated your intention to drive.

And if I'm in my RV passed out on the couch with my keys in my pocket? And it takes the cop 5 minutes to wake me up? Did I still "demonstrate intention to drive"?

Where do you draw the line?

Re:laws

[ichimunki]

Crime rates have been falling since 1993 (see FBI crime stats for details)-- so it's possible that mandatory sentencing is a factor in that. But I never said anything about mandatory sentencing. I advocated harsher penalties. There is a big difference.

Re:laws

[ObiWanKenblowme]

That's not the point. The point is that according to the law, you're committing a crime by doing it. Does that make sense to you?

Re:laws

[unperson]

Don't many laws already have sunset provisions?

Not very many. There is one very big (U.S.) law that does, however. The so-called "Clinton Assault Weapons Ban" of 1994 is set to expire in September of this year. Popular belief is that it will indeed expire without extension or renewal. See:

www.awbansunset.com

Re:laws

[RMacolyte]

How would this law be pre-empted? Its on the same level of compliance as automotive emissions standards set by the State of California. If the new car you are selling doesn't meet the emissions requirement, it does not get sold here. Those have continually been observed and noted by the auto manufacturers. The federal government shouldn't interfere in this law.

Re:laws

[stephenbooth]

But in a country where a guy arrested for DUI can still hope to be elected president someday,

At least if he's president someone else will be driving most of the time.

Stephen

Re:laws

[OMEGA Power]

Sunset provisions, are a good idea, but I see no reason to exempt quote-unquote "basic issues" such as murder or theft. It's not like, when the law against murder is up for renewal, there are going to be a lot of people saying "hey, I don't think there's nearly enough murder going on these days". On the other hand, allowing an exemption clause would just open the gates for lawmakers to describe their pet projects as "basic issues".

On the surface this seems like a pretty good idea but my only concern is that it is almost impossible for a bill (especially one with a lot of support) to get through congress without multiple pork barell and/or partisan riders attached. So I am afraid that this would result in congress critters attaching pet projects that would never pass on their own to "basic issues" renewal bills (i.e. The Murder Recriminalization and Federal Funding for a new strip club in Rep. Douchebag's district act) and if you think is is unrealisitic look no further than the energy bill considered by the senate last year which included a provision for federal funding of a Hooter's in Louisiana

Re:laws

[Demonspawn]

-----
If guns were banned in the US, the number of homicides would drop substantially. Those facts you can't argue
------

So that's why homicides increased in both UK and Australia after firearms were banned? In fact, if I remember correctly in, Australia FIREARM homicides increased after the ban.

You're right, you can't argue the facts at all.

But what you are forgetting is that the 2nd Ammendment has nothing to do with crime or protection from criminals.

Pick up a history book some time. I highly suggest this if you happen to be a US citizen. The United States of America came into being after they used force to overthrow a goverment they found unjust. The founders of our new goverment had the foresight to realize that we just might have to do the same to the goverment they were now creating. The 2nd Ammendment was the guarentee that we would have the tools.

Our goverment is a system of checks and balances. The ultimate of the checks are the citizens themselves. The citizens cannot be a check if they do not have the power to overthrow the goverment.

--Demonspawn

Re:laws

[74nova]

so long as you never kill me or anyone i know by driving drunk, im okay with all that you said. the problem is that most people arent as intelligent about it as you appear to be.

i hate govt control, but i also hate stupid people and what they do. i have no idea where the balance is.

Re:laws

[Kick the Donkey]

In addition to the house-cleaning, I think all laws passed should have to state the purpose for creating the law.

What drives me crazy is, that in my state, I can't by alchohl on Sunday! What possible purpose does that serve?

Re:laws

[ratamacue]

there are so many laws that need fixed all over the country

You can't rule a nation of innocents. The more laws, the more criminals, and the more power (hence profit) for those who control government.

There is a very good reason why government has a tendency to expand over time: because it benefits those in power.

Re:laws

[stephenbooth]

Car dealers tend to be significant donors in local politics. The dealers are a group like the taxi-owners, they depend on political favors for their business.

Couldn't they just set the car dealers and taxi owners against each other? Tougher drink driving laws and more energetic enforcement of those laws should result in increase in business for the taxis (more drivers deciding not to risk it when they've had a few or having to get a taxi beacuse their car won't start cos they're tanked then those who decided to risk it and lost their license).

Stephen

Re:laws

[jdavidb]

I don't know if New Mexico is like Texas, but our legislators are barely paid enough to compensate for their time. Most continue to work at their full time career (usually lawyers, but last year I worked with an Oracle developer who is running for the legislature this year) taking leaves of absence for the biannual sessions because there is no way they could live off of what the state pays them let alone live in the lap of luxury. Most state legislatures are more like this and less like the U.S. Congress, which is far more likely to give rise to the chauffeur-driven public servents you are referring to.

Re:laws

[schovanec]

Which is a good reason, but many cities "milk" this cash cow year round. My aunt lives in a Toronto suburb and if you leave a car parked on her street overnight in July you will probably get a ticket. Southern Ontario is usually around 30C in the summer, so I don't think they're gonna have much to plow.

Re:laws

[jdavidb]

ll the work done by the previous congress could be reversed through a "review".

And that would be just fine with me. Most of the "work" of Congress is to decide how to divide up the public pie of favors. If we made these favors unconstitutional, or at least forced them to expire through sunset laws, maybe Congress could get busy doing something I might agree is really "work."

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

You show these "facts" and I'll sell you some ocean front property in Arizona.

Re:laws

[cayenne8]

Not a problem with me...I just always find the 'auto pilot' button...and wake up at home...

:-)

But, you have to in New Orleans, where they have 'to go' cups in the bars to take your drink with you when you leave..and drive through daquiri shops...What a great city!

Re:laws

[mini me]

I don't need yet another thing for the government to do for me. If you aren't able to judge your ability to drink, buy a breatalizer.

But they are already doing it??? They just aren't where I think they should be.

You can also buy "go/no-go" strips for less than a dollar.

You learn something new every day, why aren't these more well known? I knew you could buy a breathalizer, but no one is going to spend $100 on one.

Sorry, but I hate hearing what the government should "do for us". Arrrrrggggghhhhh!!!!

What good is a government that doesn't serve the people? Besides, they are pretty much doing everything I suggested already, they just need to make some minor changes to make it effective.

Re:laws

[Spleenl3oy]

This law is nothing like the emissions standards in California. Those laws do not take away the liberties of people who have not, and dont plan on breaking the law.

Re:laws

[DAldredge]

Fatty foods kill more people, should fatty foods be banned?

Re:laws

[rprycem]

Actually the first thing that is heightened for me when drinking any amount is my inhibitions against drunk driving. I am in the condition to decide, as I obviously have done. I have drank many times while out and never have driven home over the legal limit. This I am sure of. In fact if I have the option I often let anyone in my party drive that did not drink even if I only had one 12oz beer during a two hour span including a meal (I am not a thin guy). By most any standard I have seen I would not be over the limit in that situation. I do not normally drink heavy and am very aware of it when I do. Please do not generalize the behavior or perception of everyone by the bad behavior of some.
Secondly I did in that situation, what I hope everyone would do. I do not want society to punish someone trying to fix something before it would become a bad situation. My thoughts come from a libertarian perspective that if I have done nothing to infringe on anyone else's rights then I have done nothing wrong. Sitting in my car phoning friends for a ride home hurt no one, drunk or not.

Re:laws

[dave420-2]

No, because no-one steals burgers from McDonalds, breaks into your house and crams them down your throat when you're asleep, to the point where you and your family die.

Also, burgers are made to be eaten, which is a natural and encouraged activity. Guns are made primarily to kill people, which if you check, isn't.

Re:laws

[DAldredge]

The GOP does the same thing. Look at the farm bill, no child left behind, the pill bill, and the debt. For all the talking they do about how different they are the two sides sure rule almost identicaly to each other!

Re:laws

[lcde]

Every bar should have one, or even personal ones.

We had a breathalizer once at a party, it then became a game of who could blow the highest BAC....heh that was a fun night.

Re:laws

[cayenne8]

"The other problem is that the affermentioned city, and most other places I've been to, enforce that all cars must be off the streets at 3AM. "

You've got to be kidding....that's when the good partying starts down here!!

Hell, "The Dungeon" here in NOLA, doesn't even OPEN till midnight....I think I heard last call there once....when we got our drinks to go..was close to 8-9am in the morning....

Re:laws

[anderm7]

The Federal Government needs to do the same thing. Local/State governments don't have a monopoly on dumb laws.

Re:laws

[normal_guy]

You're thinking of 'historical' Democrats and Republicans. The current administration changed all that. I know exactly who's been worse at it these past four years.

Re:laws

[fingusernames]

The 2nd amendment is not about guns. It is about sovereignty, and the protection thereof. In the United States, the people are the sovereigns, seriously. Every little scrap of power a government here has, the people gave to it, because they had it first. It may seem odd, or extreme, to harp on it, but it is very important to understand it. The 2nd amendment does not grant a right to keep and bear arms. It merely states that the government may not infringe that right. Whether the 2nd amendment existed or not, the right would exist. Without that right, the government would be unable to have an army. One follows from the other.

The core concept of rights and powers are also quite important when reading of our constitution: people have rights. Governments have powers. Repeat: only people have rights. And people have rights because they have them (our constitutional form of government is a product of natural law), not because a government grants them. The people and their 'self-evident' rights and powers exist before government. In the entire body of the unamended constitution, the word 'right' appears once: securing (not granting) the rights of authors and inventors. Those who argue that the 2nd amendment merely protects the power of the state to have a militia are apparently disingenuous, illiterate, or both. It mentions a right of the people, not a power of the state. The language is clear, as was the intent.

Whether a court in the 21st century would find that governmental interest (the police power in this case) in restricting the right to bear arms over-rides the people's interest in exercising that right is something entirely different from whether that right exists. I am perfectly comfortable with courts finding that the governmental interest in protecting a populace in an urban area justifies restriction on the rights of the citizens. I am not comfortable whatsoever with a blanket, nation-wide determination of that to the point of total extermination of a fundamental human right to defend one's self.

If a court, however, fails to identify a right to arms at all, then that court is failing to protect the sovereign powers of the people of this nation, and is making a big mistake in the overall scheme of things. It is very important for the people to understand and protect the concept that *all* rights and *all* power rests with them, and they merely grant *limited* portions of that power to governments to exercise on their behalf.

Sure, today, in the 21st century, with over two centuries of republican representative government and peaceful transfers of power (except of course the civil war) behind us, this seems arcane and impractical to apply to our immediate social needs. But underlying our entire legal system is the concept of the utter and absolute primacy of the rights and powers of the sovereign people. It is a precious thing, and we need to understand it in its full meaning.

Larry

Re:laws

[GlassUser]

A taxi is not an effective form of transportation over the several hundred miles between cities. I doubt there are many taxis in new mexico outside of downtown santa fe and such.

Re:laws

[panamahank]

"Sure both sides play this sort of game. But it has become more blatant since the GOP won control of congress and even more blatant still after DeLay deposed Gingrich."

28 of 66 members of the AZ House are Republicans, yet you manage to find a way to blame Republicans for Democratic idiocy.

Friggin' amazing.

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

So you guys realize there are literally tens of millions of laws out there: county, city, state, federal, jurisdiction, etc. How would govenment exist if they had to renew every law on the books? It would literally take an entire new court system to regulate, manage, and a retraining of the police force every few weeks. We're not even talking about coordinating these laws with state lines and city lines, etc.

Silliest thing I've ever heard of. I can't even see gov. happy democrats going for this one.

Re:laws

[nemesisj]

This reminds me of some article I read awhile back that mentioned that they could fit a breathalyzer on a credit card sized card. Why not just make every drivers license have a built in breathalyzer? It turns red if you're over the limit, and green if you're not, etc.

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's a terribly stupid idea.

There are, though unlikely, situations where you may not be able to get your car started - even though it is an emergency and you need to GET THE FUCK OUT OF WHERE YOU ARE -- FAST --.

Also, what is the point of having such a restrictive device in every human being's cars, when the actual criminal penalties for drunk driving are so god damn low?

Rather than impacting me and my life by sticking a breathalizer in my car (high illegal, I would suggest)... why not do more than take a drunk driver's license away (after 40 or 50 arrests).

We treat kids who write harmless viruses and infringe intellectual property rights far more harshly than we treat drunk drivers. If we're really taht serious about it, how about we start giving these cats some SERIOUS JAIL TIME instead?

Re:laws

[Shakrai]

Am I the only one that thinks as evil as Drunk Driving is (I nearly lost my sister to a Drunk Driver) we are giving away too many civil liberties over it?

MADD are a bunch of fanatics imho. Why am I required to give evidence against myself if I get pulled over? In my state if you refuse a BAC test you automatically lose your license. The cop can ask you take one even if you haven't touched a glass of booze in months -- and you have no right to refuse.

Enforcement of DWI laws is out of hand too. I've personally been pulled over three different times (two of those times I hadn't been drinking at all -- the third time I had two drinks in a four hour period) on bullshit excuses (loud muffler on my brand new 2003 car with less then 12,000 miles on it) then immediately asked "Have you been drinking?" They shouldn't have the right to even ask that question without some sort of probable cause -- and he had none. I find it hard to believe that he smelled liquor on my breath when I hadn't had a drink in two weeks!

The third time I was actually forced to take the BAC test because I made the mistake of answering "Yes" to the question. He attempted to make me take the roadside sobriety tests -- which I refused. He then claimed that I would lose my license -- to which I replied I could only lose it for refusing the chemical test -- not the "Walk on the line" tests. I blew a 0.018 -- real threat to society there! I received no apology after the fact in any of these incidents for the way I was treated like a common criminal -- the third time I received a lecture! I replied to this lecture with an observation about how I was the DD for three people who were shitfaced and how my taxes pay his salary -- to which I was told "Son, don't let me see you here again." Quite the arrogant statement considering as how the Officer appeared to be less then 5 years older then myself.

I'm sorry as evil as drunk driving is we don't check our civil rights every time we climb into an automobile. What part of the 5th amendment rights against self-incrimination don't they understand?

Re:laws

[ahodgson]

Cops would love to be in the bar parking lot, but many people consider that harrassment. And it's private property, so unless they have a warrant the owner can (rightly) tell them to gtfo.

Re:laws

[ProtonMotiveForce]

Umm, not sure what country you're from but in the US getting a DUI is somewhat of a life destroying event.

And it shouldn't absolutely destroy your life unless you kill or harm someone, at least not a first offense. Get real.

Why should getting a DUI ruin your life completely and why should it prevent you from being president? It's ridiculous. What if someone breathes just over the limit - ruined life? Right...that's smart.

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't we just ban selling cars in cities that sell alcohol? Moron.

Re:laws

[ratamacue]

basic issues (murder, theft, etc.) would be exempt

You mean issues concerning natural law.

Re:laws

[Hitch]

that, I think, is exactly the point he was making. and it's exactly the point that the bill is assuming. I can tell you...this becoming nationallly mandated would be the final trigger that got me to move to canada.

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Where I live (AZ), supposedly we have the toughest DUI laws in the country. Also, we supposedly have the harshest punishments.

Since they've lowered the blood-alcohol limit to .008, we have had MORE DUI arrests, not less. It doesn't help any.

What's even more BS is that 19 out of 20 DUI's in AZ are thrown out when fought. Isn't that guilty until proven innocent? Isn't that extortion/racketering by the government/police?

Re:laws

[pjt33]

Here is my problem with the ten commandments- why exactly are there 10?

Your attempted answer misses the point that the original presentation doesn't say there are 10. I don't know when they were first referred to as 10, but the fact that your division into 10 isn't the standard one is evidence that it's arbitrary to claim there are 10.

Re:laws

[shepd]

>Better yet, make breathalizers even more accessable than that. Every bar should have one, or even personal ones

They tried that with payphones at bars (ever wondered why bars in the middle of nowhere, and I mean NOWHERE, have payphones?). It doesn't work. People just ignore the phones, not calling a cab, neighbour, friend, family member, whatever.

Why do you think they'll use a breathalizer? Besides, I've seen a few bars have them there voluntarialy ($0.25 a blow) and nobody uses the damn thing.

The better answer, in Ontario, is to better enforce Drunk Driving laws. Why the hell a judge lets a wino drive to work after being convicted, I don't know. But it happens ALL THE TIME.

You get caught drunk driving, you should get the license taken away for a year. Then you should be forced to start at a G1 license. Hopefully, having to drive with friends for a year should sober you up.

Better yet, fix the insurance laws too. I do two rear end crashes totalling $348 in damages, and my insurance is now *HIGHER* than a chronic drunk driver! Who the hell thought that one up?

Breathalizers and snow clean up laws aren't the solution. Good, solid, consistent enforcement of punishments is. Show the drunk driver they simply aren't acceptable to society. Right now, to judges and insurance companies, they're just funny jokes. Not a "danger". Stupid.

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

+10 Funny.

Taxi. New Mexico... HA HA BWA-HA-HA!

There might be 6 taxis in the whole state.... And as big and spread out as it is, a Taxi ride just across Albuquerque can cost more than a monthly car payment...

Whew. Taxis in New Mexico is the funniest thing said all day...

Re:laws

[Dun Malg]

If you are drunk, you are not in a condition to decide whether or not you can drive. Getting into the car puts you in a position in which you could drive if you wanted to - the only thing stopping you are your inhibitions against drunk driving. And what's the first thing to go when you've been drinking?

Show me a drunk driver who doesn't know he's breaking the law. They may say "I only had a couple" or "I'm not drunk" but that's not what they're thinking. They're thinking "I think I can (or thought I could) get away with it". Taking your logic to it's end would have us arresting peole who drink and have car keys in their pocket. Or people driving with an unopened liquor bottle on the passenger seat. You can't make a blanket declaration that all peopple who have been drinking are too impaired to know they're drunk but only if they sit in their car. Try to justify it any way you like, but the fact remains that no one arrested for DUI while passed out in the drivers seat in a parking lot is, at the time of arrest, driving under the influence. The law has been expanded to make it possible to "proactively police" the crime, but that just means they've criminalized another act that hurts no one.

Re:laws

[rocket97]

The law was passed on Monday with a vote of 45-22 I believe. It only has to go through Bill Richardson so sign it into law. There has been an uproar over here in New Mexico about this whole thing. The law not only says cars sold in New Mexico have to have the interlock but any car registered in the state. Any vehicle under 10,000 pounds is required to have the interlock... yes this includes motorcycles. There have been reports on the news that the civilians will be in charge of getting the interlock and paying for it on vehicles that they already own (cost between $1,000-1,500 each)... I am not sure how many of you all have been here to New Mexico but there are a lot of cars out there that are not even worth this much money... if people can not afford a better car how are they supposed to pay for this to get installed on their car? Not to mention that they are required to have mandatory service every 90 days which costs the customer an additional $80 each time. Also stated in the numerous reports out there is that there will be a 3% tax increase on vehicles sold in New Mexico starting Jan, 1 2005 to help offset the cost of installing these modules into new cars so that the dealers will not have to pay for them. The interlock from what I understand records every time that you get in your vehicle with alcohol on your breath and that you try to start the vehicle, this info is then made available to various organizations (read insurance companies)... I am sorry if this post sounds random I am just ticked off when ever I hear about this thing....

here is a link to a local story about it Las Cruces Sun News

Re:laws

[Shakrai]

If most restaurants are selling alcohol then most restaurants are certainly contributing to the problem of drunk driving.

So because you can't control yourself at an establishment that's serving alcohol it becomes the establishments fault? Why don't you take some responsibility for your own actions instead of expecting the Government or the bar-owner to do it for you? I've been at the height of shitfaced before and still had the higher reasoning abilities to say "Ok, I'm done drinking" for whatever reason (money, needed to drive the next day, etc). I also have the self-control to limit myself to one or two drinks if I know that I have to drive to get home.

What's next? Is it McDonalds fault if you can't control yourself when they open a restaurant two blocks from your house and you gain 200 pounds?

Instead we're going to get all these misdirected attempts to punish everyone (whether it's in-car breathalyzers or disappearing parking lots)

No argument there. But your statement of "the restaurants are contributing to the problem" belies the type of "Nanny-state" mentality that allows laws like this to be passed. People need to take responsibility for their own actions.

It's insane that in a country where simple possession of a naturally growing plant can land you a felony conviction that being found guilty of drunk driving isn't a life-destroying event.

Umm being found guilty of DWI is a life-destroying event. It will cost you at least ten years of your life. You are going to lose your license -- there's a good chance you will lose your job -- your Insurance rates are going to increase anywhere from 3x to 10x times depending on the state (I work for an insurance agency and I've seen policies go from $600 to $4,500 over DWI convictions), it'll be published in the paper, your friends are probably going to turn their backs on you and there's a good chance you'll be doing some jail time and/or paying pretty big fines.

What do you mean by "life-destroying event"? Should we lock up DWI'ers for 15 years to life? That seems a little harsh -- unless they killed someone -- in which case they can be charged under existing (Manslaughter) laws and punished appropriately. If nobody got hurt then I think the existing punishments are more then ample.

The last thing we need is more laws on the books.

Re:laws

[rwebb]

Doesn't anyone in New Mexico remember the federally mandated seatbelt interlocks from the mid '70s? Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 was amended to require that vehicles produced for the 1974 and later (ha!) model years be equipped with an ingntion interlock such that the driver (and front seat passenger, if present) had to have their seat belts buckled before the car would start. (There was an option for manufacturers to install air bags instead, but air bag technology wasn't ready and only GM had that option and only on a few cars.)

Just having to "buckle up" to start the car was such a PITA to the citizenry that Congress actually passed a law forbidding the use of seat belt / ingition interlocks. It was signed by Pres Ford in October 1974.

And that interlock only required buckling seat belts. These clowns expect people to sit behind the wheel and blow into a hose for 30 seconds to start the car?

Re:laws

[iamhassi]

"Most restaurants sell alcohol..."

most people don't get drunk at restaurants, unless it's a restaurant combined with a bar. But still, even then few people got to Friday's to get hammered. They go to real bars.

Course you're right, if "bars" suddenly couldn't have parking lots but "restaurants" could, bars would just put a table in the corner and serve fried foods.

Re:laws

[rhaig]

With the new blood-alcohol limits, it doesn't take much to put an average human over the limit.

of course lowering the limits as far as they are isn't doing as much to save lives as it is to increase the work upon our police and legal system. BAC levels of convicted drivers hasn't changed signifigantly since before the levels were lowered. What does this mean? It means the police and courts are spending more time dealing with the drivers that are 0.08-0.099%. Also, those drivers aren't causing accidents like the 0.10+ folks are. actually, the break in the curve as far as the statistics go is at 0.115-0.12% depending on whose numbers you look at.

So who keeps lowering the BAC levels? MADD

when the founder of the organization is quoted as saying she works for the liquor lobby now because MADD has gone away from preventing people from driving drunk, and towards prohibitionism. The current president of MADD is quoted as saying her target BAC level nationwide is 0.00%.

so what's the point of this post? I agree that it doesn't take much to put the average human over the legal limits, and that's a shame, because those legal limits are low because of political pressure, not public safety.

Hell, to fly a plane, you only have to have been not drinking for 8hrs and have a BAC of less than 0.04%, and MADD wants 0.00% ??

Re:laws

[rthille]

Agreed. I believe in California, you can get a DUI when the officer wakes you up from sleeping on the back seat while the keys are 'under your control'.

Re:laws

[dr_canak]

Sunset provisions are not always so good. It allows legislators a way out of an unpopular vote so as to protect their re-election status.

For example, Bush's tax cut legislation which has some sunset provisions. These sunset provisions allowed democrats to vote for the budget, while being able to tell constituents back home, "Well, its a good idea for the short-term, but the act can be rescinded/will expire/needs to be renewed (take your pick) in the future so don't worry too much about it." As if in the future any legislator is actually gonna vote for a bill to rescind a tax cut.

I understand their purpose in principle, and in the right hands sunset provisions can do the things people are discussing, but right now they are more often abused and allow lawmakers to play both sides of the fence out of their own self-interest.

just my .02
jeff

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Rather than destroy lives (I'm not a big fan of the government employing life-destroying penalties) a large fine and removal of driving privileges for a long period are sufficient. They basically destroy a period of time in a person's life (no money, cant drive to work, etc) but dont haunt them forever (perhaps long after they have learned their lesson and wont drive while drinking). Punishment fits crime, etc.

Re:laws

[jcoleman]

The DNC does exactly the opposite. They just buy votes by promising their constituency they'll give money to them that they took at gunpoint from someone else (welfare, "universal" healthcare, etc).

You forgot "education." I really hate it when someone takes MY money to help SOMEONE ELSE become as smart as or smarter than me. I also hate it when other people are able to eat the same amount as I am. By far the worst is being surrounded by people who are just as healthy as I am.

You see, I deserve to be richer, smarter, better-looking, safer, better-fed, and healthier than anyone else. Me me me.

(BTW, please don't ask how we satisfy our fundamentalist Christian constituency while at the same time enacting laws that go against the most basic tenets of the Judeo-Christian ethic: the Golden Rule and the admonishment to help those less fortunate...we can't figure it out either!)

Re:laws

[Eric Savage]

The analogy is what's stupid. A server at a restaurant with no public transporation who serves someone 10 scotches and who came alone is like a hardware store selling a piece of pipe, a handful of nails and a stick of dynamite to someone.

Re:laws

[rhaig]

If you have the keys and are in the car, you've demonstrated your intention to drive.


Sometimes I'm really glad I live in Texas. In Texas to be charged with DWI, you have to be 1)Intoxicated (0.08%BAC) ,2)Driving the car (behind the wheel of the moving car), 3)on public roads (not on the farm, or in a parking lot).

Sitting drunk in your car with the engine running parked on the side of the street will get you a public intoxication citation.

Makes a hell of a lot more sense than a DWI when the car isn't moving.

Re:laws

[blair1q]

Sunset provisions on a few laws are a good idea. But in general they suck down an enormous amount of legislative resources as the sunset date approaches, and result in coverage gaps and opportunistic political leveraging.

Want a law repealed or changed? Get off your sorry ass and do the work that the other people did to get it passed in the first place. Whining about it on Slashdot won't result in so much as a keystroke in the statehouse.

Re:laws

[cliveholloway]

When someone is quoting someone, if you have any qualms with the original, why not correct the original quotee rather than the quoter?

Or, to put it in simpler terms - "It's comedy, laugh".

.02

cLive ;-)

Re:laws

[squiggleslash]

If most restaurants are selling alcohol then most restaurants are certainly contributing to the problem of drunk driving.

Sure, as are supermarkets, they also sell alcohol. Let me put the onus on you: why should people who drink in moderation, or who drink when friends are around to do the driving, be punished for the crimes of a minority? Why should waiters, waitresses, cooks, and managers lose their jobs because they're unable to sell something that contributes to the overall pleasure of a meal out, thus reducing custom, again because of the crimes of a minority? Why not just punish that minority?

we should focus on punishing criminal behavior with serious sentences instead of the wrist-slaps we've been giving out.

A DUI hardly qualifies for a "wrist slap" these days. It might have when a certain Connecticut-Texan with extremely good connections was done for it in the 1970s, but it's not a wrist-slap today.

And, while I'd like to see the legalization of all drugs, I personally think that smoking pot and driving should be as close to a "life destroying event" as drinking and driving should be treated. Of course, many of the people advocating the war on drugs use exactly the same logic as you're using: some people abuse drugs, some people will take drugs and drive, and therefore anyone selling drugs is endangering us all.

Well I say fooey to that. Let people drink. Let people be responsible for their own actions. If someone drinks and drives, book'em, but leave the rest of us alone.

Re:laws

[UserGoogol]

If you fight against a totalitarian government, you are going to have to break the law anyway. It's not a huge deal to add gun smuggling onto your list. I don't think it'll matter that you have that on your record, when you are wanted for an attempt to rebel against the glorious fuhrer. (Undoubtedly, a much more serious crime.) And anyway, individual ownership of guns ain't gonna help you against the much better trained and better armed forces that are the Gestapo. Who cares whether you have a gun? They can snuff you before you even see them coming.

Re:laws

[dogugotw]

Every bar should have one

A few years back this was tried. People drank MORE just to see how high they could get the meter to read!

And then left, got in their cars and drove home.

People who drink and drive are just plain stupid. And I include myself in that list. While I no longer drink and drive, if I did, the cops should toss my butt into jail and leave me there for a while.

Dogu

Re:laws

[matfud]

In the UK it is not known whether gun crime has
increased markedly since the ban was passed.

The way in which the statistics are gathered changed at about the same time as the ban was introduced. Therefore stats from before the ban are NOT comparable with the stats from after the ban.

All anybody can say is that before the ban the level of gun crime was slowly increasing. Since the ban the level of gun crime has been slowly increasing. The levels from after the ban are alot higher then before but this does seem to be becuase of the changes made to the measurement(Now Gun crimes are crimes in which a gun was reported to have been used whether or not there is any evidence to support the claim. There used to be a need for evidence)

Most of that is besides the point. In the UK there are normally less then 100 fatalities due to guns per year. Please compare that to the 30,000 fatalities per year in the US.

matfud

Re:laws

[ghjm]

I think you mean: ...hope to be appointed president someday...

Re:laws

[brakk]

A bar here I used to go to had a breathalizer on the wall. You put in a quarter and blew in it through a straw to find out how drunk you were. I think it was only used as a gag and people tried to see how drunk they could get to try and blow up the machine or something.

It's not at that bar anymore, but I've seen them for sell on ebay before.

Re:laws

[Pyrrus]

while I think that the idea of driving to a place to get
intoxicated is a very strange concept to me, I don't think
you can go far (and before you accuse me of anything, I
am VERY opposed to any kind of DUI (not just alcohol)).
First of all, if you ban parking lots in bars, what would
actually happen is that everyone would park somewhere else
(on the street or in the parking lots of other buisnesses)
and a /lot/ of people will be pissed about that. second, you
completely ignore the possibility that some people can drink
responsibly with regard to vehicles (designated drivers, taxi if
they drank more than they planned, or waiting a suitable amount
of time to sober up).

Re:laws

[Anthony Boyd]

Here is my problem with the ten commandments- why exactly are there 10?

You simply do not need ten.

In the New Testament, Jesus condensed them all down to one: act only out of love.

Re:laws

[squiggleslash]

That's a stupid arguement. The people shouldn't be driving drunk, plain and simple. It shouldn't hurt restaurants at all because people should be doing the right thing already.

Let me get this straight. You're saying that if someone has a drink with their meal, they'll be drunk when they leave the restaurant? And that if a group of people have a meal, one person doesn't drink, and he or she drives the rest home, he or she is a drunk driver?

Because both of those scenarios are far more common than someone drinking fifteen pints of vodka in a restaurant, staggering to their car, and then driving home the wrong way up the interstate.

What restaurants do you go to where everyone who drinks leaves drunk?

Re:laws

[macdaddy]

I've always wanted to give Austrailia a try. I hear it's nice there and the woman are real women, not Malibu Beach Barbies.

Re:laws

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

0.018? That is less than 0.02 which means even under many states "zero" tolerance laws (i.e. for those under 21) it would still be legal! They add that wiggle room so things like mouthwash, etc won't get you convicted.

So if you ever did get a DUI ticket with that BAC (you can get an under the limit DUI) you could easily in many states (including Nevada) claim that is a reading which the legislature intended to be interpreted as zero.

This is not legal advice.

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

I find that hard to believe because there'd be double-sarcasm involved. Read the last line and see if you really believe the law he proposes is being proposed sarcasticly.

Re:laws

[Flamingcheeze]

"If you can't trust the governments of the world, then who can you trust?" -Yahoo Serious, "Young Einstein"

Re:laws

[Shakrai]

So if you ever did get a DUI ticket with that BAC (you can get an under the limit DUI) you could easily in many states (including Nevada) claim that is a reading which the legislature intended to be interpreted as zero.

I wasn't charged with anything. I was pointing out the humiliation of being forced to blow into a plastic tube (i.e.: guilty until proven innocent) because I had two drinks over four hours ago. Enforcement of DWI laws is getting out of hand when I can be pulled over merely for leaving a parking lot that is sometimes used by a bar and forced to give evidence against myself. The first two times I was pulled over I hadn't been drinking at all! Yet I was instantly asked "Have you been drinking tonight sir?" I regard that as a personal insult.

What's next? Are they going to round up all the adult males within a two mile radius of a sexual assault and force them to give DNA samples? If they attempted this there would be outcry -- yet they do the same thing with DWI laws on a daily basis and nobody says anything.

0.018? That is less than 0.02 which means even under many states "zero" tolerance laws (i.e. for those under 21)

That's another rant. I love how I can be drafted into military service if Congress deems it necessary at 18 yet I can't touch booze until I'm 21. I have a constitutionally protected right to vote at 18 but I can't drink. You can't have it both ways people -- either I can't be drafted, vote, forced to pay taxes, or be charged as an adult until I'm 21 or I can drink at 18.

There's other problems as other posters have pointed out too. How about being charged with public intoxication if you are walking home drunk? I love that one -- damned if you do damned if you don't. Why should I be forced to get a ride with friends or take a taxi if my house is within walking distance -- as long as I'm not being loud or obnoxious?

Politicians love doing anything that looks like they are fighting DWI because it scores them cheap political points. Whose going to stand up and defend drunks anyway? Hell it's an election year after all...

Re:laws

[Feelvoid]

You make a good point about the fifth amendment, but...

I can't understand how your words are supposed to accomplish anything in that situation. What can the cop do about it? He/she only enforces the laws.

Talk to the lawyers/politicians/rich people/critical-mass-of-choice who can do something about this.

But yes, I would get as mad as you did.

Re:laws

[acsinc]

What good is a government that doesn't serve the people?

I think you missed the point. Refer to JFK "Ask not what your country can do for.." ring a bell?

The government's job is to serve the people by protecting thier rights. You have a right to not be mauled by a drunk driver, you also have a right to not be harrased by the government - espeically if your inocent. This breathilizer in the car is harrasment. And mandating breathilizers in bars does not serve the people's rights, it only servers higher taxes.

Re:laws

[DAldredge]

One can not look at the total of human histroy and say it is not a natural activity for humans to kill each other...

Re:laws

[Shakrai]

I can't understand how your words are supposed to accomplish anything in that situation. What can the cop do about it? He/she only enforces the laws.

No, the cop in that situation broke the laws he was supposed to be enforcing.

A) Pulls me over without reason (loud muffler on a brand new car? Give me a break -- he never had the balls to actually write that ticket)
B) Asks if I have been engaging in illegal activity with no cause to suspect I have.

If a cop pulls someone over because they happen to be Black and are driving a nice car that's called racial profiling and there would be an outcry. Why isn't it profiling for them to sit outside the bar parking lot and randomly pull people over who are obeying every rule of the road -- or follow them for ten miles until they commit some sort of minor traffic infraction (failure to signal, 5 miles over the limit, etc) that we all do on a day to day basis? Cops aren't allowed to follow me around K-Mart waiting to see if I'm going to shoplift.

Talk to the lawyers/politicians/rich people/critical-mass-of-choice who can do something about this.

Nobody is going to a damn thing about it -- call me cynical. MADD has too much lobbying power. Sooner or later it'll get to the point where it's a felony to drive if you have ANY measurable BAC. If my state refuses to adopt it they will lobby the Federal government to withhold our highway funds.

Meanwhile the Nanny-state and big-brother get bigger and bigger and harder to stop. Nobody cares, because how can stopping DWI's be a bad thing?

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, then you should be ecstatic since education spending has increased 47% under this president.

Re:laws

[iamhassi]

" If you have the keys and are in the car, you've demonstrated your intention to drive. If you're planning on having too much to drink to drive, take a cab to the bar/party/etc. so there's no issue."

Believe it or not, not everyone knows ahead of time they're going to get drunk. Yes, I know, shocking isn't it! Here's another shocker: some drunk drivers don't even know they're over the legal limit!

so sherlock, what are you suppose to do when the bar closes, you stumble out to your car and realize you're too drunk to drive? Oh right, find a payphone, except many phone companies are closing payphones because lots of people are using cellphones.

So there you are, drunk, standing in front of your car, don't have a cellphone and can't find a payphone. What would you do? Sleep on the sidewalk? That's bullshit. If someone wants to sleep it off in their car then the police shouldn't bother them. Arresting people for sleeping in there car and calling it drunk driving actually encourages "real" drunk driving. I mean what do you have to lose? If you're charged with the same crime either way then you might as well try a mad dash home and hope you don't kill anyone on the way home, right?

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

How good is a 0.19? I've done that.

Re:laws

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Insurance rates aren't set by law, they are set by private companies using actuaries to maximize their profits.

It is in the financial best interest to be as "fair" in assigning extra premiums for risk as possible. Fair as in who to penalize, not fair as in being nice. They'll do all the market will bear, it is the allocation I am talking about.

Giving a too low premium to one person and a too high premium to another will hurt the bottom line.

Re:laws

[sabNetwork]

Yeah. Unfortunately. :)

--

Re:laws

[DrugCheese]

You forgot one important thing.

That's sensible

We have an unwritten law about common sense and it's use in our government affairs.

Doesn't make sense does it?

Exactly!

Re:laws

[lambadomy]

A very large percentage of them (at least at the federal level) are already rich before they become senators, making the 154k salary a moot point.

Re:laws

[freeweed]

You're right. Everyone should be exactly equal, regardless of effort put into life. Regardless of who does the work, we should divvy out the spoils equally.

If I choose to never do anything productive, I should still be entitled to the exact same standard of living as you. You should give me your new car every second day of the week. Your house? You should allow me to live there. Your computer? Sorry, I can't afford one, so neither should you be able to. We should both get a cheaper model so that I don't feel inferior to you. Me me me.

See, going to ridiculous extremes works both ways, and is.. well, ridiculous. Any have/have-not disparity always comes down to ME. The haves want what they have, and the have-nots want it also.

Re:laws

[TechnoLust]

That's why when you get your ABC license, you have to learn how to notice people who are intoxicated when they come in, and most restaurants have a maximum number of drinks they will serve someone.

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

...as well as random 'rolling retests' to discourage others from taking the test for you. These rolling retests require the driver to take the test as the car is moving.

The government is actively trying to prevent drivers from using their cell phones when driving because it is too distracting. How many people are going to be involved in accidents when they are taking these "rolling test"? I suppose if they do get in an accident because of the "rolling test", they can sue the government.

Re:laws

[QuantumFTL]

Look at the way we tried to circumvent basic rights in this country by declaring people "enemy combatants".

I really don't agree with a lot of what this government (and the last, and the last) have been doing, however I'm really tired of people making a big deal about this "enemy combatant" thing. The people that everyone was whining about not being granted "Prisoner of War" status do not fit the definition of POW in Article IV of the Geneva Convention. The convention states that they must either be a regular member of official armed forces, or fufill all the following conditions:

• (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
• (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
• (c) That of carrying arms openly;
• (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

The people that were being detained, terrorist or not, do not fit that definition. To grant them that legal status would be to dilute its meaning. POW is a very specific legal term and I do not see anything wrong with this administration refusing to use it.

Of course there are issues with how the people in Cuba were treated, no matter who they were.

Our constitution is very clear on what rights of our citizens may not be abridged, however I do not believe it grants those same rights to foreign criminals. Maybe it should however these "basic rights" aren't protected the same way as they are for US citizens.

Why do we need special exceptions for different types of criminals?

Most criminals don't try to kill 40000 people at once. Most criminals are interested in making money or getting personal revenge, not on causing destruction on a scale that could reach millions. Terrorists are not simple criminals, they are enemies of the state that operate in a psuedo-warlike fashion, and should be treated as such.

I do agree that governments in general tend to expand their powers when possible. Our constitution is designed to prevent things like this however it's often not properly applied. However it's also clear that our democratic system of government has been very successful at recovering from power-madness... Look at things like the Sedition Act that are no longer around... the Patriot Act wouldn't have flown without the terrorism, and eventually when things settle down in the world laws like that will be re-examined.

If the law isn't enforced or renewed, it dies - NO EXCEPTIONS. I agree that it'd be great to have manditory renewals on laws, however there are a multitude of problems with this:

• The amount of laws in this country is simply astounding. If Congress had to revist each and every one, we would have no time for passing new, more relevant laws.
• As the balance of power on Capital Hill changes, this will almost guarantee that the laws will fluctuate rapidly from election to election. Our government was set up to be slow and steady, not quick, radical, and flighty.
• Having many laws changing makes a lot of issues, and I don't just mean lawyers being stuck up late at night. It's already difficult to expect people to know the laws they are bound by, and changing them constantly will make this almost impossible. Not to mention the cost to businessees who have to change wordings in contracts or business practices all the time. Businesses happen to have this great habit of passing costs to the consumers. This sounds bad for everyone.
• Also I think that having laws being temporary by nature encourages them to be more radical, which gives us thigns like the Patriot Act.
• As of right now the public already has a way to strike down laws that are terrible: constitutional amendment. 3/4ths of state conventions on an amendment is what is required according to the constitution, and if a law is really so hideous as to offend the entire population they will be quickly struck down

Re:laws

[Analogy Man]

You see, I deserve to be richer, smarter, better-looking, safer, better-fed, and healthier than anyone else. Me me me.

You forgot more sex with hotter women in there, but maybe that comes with the richer/better-looking in a package deal...I wouldn't know.

Re:laws

[RESPAWN]

Here would be a good law for everyone:

Ban parking lots at establishments that serve alcohol. With the new blood-alcohol limits, it doesn't take much to put an average human over the limit. Having a parking lot at a bar is like being an accessory to the crime.

Nice troll. Becuase, of course nobody ever has a designated driver when they go to establishments that server alcohol. Or conversely, everybody who goes to an establishment that serves alcohol is going to drink.

Hell, about 70% of the time I go out to eat with friends somwhere that serves alcohol, I order a beer. The other times, I'm the one who's driving. You fail to consider the fact that some people are indeed responsible and that not everybody who goes to some establishments (restaurants especially) is going to drink alcohol just because it's there.

Your proposition makes about as much sense as this law that was passed. In other words, it makes no sense and merely passes the blame/cost on to others.

Furthermore, I wonder if any of those who passed this law have thought about the distraction this thing will cause for the driver when requiring a rolling test. This law in effect punishes the majority of the population that doesn't drink and drive instead of the minority who does.

What's really called for is tougher penalties for DUIs, but politicians never seemed inclined to pass laws like that. I have no idea why.

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

If more severe punishments were in place sooner, McCain would be pres. or Bush would have had his DWI covered up. (DWI became a felony after he got one--and a pres is not allowed to have a felony)

And the world would be a better place to boot!

Re:laws

[ryanwright]

I'm sorry, this is a totally off-topic post, but I love your attitude. You remind me of, well, me. I'm adding you to my friends list. It's not a great feat or anything, but there you have it.

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

'these past four years' includes both the Bush and Clinton administrations. Care to clean up your point a bit? Thanks.

Re:laws

[Mr. Underbridge]

The analogy is what's stupid. A server at a restaurant with no public transporation who serves someone 10 scotches and who came alone is like a hardware store selling a piece of pipe, a handful of nails and a stick of dynamite to someone.

Shocking as it may seem, most people at restaurants who consume any alcohol do NOT become intoxicated! I don't want to forgo my right to have a glass of wine with my dinner because some moron has 10.

His analogy is fine, and the point is that most hardware stores and most restaurants will not engage in such behavior. And if they do, punish them. But don't punish me, because I didn't do anything.

Indeed, I think there is a lot of room to increase the penalties for drunk driving in the US, as they're moronically low. Perhaps we can start there before we start Prohibition again, or requiring idiotic, intrusive, and potentially dangerous systems in cars (imagine if they fail and your car starts doing that all the time?)

Re:laws

[DrugCheese]

You got my vote.

Re:laws

[jpallas]

Why am I required to give evidence against myself if I get pulled over?
...we don't check our civil rights every time we climb into an automobile.

Yes we do. You waived your fifth amendment right against self-incrimination when you requested the privilege of piloting a ton of steel at sixty miles an hour on roads shared with other drivers. If you didn't understand what you were signing and want to change your mind, I'm sure the state will be happy to exchange your driving license for a non-driving photo ID.

And maybe you should ask yourself exactly why it is that you've been pulled over three times and asked if you've been drinking. Is there something about your sober driving that resembles other people's drunk driving?

Re:laws

[Magic5Ball]

Meanwhile the Nanny-state and big-brother get bigger and bigger and harder to stop. Nobody cares, because how can stopping DWI's be a bad thing?

Things you can do:
- Encourage supporters of this device to install them in their cars before the law is enacted. They shouldn't object since it's such a good idea for everyone.
- Why shouldn't they field-test these things in all government-owned vehicles, including all city, state, and emergency vehicles. (Insert argument about how you must not be drunk when driving as a citizen and how government employees shouldn't be carved out.) After all, if it shouldn't inconvienience private citizens, it shouldn't inconvienience public officials and their employees.
- Undue hardship is your friend. People with asthma and other respiratory conditions should get carve outs.
- Point out that devoting random 30 second spans to re-blow is as dangerous as devoting random 30 second spans to doing anything but paying full attention to driving. If this argument fails, it could have the side-effect of taking out many of the cell-phone-distraction arguments.

-M5B

Re:laws

[buysse]

I believe that you missed the distinct aroma of sarcasm.

Re:laws

[3terrabyte]

DWI is not a felony for first time offenses in most states (if not all states).

Speaking from experience, unfortunately. At least I learned my lesson.

Re:laws

[crawling_chaos]

And people have rights because they have them (our constitutional form of government is a product of natural law), not because a government grants them.

It's really easy to "win" an argument when you define your conclusion as an axiom. I'll need more convincing that the right to keep and bear arms decends from a natural law. Last I checked, it wasn't the Fourth Law of Thermodynamics or anything like that.

Re:laws

[kamog]

Last time I checked, New Mexico was not subordinate to Arizona legislature. snicker

The New Mexican idiocy is actually bipartizan, with greater responsibility to be put on the "Democrats" (the corrupt cronyist political prostitutes in the NM state legislature make a travesty of the name). The grandparent post, however, correctly identified the mechanisms underlying the acceptance of apparently idiotic bills as the means to extract $$.

Re:laws

[ichimunki]

What's next?

What's next is that you go back and reread what I wrote in context (not to mention my follow-up) and stop accusing me of not taking responsibility for myself or promoting a "nanny-state". I clearly stated the punishments needed to go on the drivers and not everyone else.

Re:laws

[ichimunki]

Let people drink. Let people be responsible for their own actions. If someone drinks and drives, book'em, but leave the rest of us alone.

Uh, that's what I said. Please read what I wrote again. The restaurant comment had a context and was an inelegant phrasing (the person was trying to excuse restaurants as though no one ever drove home drunk after dinner, I was countering that). I was not intending to indict the restaurant in any way as I think the remainder of my comment clearly shows.

Re:laws

[mOdQuArK!]

Most criminals don't try to kill 40000 people at once.

Yeah, that kind of death is usually reserved for large-scale military operations (or nuclear war).

Re:laws

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Well, thanks to the Internet, I'm now bored with sex. Is there a place on the web that panders to my lust for violence?

Did you try www.army.mil? :)

Re:laws

[3terrabyte]

Being charged with a DWI is not a life ending event. And it isn't a felony.

Each state is different, but there isn't any state where first time offenses involves a felony. There are a few states that will throw you in the slammer overnight, but it's not a felony.

This is quoted from Virginia...

"A first time offense of adult DWI is a Class I Misdemeanor, punishable in Virginia by a fine of up to $2500 and up to one year in jail. Additionally, the convicted person loses their driver's license for one full year, but may be eligible for a restricted license.

Second offenses are more severe and a third offense may be charged as a felony. In certain cases of a very high blood alcohol level, the law mandates a jail sentence even for first time offenders."

Re:laws

[weatherbee]

Am I the only one that thinks as evil as Drunk Driving is (I nearly lost my sister to a Drunk Driver) we are giving away too many civil liberties over it?

No, you're not the only one. And to return to the topic of laws and there being too many of them... why do we need separate offenses to cover all these "risk" situations anyway? Just have one offense: reckless driving. Doesn't matter if you're drunk, tired, angry, distracted, senile, having sex or yammering on a cell phone... if you are observed driving recklessly, or cause an accident thereby, you get the reckless driving punishment, which should be harsh for ALL such offenders, not just the drunk drivers. The offense ought to be the recklessness, not the alleged "cause" of the recklessness. Attempts to legislate behavior like that, it's like micromanaging people's lives, and leads to unnecessary intrusions like roadblocks, breath tests etc.

It is a dangerous world. No amount of laws will make it safe.

Re:laws

[Dun Malg]

Agreed. I believe in California, you can get a DUI when the officer wakes you up from sleeping on the back seat while the keys are 'under your control'.

Cripes, I'm living here in Los Angeles and *I* didn't know that. It's pretty crappy law if someone acting in a reasonable and prudent manner can be arrested for a crime based on their potential to commit that crime. Good thing I don't drink anywhere but home.

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

People with asthma and other respiratory conditions should get carve outs.

Actually, those asthma inhalers can make you fail the breathalizer tests.

Re:laws

[Shakrai]

Yes we do. You waived your fifth amendment right against self-incrimination when you requested the privilege of piloting a ton of steel at sixty miles an hour on roads shared with other drivers. If you didn't understand what you were signing and want to change your mind, I'm sure the state will be happy to exchange your driving license for a non-driving photo ID.

Sorry, but in the United States of America driving is not a privilege -- it is a right. My job is 18 miles away -- I have no means of getting there with mass transit -- a taxi would cost me $20 each way. I can't have a life unless I have a car. That's a true statement for any American unless they live in a large city.

They shouldn't be able to make you sign away your rights to get something as essential as a drivers license -- or anything else for that matter. What's next? Mandatory finger-printing to get a license? DNA sample? What happened to presumption of innocence?

Owning a computer with a broadband connection isn't exactly in the bill of rights either but I don't recall the Government being able to force you to turn over your Hard Drive for examation with the implied threat of losing your right to access the Internet if you refuse.

And maybe you should ask yourself exactly why it is that you've been pulled over three times and asked if you've been drinking. Is there something about your sober driving that resembles other people's drunk driving?

Yes, twice I was pulled over for my "load muffler" (note: they never actually ticketed me) and the other time I was pulled for not coming to a complete stop before executing my right-on-red (didn't ticket me that time either). If these examples were so dangerous to society why didn't they actually write the ticket? It was obviously a pull-over just to see if I was drunk. Hello? Probable cause people? Does my supposed load muffler automatically make me suspect for driving under the influence?

As an aside I did get pulled over coming out of a bar once after two drinks (in a five hour period -- got there at 7pm and left at midnight) for executing an illegal u-turn. I was ticketed for this and the officer never asked me if I had been drinking. I have no right to complain about that -- I did violate the traffic law.

I do have the right to complain about bullshit pullovers where they can't substantiate anything, random roadblocks (police state anyone?) and being presumed guilty until I prove myself innocent.

Perhaps you are willing to sign away your rights under the illusion that it makes you safer. I'm not.

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

You're supposed to be bright enough to know how much alcohol it takes to make you drunk. That's why the drinking age in the US is 21; the assumption is that anyone over 21 is smart enough to know how much is too much. Apparently you're not mature enough to figure that one out (or to have a cellphone).

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

>Insurance rates aren't set by law, they are set by private companies using actuaries to maximize their profits.

I'm not disagreeing, it's simply that Ontario is well known to have insanely screwed up insurance rates (this comes from Ontario being a "no-fault" insurance province).

Also ontario has a "No Dispute Clause" written into the auto insurance act. That simply means that if someone gets ahold of your insurance info, wether legally or illegally, they can enter claims against you, even for places you weren't at, or couldn't be at, and there's absolutely no way you can tell your side to the other insurance company. Your only recourse is to sue the offending party for libel. To really bring you to your knees, there's no law requiring their insurance company to send a copy of the claim against you to you, meaning you can be "submarine bombed" with an insurance claim after the 8 months within which you should sue the other party. (This is what happened with claim #1, we gave up, cost of a lawyer to fix it is just not worth the cost involved).

It's quite insane, really. And it's no wonder insurers are losing money with a swiss cheese act like that.

>Fair as in who to penalize, not fair as in being nice.

I didn't say I never expected my insurance rates not to go up. However, "fair" isn't $7,500 a year for five years (they did lower it to $4,000 when the competitors stated they'd do it for $3,500. Then they lied and said I had a police record as an exucse for the inexscusable $7,500 rate -- they retracted that quickly when I had the entire police collision reporting station bewlidered and asking the insurance company what the hell the record number supposedly was -- according to the police, I basically don't even exist, I'm not on a single record book there). Especially when the damages total under $350.

Of course, again, this is due to Ontario having such screwed up insurance. I will place some blame on companies that lie, though (AVIVA, suck it, I have your Manager *taped* explaining her lie on the telephone message recorder -- have a fun time suing me ;-P ).

(BTW: Even a single no-cost accident will cost that much. I checked on kanetix, it's crazy here. No, I'm over 25, and I drive a shitbox.)

Rant over. :-)

Re:laws

[Shakrai]

Doesn't matter if you're drunk, tired, angry, distracted, senile, having sex or yammering on a cell phone... if you are observed driving recklessly, or cause an accident thereby, you get the reckless driving punishment, which should be harsh for ALL such offenders, not just the drunk drivers.

But then you wouldn't have the cash cow for the state in being able to fine people who are using their cell phones without being the least bit distracted or dangerous. And the politicians wouldn't be able to score cheap points by banning something that isn't dangerous in most situations but nonetheless annoys most people. If I can't talk on my cell phone why can you smoke your cigarette or eat your Big Mac?

Maybe if the cops were busy looking for the real drunk drivers (swerving all over the road -- I've seen this so many times it's not funny but they always get away with it) instead of harassing responsible people who had two or three drunks, are using a cell phone or god forbid aren't wearing a seat belt (if I choose to place my own life in danger why should the Government tell me I can't?) we'd have a lot less fatalities on the road. Of course then the state wouldn't rake in as much money in traffic fines -- call me a cynic.

Re:laws

[3terrabyte]

My DUI/DWI cost me $900 in fines, a 24-hour class on Drinking, Driving, Drinking & Driving, loss of license for 7 months, and a negligible increase in insurance.....after I got my license back.

However, there was no car accident. I am not sure what would happened if that had been the case. Thank God for that.

So it seems like a wrist slap to me, although it was enough for me to wake up and smell the common sense. While taking the class, we talked about a case that was hitting the newspaper: A Lawyer had just hit and killed a 4 year-old in our city. Not only was he drunk, it had been his FOURTH DWI conviction! :(

It is times like that you wonder what the hell they were thinking when he was convicted the 3rd time.

Also during this class, I listened to others talk about working at gas stations and being offered $20 to go blow in some guy's car that had been rigged up with a analyzer.

Re:laws

[squiggleslash]

I am the author of the comment on restaurants, and I stand by my comments! Your phrase "the person was trying to excuse restaurants as though no one ever drove home drunk after dinner, I was countering that" directly contradicts the notion that you were advocating people taking responsibility for their own actions ("excuse" restaurants? If I'm "excusing them" and you're saying I'm in the wrong, then by implication you're assigning them some sort of responsibility, right?) Nor was it terribly relevent to begin with: whether some people leave restaurants drunk and subsequently drive or not has little to do with the fact that the vast majority do not, that restaurants legitimately sell alcohol, and that banning them from doing so would cause substantial damage to their businesses.

If you really meant to write that you agreed with me that banning restaurants from selling alcohol was a bad idea, "inelegant phrasing" doesn't begin to describe the comment... ;-)

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

...maybe because the "fundamentalist Christian constituency" doesn't think the government has to solve all of the social programs of the nation -- that maybe, just maybe, actual Christian/religious organizations can help people more efficiently and effectively than the government.

Maybe because the "Golden Rule and the admonishment to help those less fortunate" are personal ethics that don't give insight into government policy.

Maybe because the Bible itself doesn't talk about socialism or capitalism or any sort of government/economic concept.

Re:laws

[Muad'Dave]

With your sig, I'd expect that you and Australia wouldn't see eye-to-eye on private firearm ownership.

For the record, I agree wholeheartedly with your sig.

Re:laws

[terrymr]

The feds take the view that it's an aggravated felony which would bar an immigrant from ever gaining citizenship and may lead to them being deported. Even though most states don't charge it as a felony.

Re:laws

[Shakrai]

This is quoted from Virginia...

That ignores the several thousand dollars worth of legal fees and lost wages that you will be subjected to. It also ignores the fact that your Insurance is likely going to skyrocket (I've seen it go up as much as 8 times over DWIs) for the next however many years depending on your state (they can surcharge you for up to 10 years in mine) and you'll probably lose your job over it.

but there isn't any state where first time offenses involves a felony.

Are you implying it should be a felony? If I'm pulled over before I hurt anyone and I made an honest mistake (it happens) I should be charged as a felon? If I do hurt someone then I will be charged as a felon in all likelihood -- vehicular assault or manslaughter come to mind.

The punishment needs to be in line with the crime. Tossing some poor John Q. Public guy into state prison for two years, taking away his children, giving him a felony record and ruining his life because he was as little as 0.001% on the wrong side of 0.08% isn't going to solve any problems. If anything it's going to create them.

Re:laws

[PW2]

I see that you noticed the sarcasm wafting about but couldn't quite place where it was coming from.

Re:laws

[3terrabyte]

"Are you implying it should be a felony? "

No, I read your post and a few around it. Someone else must have said it was a felony... which it's not. I was just correcting them. Sorry I thought it was you.

But you did say this:

"Umm being found guilty of DWI is a life-destroying event. It will cost you at least ten years of your life. You are going to lose your license -- there's a good chance you will lose your job"

Which just isn't true.
You must be talking about what happens the 2nd or 3rd time when it IS a felony. Or when someone is killed.

If there was no accident, and it's the first offense, then it's just most likely the most expensive misdemeanor in the world. The car insurance hardly went up.

Re:laws

[mirio]

You see, I deserve to be richer, smarter, better-looking, safer, better-fed, and healthier than anyone else. Me me me.

If I work harder than you at the above-mentioned things, you're exactly right! I do deserve more.

(BTW, please don't ask how we satisfy our fundamentalist Christian constituency while at the same time enacting laws that go against the most basic tenets of the Judeo-Christian ethic: the Golden Rule and the admonishment to help those less fortunate...we can't figure it out either!)

Stating that people should be responsible for their own needs to the best of their ability is *not* admonishing someone! This country is incredible and almost anyone can and has made a success out of themselves with hard work. How do you think we have *so* many immigrants in this country that come here and open up gas stations, restaurants, etc and are all successful? It's because they work hard and build something with their own two hands. They do it by working 14 hours a day so they don't have to hire help to run their businesses. The fact is that people want to live a good life and not have to work for it. Why do you think so many people who are poor will go and pay so much money on the lottery a month when they could take that same amount of money, drop it in an IRA and actually have something to show for it after a few years? It goes back to that smarter thing you were talking about earlier.

As far as the bitch slap about the fundamentalist Christian mess, you could make the same argument about liberals. Liberals (from my observations) believe anyone with Christian religious beliefs is obviously an ignorant, inbred hick while Muslims are simply misunderstood (I have nothing against Muslims, there just seems to be a double standard). They believe all politicians should denounce any belief in God.

Oh yeah, our (God forbid) fundamentalist Christian beliefs tell us that we should provide for our families and not wait around for someone else to do it for us with money stolen from those who are actually working.

People who are poor have obviously screwed up something in their lives. Don't give me this crap about people's circumstances being different. I don't believe it. I was born in a house in the middle of the North Georgia without electricity. My parents could hardly read. I put myself through college with student loans (available to anyone who didn't wreck their credit at age 18). I didn't have the grades in high school to get into a decent school so I started out at the local community college and eventually brought my grades up to the point that I was accepted (after 4 rejections) to Georgia Tech. I gradated there in 99 with a CS degree. Don't talk to me about poor people. I'm probably more qualified on the subject than most.

It's all about hard work and accountability for one's own actions.

For the life of me, the one thing I can't understand is why liberals continuously complain about government, call it evil and burn it's symbols, yet continue to give that government more power by surrendering more money to it.

Re:laws

[wirelessbuzzers]

That's another rant. I love how I can be drafted into military service if Congress deems it necessary at 18 yet I can't touch booze until I'm 21.

You can drink at 18 with a military ID.

Re:laws

[ichimunki]

You're right. The phrasing was horrible because I certainly don't want to see restaurants barred from selling. I was reacting in part to something I incorrectly inferred about your original statement. My mistake and I'll just shut up before I dig myself in further. :)

Re:laws

[jcoleman]

How do you explain "faith-based initiatives," then? And exactly how does that sit with the separation of church and state? And if you think the fundamentalist Christian constituency doesn't want government solving social problems, you'd better think again. Examples, you say? How about the drug war? What about decency on the airwaves? That's just two, I'm sure if I thought hard enough I could go on.

This is the thing about conservatives. You say you want markets to solve everything, but then you start passing all these laws that attempt to legislate morality. I don't buy it.

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

You sir, is why I browse at +5, flamebait. Your second paragraph is awesome. Of course I found out a long time ago that the only mods more insane than mac mods are the gun nuts that prowl on these forums.

Re:laws

[jcoleman]

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHA

hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaa hahahahahahahahahah

Sorry, that's about all I can think of. If you mean funding for people who want to send their kids to private school, maybe you are right. What publications are you getting this from, exactly? Jeez, they really have you fooled.

Re:laws

[Tackhead]

> BTW, please don't ask how we satisfy our fundamentalist Christian constituency while at the same time enacting laws that go against the most basic tenets of the Judeo-Christian ethic: the Golden Rule and the admonishment to help those less fortunate...we can't figure it out either!

I'll bite.

But doesn't the Golden Rule say "Do unto others as you would have them to unto you" and/or "Love thy neighbor as thyself"?

On the first part of that, Christ may have said to pay your taxes -- to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" -- but he sure as hell didn't say "Petition Caesar that he rob Peter to pay Paul." The Biblical stance on charity is that it's only a good deed when you're voluntarily putting your own money down in the name of your spiritual convictions lie.

And what if all I want from my neighbor to be doing unto me is to be letting me live my life free from his meddling interference?

And as for the second part, I really don't think God intends that I be jerking my neighbor off. Coveting my neighbor's ass is also off the list. Coveting his wife? Also out. Doesn't say nuthin' about coveting my neighbor's wife's ass, though. (Woohoo! God is merciful!)

Re:laws

[1029]

Why let "basic issues" be exempt? This only causes more problems when you think about it. What is a "basic issue?" See, that definition would simply get expanded every session, until most laws were covered one way or another.

Simply let the laws expire. ALL of them. It isn't as though congress/senate won't renew the laws against murder/theft/etc... every 10 years. And the more time they spend on upkeep of the core laws that really do help out society, the less time they have to pass their bullshit pet projects.

These people are lawmakers, that is their mindset. Give them free time and they will do just that, make laws. I say sunset everything and only let them stay in session for about a month or two per year. That should cut down on the special interest BS immensly.

Re:laws

[Pulse_Instance]

I do think it should be a felony. Where I live, Alberta, our laws don't allow you to have one drink there is no tolerance, if you are caught your license is taken away and you can't drive for over a year no matter what. There are large fines and they try as hard as possbile to destroy your life. Everyone knows how dangerous drinking and driving is, you can not blame it on forgetting, if you have alcohol DO NOT DRIVE.

Re:laws

[umeboshi]

Don't forget that you requested a privilege from the governement, which implies your consent to privileged treatment.

Re:laws

[Shakrai]

You can drink at 18 with a military ID.

On-base perhaps -- not in normal establishments. And that's not the point. How nice of them to allow me to drink after they draft me.

The point is that an 18-20 something kid is obligated to pay taxes and be tried as an adult if they commit a crime -- yet they can't legally drink. If you are male you are forced to register with selective service -- yet you can't drink.

At 18 years old you can vote, drive, smoke cigarettes, enter into legal agreements, join the service, buy/view pornographic materials or shows, borrow money on credit, consent to sex, adopt a child, consent to surgery, appoint someone as your power of attorney, change your name, renounce your American citizenship, move to another state or country, etc etc etc etc.

The state has no right to tell me I can do all of these things, obligate me to register for military service, treat me like an adult (i.e: charge me with a crime and send me through the adult legal system), yet tell me that I can't legally drink a toast if my sister announces that she is engaged.

Something is wrong with that picture.

Re:laws

[Maestro4k]

• What's next? Are they going to round up all the adult males within a two mile radius of a sexual assault and force them to give DNA samples? If they attempted this there would be outcry -- yet they do the same thing with DWI laws on a daily basis and nobody says anything.

Oh but they want to! I know a few states have tried to pass laws allowing this, I don't think any have succeeded -- yet. Give them time, they'll get it passed somewhere. What will happen then? There will be public outcry, but the proponents of the law will just accuse those complaining of supporting rape and sexual assault. Hard to win the battle, let alone the war, when you're been branded like that.

And that's the problem. We have to face it, we're no longer ruled by a democracy, it's whoever can shout the loudest and make the opponent look the worst that wins. Whether or not their stand has merit from any standpoint, they'll still win.

Re:laws

[Shakrai]

If there was no accident, and it's the first offense, then it's just most likely the most expensive misdemeanor in the world. The car insurance hardly went up.

Then your very lucky or your insurance company didn't find out about it. Who can say?

I don't see a problem with it being a really expensive misdemeanor on even the third or forth offense. In reality it's nothing more then a traffic violation. If you do hurt/kill someone there are existing laws that will punish you appropriately. Ditto with speeding. If I get caught doing 85mph in a 55mph zone it's a huge fine and my insurance will go up -- if I kill someone doing 85mph in a 55mph zone then I'm guilty of reckless driving and negligent homicide.

What's wrong with enforcing the laws we have or coming up with ones that make more sense? I.e: treatment for repeat offenders since locking them away obviously doesn't fix things.

Re:laws

[jcoleman]

(to repliers: he got the sarcasm but missed the point)

I don't think I mentioned "effort put into life."

And everyone *should* be equal when it comes to such basic things as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Everyone should have an equal right to the same quality of education. They should have an equal right to the same quality of healthcare. Everyone should have an equal right to basic nutrition and basic shelter.

I am perfectly fine with the old adage, "the world needs ditchdiggers too." I just happen to think that everyone deserves an equal chance. Oddly enough, the founders of our country thought the same thing, and most religious leaders do as well. Perhaps the conservatives/Republicans would do well to listen in church rather than preach in office.

If you want to sit on your ass and not work, that's fine. You have that right. What *I* do not have the (God-given or otherwise) right to do, is sit and watch while you have your right to live that life taken away because you don't have enough money or education to stay alive.

While we're at it, let's talk about the difference between killing unborn babies in a clinical setting and killing the mentally disabled in a prison setting, shall we?

The Republican platform is so full of contradictions that I'm surprised it hasn't fallen from power already. You can bet money that it will this November, though.

Re:laws

[1029]

Lol, yep 10 does just sound more official and legitimate. Same reason the AWB limits magazine capacity to 10 rounds. Why not 9? Why not 11? Why the hell not 5 or 20 or 30? I mean if they really thought lowering magazine capacity would save lives for every round removed, then 9 means 1 less person gets killed then 10, right?

So is the government actually saying that losing 10 people is ok, but 11 isn't? Of course not! Its just that 10 sounded good and legitimate and understandable (from an anti point of view), so that is what got picked. But just don't get caught with a post-1994 11 round magazine, because then you are a menace to society!

Re:laws

[Whafro]

most of the silly laws to which these posters are referring are passed at the state and local level, where salaries and prior riches are rarely an issue.

and remember, if you don't like career politicians, then you're going to get people who have enough money to get into the race without a political resume. you get what you ask for...

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but I hate hearing what the government should "do for us". Arrrrrggggghhhhh!!!!

Mr. Dean, is that you?

Re:laws

[fingusernames]

This is legal philosophy. You aren't going to be convinced by any argument I may make. You believe what you choose to believe. If you believe that the rights of man are granted by other men/governments, then that is what you believe.

My double major in college was history, with a focus on US constitutional legal development, as well as ancient Rome. I've been studying this for a long, long time, both avocationally and in curricula, and what I write is based on that background.

Our legal system is based on the concept that the people are the sovereigns. We each are sovereign unto ourselves, and no man has more rights or power than any other man. We hold all power, and all rights, by default. That's just the way it works. You can disagree as to whether that is a valid legal philosophical precept, but that is the precept under which our founders operated, and it is the philosophical underpinning of our foundational legal system. We, the people, are the sovereigns, and we grant limited portions of our natural powers as sovereigns to our governments, through legal instruments: constitutions. The federal constitution proper, you will note, is a positive document. It positively grants powers to govenment. Its basis is that government has no power, whatsoever, until it is granted explicitly. The "bill of rights" then attempts to re-enforce that, by singling out particular areas of concern, and ending with the two amendments which explicitly state that *all* rights belong to the people, regardless of whether or not they are mentioned, and that all powers not explcitly granted to the federal government are reserved to the states, or the people.

If you do not accept that foundation, fine. But, it is what our legal system accepts, and has for the life of this republic. It gets chipped away at for political/social expediency, but it does remain. Legal realism has crept in... the Supremes have gone through different doctrines (Lochner anybody?) over time, and have actually begun to recover, fitfully, from the "revolution" of 1933 in the last decade or so. But the basis remains: the people are sovereign, they empower government, and they hold rights because they are people, not because they are granted by other people (governments).

This discussion could be about many other things just as easily. The right to free speech. The right to assembly. The right to property. The right to control one's own body. The right to freely practice religion. The right to remain silent. The right to not incriminate one's self. The right to sell Nazi trinkets on ebay. The right to possess pornography. The right to encrypt one's email. The right to not have the government embed RFID tags under our skin and track us. There is a very, very good reason that our federal constitution doesn't enumerate every last right a person should have, unlike some other forms of government: here, we are presumed to have all those rights which do not infringe on the rights of others. Our courts play referee. In something as polarized as the right to bear arms, something I presume you oppose, there is very, very little that could be said to change anybody's mind on either side. I wouldn't even bother the attempt. But I will defend the legal principles and philosophy which underpin our system of governance in the United States, and point out how the right to bear arms ties into it philosophically, in particular how it would have been considered in the foundational period. And back to the original topic, were the 2nd amendment to disappear entirely, how that philosophy and our legal heritage would quite easily still support a fundamental right of the people to bear arms. The 2nd amendment didn't make up the right. It just says it shouldn't be infringed.

Larry

Re:laws

[umeboshi]

-- Sorry, but in the United States of America driving is not a privilege -- it is a right.

-- Perhaps you are willing to sign away your rights under the illusion that it makes you safer. I'm not.

If you can't agree with what you have signed to, of what value is your signature. How can i trust you? You are either willing to sign away your rights, or make your agreement meaningless.

You have a more fundamental conflict between deciding if you value your rights more than your word, or vice-versa.

Then again, if you truly feel that driving in the USA is a right and not a privilege, why bother with licenses? Just drive. You have the right. Rights are not granted by the government, and also the government is supposed to be restricted from infringing your rights (except maybe a few of them and only through due process).

No, you stand in self conflict. You say one thing to us (the choir), and another to the government. You tell us that driving is a right. Yet you sign papers to the effect that driving is a privelege granted by the government. How is the government to know that driving is a right, when on the surface you agree with privilege?

Re:laws

[Oligonicella]

"Umm being found guilty of DWI is a life-destroying event. It will cost you at least ten years of your life. You are going to lose your license -- there's a good chance you will lose your job -- your Insurance rates are going to increase anywhere from 3x to 10x times depending on the state (I work for an insurance agency and I've seen policies go from $600 to $4,500 over DWI convictions), it'll be published in the paper, your friends are probably going to turn their backs on you and there's a good chance you'll be doing some jail time and/or paying pretty big fines."
What the hell world do you live in?
License, job -- bullsh*t.
Insurance -- fine.
Paper, friends turning backs, jail time -- Bull.

Re:laws

[24-bit Voxel]

I think its terribly funny when people do the whole reblican-democrat fighting. Im surprised you havent noticed that they are towing the same line anymore. Take a look at Clintons history, hes the best republican democrat that ever took office. Face it folks, the only reason two parties still exist is so you feel you have some control, but you dont.

Re:laws

[Lord_Dweomer]

"Sorry, but in the United States of America driving is not a privilege -- it is a right. My job is 18 miles away -- I have no means of getting there with mass transit -- a taxi would cost me $20 each way. I can't have a life unless I have a car. That's a true statement for any American unless they live in a large city."

While I completely agree with you on everything else from your story, I disagree with this point. While it SHOULD be a right, it CURRENTLY is not, it IS a privilege, so your statement is false. If you cannot get to your job without a car and there is no mass transit, there are things you can do to remedy it, such as move, or get a different job. There are no laws stating the government has to provide you with transportation to a job you chose to take, to and from a location you chose to live in.

Now, I don't mean that in an offensive tone and apologize if it came off like that, but your statement was flat out wrong.

Now, I do have a question relating to your story though. He threatened that you could lose your license if you didn't take the other tests. He was lying about the law. Is there any way you can take action against him for that? A police officer lying about the law is kind of a serious issue. And good for you for calling him on it. I can't believe he had the gall to take that kind of attitude with you AFTER he lied about the law, which is he sworn to uphold and protect. Did you at least file a complaint against him with his precinct?

And when he said that "don't let me catch you around here again" I would have responded, "Officer, with all due respect, I have every right to be around here, and don't appreciate the hostile tone you have taken with me when I have done nothing wrong."

Re:laws

[24-bit Voxel]

You cannot sign away a civil right. Point blank. Doesn't matter what you signed.

Re:laws

[westlake]

Sorry, but in the United States of America driving is not a privilege -- it is a right

There is no right to drive, as a teenager discovers when he fails his first road test, or his granddad, who had his license pulled while still in the early stages of Alzheimer's disease, or his uncle, a truck driver permanently sidelined after being diagnosed as an insulin-dependent diabetic.

I can't have a life unless I have a car.

Then move. You won't be the first person or the last forced to make that choice.

What's next? Mandatory finger-printing to get a license?

Already happening, kid.

What happened to presumption of innocence?

The presumption of innocence simply places the burden of proof on the prosecution in a criminal trial. Nothing more! Constitutionally, the state is well within it's rights to make relevant background checks and demand whatever proof of competence, identity, citizenship and age it thinks fit before granting you a license.

I do have the right to complain about bullshit pullovers where they can't substantiate anything, random roadblocks (police state anyone?) and being presumed guilty until I prove myself innocent.

Consent to random checks may be explict or implied in your request for a license. Random pullovers might also be considered a reasonable exercise of the state's police power, a minimal intrusion in exchange for a safer highway system---an argument likely to appeal strongly to a conservative majority within the Supreme Court.

Re:laws

[Elvisisdead]

Note to you: In Texas, you do have to give thumbprints to get a license. They also use it to do things like prevent AFDC fraud. I agree that they way you were treated was BS, though.

Re:laws

[tehdaemon]

"While I completely agree with you on everything else from your story, I disagree with this point. While it SHOULD be a right, it CURRENTLY is not, it IS a privilege, so your statement is false."

For anyone doubting the truth of this statement, look up the definition for 'licence'. it is permission to do what is otherwise illegal.

Since you do not need permission to excercise rights, if you need a licence (permission) to drive, then driving is not a right.

Re:laws

[swillden]

They make no effort to allow people to find out their BAC before getting in the car.

Why would anyone care what their BAC is? Obviously, they would care because they're interested in making sure they follow the letter of the law, without regard to whether or not they're impaired.

Here's a very simple solution: If you've had anything to drink, don't drive. How hard is that, anyway?

Re:laws

[Elvisisdead]

The federal government can't do something like that because of a little idea called federalism. There's a good article that explains what it is and what it means to you here.

But under a federal system, each state can establish its own rules, within reason, for how it wants to live. Mormons makeup a minority of Americans, but they are a huge majority of Utahans, and so Utah is more friendly to Mormon values than Vermont is.

Re:laws

[tehdaemon]

That would mean that civil rights are inalienable rights. (as in the declaration of independance) That is the legal meaning of the term. Inalienable rights cannot be transfered to anyone else.

Anyone have any proof to the parents statement? I would like to see it.

Re:laws

[3terrabyte]

Then your very lucky or your insurance company didn't find out about it. Who can say?

More likely you're just full of it. Most of your posts today barely follow other people's points correctly. And most of the things you state matter of factly are in fact the opposite.

I called my insurance company, so they knew. I'm not "lucky" because it's one of the largest insurance companies, and they treated me just like everyone else I've talked to, including DMV representatives. You're just in tunnel vision where you work. You should look at your example of the $600 - $4500 increases you spoke of. You'll probably find out the dude drove through someone's living room window.

I basically agree with the rest of your statements, although they have nothing to do with these train of thoughts, so I won't comment further.

Re:laws

[jcoleman]

I consider myself liberal, although I do find myself leaning toward the conservative side on a few issues. I also have Christian beliefs. One of them is not forcing my religion on those who do not wish it, as the fundamentalists seem to believe is the most important thing to do.

I don't believe that politicians have the right to push their religious beliefs on me in the form of laws. Lo and behold, the Constitution agrees. What particularly grates me is when they pass a law that makes life difficult for someone of a lower socioeconomic status while making life easier for a rich guy at the same time. A good example of that is tax cuts for corporations who send jobs overseas while the working Americans get screwed out of a job that is all they have done their entire lives. Anyway, this particular action seems to be in direct opposition to their stated religious beliefs, and that makes me crazy.

Now you may say that these working Americans should have planned ahead, but I ask you...did your parents plan ahead when they didn't learn to read very well?

I will agree that those working harder deserve "more." I don't agree that those who can't work harder for whatever reason deserve no right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I think everyone should at least have an equal chance in life. Not everyone has that equal chance right now, and it seems to be getting worse.

Re:laws

[HTH NE1]

Any vehicle under 10,000 pounds is required to have the interlock...

Now there's a loophole you can drive a really big truck through.

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, we get the point: you're a menace and need to be stopped.

Re:laws

[tehdaemon]

"i hate govt control, but i also hate stupid people and what they do. i have no idea where the balance is."

Try this, what is the worst that could happen if the government took a mostly hands off approach? Think worst case. Now what if the government decided to excersize maximum control, again think worst case. Then try to take into account the most likely (instead of worst case) for both.

I have done this, and while stupid people w/out gov control can do a lot of harm, it is pretty small compared to what the gov. could do.

IMHO the ballance should go well agianst the gov. control, and I would not even worry much about going too far.

Re:laws

[swillden]

If you want to sit on your ass and not work, that's fine. You have that right.

I don't think that word ('right') means what you think it means.

No one is entitled to live free on the backs of others. Many get to do it, sure, but no one deserves it, merely for having been born.

Re:laws

[Shakrai]

If you can't agree with what you have signed to, of what value is your signature. How can i trust you? You are either willing to sign away your rights, or make your agreement meaningless.

The only document I recall signing when I got my license said that everything stated above (ss #, address, name, citizenship status, etc) was true to the best of my knowledge -- and that falsifying such information intentionally was a misdemeanor. Nowhere on my states license application does it say that you give implicit permission for a BAC test on the side of the road. Yet that's how the law reads. How many people don't know about this until they are pulled over by some cop with an axe to grind?

Yet you sign papers to the effect that driving is a privilege granted by the government. How is the government to know that driving is a right, when on the surface you agree with privilege?

The Government has an interest in making sure those on the road are capable of driving (eyesight, knowledge of driving rules, etc). I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with the Government saying it will take away a right (or a privilege -- call it what you will) that I have earned because I refuse to give evidence against myself. Refusing to testify against oneself (i.e: pleading the 5th) cannot be interpreted as presumption of guilt. If you aren't guilty of anything then the Government has no right to punish you -- be it with license revocation or fines/jail time.

There's nothing stopping them from arresting you for drunk driving if your abilities are obviously impaired and getting a court order to force you take a blood test. The only reason for mandated roadside BAC tests is to get evidence against someone whose driving abilities weren't already impaired enough that you can arrest them based on that alone. I.e: I think this guy is close to or above the legal limit but his driving wasn't bad enough that I can arrest him for it. I need more evidence.

It's the same with murder/rape suspects. They can after arresting you force you to give semen/blood/dna samples -- or fingerprints for that matter. What they can't do is show up at your doorstep and demand that you give such a sample without arresting you -- and upon your refusal take away a fundamental right that you have earned -- without convicting you of any crime. Of course they need probable cause to arrest you in the first place -- if they don't have probable cause then they have no right to ask for a BAC test (or a dna/sperm sample) imho.

Why is that so hard to understand? How can any American disagree with that?

Re:laws

[cmdr_beeftaco]

I propose law stating that from 2AM-3AM drunk driving is legal and encouraged. Sober people are to remain in their basements and wait for the dust the settle. In the long run this is the only way to solve the drunk driving problem. A sort of needle park for DUI.
The thing that most bothers me about current penalities is that a $5000 fine is either a devestating or pocket change if we really want to stop DUI's make the fine a function of your annual income. Doesn't Norway or Sweeden do this?

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

I was once pretty much required to take a road side test.

A bunch of kids in a truck in front of me tossed a full beer can out the window when they illegally sped by and passed me on a main road. I saw an arm out the window and thought the passenger was flipping me off or something, and then saw a silver object arcing towards my car.

It was apparently a full, unopened beer can. I hit the brakes like mad. I thought whatever it was was going to hit my hood but it barely missed, bounced up after bursting, and splattered beer all over the windshield and hood, bounced up again, by this time a distance off, and skidded off the road.

I was a bit pissed someone just threw something at my car. Calmly call it in. Then had to literally chew the head off the operator because they were so passe. The other party was so stupid they pulled into where they lived a half mile up.

Cops show up finally. Note--I'm pulled over to the side of the road, parked. Officer takes all my info down and what happened. Now, there's beer suds and what not still on my hood. I think I'm going to leave soon and they're going to go talk to the other party and hopefully give them a warning or something (one of the guys, the passenger, was obviously drunk; hell, at least a littering charge) then I hear:

"Sir, I smell alcohol. Have you been drinking tonight? Please step out of the vehicle."

If I recall right, I looked up, probably with a scared, horrified look on my face, then I just paused, thought of what they were asking of me, and busted out a laugh. This, of course, pissed the cop off. Another officer had shown up about halfway through all this, enough to hear my account of the events, and he was looking at the other officer like she was nuts.

This was a Saturday night if I recall, around October 18th, 2003. Last time I had a drink? A beer February 2002. Needless to say, I passed the test and was let go. They said they would call me about the others they held, but never did. I found the whole experience rather insulting.

Re:laws

[Shakrai]

While it SHOULD be a right, it CURRENTLY is not, it IS a privilege

Where is it written that the state can selectively take privileges away from people? If the state was allowed to do this we'd still have separate race-based bathrooms and water fountains.

Now, I don't mean that in an offensive tone and apologize if it came off like that, but your statement was flat out wrong.

There was no offensive tone on your part. Privilege or right I don't think it matters -- the state doesn't have the right to take a privilege away from me unless I am convicted (not merely suspected) of a crime of some sort.

Now, I do have a question relating to your story though. He threatened that you could lose your license if you didn't take the other tests. He was lying about the law. Is there any way you can take action against him for that? A police officer lying about the law is kind of a serious issue. And good for you for calling him on it. I can't believe he had the gall to take that kind of attitude with you AFTER he lied about the law, which is he sworn to uphold and protect. Did you at least file a complaint against him with his precinct?

What action can I take? It's my word against his. I had dropped all my friends off at this point -- I was alone. It's my word against a Police Officer -- wonder who they will believe? I considered filing a complaint but I live in a small enough town that if I did that I'd probably never be able to drive without being harassed again. That's the way it is -- not much I can do about it.

And when he said that "don't let me catch you around here again" I would have responded, "Officer, with all due respect, I have every right to be around here, and don't appreciate the hostile tone you have taken with me when I have done nothing wrong."

Actually I responded with "Actually, I have every right to be around here. That's my house right over there." Insult to injury -- this whole ordeal happened about two blocks from my house. I was tempted to respond with "Look, Pig, that's my house right over there and I have every right to be here" but I prudently decided against it ;)

What pisses me off the most is that in two of these cases the excuse used to pull me over was complete bullshit -- load muffler my ass. In the third case (didn't do a complete stop before doing a right-on-red turn) I probably don't get pulled but for the fact I just came out of a bar. In none of these cases was I actually ticketed for anything -- it was a complete fishing expedition all three times. That's wrong, immoral and illegal -- yet they get away with it in the name of keeping drunk drivers off the road.

Re:laws

[Breakfast Pants]

"Everyone should have an equal right to the same quality of education." So private colleges should be outlawed and everyone should have the same quality of education, regardless of whether they are a worker at mcdonald's or a chemical engineer?

Re:laws

[old_unicorn]

Surely there is a level between privilege and right? This suggests that rights are allowable for everyone, and everything else is banned unless specifically allowed - i.e. you are priviliged to be allowed something which is not a right. I don't know exactly how different the US and the UK are in this, but in the UK we don't seem to have 'rights' exactly, (someone will correct me no doubt) We don't have a constitution, you can just do 'anything' unless it is made illegal. So driving is just the function of a normal person, not a privilege to thank anyone for. This suggests that the state holds everyone in thrall and grants 'privileges' to the obedient few. I hope that is not how people in 'the land of freedom and democracy' feel life is.

Re:laws

[jcoleman]

This is getting to be stupid. Clearly I meant public primary/secondary education. That's generally what's meant when education is discussed in the context of politics/government.

Re:laws

[Shakrai]

Then move. You won't be the first person or the last forced to make that choice.

Easy for somebody who isn't familiar with my situation to say. Maybe my job is inside the city where being within walking distance would put rent out of my reach. Maybe there isn't any residential living within range of my office. Or the fact that if I live within walking distance of work (walking distance here defined as two miles) I'm too far away to be within walking distance of buying food. Sorry, but in most cases owning a car is a necessity of life if you live in suburban or rural America.

Already happening, kid.

Please don't call me kid -- and it's not happening in my state, yet.

The presumption of innocence simply places the burden of proof on the prosecution in a criminal trial. Nothing more! Constitutionally, the state is well within it's rights to make relevant background checks and demand whatever proof of competence, identity, citizenship and age it thinks fit before granting you a license.

Yes, before granting me my license. They don't have the right to selectively take that earned privilege (perhaps a better term to use then "right") away from people however. Anytime the state does anything selectively (read: discrimination, racial profiling, etc) it's usually struck down by the courts.

Consent to random checks may be explict or implied in your request for a license

There's something wrong with the state being able to force me to give up my civil rights to get something that is (for all intents and purposes) required for day to day existence. Do I have to give up my civil rights to buy food or open a bank account?

Random pullovers might also be considered a reasonable exercise of the state's police power

Actually every time the issue has come before the Supreme Court they've ruled that they don't have the right to do this. What's next? Random patdowns as you leave Wal-Mart to make sure you didn't steal anything? That's a minimal intrusion in exchange for cheaper prices I'd say.

an argument likely to appeal strongly to a conservative majority within the Supreme Court

Too bad they've forgotten that conservative used to mean less Government intrusion into our lives. Nowadays it means shove our religious propaganda up your ass. In anycase I think you'd be wrong with the current Court -- it'd probably be 5-4 with O'Connor (bless her libertarian soul) as the deciding vote against random pullovers.

Re:laws

[palndrumm]

You're right, you can't argue the facts at all.

You can if they're wrong.

Re:laws

[philg8]

Better yet, make breathalizers even more accessable than that. Every bar should have one

Good idea until you realize that you have two (or more) idiots who are having a tequila contest to see who can get their BAC the highest before passing out!

Re:laws

[eatdave13]

No you can't. I was in the military.

Re:laws

[Shakrai]

I called my insurance company, so they knew.

Your not required to do that in my state -- is your state different or were you just being a nice guy? You are required to tell them if you are filing an application for a new insurance policy but not if you merely renew an existing one.

You should look at your example of the $600 - $4500 increases you spoke of. You'll probably find out the dude drove through someone's living room window.

Actually the increases are so high because most of our clients are with preferred carriers. If a preferred carrier finds out you got a DWI they will drop you like a hot potato at your next renewal unless there's a ton of mitigating factors (how long you've done business with them, prior claim history, other policies you have with them, etc etc) -- you are going to wind up with a non-preferred carrier (*cough* Progressive *cough*) whose rates are higher (in some cases double or more) then the preferred carrier to begin with -- and that's before the DWI surcharge -- plus a surcharge for any other tickets you got as a result of the DWI (speeding? at fault accident?), plus a surcharge for a suspended license (if you got one), plus a surcharge for being non-renewed by the other carrier, etc etc. It adds up.

Granted insurance law varies a lot between states and I'm not even a licensed agent so feel free to take what I say with a grain of salt. I do know that every person I know of (friend or customer of my employer) who got a DWI and had the misfortune of the carrier finding out about it paid dearly for it.

I basically agree with the rest of your statements, although they have nothing to do with these train of thoughts, so I won't comment further.

That's fine. Might I ask what I did to wind up on your foes list? Did I say something offensive or did you just want to end the discussion without saying so? You usually have to work pretty hard to get on my foes list :P

Re:laws

[El]

Microsoft can't even remember to renew their domain registrations, and you expect legislator to remember to renew laws?

Re:laws

[Firethorn]

I'd say that the problem for repeat DUI's is that they DON'T lock them away.

As for other repeat offenders who have served jail/prison time, that's why there's three strikes laws. If you have 3 felonies on you, you're statistically going to commit more. I always get upset when I hear that somebody's been convicted of stuff nine seperate times! I'm like why didn't somebody get a clue and just lock the guy up forever.

The problems with reforming vs incarcerating is the cruel punishment/human rights issues. Most effective reform treatments are... harsh; and still not very effective. That's why you have the low/high security prison systems. Reform is more expected in a LS prison, while they don't even try with VHS (Very High Security). Of course, VHS prisons are where the worst offenders go, such as murderers and serial rapists. Saw a TV special on prison systems a couple months ago, and it was interesting how incarceration as a punishment evolved, and the idea of prison being a place of reform vs a safe storage area for criminals.

Re:laws

[GreyWolf3000]

i think the federal government needs to force counties and states to do a lawbook housecleaning some year. Then just have a 4 page ballot one year and be done with it all.

Uhh, it's the federal government that needs it. Besides, you can make issue with these laws at the local level and actually make a difference. We don't need federal control here, just responsible citizens. If citizens aren't responsible, then democracy fails anyway; giving more power to Washington will only worsen the problem.

I personally think that every bill should have a clause that mandates a discussion at some point in the future to determine whether the law would stay in effect.

Re:laws

[Chomp]

If you want to move to Australia, you could at least learn to spell it.

Re:laws

[GreyWolf3000]

But in a country where a guy arrested for DUI can still hope to be elected president someday

I am thankful for that, thank you very much. People can change, and people do make mistakes. Find me a perfect human being and I'll vote for him in a heart beat; until then I'll have to choose my elected officials on the basis of their ideology and voting record--not their criminal record.

Re:laws

[GreyWolf3000]

I always get upset when I hear that somebody's been convicted of stuff nine seperate times! I'm like why didn't somebody get a clue and just lock the guy up forever.

Because in a free country, you only serve time for crimes you commit, not being a criminal.

Re:laws

[gcaseye6677]

While driving is officially considered a privilege (thank god I haven't seen anyone spell this yet with a 'd'), it is realistically a right that can be taken away if deserved. Anyone who meets the most basic criteria can get a license. You don't have to be intelligent or even be able to drive, for that matter. All you have to do is be able to pass a written test at about a third grade level of difficulty, follow instructions on a brief road test, and be able to see what's in front of you. Assuming you don't do anything terrible, like multiple DUIs, you get to keep driving. While it may be a privilege, it is not something that can be arbitrarily denied to people and the criteria to be licensed is not all that great.

Re:laws

[zedmelon]

I think what jpallas meant was that it's difficult to "remain silent" when you're presenting yourself in such a public forum. Like it or not, we all express ourselves through our driving; it's a natural extension of how we live our lives.

That being said, no, driving in the US is not a right but a priviledge, one that can be revoked upon demonstration that we exercise it irresponsibly or in a way dangerous to others.

I'm surprised at your apparent resistance towards the efforts against drunk driving, since you say you nearly lost your sister to it. A friend of mine was killed 6 months before earning her degree (she was the first to go of our high school's graduating class), and after seeing her car, I can appreciate what a few moments of poor judgement can accomplish, and 12 years later, I can think of her family and appreciate the permanence of one person's momentary indescretion.

I think this interlock idea is pretty bullshit, myself. I paid $14,600 cash for my truck 3 years ago, and when another driver decided to not stop at that stop sign, it was reduced to a $7,000 check that took three months to write. If this law were going into effect in my state, would the truck I bought as a repleacement require an interlock, even though it doesn't even have the airbags that helped me avoid injury in my last truck? Lame. I agree that the penalties for convicted drunk drivers should be much more stringent.

My job is 18 miles away -- I have no means of getting there with mass transit -- a taxi would cost me $20 each way. I can't have a life unless I have a car

1. There is always another option. some are not very attractive, but very few people would be physically unable to ride a bike a mere 18 miles in less than two hours. After getting into shape, this could be reduced--depending on traffic--to even as low as 45 minutes or less. While it's lame to spend four hours a day getting to/from work, it's possible to those who REALLY need the money.
2. If you didn't have the payment on your "brand new 2003 car with less then 12,000 miles on it" , you would be able to afford $20 per day. There's always another way.

Re:laws

[gcaseye6677]

Because, silly, that would reduce the number of drunk drivers on the road, therefore reducing the fines that city and state governments collect. Then they would have to do something else to bring in funding for their pet projects, like raise property taxes and then all the reps would get voted out of office by the old people.

Re:laws

[gcaseye6677]

At least then, they are only hurting themselves and not other people on the road, unless these dumbasses go out and drive knowing they are double the legal limit.

Re:laws

[zedmelon]

why do we need separate offenses to cover all these "risk" situations anyway? Just have one offense: reckless driving. Doesn't matter if you're drunk, tired, angry, distracted, senile, having sex or yammering on a cell phone...

A good idea, but there's at least one major difference: When my first cellphone was a few days old, I nearly caused an accident because the damn thing was on my shoulder and I didn't look far enough into my left-side blind spot before attempting a lane change. This was on the highway where I could have killed myself and/or several others. Fortunately, she decelerated and honked, right about the same time I saw her in my mirror, and nothing happened save for my embarassed wave of apology and a guilty nervous stomach for awhile. I realized that I had made a very stupid oversight, and now I never dial unless I'm on a straight stretch of road with no vehicles close by. But I know the phone is still a distraction.

But now it's a distraction that I can control by exercising intelligent discretion, such as taking it from my belt and answering without taking my eyes off the road to see who is calling, or not dialing if I'm in heavy traffic. Or not even answering when I'm in "chaos" traffic.

When I get in the car after having had too many drinks--not to say that I would--I can try to drive carefully knowing I'm not in full control, but I can't slow down enough to make my reactions what they usually are; I can't rub my eyes enough to make them stop watering and clouding my vision; I can't keep my mind focused on the fact that I--being drunk--am not going to be able to concentrate like I should when I'm navigating a ton of steel around other human beings who can't possibly be aware that I'm impaired. I'm getting in the car when I know it will be very easy for me to make a mistake and cost someone their life. And most drunk drivers can't accurately judge how impaired they really are. Most likely including me, so I never drive if I'm unsure.

The difference is this: My cellphone oversight was a momentary lapse of judgement that would have made an accident my fault, but it would have been just an innocent accident. When someone gets behind the wheel, they're driving recklessly even before they turn the key, because it's not a distraction they can "put down" or "get better at." Anyone old enough to drink should be fully aware of that difference and the fact that alcohol impairs your judgement too much for safe driving--I really hate it when I hear someone say, "I drive pretty good drunk." No, you've just been lucky enough to not have received a ticket or killed someone.

There's an intolerable amount of risk in driving when you've had too much to drink. An unforgiveable amount. That's why it defeinitely should be a more severe penalty than the guy who just didn't see the stop sign and winds up smashing some little old lady's flower bed.

Re:laws

[rizzo420]

well said. being an american, i believe the same thing. you should not be driving no matter how much alcohol you had. while it might not seem fair to the ordinary citizen who can make intelligent decisions and not drink to the point of intoxication as defined by law, it will certainly cut down on the number of drunk drivers knowing that any amount of alcohol in their system will warrant an arrest. there are more deaths because of drunk driving than for any other reason, and it needs to stop. it's absolutely ridiculous. do i believe that new mexico's new policy is good? not necessarily, but it's not a completely bad idea. while i am one of the smarter people who will have only a beer or 2 in the 3 hours i'm at a bar (so the alcohol is gone when i leave), i realize that there are many more people who cause problems. and it's a problem for me because what if one of those people gets into a car and hits me or one of my family and they die? will i want stronger laws? yes, definitely. the problem is absolutely ridiculous and needs to end and if harsh laws will help, then we need harsh laws.

Re:laws

[Frogbert]

I live in Australia where you will lose your lisense if you dont give a breath test and quite honestly I dont see what all the fuss is about. You speak of your "humiliation of being forced to blow into a plastic tube", what humiliation? Seriously if you are humiliated by blowing into a plastic tube you have a few suprises comming to you at your first prostate exam but I digress.

I'm not sure how it works over there but here if you havent been drinking then you blow into the plastic tube and continue on your merry way and possibly flashing your lights at oncomming traffic to inform them of the Booze Bus up ahead. If you have been drinking and you blow higher then 0.05 BAC then you have to go with them into the booze bus to take a blood test, if after the blood test you are below 0.05 you can continue along on your merry way also. Conversly if you are over the limit your up shit creek without a paddle and you are going to have a fun time walking home.

How could you think this is a problem? Would you prefer simply blowing into a plastic tube every now and then or being hit by a drunk jackarse who decided that they were "good to drive".

As an aside, here in Australia you only need to be 18 to drink and its oh so sweet.

Re:laws

[ryanwright]

That is completely ridiculous. I've slept in a car with the engine running to keep warm. I wasn't drunk, but if I was the most this demonstrates is responsibility: The person knows he is too drunk to drive and decides to sleep it off in the car. What should someone who can't afford a cab do in the middle of winter? Freeze?

These laws actually force more people to drive while drunk. I mean, think about it: If I sleep here for 8 hours, surely some cop is going to come along and give me a DUI. My house is only 15 minutes away, so I'll see if I can make it.

Stupid politicians.

Re:laws

[Lord_Dweomer]

" While driving is officially considered a privilege (thank god I haven't seen anyone spell this yet with a 'd'), it is realistically a right that can be taken away if deserved."

At the risk of losing you as a fan (please don't go!), it is realistically NOT a right that can be taken away if deserved. It is realistically a PRIVILEGE that can be taken away if deserved. A right is something that cannot be taken away no matter what.

The rest of your post is dead on though. A drivers license is most certainly a privilege with an extremely low barrier to access.

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

hey good post. mod this guy up. again.

Re:laws

[Lord_Dweomer]

"This suggests that the state holds everyone in thrall and grants 'privileges' to the obedient few. I hope that is not how people in 'the land of freedom and democracy' feel life is."

You seem surprised. It is a common power grabbing tactic to make as many things as possible illegal, and then allow people to get away with it until it is convenient to bust them for it/charge them for it.

Now, I'm not certain of the details, but I believe what the privilege of a drivers license allows you to do is not to drive a car, but to operate a motor vehicle on publicly used roads. I'm really not sure of whether one is necessary to operate a motor vehicle on a closed course or privately owned property.

Re:laws

[zedmelon]

Oh yeah... I meant to ask you:

Is there something about your appearance or your vehicle that might make pulling you to the side of the road more attractive to the police? For example:

I am a guy, but I have long hair, around 14-16". Had it for over half my life. Part of choosing my appearance is being pre-judged by people I don't even know, and that includes getting extra-long looks from the law. Just goes with the territory. It's never been bad enough that I would cut it, but I can certainly visualize situations where it would be.

The truck I used to have was bright red. I never was wild about that, but I got a good price on it, and it ran great, so I kept it until it was smashed for me. The replacement is sky blue, and even though my driving habits haven't changed, I don't get pulled over anymore for going 5 mph over the speed limit. That "little red sports car" look apparently applies to sport utility vehicles.

As long as there are individuals, there will be unfortunate stereotypes that many people can't help falling victim to. I haven't seen your car, so I can only list the options I can think of. If it calls attention to you with a loud stereo, bright yellow paint, flashy decals, neon lights, etc, then you will always spend more than your fair share of time on the shoulder, explaining away what other people won't have to explain.

Re:laws

[Lord_Dweomer]

"Where is it written that the state can selectively take privileges away from people? If the state was allowed to do this we'd still have separate race-based bathrooms and water fountains."

That's exactly what a privilege is, something that can be selectively taken away. The reason we don't have race-based bathrooms and water fountains ANYMORE is because the laws were changed to allow it.

" Privilege or right I don't think it matters -- the state doesn't have the right to take a privilege away from me unless I am convicted (not merely suspected) of a crime of some sort."

LOL. Perhaps you can see the irony in your words. Actually they DO have the right to take a privilege away from you regardless of whether you are convicted or not. I'm sure when you signed up for your drivers license there were terms stating that failure to comply with the breathalizer means the state can revoke your driving privileges. Period. There is no discussion of whether they have a right to do this or not. You signed their terms of agreement. It is a legally binding contract. End of story. Morally, I agree with you, but this unfortunately is not a moral issue, it is a legal one.

Re:laws

[stephenbooth]

I figured the post I was replying to was talking more generally than just New Mexico. About all I can really remember about New Mexico off the top of my head is that it's the state where Roswell is and a lot of people think it's not part of the US (I've read). I don't know anyone who lives there and I've never had any dealings with anyone in the state so it's never really featured in my life (aside from the afore mentioned Roswell). I'm sure many people in New Mexico are similarly ignorant of the region of England I live in (West Midlands).

Stephen

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, to a lesser extent, people who have to take up to and extra 30 seconds to start up a car, but don't have that luxury due to an emergency (hospital, flight out of fear, etc.)

If you're being chased by a serial killer, a death squad or some monster, that car was never going to start in the first 30 seconds anyway.

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

walking distance here defined as two miles

It's called a bicycle, kid. Increase your range ten times and maybe work off some of your ugly fat ass while you're at it.

Re:laws

[newhoggy]

Most restaurants sell alcohol; it would have quite a substantial effect on that industry, they'd either have to stop selling alcohol, and lose customers that way, or stop letting their customers park there, and lose almost all of their customers outside of built-up cities.

Merits of the policy aside, you speak as if customers will suddenly eat out less if all restaurants no longer sell alcohol. More likely, restaurants traditionally not selling alcohol will get more customers because alcohol is no longer a deciding factor when choosing restaurants.

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

... and now I never dial unless I'm on a straight stretch of road ...

or hey, here's an idea, maybe you could PULL THE FUCK OVER. The *only* time it's ok to do both is if it's calling 911 because someone's chasing you in a road rage kinda thing. Otherwise HANG UP AND DRIVE YOU STUPID BITCH. I as so sick of assholes like you, all "oh, it's a distraction, but I'm good enough with it, and I can control it" and then trying to plow your car into me. and yes, i do have a cell phone, one that goes to voicemail when I'm driving.

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

How about being charged with public intoxication if you are walking home drunk?

One better, I actually got arrested for drunk driving walking home from the bar! My car was at home and in my driveway and my keys were in my house, but minor details like that don't mean shit to cops.

Re:laws

[donscarletti]

There is a difference between self incrimination and cooperating with police.

The right against self incrimination was inacted to stop tortured confessions such as the ones in Stalin's show trials. Self incrimination involves being forced to testify one's guilt. Blowing into a tube has nothing to do with testimony, it is gathering evidence. The police have just as much right to know what is in your lungs if you are a suspected drunk driver as they have to know what is in the boot of your car if you are a suspected murderer or what is in your bank acount if you are a suspected tax fraud.

As for the "have you been drinking" comment, that was not an accusation, that was a question for your sake. By answering no you are legally stating that there is no alcohol in your mouth, so any alcohol vapor detected would be streight from your lungs and therefore your bloodstream. This means the breathalyser would give an accurate result. When you answered yes, you stated that you might still have alcohol in your mouth. This means the brethalyser would give a BAC reading of far higher than what it really is and you were at risk of being incriminated wrongly. The officer therefore gave you your right to a fair analysis that is not effected by mouth alcohol which in this case was a streight line test.

The police can simply not do their job without collecting evidence. They could just rely on their judgments on whether or not you look drunk but that would be prone to mistakes where the innocent are charged for crimes they didn't commit simply because they were a little tired or they were hungry or dehydrated or some other thing that may effect stability or diction. They could simply ignore the problem and let drunk drivers be a problem to themselves and others and simply what the death statistics skyrocket with the clear concience that they are respecting people's privacy.

If you have a problem with walking down the line just politely ask blow through the tube (i.e. don't make dumb cliched "I'm paying your salary" remarks). If you have a problem with blowing through the tube then maybe you should get a little perspective. You are far more at risk of being hit by a drunk driver than having your nation turn totalitarian overnight simply because of breath tests.

Re:laws

[Banjonardo]

mm being found guilty of DWI is a life-destroying event. It will cost you at least ten years of your life.

Bull. Shit. In California, a friend (I'm in high school) got caught DWI. It may be that because he wasn't too high (the limit is .000; we're underaged, remember?) he got off well, but regardless, he got a suspended liscence for I think 3 years or so. Nothing else.

So bullshit. DUI laws need to include mandatory jail time, and more than mere DMV trouble for minors.

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

When you go in for a prostate exam you doctor dosen't treat you like a diseased-ridded leper or some pervert taking the test for shits and giggles.

A cop on the other hand, has already decided that you are guilty and treats you like the worst kind of criminal. Dosen't matter what you blow, he'll just look for something else to nail you on.

Re:laws

[ancientreader]

What most everyone in this long thread seems to be overlooking is that when you are drunk, you lose the capacity to think clearly.

People don't go out and plan to drive drunk; they make a bad decision when they are incapable of good judgment.

Voluntary measures, like designated drivers and calling a cab, work only when you 'plan' to get drunk ahead of time. Most folks I know don't plan on it, so they don't have any designated drivers. But with more drinks come more boldness and worse judgment.

Making bar servers monitor patrons is ineffective by design. Here you're asking those who make money by serving drinks not to serve drinks. It can't work.

Harsh jail and driver's privileges penalties don't work either, because of the 'not planning on getting drunk' argument above, and because the defense always states that the driver's judgment was impaired (which it was).

Medical reality doesn't help either. Drunk drivers rarely kill or hurt themselves; they're usually unharmed when they hit someone or something. It's other people who are hurt or killed, in their car or another.

Disagree with me as you like, but, in the same spirit as putting safety locks on guns, technology should help where it can when people are incapable of using their cars wisely.

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but since the government has an insatable compulsion to do things for you, they might as well do something that makes sense and might actually do some good.

Re:laws

[davidj0228]

anecdotal evidence is a poor form of argument, your experiences as a "poor" person do not justify your generalizing the fact that all poor people can pull themselves up out of poverty with no help. your case is rather extreme, most people would get discouraged and not continue their education after being rejected from a college 4 times. btw, the current conservative bush administration is spending more money and making more debt than any other administrtation in the history of the us. so much for "accountability," you preach about staying out of debt when the government you support is the champion of debt.

Re:laws

[macdaddy]

With your sig, I'd expect that you and Australia wouldn't see eye-to-eye on private firearm ownership.

Good point. I wasn't aware of their stance on gun control. I'll have to make my trip a short one then. :) I'm heard it's a neat place.

For the record, I agree wholeheartedly with your sig.

Thanks. You'll probably like my response to another replier regarding my sig then.

Re:laws

[macdaddy]

Did I misspell it? Son of a biatch; it looks like I did. Well, it's been a long time since I was in a Spelling B. :) Thanks for pointing that out.

I will not misspell Australia again.
I will not misspell Australia again.
I will not misspell Australia again.
I will not misspell Australia again.
I will not misspell Australia again.
I will not misspell Australia again.
I will not misspell Australia again.
I will not misspell Australia again.
I will not misspell Australia again.
I will not misspell Australia again.
ad infinitum

Re:laws

[jerdenn]

The police have just as much right to know what is in your lungs if you are a suspected drunk driver as they have to know what is in the boot of your car if you are a suspected murderer or what is in your bank acount if you are a suspected tax fraud.

It's odd that the very examples you use require warrants to execute.

-jd

Re:laws

[ZWithaPGGB]

Nice partisan dig, but you should note that this was propsed by a DEMOCRAT in a state where the governor is a DEMOCRAT. I know it's hard to step out from behind the pink colored glasses, but really, both parties actually stink.

General rule of thumb:

Well meaning but ultimately fascist leaning restrictions on personal freedom "for the children" or to absolve people from responsibility for their actions that make the world only suitable for juveniles, and make those who work hard pay for the sloth of others: Democrat.
Well meaning restrictions on personal freedom "to make us safe" that protect you from a 0.0001% chance by inexorably leading to the certainty of a fascist state, that treat everyone like they are a criminal even though less than 1% of the population actually are, and that make the world only safe for cops: Republican.
Stupid laws: Both.

Re:laws

[davidj0228]

If my friend whose 18 and in the army can drink, then I, 18 with my college id, should be able to drink too. My friend in the army is being productive for his society's safety, and I am being responsible for the future productivity of my society. We are both attempting to achieve the same end with different means; I see no real difference. (yes, my friend may be risking his life in the army, but he is stationed at Fort Campbell, safe and sound (and drunk off duty) in America)

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

AMEN! I couldn't have said it better myself.

On another note, it's very obvious from reading this thread that Shakrai is a fucking loser jackass who doesn't deserve to live. Nobody has the RIGHT to endanger MY life. It's a privilege, and if you can't handle it, you should have it REVOKED. ASSHOLE.

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with you. No need for a million micromanaging laws when one will suffice. But then the politicians wouldn't be able to justify their existence if they didn't constantly make more laws. Plus they're all lawyers anyway, and they want to keep their lawyer friends in high demand with all that cryptic legalese.

But anyway, the offense should be reckless driving, with various levels of severity. Drunk driving would be about the highest level, with punishment of YEARS in jail and revocation of license for life. That'll obviate the need for these stupid devices, and the roads will actually be safe again!

Oh, and might I add that Shakrai is an idiot? Driving is a privilege, and if you abuse it by putting MY life in danger, you can go to hell and never drive again!!

Re:laws

[Anonymous Custard]

lol!

actually it's from a cartoon show called Futurama, episode "S02E13 [2ACV09] - A Bicyclops Built For Two". I think I'll should change my sig to "Well, thanks to the Internet, I'm now bored with sex. Is there a place on the web that panders to my lust for violence? - Fry, Futurama"

Re:laws

[pheonix]

First, it's not a RIGHT. If it was a right, every single citizen of the US, regardless of age or licensed status would be eligible to drive, right? All of them? Surely, even you understand the folly of that statement.

Second, under the "implied consent" laws that almost every state uses, you did consent to a BAC test any time one is requested of you. If you refuse, they don't TAKE your license, you acknowledge that you will not uphold your end of the bargain, therefore, they do not uphold your end. I don't know what state you live in, but in NY, VA, MI, and GA, the implied consent issue was CLEARLY spelled out in the driving instruction manual, on the wall at the DMV/Secretary of State, and on paperwork that I was expected to have read or at least understood PRIOR to my accepting the license.

They have a right, you agreed to it. If you don't like it, go turn in your license and drive anyway... it's your right, isn't it?

Re:laws

[pheonix]

No, you can't. Some bartenders will serve you "on the sly", but no... you can't. I was in the military from the age of 17 until the age of 22, and I couldn't be served with any legal regularity until my 21st birthday.

Re:laws

[Erik]

Somewhere along the way I heard a story of a bar that installed a breathalizer in the bar, so that patrons could check their BAC to make sure they were safe to drive.

They took it out not too long later because people started having contests to see who could blow the highest.

Re:laws

[guacamolefoo]

then immediately asked "Have you been drinking?" They shouldn't have the right to even ask that question without some sort of probable cause -- and he had none.

I disagree. Cops should be allowed to ask whatever they want to ask. It's a free country. They should be allowed to ask if you wear women's underwear. You need to be smart enough to refuse to talk to them when appropriate. Silence is the best friend of a target of a police investigation (and when they're chatting you up anywhere but at the local donut shop, they are investigating you if you didn't specifically call them).

Cops are people, too (arguably) so that means that they are lazy by nature and you have been pulled over only because you have probably done something pretty egregious. There are exceptions, but they are fairly rare. Most cops don't have to troll hard to find someone they can legitimately pull over.

On the other hand, cops shouldn't be allowed to ask things if they violate civil rights, such as: "Hey nigger, get outta this part of town" or some other similar thing that you'd imagine a porcine redneck chain gang movie sheriff saying. Asking people to "talk" (i.e. confess) after the suspect has requested an attorney is likewise a no-no.

Ordinary things such as "do you know why I pulled you over" [defendant admitted to speeding] or "what's your hurry?" [defendant said he was speeding because he was late for work] or "how much have you had to drink" [defendant admitted to drinking] or "you don't mind if I search your car, do you?" [suspect consented to warrantless search of vehicle] are all calculated to get admissions to put into their arrest warrant.

They are aware that most people are scared and that John Q. Public will be as compliant as sheep. They bully and threaten you if you show backbone. They do everything possible to maximize their psychological advantage. They'd be bad cops if they didn't do it. It pisses me off sometimes, but it's part of the game. In any case, you just have to keep your shit together and not fall for it.

Please see my journal for some of my disjointed thoughts on dealing with police when you get pulled over.

GF.

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

I duno, if ppl didn't tack bits onto unrelated bills in the 1st place, maybe ... aah who cares..

Re:laws

[mirio]

" you preach about staying out of debt when the government you support is the champion of debt.

You assume too much about my endorsement of the current administration. They overspend as well.

Re:laws

[NanoGator]

"Am I the only one that thinks as evil as Drunk Driving is (I nearly lost my sister to a Drunk Driver) we are giving away too many civil liberties over it? "

No. If we were talking about drunk walking, then I'd have to say yes. However, driving is not a god-given right. It's a service provided by the country/state/county/city. As it is, there are a lot of things we do not have the right to do. I don't hear an uproar here because somebody got a ticket over a broken taillight.

Yeah, it sucks that a policeman treated you badly. I don't like that. I think you should be protected from that. But we're not talking about that, we're talking about a device that won't let the car operate if you have had too much to drink. If it were tattling on you so you'd get a ticket in the mail, well yeah that'd be a different story. But no, this is a safety feature.

Sorry, I guess I'm just not ready to jump on the knee-jerk "IT's EVIL!!!!" bandwagon yet.

Re:laws

[Shakrai]

I disagree. Cops should be allowed to ask whatever they want to ask.

So they should be able to randomly stop me when I'm walking out of Wal-Mart and ask me if I've stolen anything on the off chance that I might have? If he pulls me over and I don't have any liquor on my breath what right does he have to ask that question? I take it as a personal insult.

On the other hand, cops shouldn't be allowed to ask things if they violate civil rights, such as: "Hey nigger, get outta this part of town" or some other similar thing that you'd imagine a porcine redneck chain gang movie sheriff saying. Asking people to "talk" (i.e. confess) after the suspect has requested an attorney is likewise a no-no.

Really? And his "Son, don't let me catch you back here" comment doesn't qualify? I was two blocks from my house. Give me a break.

Ordinary things such as "do you know why I pulled you over" [defendant admitted to speeding] or "what's your hurry?" [defendant said he was speeding because he was late for work] or "how much have you had to drink" [defendant admitted to drinking] or "you don't mind if I search your car, do you?" [suspect consented to warrantless search of vehicle] are all calculated to get admissions to put into their arrest warrant.

Obviously. And in that situation I respond with a question. "No why did you pull me over?" I don't think coming back with "I need to talk to a lawyer" if he asks you why you've been pulled over, when you know good and well you were speeding is a good idea. If anything you've just flushed any chance in hell you had of getting a warning down the toilet.

I'm going to be polite to him without answering any incriminating questions until he starts to write that ticket or cops an attitude with me. Mind you, "Don't talk to them" is very good advice in almost any other situation -- but I honestly can't see using "I want to talk to a lawyer" for a typical traffic stop -- it's only going to piss him off for little gain. It's not like they need your confession or are going to press for it over a speeding ticket anyway. The minute he starts talking about booze or asking permission to search the car it's a different story altogether. I've been asked if I was drinking on prior occasions but they've never asked permission to search my car. I would refuse -- even though there isn't anything there for them to find.

They are aware that most people are scared and that John Q. Public will be as compliant as sheep. They bully and threaten you if you show backbone. They do everything possible to maximize their psychological advantage. They'd be bad cops if they didn't do it. It pisses me off sometimes, but it's part of the game. In any case, you just have to keep your shit together and not fall for it.

Your not telling me anything I don't know. I was charged with a felony that I didn't commit once. They refused to accept anything I said at face value. I was just "covering my tracks" or "protecting people". When it became apparent where the conversation was going I asked for a lawyer -- at which point I was promptly arrested.

Two hours later after being fingerprinted and photographed (they use digicams nowadays! I gave them unsolicited advise on how to use it because they couldn't figure it out -- "No no, you need to hold it down halfway and wait for it to focus" ;) I was issued an appearance ticket and sent on my way. They never cuffed me -- just verbally stated "Consider yourself under arrest then" after I terminated the conversation and attempted to walk away. I didn't argue with them. I rode in the front-seat of the BCI officers unmarked car all the way to the State Troopers barracks.

Five months and $12,000 worth of legal fees (not to mention several nervous breakdowns) later the Grand Jury returned "no true bill" in one county. The other county with it's part-time DA (I was charged in two different locations for what was allegedly the same crime against the same

Re:laws

[NanoGator]

"Sorry, but in the United States of America driving is not a privilege -- it is a right."

Since when? The gov't did not choose your job for you. They didn't choose your house for you. Your inability to have a life without a car is entirely within your control. Your excuses do not even come close to defining your right to drive. Meanwhile, those fancy roads you drive on are a service by the gov't. As part of that service, they have to protect the people that use it. You do not have the right to endanger my life.

Re:laws

[tehdaemon]

Hmmmm.... not so sure I agree with that assertion. Only inalienable rights cannot be taken away.

Right to bear arms. Dork robs bank with a gun. We convict him, send him to jail, and take away his gun.

Personal opinion, rights you are assumed to have unless you prove otherwise, privileges you have to prove you deserve them in order to get them. By that definition, driving is a privilege, you have to take the test and prove you can drive. Not sure if it should be a right or a privelege or not though.

IANAL.

Re:laws

[iamhassi]

"Apparently you're not mature enough to figure that one out (or to have a cellphone)."

ah, so not only is drinking a little too much immature, but so is not having a cellphone. Cellphone companies must really love you. So what else is "immature" in your little world?

oh, and surprise, "21" is just a number, not a measure of maturity. Plenty of people go through their entire lives immature, just surf /. with "flamebait +5" to prove my point.

Re:laws

[guacamolefoo]

Obviously. And in that situation I respond with a question. "No why did you pull me over?" I don't think coming back with "I need to talk to a lawyer" if he asks you why you've been pulled over, when you know good and well you were speeding is a good idea. If anything you've just flushed any chance in hell you had of getting a warning down the toilet.

MOst people either (1) cannot distinguish the difference between a normal traffic stop and a serious stop. You may or may not know when you are under investigation for something serious. In addition, things do happen -- people do leave bowls under other people's seats, your passenger friends may have something incriminating on them that they just dumped onto the floor, etc. You never know.

It's all good advise. I'd urge everyone to read it. Your a criminal defense lawyer?

I try.

I'd like to personally thank you.

Thank the guy who did your work.

I'd be sitting in jail (or plea-bargained to a crime I didn't commit) if it wasn't for you guys. I'm one of the innocent people that actually makes yours an honorable profession despite what everybody else thinks.

I appreciate that thought. Mostly, I get "how can you defend people that you know are guilty?" It gets old answering it. It's nice to know that there are people who appreciate it. FWIW, I used to do tax work for really, really rich people. I feel much better about myself defending accused crack dealers.

GF.

Re:laws

[guacamolefoo]

MOst people either (1) cannot distinguish the difference between a normal traffic stop and a serious stop. You may or may not know when you are under investigation for something serious. In addition, things do happen -- people do leave bowls under other people's seats, your passenger friends may have something incriminating on them that they just dumped onto the floor, etc. You never know.

left out the second part:

or (2) are too scared or intimidated to be reliable under the circumstances. It is easier to simply be quiet than it is to try to tapdance on a precipice. Especially if you do have something to hide.

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Ontario insurance rates are also sky high because there's a shitload of scammers ripping off the system -- this is particularly true in the large immigrant communities where it is seen as basically a capitalist thing to do. I personally came close to being the victim of one of these scams when on an early morning commute in Mississauga (heading up Mississauga Road, no less) a woman in a beige Corolla changed lanes in front of me, and for absolutely no reason SLAMMED her brakes on. To make it funnier her brake lights didn't come on (it isn't rocket science to jimmy the wires, and then kick it back after the collision -- most people wouldn't even notice, and would just question themselves). Thankfully my car had powerful brakes and I happened to be resting my foot on the brake pedal. Am I certain that it was a scam? I suppose it could have been coincidental, but the unexplained massive braking, irratic lane change for no reason (except to be in my way) and missing brake lights makes me highly suspicious.

BTW: For those who'll title me a racist/whatever (though race has nothing to do with it -- there are plenty of non-immigrant Canadians of all races) -- It is an absolute fact that a huge number of scammers/fraudsters, especially in the Toronto area, are relatively recent arrivals. When someone from a poor country realizes that all they need to do is stage a collision and they can collect various forms of compensation for years, it simply makes economic sense.

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

You can also buy "go/no-go" strips for less than a dollar. Put one in your mouth and you're over/under depending on the color.

If those are like the guarding(sp?) angel test strips than they are worthless, my brother's beer was only "slightly drunk"

Re:laws

[OldeClegg]

You forgot "education." I really hate it when someone takes MY money to help SOMEONE ELSE become as smart as or smarter than me....

Oh, come on moderators, flamebait? It's right in context, and accurate parody. Mod it UP!

Re:laws

[bi_boy]

What's next? Are they going to round up all the adult males within a two mile radius of a sexual assault and force them to give DNA samples? If they attempted this there would be outcry -- yet they do the same thing with DWI laws on a daily basis and nobody says anything.

I'd rather see that then the DUI/DWI stuff.

Re:laws

[Shakrai]

MOst people either (1) cannot distinguish the difference between a normal traffic stop and a serious stop.

If I fly by a speedtrap on the highway going 15 mph over the posted limit and I get pulled over I'm going to assume it's a normal traffic stop. Call it calculated risk on my part to get to my destination faster ;)

There is always the point about your friends having something that may be incriminating or the whole "You never know" factor. I'm not trying to outsmart the cop who is thinking about writing me that speeding ticket -- but I don't think it's wise either to come back with "Ask my attorney" or "I need to speak with a lawyer" if he asks you "Do you know why I pulled you over?"

I've only been pulled for legitimate traffic stops three times in 15 years of driving (not counting the profiling DWI crap that I mentioned above). One was the aforementioned illegal u-turn. That one was pure ignorance and stupidity on my part -- I didn't see the sign. In that case he didn't ask me if I knew why I was pulled over -- I actually asked him and when he told me I was quite legitimately surprised. He wrote the ticket anyway (bastard!) -- I eventually plead it down to a non-moving violation and happily paid my $35 surcharge.

The other two pulls were for speeding. Both times he asked me if I knew why I was pulled over. Both times I responded with "No, why was I?". Both times I was informed that I had been speeding (of course I knew this but I wasn't about to admit it). Neither time did I actually receive a ticket -- I don't know why they choose not to write one (they certainly had every right to -- they had me dead to rights both times) but I'm sure that if I had answered with "I need to speak to an attorney" they would have promptly written me that ticket -- or worse and assumed I had running drugs or some such nonsense.

Most of my dealings with law enforcement haven't been unpleasant. Naturally it's the few times that they were that stick in my mind. When I was arrested I quite honestly attempted to explain what had happened -- they accused me of making excuses/lying and refused to listen to anything I said. They were only interested in a confession -- they had made up their minds before the conversation started. I saw no reason to continue that conversation -- nothing good was going to come out of it.

I think some people get into law enforcement for all the wrong reasons. It becomes a power game to them. Almost two years after my case was disposed of I saw one of the officers who had investigated my case he made a sarcastic comment along the lines of "Your still around?" To that I replied "You know what? The way I see it there are two possibilities here. Either I was innocent and you charged the wrong man or I was guilty and you couldn't prove it. Either way I think we have ourselves a regular old case of bad policework." He didn't have a reply to that -- a pity because it would have been worth hearing.

I'd say that's probably unique to smaller-town cops but I got railroaded by the State Cops (and the Village cops -- it's truly a long story). They were actually somewhat more knowledgeable about the crime in question but as with the Village Cops the thought that I might be telling the truth never entered their heads. The whole scenario was also investigated by the Feds (Secret Service) -- nothing ever came of that investigation which I quite correctly (on the advise of my lawyer and common sense) refused to cooperate with. At least they still have some level of competency.

As an random thought it never ceases to amaze me how dumb the actual criminals can be at times. I don't know about you but if I was running illegal drugs I would have valid license plates on my car, wear my seat belt and obey the posted speed limit ;)

I appreciate that thought. Mostly, I get "how can you defend people that you know are guilty?" It gets old answering it

Yeah I asked my attorney the same question

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always thought that the legislatures should pay more. It would encourage normal people to run for office rather than just those that are very wealthy and don't need to work.

Re:laws

[Danse]

If the law against murder got sunsetted because some congressperson wanted to attach a rider for increased tollbooth maintenance funding, I think we'd see the legislation drafting process undergo some much-needed reform very quickly.

I think we'd see a lot of dead congresscritters :)

Re:laws

[Shakrai]

I'd rather see that then the DUI/DWI stuff.

Sorry, but to quote somebodies sig that I've seen floating around /. a few times: "You'll get my DNA when you extract it from my cold, dead body."

Re:laws

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

You can be executed in Nevada and some other states for crimes committed before age 18.

We have actually killed people who have committed crimes while under 18. We share that distinction with some countries who have a less than stellar human rights record.

We in fact allow 16 year olds to get a capital sentence - so perhaps we should lower the age of majority to 16 for everything. If you are old enough to be judged responsible enough to merit a DEATH sentence for certain crimes, are you not old enough to be considered responsible in other ways?

Nevada doesn't have a public intoxication offense, but they can civilly confine you if you are just way too drunk to be at all safe. They let you go, with no criminal record when you are sober.

So I guess we have our good side and our bad side out here.

This is not legal advice.

Re:laws

[Kenneth]

Most of that is besides the point. In the UK there are normally less then 100 fatalities due to guns per year. Please compare that to the 30,000 fatalities per year in the US.

Of course if you actually LOOK at those numbers you really should notice a few things.

1. There are more people in the U.S. Naturally a direct comparison of nearly U.S. vs U.K. is going to show more in the U.S.

2. This neatly eliminates the number 1 source of gun death, suicide. If someone wants to kill themselves, a gun is convienent, quick and probably painless (I haven't tried it so I couldn't say for sure) if you do it right, because death is almost instantanious. However if someone wants to die, taking the gun away doesn't help. You can take pills, slit wrists, jump of buildings or other high places, hang yourself, suffocate yourself with a plastic bag a la heaven's gate, or drive your car into something fairly solid at speed.

3. It neatly ignores the number of 'gun deaths' where someone with a gun legally defended themselves or another from violence, either gun or non-gun. If someone pulls a knife on me, and I shoot him, it's self defense. If someone is trying to stab someone else and I shoot him, it is not a crime. It would still be a 'gun death', but it just gets lumpped into that figure that the gun controll advocates try to pass off as a good reason to eliminate guns.

4. It doesn't take into account the shift from 'gun deaths' to 'knife deaths' or other such ways to kill a person. Just because a gun isn't involved doesn't make everything ok.

Maybe it would be more efficient to compare the MURDER rate in the U.S. vs the U.K., rather than just those deaths involving guns.

All of the arguments I've seen on both sides of the argument, even when using the same data is horribly skewed to whatever side the person happens to be on, but this one is pretty lame.

Re:laws

[crawling_chaos]

Even if I accept that inalienable inherent rights exist, you still need to prove to me that an unfettered right to keep and bear arms is one of them. To be harsh, just because a group of slaveholding genocidal hypocrites wrote it in to a document doesn't make it true. The Founders (not to mention the Romans) were most definitely flawed, so any justification that is based on their writings is most definitely open to debate. The Constitution enshrined human bondage, but we realized that that was wrong (after a few million lives and uncounted dollars in destroyed property). It also refused to recognize that women could vote, so we changed that part, too. Is it not possible that the Second Amendment might be a relic of a bygone era? If so, then a justification for its continued existence is called for. In moral, as opposed to political, philosophy it is important to figure out what the right thing is, and merely defining something as right and going forward is usually unacceptable. That predates the Romans.

Re:laws

[Frogbert]

When you go in for a prostate exam you doctor dosen't treat you like a diseased-ridded leper or some pervert taking the test for shits and giggles.

He doesn't? Oh dear god no.... I thought it was weird when he smelt his fingers afterwards.

Re:laws

[3terrabyte]

Mostly based on your other comments to other people. I think 'Foe' is a harsh term. This is just so I don't waste my time in the future. Don't read anything into it

Re:laws

[RobNich]

the Supremes...have actually begun to recover, fitfully, from the "revolution" of 1933 in the last decade or so

I'm curious: what indication(s) have you seen of this recovery? I just see it getting worse and worse. Our current president, while conservative in some ways, is still very liberal when it comes to the Constitution, and has been restricting rights and adding more social programs, thereby increasing taxes in the near future (such as the prescription drug bill which added $5E11 to our $25E11 federal budget, and I haven't heard a mention of it from the Justice Department (nor has any person sued over it, that I've heard). It really scares me, I worry that we are nearing the end of the democratic republic, and will soon see a dictatorship, as prophesied.

Re:laws

[Shakrai]

One better, I actually got arrested for drunk driving walking home from the bar! My car was at home and in my driveway and my keys were in my house, but minor details like that don't mean shit to cops.

In my state they can charge you with DWI if you pass out in the front seat of your car with the ignition off and the keys in the back seat.

That's going a little too far imho. If some guy is reclined in his drivers seat and the keys aren't even in the ignition I don't think you can say that he has intent to drive any time soon.

Re:laws

[oregonnerd]

Since politicians are complete idiots...why not a breathalyzer built into the keys? and they evaporate if you don't pass...

Re:laws

[Shakrai]

I'm surprised at your apparent resistance towards the efforts against drunk driving, since you say you nearly lost your sister to it. A friend of mine was killed 6 months before earning her degree (she was the first to go of our high school's graduating class), and after seeing her car, I can appreciate what a few moments of poor judgement can accomplish, and 12 years later, I can think of her family and appreciate the permanence of one person's momentary indescretion.

My sister was nearly run over while walking home by some drunk ass who plowed into a tree outside of my parents house at 50mph (in a 25mph residential zone). Said individual (who wouldn't be alive today if it hadn't been for the efforts of my Mother -- who is an RN) had a BAC of 0.21%. Several different people had noticed him swerving all over the road and reported it to the cops over a 45 minute period -- who did nothing because they didn't actually "witness it". If my sister was a little less alert or this asshole had been 12 inches to the left of where he was she's probably dead or crippled today. Thankfully she was just shaken up.

My point is the cops should be busy patrolling the highways and looking for people like this -- not busy sitting outside of bars and waiting to nab people who are 0.001% on the wrong side of 0.08% and who haven't demonstrated any bad driving abilities to begin with.

0.08% is an made-up number to begin with. Take a look at this document which I found yesterday after somebody in this discussion pointed me to that website. It makes for very interesting reading.

Worse then 0.08% is the 0.05% limit in my state where they can write you for "driving under the influence" (different then "driving while intoxicated"). 0.05%? Give me a break. Some people can hit that with two drinks -- that doesn't make them drunk.

I recall one trip down to Newark several years ago I was making. Halfway there in the middle of PA at 2am I tried to pass this guy on the highway -- he promptly swerved into my lane and nearly killed me. I followed him for ten miles and observed him vary in speed from 45mph to 90mph -- all the while swerving all over this three lane highway -- which was thankfully empty due to the traffic. I called 911 on my cell and was connected to the PA state police. I reported what I had seen and the mile marker I was at -- they refused to do anything unless they witnessed it. I told them "Well send someone out here he's still doing it." -- they said "Yeah yeah we'll dispatch someone sir." 30 miles later the guy was still in front of me and no cops had showed up -- he finally ditched the highway and got off on an exit somewhere. I was tempted to follow him but what point would it have served?

My whole problem here is that stuff like that happens (or my sister nearly being killed) while at the same time I get pulled over and treated like a common criminal for having two drinks with some friends hours before the stop.

We have misplaced priorities here people.

Re:laws

[matfud]

1) america has 5.2 times the population of the uk
but has about 300 times the number of deaths due to guns.

2) of the 30,000 odd people who died in america from gunshot wonds a bit over 17,000 of them committed suicide. 12,000 were victims of homicide and around 1,000 dies from other/accidental causes.

3) There are no legal gun related deaths in the UK. Possesion of a gun is illegal (discounting air guns of course but they only accounted for 2 deaths last year niether of which was in self defence) and as such using one to shoot someone is also illeal irrespective of what the other person was doing at the time.

4) The murder level in the UK has remained fairly low with fluctuations in the 10% range. The average number of homicides is about 760 per year (homicide being killing someone else intentionally). In california alone the number of homicides was around 2,000 http://66.102.11.104/search?q=cache:_xXoPgoKq8kJ:c aag.state.ca.us/cjsc/publications/homicide/homi200 0/cr1.pdf+homicides+US+total&hl=en&ie=UTF- 8

In america homicides are most often committed using guns. In the UK they are most often committed using "sharp" weapons.

Ok. So to sum this up there were 12,000 people who died from being shot in the US last year. (Not including attempted murder, negligent manslaughter, suicide, accident etc...). Last year there were less then 100 people who died from gunshot wounds for ANY reason in the UK (Including accidental and suicide).

Now please tell me why my interpretation of the data is horriibly skewed.

The data is from here
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb0 104.pd f
matfud

Re:laws

[Reziac]

I was going to make the same point -- imagine if you're on a busy freeway and suddenly the car behind yours starts honking and flashing its lights. Is it an emergency vehicle that needs to come through, an imminent case of road rage, or an interlock system with bad timing? And what if you're in heavy traffic, and your car goes nuts? I know people who would promptly panic and cause a multicar pileup if their car behaved like that.

The possibilities for worse-than-one-drunk-driver are endless. You're driving home from work at 3am, and your car decides to wake the neighbourhood (and violates a variety of nuisance noise laws while it's at it), and after this happens a few times, your neighbour goes berserk and shoots you. Or you're behind a fleet of gang-bangers on a lonely road, and they take your car's blast of noise as an ill-considered attempt to tell 'em to get out of your way. (I know someone who barely escaped with her life after annoying a Bay area tong by honking at them, so this is not exactly theoretical.)

Not to mention that it'll be rough on new-car sales in New Mexico. Yeah, they'll probably pass laws like California has to prevent people from buying cars out of state (to duck our high sales tax, or whatever), but that'll just cause an increase in grey-market used cars.

Yep, a really well-thought out law. The ambulance chasers will love it... and maybe they'll come of some use, by quickly making it prohibitively expensive to keep on the books.

Not to mention that it DOES presume guilt, which you'd think could make it ripe for constitutional challenge.

Montana (once a hotbed of drunk driving) made itself inhospitable to drunk drivers with a "get one DUI, lose your license for a year" law, and more-severe penalties for repeat offenders. It worked -- DUIs dropped radically. Meanwhile, life went on normally for sober drivers, which is as it should be.

And is it just me, or are more and more laws being passed everywhere (not just in the U.S.) that make you prove your innocence or right to do whatever, rather than affecting only the convictably guilty??

The freedom pendulum does seem to be swinging back the other way.

Re:laws

[fingusernames]

You apparently do not understand... Where do rights and power come from? Your God? My God? State of nature? Government? Mutual consent of your next door neighbor? The United Nations Security Council?

Let me repeat: this IS NOT ABOUT GUNS. It isn't about flawed white men and paying attention to papers from 200+ years ago as though they are holy writ. Do people have rights by nature of being, or are they granted rights by the goodwill and sufferance of other men? If they have rights which are inherent in being free men, then who decides what those rights are? Can your neighbors take away your rights by majority vote? This is a timeless issue, one which predates the Romans, postdates us, and is relevant regardless of whether it is hypocritical rich white dudes who were EVIL and owned slaves and oppressed women and therefore all their notions on liberty and rights are automatically void and worthless, or me, or you, talking about it.

From where do rights come, and who decides? Is it mob rule? The majority can decide that you no longer have a right to express your mind when they disagree? The majority can do whatever it wants? Or are the right to life, to free expression, uh, a "right" to medical care, uh, free food for the poor, and so on, terribly precious and protected from majority rule, yet other rights which you find not so precious are suspect and invalid and cease to exist? Who decides? You? A huge mob of people who agree with you and vote? Please answer the big question, not the little pissy insignificant question about some pieces of metal.

You have a distinct and well-defined political viewpoint on the hotpoint issue of guns. I'm sure you are a legal pragmatist. I therefore expect no answer beyond what you have already written: guns are bad, guns are intended to kill living creatures, nobody should have the right to have the ability to kill, and in the oh-so-modern 21st century with our oh-so-modern forms of representative civilized government nobody should have the right to be armed whatsoever; well, except your political overlords, that is. My simple, fundamental question is, if the people don't have the right and power to possess arms, then FROM WHERE DOES THE GOVERNMENT DERIVE THE POWER? *Limits* on the exercise of a right are quite different from not having the right at all. If it is immoral (who decides?) for man to possess the means to kill one another, and therefore not a right, then no one, NO ONE, has the right. Not me, not you, not the police, not the U.S. Army.

And once again, from the top. The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America DOES NOT GRANT A RIGHT. Please, learn to read. It is useful.

Larry (who has never owned a gun BTW)

Re:laws

[Reziac]

Why do you think so many people who are poor will go and pay so much money on the lottery a month when they could take that same amount of money, drop it in an IRA and actually have something to show for it after a few years? It goes back to that smarter thing you were talking about earlier.

Actually, that's the quintessential difference between someone who is poor, and someone who has no money.

Clearly, you were not poor; you merely had no money. It's a fundamental difference in attitude, and it's the biggest reason why poor people stay poor, while people with no money eventually get ahead (or at least out of abject poverty).

Furthermore, it is not in liberals' interests for poor people to get ahead -- because if they do, they'll discover that those liberals are taking their hard-earned money and giving to to the poor! And that's one less vote for a liberal.

I've always called this my "quick guide to the major political parties", but maybe I should revise it:
Liberal: Give us your money so we can dig those po'folks a ditch, whether they need it or not.
Conservative: Here's a shovel; go dig your own damn ditch.

Re:laws

[fingusernames]

Sorry, BTW, that was 1937. Typo.

The Supremes have begun exercising their power to restrain federal, and even state, action, after an effective hiatus of about fifty years, ever since the 1937 capitulation to FDR. They have begun no longer accepting the nexus of interstate commerce as a blanket authorization for Congress to do whatever the hell Congress wants. See the Lopez case, where the Supremes ruled that the commerce clause does not give Congress a criminal police power (in that case, the interstate commerce clause was invoked to justify the "gun-free school zones" law). Other recent cases, where they ruled that the federal government has no power to compel a state to enact legislation; where the takings clause, as incorporated via the 14th amendment, was actually enforced against a local government to strike down an act of regulatory taking (S. Carolina Coastal Commission); so on. They've begun to assert the power to limit governmental action in ways which have been unheard of in decades. Aside: I did research for a couple years into the evolution of the takings power from foundation onward... in the 1990s, there began to be a "dramatic" change toward more restriction on governmental takings in response to government's rapidly growing hunger for regulatory takings of private property. It has seemed to fizzle out some, but we'll see.

The Supremes are beginning, fitfully, to reassert their role to limit legislative action, and no longer accept the blanket presumption of valid legislative intent and governmental interest as being an over-riding justification for every exercise of power. We will never, ever return to a true constitutional form of government again, with limited enumerated powers, though. That is well dead and buried.

Regarding the president and restricting of rights, that is a political argument. In times of national stress/conflict, the political branches have always imposed restrictions on rights. The current restrictions are pretty mild compared to the past. At least we still have habeas corpus in the United States; unlike Lincoln, Bush has not suspended it.

On NPR a few weeks ago, one of the uber-liberal radio hosts had a couple constitutional scholars on the show to discuss just this issue, that of Bush and Congress locking people up, restricting rights. She was shocked (it's always funny when she gets guests, who I'm sure she presumes share her world-view, who shock her that way) when they both agreed that they felt Bush was doing an overall good job in terms of the domestic response to the "war on terrorism." They stated that in times of emergency, a president has always done this. Bush has been more mild than he could have been. Our system is working the way it should. The courts are now beginning to review the decisions made. The cases will work their way through the system, and the Supremes will make some decisions, define some boundaries. But, this takes time. Have some patience.

As for spending, the budget, and the Supremes and the Constitution, that is a rather moot point in the 21st century. Since the 1930s, we have been in what is considered a post-constitutional era in most respects. We no longer pay any attention whatsoever to the enumerated powers of the federal government. Rather than amend the constitution to change with the reality of a all-powerful central government, something our constitution explicitly attempts to prevent, we as a people have chosen to ignore large swaths of the federal constitution. That's just the way it is. To be sure, the Supremes, a little bit before, and increasingly post-1937, created all sorts of complex, often absurd, doctrines to squeeze 20th century governmental "requirements" into the strait-jacket of the enumerated grant of powers. Congress has become accustomed to exercising its spending authority without restriction, and that's a Pandora's box that will never be closed. The Supremes may begin to whittle away at some exercising of powers, but will be unable to touch spending.

Ever since Monroe and his

Re:laws

[crawling_chaos]

I'm a gun owner. You have assumed a hell of a lot, as I have never written that gun ownership should necessarily be banned. I was questioning whether or not it was an inalienable right. When making an argument about reading comprehension, it helps to check your own.

Where do rights come from and do they exist independent of the societies that espouse them is an interesting question. About 200 years ago, a group of people determined that the right to hold other people in bondage was an inalienable property right and later they used to their "inalienable" right to keep and bear arms to defend that property right. Were they correct? If people do not possess right to own other human beings and the fruits of their labors, then how can you justify the state doing the same thing in its prisons and mandatory community service? If it is not right for one man to coerce another's labor then no one, NO ONE has the right. Or, as is more likely, your argument is flawed.

Finally, to be clear, just saying that that a thing is a right does not make it so. You aren't Humpty Dumpty and words may have meanings different from what you say they are. I need some justification here that the right to keep and bear arms is indeed such a right. Otherwise, it appears that you wish to force your definition of "rights" down my throat, which is hardly in the spirit of your previous posts.

Re:laws

[fingusernames]

Is it not possible that the Second Amendment might be a relic of a bygone era? If so, then a justification for its continued existence is called for.

Your words. Obviously, I'm not sure what was in your mind when you wrote that. But it appears to be a belief that should the 2nd amendment go away, likewise goes a right. *poof* If not, I apologize for the presumption. But if so, I assert, again, that the 2nd amendment does not grant a right. It merely states that that right should not be infringed. It does not create the right. Again, learn to read our foundational legal documents. Our rights don't come from them. I futher assert that our common law jurisprudential system (which very much predates our federal government) would be quite well equipped to discern the fundamental right to possess arms regardless of whether or not the redundant 2nd amendment explicitly referenced said right. Hell, it might be hidden within some penumbra somewhere. :-)

Regarding forcing rights... I have no interest *whatsoever* in forcing a right on anyone. You seem to have our mutual positions entirely confused. My interest is in not having YOU force YOUR belief that I do NOT hold a right. I posit that neither you, nor 250 million of your best and dearest friends, have the legitimate power to do that. You may limit my exercise of my rights in society in order to protect your own rights. But you cannot exterminate them. Concealed carry, brandishment, transport on public property, possession of inherently dangerous weapons such as, oh, nuclear bombs... all well within the state police power to limit. But to assert that man has no right at all to be armed in one's defense, that said right does not exist, and is not inalienable? No.

As for the straw man of slavery and the sins of our fathers, I have no interest whatsoever in talking about that, as it hasn't the slightest bearing. Why do you continue to insist on bringing that into the discussion, as though it somehow trumps the moral authority of anyone who ever was involved with it? Did you perchance have ancestors in bondage? I don't know about you, but my viewpoints on morality and legal philosophy do not require that my like-minded forebears be angels, pure as the driven snow in their lives. The wisdom within the fruits of human thought and philosophy can be separated from those often flawed creatures who espoused them. See St. Augustine for a prime example.

And hell, my own ancestors owned a slave-trading business in Virginia. I surely hope that that familial sin does not taint my independence of thought in your mind.

In the end, the entire discussion boils down to: do you, Mr. Crawling Chaos, believe that our rights as citizens derive from a magical text written in the late 1700s by a few dead white guys? If so, then I suppose that in your mind the deletion of the 2nd amendment will also, magically, erase a right we have had for a long time. I would heartily disagree.

Larry

Re:laws

[zedmelon]

I mentioned above that there are stereotypes, right or wrong. Anything about your appearance that would fit one? Mullets? Troublemaker? "Fat-Skinny" Tires?

The police perspective (and no, I'm not a cop): They don't know who's drinking too much, eluding a warrant in a stolen car with a gun under the seat, or taking cookies to Grandma. If someone swerves, they ignore it or pay closer attention, based on what they know. Every traffic stop could be their last. They have a job that I would NOT want. If I had to walk to your car but didn't know if you'd shoot me when I got there, I'd be pissed if you acted rudely. Most cops are pretty cool if you treat them with genuine courtesy--not the "yes sir no sir" bullshit, just like a fellow human being--and give them a couple minutes to realize you're not going to make any trouble. They're just people trying to do their jobs. Like America's military, they are far too taken for granted and under-appreciated.

From the MADD article you linked:
First, the U.S. Department of Transportation's Fatality Analysis Reporing System (FARS) data show that the average BAC level in a fatal crash where a driver was actually tested is .17% -- more than double the proposed .08% BAC standard. Second, the typical DWI fatality is caused by a person who has had more than NINE DRINKS before driving. And third, nearly two-thirds of alcohol-related deaths involve drivers with BACs of .15% and above.

So does this mean that accidents where someone was only disabled or merely hospitalized for a couple months don't COUNT?!? Okay no problem with your sister's incident, because no one died. Someone who's only had EIGHT drinks is not dangerous at all? Come ON! That's just a retarded line of thinking. These data are all based on exclusively-fatal accidents.
Ah, you're probably only drunk enough to break someone's leg, not kill anyone, so you can go.

Look, the interlock stems from a good thought, but it could never be truly practical; it's a bad idea. Plus, I foresee tons of lawsuits filed, because a medical emergency was delayed. Just don't buy a car so equipped.

0.05%? Give me a break. Some people can hit that with two drinks -- that doesn't make them drunk

If the alcoholic portion of blood surging through your brain doesn't make you drunk, what does? If you hit .05 with two drinks, DRINK ONE!

There's gotta be a way to quantify how drunk someone is and remove the guesswork, so for now, the BAC is how it's done.
"Well, your honor, we didn't give the defendant a BAC test, but I'm confident that he would have caused someone between 20 and 40 thousand dollars in damages, so I'm recommending a one year sentence."
Misplaced priorities? Should the police wait until a "fatality" actually occurs and then make the arrest? Do you want them to ignore more than just your helpful phone calls? The line has to be drawn somewhere, preferably before the point where fatalities are expected. If you're SO concerned about getting pulled over, drink soda when you're the designated driver. If one drink is an absolute necessity to having a good time, you have a more serious problem than mere harassment.

Re:laws

[Anonymous Coward]

I didnt want to create an account but will state my name, Dennis Quintana. People are so inept on making indecive junctions that show no compassion on the United States Constitution. Remember it is the alcohol not the vehicles that cause poor judgement. Why not make a law against the Breweries. Everything has to do with going after the poor people who barely have enough to scrape by these days. Go after the breweries who are vesting all of their capital on marketing their product to us citizens. Remember all you right wing conservatives, alcohol is a disease and very hard to overcome.

Re:laws

[24-bit Voxel]

If I signed a contract stating that I am your slave, it would not hold up in court. I don't have a reference, so you can call bullshit, but from what i understand this is true. The reasoning according to my professor was that you cannot sign away a civil right. University of Penn.

Re:laws

[24-bit Voxel]

After rereading and pondering your post, I would have to concede that perhaps it is only certain civil rights that are also "unalienable" rights. The issue of slavery being one of them. I am not a law student, so I openly admit I may be mistaken now that I reflect on the difference in inalienable rights and civil rights.

Re:laws

[Muad'Dave]

I agree with you re: gun control for the most part, although I agree more closely with the NRA's stance that laws that restrict guns and not criminals are most likely 'bad laws'.

I'm not sure how I stand on the need to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon - that sounds awfully close to 'infringed' to me. I guess that'd be ok if open carry were legal implicitly.

I'd love it if there were a way to prove my safe handling of a firearm anonymously - I'm not a big fan of federal registration, either.

It also irks me that state-issued concealed carry permits are not generally recognized out-of-state. Where's that rule that says states must recognize each others papers, issues, and affairs? Imagine the chaos if states didn't have reciprocity for driver's licenses.

Anyway, keep shooting, keep safe!

Re:laws

[AceM2]

I've been at the height of shitfaced before and still had the higher reasoning abilities to say "Ok, I'm done drinking" for whatever reason (money, needed to drive the next day, etc).

That makes a whole lot of sense... You got to "the height of shitfaced" and THEN you decided you have had enough? Hmmmm...Okay... Everyone stops eventually, do not act like you're special because you got to "the height of shitfaced" before deciding you've had enough. Okay, so MAYBE you have more judgement than the frat boys who drink till they are passed out, but in reality... They're smarter, because after they pass out, they can't get in a car and accidentally kill anyone.

One of my neighbors (a 2 year old child) was recently killed by a man who thought he stopped well before his "limit." What you think is "enough" means jackshit to me. If you seriously do not think "just a few drinks" won't affect you, then why the hell are you drinking in the first place? Think about that one for a minute, preferably when you're sober.

What's next? Is it McDonalds fault if you can't control yourself when they open a restaurant two blocks from your house and you gain 200 pounds?

What's next? Some idiot saying we should be able to buy anthrax spores and active ebola samples at the corner drug store? "I mean, really... Is it the drug store's fault if some dude wants to infect hundreds of people?" and "Should *I* have to suffer because of a few possible terrorists?!?" Well of course not son, you should be able to buy ebola without any credentials, safety training, or... Hey wait a minute...

Seriously, these are totally different things. I don't give a damn if you gain 400lb at McDonalds, because it isn't doing a thing to me. If you want to be a 600lb fatass, then that is your choice, you hurt no one but yourself. Oh the other hand, if McDonalds burgers prove to cause people to accidentally kill innocent people, then yes, McDonalds should be guilty of negligence.

I am not against your right to get drunk, so I may disagree with some other posters, and possibly even with the person you replied to. However, some of the things you said are just silly to me, and I cannot agree with you that ANYONE is 100% capable of making good decisions while drinking. You may be okay 99% of the time you go in the bar, but it only takes one time for you to slip up. Just that one time, and you could be ending your life, one of your friends lives, someone's son or daughter, or you may even be killing someone's entire family for that matter.

Like I said, I do not think the right to drink should be taken away, but restaurants and such really need to take a stronger interest in what's going on and try to make sure everyone has designated drivers or calls a cab. No one's trying to take away your right to get intoxicated really, it's just that some people believe a few more measures should be taken to make sure others don't get hurt while you're having fun. When you see an easy way to possibly save some lives that doesn't involve taking away rights completely, I believe you should go for it.

Re:laws

[Breakfast Pants]

You could make the same argument that when healthcare is talked about in the context of the US government it is generally assumed to only refer to things such as "hosipitals must operate on emergency room patients even if they don't have insurance". Not "breast implants for free !!!111 Teh government should buy everything!11".

Re:laws

[mirio]

Very well said.

Re:laws

[Shakrai]

That makes a whole lot of sense... You got to "the height of shitfaced" and THEN you decided you have had enough?

Did I say I drove on this occasion? No I didn't say that. In fact I had planned ahead so I wouldn't have to drive. My point was that it isn't the restaurants fault if you don't know when to stop drinking -- for whatever reason -- be it money (you can't afford it), you need to drive, you need to work the next day and can't afford to be hungover, etc etc. It's your own damn fault if you don't know when to stop. Likewise if you decide that you want to get "shitfaced" and you have that luxury (which means: A) You can afford it, B) You don't have to drive or can leave your car, C) You are willing to pay for it the next day) then I don't think the establishment is under any special obligation to stop you.

What you think is "enough" means jackshit to me. If you seriously do not think "just a few drinks" won't affect you, then why the hell are you drinking in the first place? Think about that one for a minute, preferably when you're sober.

Where did I say "A few drinks won't affect you"? The only thing remotely like that I said was "I also have the self-control to limit myself to one or two drinks if I know that I have to drive to get home." Do you have a problem with that statement? Two drinks consumed instantly with my body weight puts me at approx 0.03% BAC. Assuming I spend a lousy hour (i.e: I don't do two shots and instantly leave) it's more like 0.01% or less when I actually leave.

I would make the point that if the cops were busy looking for drink drivers who are visibly impaired (I see them all the time -- swerving all over the highway -- yet the cops are never there) instead of sitting outside of every bar in town waiting to nail some poor bastard who is 0.001% on the wrong side of 0.08% (an arbitrary number if ever there was one) maybe we'd have fewer alcohol related fatalities. The overwhelming majority of DWI related accidents occur with drivers who have a BAC of 0.15% or higher. This document makes for some very interesting reading.

Now before you jump all over me I'm not arguing that people with >0.08% are fully capable of driving. They probably have no business behind the wheel of a car. My personal cut off for driving is two drinks -- three if I'm going to be there for a couple of hours. Anymore then that and I'll walk home, call a cab, or take a ride with a friend. According to the handy BAC calculator (which is probably overstated anyway seeing as how it comes from MADD -- hardly a neutral organization) that puts me at about 0.02% when I leave -- or 0.048% assuming I have all three drinks within an hour.

My whole point all along is that there is something wrong with DWI enforcement when I get pulled over three times (only one of which had I actually been drinking -- and that time I a blew a lousy stinking 0.018% -- give me a break) for DWI enforcement. Meanwhile there are people out there cruising around with >0.15% BACs swerving all over every lane of the highway and running people off the road. The drunk driver that nearly killed my sister had a 0.25% BAC. He hadn't been drinking at a bar period -- he had been drinking at home and was on his way to the connivance store to buy more booze. According to the testimony at his trial he had to consume more then 16 drinks in a two hour period to reach that BAC. This hardly compares to the social drinker that has two drinks and gets pulled over and harassed for it the minute he leaves the bar as part of some random stop.

Perhaps if the cops had been busy patrolling the streets looking for people like him instead of sitting outside of every bar in town, harassing people who are "loitering" (the responsible ones who are waiting for cabs) and pulling people over who have designated drivers he wouldn't have gotten nearly as far as he did

Re:laws

[AceM2]

It's your own damn fault if you don't know when to stop.

That's oh so comforting to the mother who's just lost both her children and her husband because of a drunk driver plowed them over as they were on the sidewalk.

Do you have a problem with that statement?

Yes, because you are downplaying the effect that drinks have on you. If the drinks didn't affect you, then you wouldn't drink them correct? Even if it was only raising your BAC .00001%, there's a reason you're drinking it. That reason is generally because it helps a person "loosen up" or wind down or whatever you want to call it... My point is, it's the same thing that kills your judgement. However, I never said that you shouldn't be allowed to have a few drinks, in fact, my entire post was about how the restaurants/bars/etc should show some responsibility in how they serve their customers and when they should say enough is enough, or call them a cab... Or whatever you can do to keep drunks off the road.

I also agree with you that cops could spend their time and money better elsewhere, however... One cannot say that a lack of checkpoints etc is going to suddenly mean there's now a cop in sight whenever someone's visibly drunk. You're going to get more dangerous drunks off the road if you're checking more people who are potentially dangerous, if that makes sense. I mean we can talk all night about how cops should be looking for the crack dealers instead of the pot users, the muggers and thieves instead of setting up sting operations to get prostitutes and such.. etc etc.. We'd probably agree on a few things.. That's not the point though, and I'm not saying I know how to catch all the drunks including the ones that get hammered at home.

All I'm saying is, restaurants and bars need to be more careful about how much they allow people to drink and then drive. There are a lot of good establishments out there, but there are plenty that'll give you a bottle of vodka and send you on your way as well. You want to change how law enforcement in your area works? More power to you, I'm on your side.

That's a pretty stupid and FUD laden analogy. Anthrax spores have no legitimate purpose.

Well... One big one is research... Another thing is just the idea that I should have a right to responsibly own whatever I want, and you have no business telling me what I can or cannot have within my own house. I'll thank you not to harass me for being a biochem freak who wants to be able to do hands on research. I'm no more of a menace to society than you are...

I shouldn't be punished because some people are incapable of exercising this maturity.

If you already limit yourself and have transportation set up... Then how are you being punished? Like I said in my original post, I don't want to take away your right to drink. All I have been saying is that we should force people to make mature decisions even if they are not so mature themselves. It's a minor inconvenience to have a restaurant make sure you get a cab or have a designated driver. It's a time when the good (saving lives) outweighs the bad (5 minutes of your time and the restaurant/bars). If the establishment was smart about it, they'd even set up their own drivers, or get a contract with the taxi company so that they can make a little money on the side.

No, actually they don't. It's not their problem. If they see a known alcoholic with five DWIs under his belt drive up in a car then they shouldn't serve him. That's common sense. But I'll be damned if I'll go to an establishment that's going to treat me like a child that's incapable of making my own informed decisions.

Well, we all have priorities... and I can't force you to be okay with a minor inconvenience (that really isn't e

Re:laws

[Kenneth]

How many were stabbed? Are you saying that Just because it's a gun, it's somehow worse than some other means of dying? If you somehow were to make it totally impossible to have any form of firearm, those who would have used guns will use knives, or clubs or rocks or bare hands, or poison, or something else.

Guns are an efficent means of killing someone. They are by no means the only method. By removing the gun (assuming for the moment that you can), you simply force the criminal to use another method.

That is why your data is horribly skewed. You seem to only count gun deaths. Why don't we compare deaths for heat stroke between Death Vally, and Antartica? That should be just as informative.

I really couldn't care less about your numbers. To anyone who actually looks at them, they report only one thing GUN deaths. It doesn't take into account how many of those deaths would have happened anyway if there were no guns. It doesn't take into account how many death WOULD have been 'gun deaths' had there been easier access to guns.

Ancient Rome had very few gun deaths too. That isn't to say that it wasn't a pretty bloody time. Just because there is a gun involved doesn't indicate ANYTHING. You seem to assume that none of those deaths would have happened were there no guns, and anyone who bothers to apply any thought should see differently.

That is not to say that the pro gun side doesn't distort facts too, however this one was far too simpleminded to let go.

"GUN DEATH" != person living were there no guns.

Re:laws

[matfud]

If you looked at what I said you would see the answer to most of you questions.

In Engalnd and Wales (population about 45 Million)the total number of homicides, as I said in my last post, averages somewhat less then 800 per year. Less then 100 of those involve deaths from being shot. The information I referenced describes this and also the proportion of homicides attributed to various tehniques including guns, strangulation, blunt implements, Sharp implements, poison etc.

I do not know what the total number of homicides are (per year) in the states. I could not find that info. Perhaps all that can be said from the comparison is that america is a more violent nation.

Perhaps I could also say that in countries where there are strict controls over guns there are less deaths caused by guns then countries with less stringent regulation. (Note that the opposite is not necessarily true). America has a large number of people being killed by guns. Perhaps there is somthing in this paragraph that sheds light on the discussion.

By the way, I do not think that a ban on guns in the US would help much. There are to many unregistered and untracable guns to be able to adequatly enforce such a law.

This thread started with one poster spouting the standard "but in the UK when guns where banned the level of gun crime increased". I was trying to correct this misconception of the situation. The stats I referenced provide a basis for my belief that the OP's statment is not as "factual" as (s)he made out.

(I use the term "gun death" cos I cannot be arsed to continually write "person who died, or was killed, by a bullet and or complications arising from the incident")

matfud

Whatever happened....

[Peden]

...to taking peoples licence away from them, or basing fines on a percentage of the yearly income, like they do in Finland, people would think twice then. Recently a man was fined about 200.000 Dollars for speeding, he was a CEO, he will definately think twice. How long before someone constructs a hack for this breath analyzer?

Re:Whatever happened....

[Green Light]

Wouldn't a balloon full of air serve as a "hack"?

Re:Whatever happened....

[Anonymous Coward]

And how's taking the license away stopping people from drunk driving? As a fellow Finn, I've read about people who have been caught driving under the influence for about 40 times (without the license, of course) before they actually get locked up.

Re:Whatever happened....

[Anonymous Coward]

How bout a baloon knot full of air after a lunch at El Torito?

Re:Whatever happened....

[Threni]

Now that's what I call one law for the rich and one for the poor!

Re:Whatever happened....

[2000 Britneys]

Hell u can take the licenses away and they will still drive . License is just a piece of paper / plastic with a fine attached to it if u drive with out it.

The Idea is interesting however the "big" brother approach will not do, scoze the people that never drink and drive will revolt and sue the pants out of every one attempting to bring such a law into existence

Re:Whatever happened....

[Boing]

Are you planning to carry around multiple pre-inflated balloons in your car all the time? Because it strikes me that inflating a balloon with your breath, then using the balloon on the interlock, is still essentially equivalent to breathing in the interlock for yourself.

Re:Whatever happened....

[FauxPasIII]

> Now that's what I call one law for the rich and one for the poor!

So you feel that the poor should be fined in such a way as to seriously impact their monthly food budget, while the rich should be fined in a way with no discernible impact on their lives whatsoever? Why should the poor be punished much, much more severely for the same crime?

Re:Whatever happened....

[trash eighty]

fill it before you start drinking of course

Re:Whatever happened....

[Rostin]

Depends on how clever it is. Your breath comes out at apporximately body temperature, for example, and making the air in a balloon body temperature plus or minus a few degrees would be tough.

Re:Whatever happened....

[bluGill]

What does taking the license away matter? I've ridden with people who have had their license taken away[1]. People will just drive anyway. Some people will follow the rules, but at least in the US there often isn't an option if they take away your license.

[1]I only found out (in the one case I know of) because close to our destination he let out a sigh of relief as the cop who passed him going the other way just motioned slow down instead of stopping him.

Re:Whatever happened....

[den_erpel]

Nah, most ppl that actually do drink and drive (have a habit) will have some switch installed hidden for the police. Teenagers with motorcycles and truck drivers have all kinds of technical restrictions built in/imposed and it's common knowledge that a large part of them has such a contraption.

The police normally don't bother to take the vehicle apart to find the hidden switch...

I would have to agree that more testing and more testing is the only successful way (like they do over here around new year (december/january: drinking under influence drops significantly, only to rise again in february :-/).

Re:Whatever happened....

[AVee]

Well in the case of drunk driving you could just as well charge people with attempted murder IMHO.

Here in Holland you risk losing not just your license but also your car if you drive drunk or are caught speeding. People without a car are less likely to be found driving without license ;)

Re:Whatever happened....

[drunk_as_in_beer]

then only outlaws will have balloons

Re:Whatever happened....

[Sancho]

"Whatever happened..." indeed.

From a link link further down the page....

PRODUCT AND DESIGN FEATURES

Hum Tone: Requires the client to deliver a hum resonance while blowing the alcohol test prior to starting the vehicle. Deters techniques utilized to mimic human breath or to absorb alcohol.


This is good, if you are concerned about people faking it.


Random or Fixed Retest: Programmable. The client is alerted and given a grace period to retest after the vehicle is put into the run state. The test can be delivered while operating the vehicle or after pulling off the road. Breath test refusal or failure is recorded and sanctions are imposed, including honking of the car's horn. Deters drinking after completing a sober start and vehicle idling at bars.


Probably most useful for DUI offenders, not for everyone...but who knows how far this legislation will go?


Bypass Detect: If a vehicle is started and the breath test is not passed, the horn will begin honking until the vehicle is turned off or a breath test is successfully completed. All events are recorded. Deters hot-wiring and push-starting of vehicles.


There had better be a small amount of time that the vehicle can be driven before the test but after you start the car. Otherwise, that 30 seconds is going to be a major pain. Not only that, but what if you are fleeing from an attacker? I guess our own personal safety isn't as important as those on the road who might be killed if I end up behind the wheel drunk (which, statistically, the majority of people do not do.)


Events Log: A built-in memory chip records all events associated with the use or misuse of the device. Reports are generated through a personal computer in a summary and complete hard-copy format.


Cool.. Now when are these reports read? For DUI offenders, it's presumably fairly often. For everyone else...when? When you get your car inspected? These things had better have a pretty big memory.


Violations Reset: Programmable. If the predetermined number of violations occurs during a monitoring period, an early inspection is required within three (3) days. Failure to report will result in immobilization of the vehicle. Violations are quickly identified and reported to the jurisdiction.


Again, most useful with DUI offenders. But honestly, after one violation, I'd think that you'd want inspection.


Service Reminder Reset: Reminds the client of a scheduled monitoring check. Failure to have the device monitored within the prescribed time period results in the device interlocking.

Power Interrupt: A dated record, in the event 12 volt power has been disconnected or interrupted. The device maintains memory through an onboard back-up lithium battery. This condition (other than tampering) can occur when a vehicle's battery is disconnected due to repairs or is replaced. Clients are required to provide documentation of repairs.


Whoa whoa whoa.... So if my battery dies, I'm fucked? No documented repair. This absolutely is only good for DUI offenders, because frankly, it's an unreasonable burden on your average person. I change my own batteries. There are also times when I take the battery off for other reasons. I should just be able to, period. Demanding documentation as to why the battery was removed is simply unacceptable unless there is good cause to believe that I was trying to get around the system.



Vehicle Restart: In the event of a vehicle stall, the driver has a grace period during which the ignition can be turned off and re-engaged without having to submit an additional breath test.

This somewhat mitigates the 30 second timer, but it also leads me to believe that that timer is a hard limit, and that this device actually prevents the car from being started until the check has completed. That's scary, to me. 30 seconds is a long time. Get a stopwatch, go outside, sit in your car for 30 seconds. It's an unreasonable imposition for someone who has neither broken the law, nor has a history of alcohol problems.

Re:Whatever happened....

[Grokslaw]

We had a discussion on the fines based on income and found too many issues. 1. Possible cruel and unusual punishment. 200K for a speeding fine, come on. 2. Too much potential for abuse. Imagine doughnut (mmm, forbidden doughnut) eating cop letting junkers go by at 50 in a 25, then pulling over a ferrari enzo going 27 in a 25 knowing he'll get a major fine. Conclusion: Stupid law that has no business being a law.

Re:Whatever happened....

[Anonymous Coward]

Put balloon under arm to warm it.

Re:Whatever happened....

[Sloppy]

Heh. "Time Shifting."

Re:Whatever happened....

[shawn(at)fsu]

to taking peoples license away from them Do you know how many people my father arrests for driving with out a license, allot of the people that lose the license simply don't care, just like people driving with out insurance.

I heard a rumor in one of my Criminology classes that one state was talking about seizing a persons car is convicted of DUI, kind of like drug smuggling. I think that would make you think twice, and if you didn't and lost your car it would make people think twice about letting you using their car.

Re:Whatever happened....

[Gudlyf]

It's possible the system can tell if it's just "air" and not "breath".

I can see it now, people on the black market selling "Guaranteed non-alcoholic breath" in balloons.

Re:Whatever happened....

[WhiteWolf666]

Not sure how nifty these devices are....

But you might be able to use an air pump :)

Re:Whatever happened....

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Your breath comes out at apporximately body temperature, for example, and making the air in a balloon body temperature plus or minus a few degrees would be tough.

Aaww crap, and there goes my ability to start a car now. Like if being able to drive only during the night wasn't annoying enough :-(

Love,
-- Count Vlad Dracul

Re:Whatever happened....

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe taking their licence has proved ineffective. We need to take their cars. Extreme yes, but what else are you going to do about drunks who insist on driving after 5 DWIs and they lost their licence after the 2nd one?

Re:Whatever happened....

[Anonymous Coward]

Holland has public transportation. In some places we have two choices (1) dont drink (2) sleep in your car (that second one is still a DUI in many places).

Re:Whatever happened....

[Culture]

And 100% of $0/year is ?????

Re:Whatever happened....

[InfiniteWisdom]

There had better be a small amount of time that the vehicle can be driven before the test but after you start the car. Otherwise, that 30 seconds is going to be a major pain. Not only that, but what if you are fleeing from an attacker? I guess our own personal safety isn't as important as those on the road who might be killed if I end up behind the wheel drunk (which, statistically, the majority of people do not do.)


I agree with you for the most part... except this. I think an overwhelmingly larger number of people drive drunk than have to flee for their lives from an attacker. Or maybe I'm just luckily to live in a part ofthe country where we don't get attacked that much,

Re:Whatever happened....

[Threni]

Hurumph. Both you AND the moderator, eh?

Note to self - use ironic smilies more often on sites visted mostly by Americans...

Re:Whatever happened....

[dave420-2]

Just run it through a series of tiny pipes that you put in your mouth (like a gum-shield, but further in your mouth, over your tongue). The clean air is heated to exactly the temperature of your body with little fuss, and suffers no contamination in the process. Like a refridgerator. but oral. there's a thought ;)

Re:Whatever happened....

[Kadagan AU]

I think there's a point where you need to ask "who really owns your car?" I thought that I owned my car, since I bought it outright with cash. It seems to me they're saying that the government owns your car now. When they're requiring you to document when you remove your battery, that's going way too far. I had a bad alternator once, and my battery died pretty frequently until I figured it out and replaced it. I did all the work myself, and the only documentation I have is the receipt for the alternator. The only reason I saved that is because it's got a life time warranty ;). The car is mine, and while on my private property I should be able to do whatever I like with it. There is no reason that a law should be passed having this great of an affect on so many people, when it's meant to deter a slim minority.

Re:Whatever happened....

[EvlG]

Having to retest while the car is in motion seems like something that could cause accidents to me!

Imagine going down the freeway at 60+mph and having to fiddle around for the tester to keep the car running! Your options are

1) Take your eyes off the road and concentrate on the test

2) Don't test, and hav ethe car stall

Neither of these sound especially safe to me.

Re:Whatever happened....

[ncr53c8xx]

Cool.. Now when are these reports read? For DUI offenders, it's presumably fairly often. For everyone else...when? When you get your car inspected? These things had better have a pretty big memory.

Cool. A big brother surveillance device has just been implanted with a "save the children" angle. Do they use 1984 as a manual?

Hum Tone: Requires the client to deliver a hum resonance while blowing the alcohol test prior to starting the vehicle. Deters techniques utilized to mimic human breath or to absorb alcohol.

Anyone else see the South Park episode with "IT"? :-) Looks like the controls are gaining popularity.

I change my own batteries. There are also times when I take the battery off for other reasons. I should just be able to, period.

Changing your own batteries? What are you, a communist? :-D

Re:Whatever happened....

[rarose]

Look at it this way: It *everybody* had one of these on their cars then muggers/rapists/murderers/etc will know that anybody they see entering their car will be a sitting duck for 30 seconds.

Re:Whatever happened....

[Safety Cap]

Your breath comes out at apporximately[sic] body temperature ~.

Riiiiight. So that means that your car won't start if you just drank a cold soda or hot coffee. Or you have a fever. Or the air is humid or dry. Or it is winter and you are in Chicago when the wind is blowing off the lake.

Rather than rely on urban legend like how sucking on pennies or eating underwear will make your breath heat up to "body temperature" and then you'll pass the test, you can get the actual scientific information behind how a breathalyser works.

On the other hand, this plus this will make any NM car drivable by even the drunkest felon.

.

.

.

Q. How do you know you're posting on slashdot?

A. 503 Service Unavailable
The service is not available. Please try again later.

Re:Whatever happened....

[LurkerXXX]

Agreed.

Then again, living in a dangerous neighborhood just got MUCH more dangerous...

Re:Whatever happened....

[Anonymous Coward]

I was thinking about anti-hack tech in these things myself.

Would a can of compressed air work? A can (or baloon) of pre-compressed breath?

What safeguards are in these things?

Will the re-test tech actually cause accidents because of the distraction from driving?

A Nony Mouse

Re:Whatever happened....

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Hell u can take the licenses away and they will still drive . License is just a piece of paper / plastic with a fine attached to it if u drive with out it.

So do it right: DUI (real DUI, not drunk in a car in a parking lot) loses you your license forever. Get caught driving without a license that you lost because you were DUI, go to jail.

Re:Whatever happened....

[Whafro]

"no ossciffer... I prommmise ... I'm n-not dreenking unter the infffluence... I fffinished a wh-while ago."

Re:Whatever happened....

[That's Unpossible!]

Are you planning to carry around multiple pre-inflated balloons in your car all the time? Because it strikes me that inflating a balloon with your breath, then using the balloon on the interlock, is still essentially equivalent to breathing in the interlock for yourself.

Thank you, Sherlock.

I am pretty sure the original poster does not consider balloons as some sort of alcohol filter.

Re:Whatever happened....

[ZorbaTHut]

Right now, my car has an electrical problem that I haven't tracked down yet. The battery doesn't hold a charge when connected to the car - it manages 24 hours pretty easily, but a weekend will kill it and I need to get a jumpstart from someone.

There's an easy solution (at least until I fix the real problem) - when I think I won't be using it for a few days, I disconnect the battery.

This would mean I wouldn't be able to do that.

Ick.

Re:Whatever happened....

[jmccay]

Not only that, but consider this idea. You have a hot date {ok you think you have a hot date since we are mostly geeks} and you use a mouth wash to insure you have great breath for any opportune times that might come up. The you try to start you car and it goes off as if you are drunk. Why? A lot of mouth washes can increase the reading of a breathe test to monitor alcohol levels. It actually increases. I don't see this bill as anything usefull. It's another exscuse for not enforcing existing laws!

Re:Whatever happened....

[drinkypoo]

I'm sorry, you claim that teenagers with motorcycles commonly have a limiter disable? A limiter on what? First, there would have to BE a limiter. Most bikes are still pretty manual devices, they don't use electronic controls, so there's not even a rev limiter. Some of the newer bikes are coming out with fuel injection so at that point it makes more sense to run everything electronically but they don't usually have speed limiters.

If anything is hidden in a teenager's vehicle, it's beer, or a nitrous bottle. The nitrous switches are often hidden in the ashtray. People usually don't put nitrous on motorcycles, because there's no point, but it's possible.

Re:Whatever happened....

[Sancho]

Technically, you could pull the car over for 30 seconds. Doing this every 30 minutes or so on a long trip would get really, really tiresome though.

Re:Whatever happened....

[hplasm]

Changing your own batteries? What are you, a communist? :-D

I'm a robot. |*>

Re:Whatever happened....

[strike2867]

I live in IL and as a standard go 100+mph on highways. Now imagine if I was driving drunk and searching for my balloon to place near the breathalizer. I just hope when I do it again one of these Senators limos would be driving right next to me. I can just imagine the headlines. "Senator killed by own legislation". "Senator commits suicide".

But I in general think that road tests should be stricter. I passed everything on the first try 3 years ago. But now that I look back on it, I did not deserve to drive. I have still never been in an accident, but the test was way too easy. Retests would probably also weed out a lot of people stupid enough to DUI.

Re:Whatever happened....

[bwcbwc]

And in related news, two Florida DUI offenders are suing over this issue of ownership (one of the plaintiffs owns a business with a fleet of vehicles, and the law apparently requires igntion interlocks on all of them) and also double-jeopardy, because the local ignition interlock law passed after they had completed their sentences.

Re:Whatever happened....

[TALlama]

The car is mine, and while on my private property I should be able to do whatever I like with it.

It's true. Go ahead and hack the thing out on your private property. However, that means you can no longer drive the car except on said property, since the roads are a public property and covered by these things called 'laws.'

Burn, karma, burn.

Re:Whatever happened....

[erroneus]

I'm against this law but I can see where some of this might be coming from.

The fact is that many of the drivers in New Mexico aren't legal in any sense... that is to say no driver's license, no green card, no nothing. Have recently been in a fender scratcher over the recent Texas snow (I was a passenger) where the cause of the accident was an illegal alien with, as it turnsout, illegal license plates, no driver's license, no insurance, etc... the only thing left to control, since they can't control the damned aliens, is the car!

It's a ridiculous inconvenience and I'm very against it... they should SHOOT TO KILL all people attempting to cross into our border illegally and at a non-designated crossing area. Let the risk be known that we will not take prisoners, we'll just ship the bodies back over the border.

I'm sick of the damage these people are doing to our lives. And now with clear terrorist threat, what's to stop Al Qaeda from donning a sombrero and sneaking over with the other illegals? Nothing of course... shoot'm!

Re:Whatever happened....

[nchernyy]

firstly, new mexico has taken the trophy home for the past two years for being the dumbest state in the union. secondly, like radar detectors and mod chips, if anyone really wanted to circumvent this "feature", they could. you may be saying, "but nchernyy! radar detectors are illegal in my state and mod chips violate the DMCA!" you would be surprised to find that you can import radar detectors from other states and that you can still get your favourite mod chips online.

Re:Whatever happened....

[mackinaugh]

If this is the case, then a better solution might be stiffer penalties on people who drive without a license rather than creating new laws with new penalties, and new costs associated with implementing the apparatus, no?

Re:Whatever happened....

[Tibor the Hun]

Come on people, do you think monkeys punched up this proposition?
I'm sure they wouldn't force you to lean over and blow while you're driving. There are other ways to do random tests, such as when you're stopped (like on a red light) or using a cigarette like tube that you could draw and blow into while you drive. (and doing so is MUCH safer than driving intoxicated, as smokers can probably verify)

Re:Whatever happened....

[Anonymous Coward]

And 100% of $0/year is ?????

There's a minimum fine. In the $200,000 example quoted above the minimum fine would have been somewhere near $175.

Re:Whatever happened....

[Marco_polo]

Actually it's the law in New York City.. if you get caught driving drunk.. bye bye car!!

Re:Whatever happened....

[alonsoac]

Depends on how clever it is. Your breath comes out at apporximately body temperature, for example, and making the air in a balloon body temperature plus or minus a few degrees would be tough.

Not really, you would just need to quickly blow some air into the balloon and then release into the tester.

Oh, wait...

Re:Whatever happened....

[lcde]

The cars don't lock until you pass the breathalizer also?

Re:Whatever happened....

[Anonymous Coward]

The cars don't lock until you pass the breathalizer also?
But how do you see where you are going in your windowless car?

Re:Whatever happened....

[shawn(at)fsu]

I though it might have been, I just didn't want to have 100's of people saying I don't know what I'm talking about.

The girl that told us about it was saying how it was "so unfair" you can imagine that in a class that was taught by an active police office with a PH.D didn't give her much sympathy.

Thanks for verifying this for me :)

Re:Whatever happened....

[will3477]

Violations Reset: Programmable. If the predetermined number of violations occurs during a monitoring period, an early inspection is required within three (3) days. Failure to report will result in immobilization of the vehicle. Violations are quickly identified and reported to the jurisdiction.

Okay so I go to college out of state (though neither my home state or the state of attendance is NM). But if I had to have one of these things, when it malfunctioned parked in the university lot and I didn't know about it until three days laters, I'm just fucked? I mean how am I suppose to get home if the vehicle won't move. What about if I go out of town and it malfunctions?

Re:Whatever happened....

[SpaceCadetTrav]

That's the way the system is in the US right now, and poor people STILL break more laws than the rich. Take a look at prison statistics when you get a chance.

Re:Whatever happened....

[Loconut1389]

2 words: air compressor

Re:Whatever happened....

[poot_rootbeer]

I think an overwhelmingly larger number of people drive drunk than have to flee for their lives from an attacker.

Irrelevant. If only one sober motorist is unable to flee from an attacker due to this device and it costs them their lives, the technology is unacceptable.

Re:Whatever happened....

[rhaig]

of course.... that window you're sitting next to is unbreakable isn't it. Or that convertable top can't be cut? Locking your doors won't stop a criminal stalking you. Of course the laws in this country are leaning more and more away from personal protection, so why should this be any different.

Re:Whatever happened....

[Anonymous Coward]

The man who killed my son had no license (would not have done any good to take it away). It wasn't his car (you couldn't take it away). When I lived in Arizona there was a case where an individual was released from prison, (he had served 2 years for drunk driving), stole a car the same day, drove the wrong way down the freeway and killed a family of 6.

The real problem is in fact only a few people, mostly hard core alchoholics, and the rest of us pay the penalty, but I would far rather see a 100 dollar extra cost for a car than the loss of life caused by these assholes. With this in place (assuming you can make the technology work adequately well) you could even repeal the laws that are in place against drunk driving (after the mechanism has been widely enough adopted).

Re:Whatever happened....

[Rostin]

I understand how breathalyzers work. It seemed like you understood my post at first (and you made some points worth thinking about in response) but then you strayed off into something about urban legends and pennies.. My point was that one possible means of preventing people from keeping balloons full of air or bellows in their car to fake out the machine is to make the test temperature sensitive. If the sample is too hot or cold, the machine knows its being cheated. I did NOT mean that temperature itself indicates whether or not someone has had too much to drink.

Re:Whatever happened....

[Datafage]

No, thats bullshit, it's not attempted murder anymore than carrying a certain amount of drugs is automatically intent to distribute. Attempted murder means you specifically wanted to kill somebody, which most drunk drivers do not. They're dangerous and irresponsible but not attempted killers.

Re:Whatever happened....

[coyote_oww]

The problem with this is that it doesn't penalize the poor white trash who are most likely to be drinking in driving in the first place. Sure, we all get angry and upset when some rich debutante gets drunk and runs over a 6-year old...but frankly, this is the minority of cases. More typical is the guy has nothing but a beat-up pickup that barely runs and is in hock to the title loan company, with 60% of his income from part-time unskilled construction work tied up in child support and alimony, and the rest owed to various creditors. What do you do when he gets wasted, rams a car and terminates a family? Base this guy's fine on his income or overall wealth he might wind up owning $2.97... hardly a deterent. It is guys like this, who will get their license revoked AND KEEP DRIVING ANYWAY that are the real problem. There is no way to stay constitutionally valid (not cruel, not unusual) and administer any effective punishment - he's already done so much worse to himself, nothing you could legally do to him is going to phase him.

Re:Whatever happened....

[doorbot.com]

Look at it this way: It *everybody* had one of these on their cars then muggers/rapists/murderers/etc will know that anybody they see entering their car will be a sitting duck for 30 seconds.

Is the 30 seconds the amount of time you have as a driver to perform the test after attempting to start the engine? If that's the case, then you jump in the car, turn the key, perform the test, and the engine starts. Granted, this still isn't a great option, but if you're being attacked in your car, you're probably breathing heavily to begin with...

Re:Whatever happened....

[MachDelta]

There had better be a small amount of time that the vehicle can be driven before the test but after you start the car.

You have to provide a sample before you start the car, and then randomly as you're driving (anywhere from 20 to 50 minutes) later.

Cool.. Now when are these reports read? For DUI offenders, it's presumably fairly often. For everyone else...when? When you get your car inspected? These things had better have a pretty big memory.

The devices I worked with were read generally once every 3 months. There were a few rare exceptions where the log would fill before that time though (especially with couriers). Hopefully newer generations of the technology have a larger memory capacity.

Whoa whoa whoa.... So if my battery dies, I'm fucked? No documented repair. This absolutely is only good for DUI offenders, because frankly, it's an unreasonable burden on your average person. I change my own batteries. There are also times when I take the battery off for other reasons. I should just be able to, period. Demanding documentation as to why the battery was removed is simply unacceptable unless there is good cause to believe that I was trying to get around the system.

Not exactly fucked. You can disconnect the battery for 15 minutes without it logging an event (with the boxes I worked with anyways). Thats long enough to switch batteries in most vehicles. Oh, and it takes 3 "power on/off" events before you're called back early. So, while technically discouraged, you could do work on your vehicle about once a month. Yes, it is a pretty bullshit rule, but its just there to try and keep people from fucking with the box.

Re:Whatever happened....

[Safety Cap]

However, that means you can no longer drive the car except on said property, since the roads are a public property and covered by these things called 'laws.'

So what if you're "passing through" the state and you don't live there? You can't get busted for not having that "feature" when your own state doesn't require it.

How long before the border towns see a rise in inter-state car purchases?

"Yes, officer, I was visiting my sister in Frlorida, when I decided to buy a new car."

"Why are you towing another new car?"

"That's for my kids..."

Re:Whatever happened....

[Anonymous Coward]

Taking away people's license doesn't work because they drive anyhow. If you think you have a right to drive even when drunk, you also think you have a right to drive even when unlicensed.

Re:Whatever happened....

[Hadean]

Playing devil's advocate (since I agree with you): If you start the car and fail the test (i.e. you don't do it), the car's lights flash and the horn honks - if you're being attacked, isn't that a good thing? I doubt any mugger or stalker would want to be trying to break in the car with you scream and the horn blaring away...

Of course, 30 seconds may be enough time for them to get in and turn the engine back off...

Re:Whatever happened....

[Fjord]

On the topic of the yearly income fines: rather than think twice wouldn't he just hire a driver at 30K/year and have him speed. The resulting speeding tickets would be much less as well and could be covered by a "bonus".

Re:Whatever happened....

[grassy_knoll]

Kind of agree...

A guy I know rigged his windshield washer dispenser to shoot vodka into a hose hanging next to his drivers side visor. Great set up; he could drink and drive at the touch of a switch.

When the cops pulled him over, the drips from the hose gave him away. Nothing like having vodka drip onto a speeding ticket to ruin your day.

They don't call it "impared" for nothing.

Re:Whatever happened....

[pftpft]

You could stick the tube in your butt and fart.

Re:Whatever happened....

[Surt]

Posting from the universe where these devices have always been installed, and a bill removing them was being considered:

Irrelevant! If only one innocent person is killed by a drunk driver because these devices were removed their removal is unacceptable!

Re:Whatever happened....

[Surt]

Actually, mandating a pullover every 30 minutes on a long trip would most likely greatly improve driver safety.

Re:Whatever happened....

[vidmaster]

I'm curious to see how this integrates into the car. I'm sure it could be ripped out pretty quick ;) Might need a new ECU though.

Re:Whatever happened....

[Glendale2x]

How about this:

I don't drink. At all. Never have, never will. Why must I suffer this shit?

I know, it's so a drunk can't steal my car. WTF ever... I know how to drive properly, don't punish me because some other asshat can't.

Re:Whatever happened....

[Mad Merovingian]

No worries. Everyone knows that new cars never have electrical problems.

Re:Whatever happened....

[BillyBlaze]

Pulling over every thirty minutes would wake you up, yes. But going 0-70 on the shoulder and merging into traffic is pretty dangerous. Even being on the shoulder is dangerous. Especially if everyone else is taking the test while whizzing by you at 75.

The law will mandate ignition interlocks on cars sold in New Mexico. Wouldn't everyone just buy cars out-of-state? Luckily, it means the New Mexico auto dealerships will lobby it into the ground long before 2008.

Re:Whatever happened....

[rark]

There are laws, federal and state, that mandate certain safety features and outlaw things that are considered unsafe In MA, those running lights that some car-modders are so fond of are illegal. In most states there is some form of safety inspection that must be passed before a car can be registered. And for the most part, this all makes sense. It's not really an unreasonable burden to pay something under $50 (I don't know of a state where the safety inspection costs more, but I haven't lived in all states, either) and wait in line/wait for them to check your car once every year or two in order to make the roads safer for everybody. None of us really wants a car with no brakes out on the road.

But this is ridiculous. First, because it's an unreasonable financial burden on *somebody*, whomever has to pay to put a huge number of devices in every car. Second, because if all of those devices are enabled (the legislation says that the devices have to be installed, but doesn't mention if they have to be enabled or not), it is a significant burden on every driver in the state, for reasons that have been well discussed here.

I hope it gets knocked down as unconstitutional.

Re:Whatever happened....

[InfiniteWisdom]

As opposed to the hundreds who are killed each other by drunk drivers?

Re:Whatever happened....

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeh, who's going to pay for a checker that ALSO checks your body temp and has a fingerprint scanner and etc etc?

Make it illegal to be stupid and only outlaws will be stupid... we wish.

Re:Whatever happened....

[den_erpel]

djees, don't be that narrow sighted, I don't even have to guess what part of the world you're from.

There are countries where kids can drive a small motor cycle from 16 yrs onwards as long as it doesn't go faster than 25/40 (don't know exactly). If it goes faster, you need a drivers license and have to wear a helmet.

I don't think that the limiter is electronic since this is around for a few decades already, I assume it's controlling the injection (mix?).

'Pumping up' the bikes is a common practice here and the police have regular checks around schools to test the speed.

I do agree that when you're stopped by the police, then most often don't need a check to know if you drank alcohol, :)

Re:Whatever happened....

[Reziac]

Why the hell shouldn't I idle my car at a bar? Maybe I just came out after one too many, and decide rather than stupidly driving home, I'll sleep in my car (maybe not smart, but at least not a hazard to others). But it's cold out... oh well, I'll just start the car and run the heater for a while. What? it won't start? So no heat??!

Sooner or later, someone will die of hypothermia because their car won't start. It's quite possible in NM, most of which gets some to serious winter.

(Never mind all the other hazards this system creates, which I ranted on in other posts)

Re:Whatever happened....

[Reziac]

I predict a massive increase in the number of carjackings, where the main window of vulnerability is how long it takes you to get your car started after you get in and insert the key.

Re:Whatever happened....

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, sure, all fine and logical. He probably has one.

But what good is your new and shiny ferrari if you can't drive with it?

Will last about 1/2 hour...

[R2.0]

Until I take it out.

Ignition interlocks are a tool for those who need them. They are monitored strictly under the guidelines of whatever court ordered it. Just throwing them onto cars without the monitoring is simply a waste of time.

This has been tried before. Anyone remember seat belt interlocks from the early 70's? Didn't think so - that's how long that bright idea lasted.

Re:Will last about 1/2 hour...

[garcia]

Why is this modded up? This is no different than mandating seatbelts yet I get modded to hell when I mention that I don't think it should be LAW that we have to wear them.

BUT BUT it could hurt someone else if you are ejected... Well this could save people's lives too.

Re:Will last about 1/2 hour...

[Tassach]

Until I take it out.

A few problems with that plan:

1. It will probably be a crime to disable the device. This could turn a simple speeding ticket into a trip to the pokey.
2. New Mexico has periodic (annual, IIRC) vehicle safety inspections. If your interlock were disabled, you wouldn't get your inspection sticker and couldn't legally drive your car.
3. As you mention, interlocks now are used by court order only. This is Constitutional and reasonable. Someone needs to re-educate Mr. Martinez about the Constitution:

   Amendment V
   No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Re:Will last about 1/2 hour...

[garcia]

New Mexico has periodic (annual, IIRC) vehicle safety inspections. If your interlock were disabled, you wouldn't get your inspection sticker and couldn't legally drive your car.

And this is why you join the ranks of plenty of other US citizens in registering your car out of state. People in MN do it all the time because of the fucking bastards in MN that charge astronomical rates for license plates and taxes on those plates (ie I pay taxes on the price of my car that are $3000 more than what I actually paid because the State gets to determine how much I paid not the dealer).

Re:Will last about 1/2 hour...

[phiala]

New Mexico has periodic (annual, IIRC) vehicle safety inspections. If your interlock were disabled, you wouldn't get your inspection sticker and couldn't legally drive your car.

Depends on where you are... I lived in Las Cruces for 4 years (way down south), and was never required to have my car inspected. Albuquerque/Santa Fe area does have inspections, I think. But you wouldn't believe some of the things I saw on the road in Las Cruces... cars with no hoods, no windshields, (no wipers was common)...

It's also dirt cheap for license & registration, I think $25 for registration and $18 for a licence (6 years ago).

New Mexico does have a really horrible drunk driving problem, and enforcement is just about useless (even the cops admit it). The court system is overloaded, and the worst offenders just don't pay their fines & drive without a license.

I'm glad I don't live there any more.

Re:Will last about 1/2 hour...

[p4ul13]

Well I think we can all agree that it's a good thing you're not the type of person to bitch about this.

Re:Will last about 1/2 hour...

[the_mad_poster]

Heh... somehow I doubt that even if you were ejected from the vehicle through the windshield or side window (even if it were down) at 65 mph, you're body would have enough force to actually cause significant damage to a bystander unless they were standing right next to the accident already (thereby putting them in greater danger of debris and the accident itself than your flopping missile of a body). I guess it's possible that you'd beat the odds and actually smack somebody, and I guess if you got hit hard enough to accelerate your mass to such a degree that it could cause major damage you COULD hurt someone.. but it's one of those "BUT WE HAVE TO TAKE EXTREME MEASURES BECAUSE I'M CONSIDERING UNREALISTICALLY EXTREME POSSIBILITIES!!!! lol!!"

Or, in conclusion, I think whoever used that argument against you is an idiot. I also wonder at the utility of requiring people to wear seatbelts since they're only endangering themselves (lamebrain arguments about being "ejected to safety" and "trapped" notwithstanding the fact that only idiots believe them). This makes a lot more sense because you're obviously putting other people in the way of a much greater danger by driving drunk, but the fact that the government feels it can walk up to me and say 'you have to pay for this becuase that dumbass was driving drunk' is something that more than just ruffles my feathers. Here's an idea: put the dumbass in rehab, take away the license PERMANENTLY, fine the living shit out of them the first time they do it, and lock them up for a good long stint in the state pen for increasing amounts of time for each repeat.

Any vehicle that comes into my household equipped with such a device will not stay that way for long (and will only be on long enough to pass inspection each year). I can imagine there will even be a pretty quick grey market set up around easy mods to eliminate them.

Yet another idea that looks real good on paper, gets some government figures some face time, and is just a really, really dumb idea that doesn't withstand even a cursory run through the logic chain.

Re:Will last about 1/2 hour...

[AllUsernamesAreGone]

Someone needs to re-educate Mr. Martinez about the Constitution

I think the same could be said about most of the current US politicians..

Re:Will last about 1/2 hour...

[twobturtle]

New Mexico has periodic (annual, IIRC) vehicle safety inspections. If your interlock were disabled, you wouldn't get your inspection sticker and couldn't legally drive your car.

New Mexico does not have regular vehicle inspections. As a resident who doesn't drink alcohol at all, I would probably be one of the first to disable the device.
On the other hand, this bill will not likely make it though the state Senate, so it doesn't really matter.

Re:Will last about 1/2 hour...

[allodial]

The Constitution?? When has that ever stopped anyone from passing a law? Let's see: Campain Finance Reform (Amendment I) Fire-arm restrictions (Amendment II) Paper Money (Art. I, Sec. X) Public display of Ten Commandments (Amendment I) And Amendments IX and X are pretty much non-existant any more.

Re:Will last about 1/2 hour...

[nomadic]

How exactly does this violate the 5th amendment? MAYBE you could argue it qualifies as testifying against himself, but that would a be a real stretch.

Re:Will last about 1/2 hour...

[alienw]

RTFA dammit. The law doesn't require them in all cars. It only requires them in all cars SOLD in New Mexico. So you can go to a neighboring state, get a car there, and use it -- perfectly legally -- in NM. Or you could remove the device from your own car, again perfectly legally.

Re:Will last about 1/2 hour...

[ehiris]

New Mexico has periodic (annual, IIRC) vehicle safety inspections. If your interlock were disabled, you wouldn't get your inspection sticker and couldn't legally drive your car.

How is the guy who tests if the interlock is working going to drive home?

Re:Will last about 1/2 hour...

[Eccles]

This is no different than mandating seatbelts yet I get modded to hell when I mention that I don't think it should be LAW that we have to wear them.

Seat belt laws keep the driver behind the wheel of the car (and the passenger out of his/her lap.) Since in many accidents, the car is still moving after the initial impact, the driver still has the opportunity to minimize further damage to himself and others.

Re:Will last about 1/2 hour...

[syle]

It will probably be a crime to disable the device.

It's also a crime to run without a catalyst, with advanced ignition timing, with some types of aftermarket exhausts, and with high-intensity headlights that aren't factory installed. But, how many Civics do you see running around with all those? Quite a lot. Yeah, they'll get fined or get a fix-it ticket if they're pulled over and the cop feels like enforcing those laws, but most of them aren't caught. Those that are usually only fix it temporarily, or just pay the fine and go on breaking the law.

This type of thing will prevent your average soccer mom from driving drunk, but will it prevent a 20-something who's even slightly into cars, or has a friend who's into cars? Probably not.

Re:Will last about 1/2 hour...

[Libertarian_Geek]

"as well as random 'rolling retests' to discourage others from taking the test for you. These rolling retests require the driver to take the test as the car is moving. If the driver fails a retest, the horn sounds and the lights flash until the car is turned off"

Wouldn't these rolling retests be at least as distracting as using a cellphone while driving?

Re:Will last about 1/2 hour...

[SpaghettiPattern]

1. It will probably be a crime to disable the device.
He'll move state then.

Re:Will last about 1/2 hour...

[HD Webdev]

New Mexico has periodic (annual, IIRC) vehicle safety inspections. If your interlock were disabled, you wouldn't get your inspection sticker and couldn't legally drive your car.

You would still get inspection stickers.

California has strict exhaust emission control requirements.

But, plenty of people pass the emission tests because there are always shops in the area that are willing to validate just about any vehicle when slipped some extra cash.

Re:Will last about 1/2 hour...

[Kehl]

What about none highway car useage?

My personal mail box is 1/2 mile from my dam house and crosses NO public property/roads!

So I walk to my mailbox everytime I'm still slightly over the limit in the morning, because my f**king car won't start!

Re:Will last about 1/2 hour...

[lildogie]

> It will probably be a crime to disable the device.

Give me a break. The law probably will not pass.

This is a political ploy in an election year, so that politicians can get a worthless, but good-looking vote on their record.

Re:Will last about 1/2 hour...

[HD Webdev]

Ignition interlocks are a tool for those who need them. They are monitored strictly under the guidelines of whatever court ordered it. Just throwing them onto cars without the monitoring is simply a waste of time.

ALL vehicles in the state should have them if the law passes, even Police Vehicles.

I always used to joke, after bartending for a couple of years, that when officers in the area pull someone over and require an alcohol test, the officer should take one too and if the citizen has a lower alcohol content, they don't get a ticket, they just have to park their vehicle.

It wasn't really a joke though. I served plenty of the local officers drinks and they'd then go on shift to bust people for traffic violations, including DUI's. (We had a police/fire scanner at the bar).

Re:Will last about 1/2 hour...

[trailerparkcassanova]

1.It will probably be a crime to disable the device. This could turn a simple speeding ticket into a trip to the pokey.

Repeated drunk driving rarely leads to a significant stay in the slammer here in NM. Only drunk Indians killing white people on Christmas Eve or Nebraskan tourists gets attention. There is no reason to believe penalties would deter people from disconnecting these.

2. New Mexico has periodic (annual, IIRC) vehicle safety inspections. If your interlock were disabled, you wouldn't get your inspection sticker and couldn't legally drive your car.

New Mexico has no such thing and never has. We don't even require voters to present ID at the polls.

3. As you mention, interlocks now are used by court order only. This is Constitutional and reasonable. Someone needs to re-educate Mr. Martinez about the Constitution:

There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents this from being implemented.

Re:Will last about 1/2 hour...

[Anonymous Coward]

>> New Mexico has periodic (annual, IIRC) vehicle safety inspections.

Not true. Bernallillo County has periodic vehicle safety inspections. New Mexico is more than Albuquerque.

Re:Will last about 1/2 hour...

[Tibor the Hun]

You forgot about all the dumbasses that don't get caught. What are we supposed to do about them?

Re:Will last about 1/2 hour...

[the_mad_poster]

That didn't make any sense. You can't punish people you don't catch unless you just punish everybody. Are you suggesting that it's a good idea to penalize everybody because a very small minority of stupid people can't comprehend ("drunk driving" eq 'bad')?

Re:Will last about 1/2 hour...

[Anonymous Coward]

You think that public display of the ten commandments by a government is free speech? You're a fucking moron, dude. Have a nice day.

Re:Will last about 1/2 hour...

[mindstrm]

Hitting something does not accelerate you. You continue to move as you already were. Even if going through the windshield slowed you down, which it would, a person standing nearby, getting hit with a 150 pound sack of meat going 40mph could easily end up in a body cast, or dead.

Re:Will last about 1/2 hour...

[Tassach]

It would have been apparant if I hadn't fubared my HTML. Damn preview button.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

This violates due process by imposing a legal penalty on people who have not been convicted of a crime by a court of law. An interlock like this is very similar to the monitoring devices used to ensure that people sentenced to home detention are actually at home. Making me take a breath test every time I start my car sounds like a deprivation of liberty to me.

The SC has (mistakenly, IMHO) ruled that a breath test does not constitute a "search" under the 4th amendment, so there's no point in persuing anything along those lines as grounds for invalidating the law. Likewise, unless the interlock keeps a log of it's readings which could be used as evidence, it's not self-incriminating.

Another point is that this probably violates the commerce clause as well. The Constitution gives Congress the sole power to regulate interstate commerce (Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 3); since New Mexico is not known as a major car-producing area, it seems pretty likely that any purchace of a car is going to involve interstate commerce at some point. It further impacts interstate commerce because any car originally sold in NM would have to have the interlock removed before it could be sold in another state. The Supreme Court has held a very broad interpretation (perhaps over-broad, but that's another issue) of the commerce clause, so there's probably ample ground to invalidate it on those grounds alone, without even getting into the Due Process issue.

What the founding fathers forgot to put into the Constitution was a "bloody stupid" clause, to keep Congress and the States from passing laws which are, well, bloody stupid.

Re:Will last about 1/2 hour...

[dwillden]

Good question. However I'm sure the competition for that job will be intense. Imagine a job where you have to stay legally drunk eight hours a day.

Re:Will last about 1/2 hour...

[Tibor the Hun]

I'm not talking about punishment. I'm talking about prevention.
Instead of punishing those who do get caught, and rewarding those who don't, this would prevent them from doing it in the first place.
I'm not sure if you're from US, so I apologize if I made any incorrect assumptions, but from growing up in rural Nebraska, through attending colleges in South Dakota and Nebraska, I ve seen that there are far more students that do drink and drive, than not. I myself have been in a heavy accident caused by a drunk driver, know one girl that survived one (unlike the 3 of her friends), know 2 other individuals that totaled their brand new Audi while driving it drunk, one guy who trashed his Ford festiva, and knew one person that didn't survive their flight off a bridge. Therefore I would not call them a very small minority.

Re:Will last about 1/2 hour...

[nomadic]

This violates due process by imposing a legal penalty on people who have not been convicted of a crime by a court of law.

I still don't see it; a legal penalty does not necessarily equal "life, liberty, or property". You could argue that you're being forced to spend your money to buy one, but I don't see why it would be different than other government mandated things in automobiles.

The Constitution gives Congress the sole power to regulate interstate commerce (Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 3); since New Mexico is not known as a major car-producing area, it seems pretty likely that any purchace of a car is going to involve interstate commerce at some point.

Even if the cars were totally manufactured in NM, the SC would almost certainly consider it interstate commerce. As far back as Wickard v. Filburn (1942) the Court showed itself willing to make almost anything an interstate commerce issue (in Wickard they found that a farmer growing wheat to feed his own livestock was subject to federal agricultural quota regulations).

The SC has (mistakenly, IMHO) ruled that a breath test does not constitute a "search" under the 4th amendment

Do you have a case cite for this?

The Supreme Court has held a very broad interpretation (perhaps over-broad, but that's another issue)

The commerce clause has definitely been stretched past what the founders were thinking, but imho that's a good thing, especially in terms of extending civil rights to the less enlightened states.

Re:Will last about 1/2 hour...

[the_mad_poster]

Hitting something does not accelerate you.

I'm pretending for the sake of argument that this is possible. Some people seem to have the weird notion that if you are struck you can somehow be accelerated away from the point of impact. It sounds like somebody once argued wtih the grandparent poster that seatbelts should be required because this can happen.

There are two possibilities here. 1) you have a head on collision and are ejected through the windshield (note to the "thrown away" people: even though you will fly past the accident and land on the other side of the car in this example, you are actually initially moving TOWARD the point of impact, not away from it - you just happen to be passing it) and up and over the other vehicle. In this case, you'd have to clear the other vehicle horizontally AND vertically which seriously hurts the amount of force you could deliver to any object beyond the far side of the other vehicle since a 150 lb. sack of meat is not particularly aerodynamic.

Of couse, there's always option 2 where you are magically ejected in a different direction than you were originally moving (let's say you've magically stopped moving forward and have now accepted a large amount of force from the right side that is moving you to the left). In this instance, I still don't see how a 150 lb. sack of meat could cause significant damage. Even if you initially left the vehicle moving at an outrageous speed of 60 mph (we'll pretend there was a 100% energy transfer from the side collision to the point at which you were moving at your highest speed), how far could you possibly fly? Initially, I'd think you'd have a great enough velocity to cause some very serious damage as a projectile, but flopping humans do not travel through the air very well and would lose energy quickly. You'd almost certainly be very little danger within a few seconds. At your highest speed you'd be traveling what, about 1.5 feet per second? I don't have statistics on the aerodynamic properties of a flying human body, but I'd think that would drop very, very rapidly. I just don't think that anybody could be hurt by a flying body from a car accident unless they were already within a few feet of the crash, and this is assuming that the moving body doesn't have to obey the laws of physics. Of course, when you take into consideration the various ways you can be hurt (e.g. - the person would land in such a way as to acutely strain a single part of your neck and break it), the odds seem to go up, but remember - we didn't even consider the enormous amount of area the person could potentially land in based on the radius they traveled which, unless there happen to be a lot of people crowding a single spot on the street, seems to put the odds of the person actually striking someone else pretty low.

And, again, I conclude that whoever argued that idea was an idiot.

Re:Will last about 1/2 hour...

[allodial]

Well, last I checked, the fisrt amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

I fail to see how the publice display of the ten commandments fits this. Congress HAS NOT made a law requiring it's display and CAN NOT make a law prohibniting it.

Oh, yeah... wait a minute, I forgot that the Constitution allows the Supreme Court to enforce any non-existant laws as it sees fit. My mistake.

Re:Will last about 1/2 hour...

[the_mad_poster]

Pennsylvania hick country. HUGE drunk driving problem where I used to live: Perry County, PA.

I'd like to see statstics on those claims of drunk driving frequency. Somehow, I have a VERY hard time believing that the number of licensed drivers is even REMOTELY close to the number of drivers who have driven drunk at least once over the same time period measured (licensed or otherwise).

You can't impose restrictions on a majority because of a minority problem. If the problem is really out of hand, the solution is to ensure that it can't be perpetuated by chronic offenders, not to impose restrictions, inconvenience, and cost on everybody. Alcoholism is probably even more widespread than drunk driving and it has a huge impact on society as a whole - including sober folks - as well. Does that mean everyone should be required to attend monthly AA meetings in the name of prevention? Of course not, that's silly. It's a huge waste of resources brought on by a few people who can't manage their own lives for whatever reason.

The problem that I see with drunk driving isn't prevention, it's that there's little reason not to risk it. I know people that have never gotten caught driving drunk and did it on countless occasions. The instant they saw a relative get slapped with one of the greatly increased fines and saw her lisence suspended, they wised up and started calling me or friends/relatives after a trip to the bar. One time? Get a huge ass fine based on your income (prorated based on estimated costs for children) to cut into spending cash. Suspend the license for a year. After that? Jail the sucker for the next five years and revoke the license permanently. Drunk driving is far too dangerous to innocent people to go about playing stupid games with people who don't get the picture. If they get caught again, up the jail time each time. Remove the people from the stream that are a chronic problem and make a concerted, HONEST effort to educate people. Don't penalize me. I felt perfectly fine after 3 beers and dinner and I still handed my keys to my girlfriend "just in case". No way I'd stand for being treated like that just becsaue of a few incredibly ignorant morons.

Re:Will last about 1/2 hour...

[Tibor the Hun]

I'd like to see statstics on those claims of drunk driving frequency
I agree, I would like to see honest numbers on those too. But I wouldn't be surprised if the number of people who don't have a second thought about driving after drinking too much was over 10-15 percent.

You can't impose restrictions on a majority because of a minority problem.
Apparently it can be done if it protects the majority, that's why they're fingerprinting immigrants at airports and making everyone take their shoes off. Furthermore, once the drunk minority get in their cars on friday night around 1, it does become others' problem too, since they endanger everyone else in close proximity to them.

We both agree that people shouldn't drive impaired. I'm just saying that I'm willing to sacrifice my convenience in order to save lives, because I don't trust others to use their (often poor) judgement and hand the keys over to someone else.

Drunk fuckers.

Re:Will last about 1/2 hour...

[enrayged]

New Mexico has periodic (annual, IIRC) vehicle safety inspections. If your interlock were disabled, you wouldn't get your inspection sticker and couldn't legally drive your car.


New Mexico dosent have any inspections. Bernalillo county (essentially Albuquerque) does have emissions testing which is done every other year, but thats the extent of any testing done in New Mexico

Re:Will last about 1/2 hour...

[the_mad_poster]

They're not a threat to the majority of the people who drive, they're a threat to the majority of people who are within striking distance of the drunk driver's path. Big difference. Although I think the fingerprinting is a bad idea and the shoe-checking is silly, there's a huge difference. They're not checking the shoes of EVERY citizen and they're not fingerprinting EVERY citizen (yet). The majority of people on an airplane would be in danger of a bomb. The majority of drivers in the state of New Mexico are not being endangered by a drunk driver at any particular time. Therefore, the people who get on a plane all get checked because the majority IS in danger. However, the majority of drivers at any given time are NOT in danger of being hit by a drunk driver. In fact, I've never been hit by a drunk driver in 6 years and out of all the people I know, only one of them has. Yet, to protect from the statistically few tragedies that occur, they're proposing that everybody be penalized. Everybody's penalized getting on a plane because 100% of the flyers are endangered by a person with a bomb. Unless the drunk driver happens to encounter 100% of the drivers in his state during his drive, the situation is not even remotely comparable. In fact, if the number of drunk drivers really are as high as you suggest, there's even less grounds for this because it would seem that the majority of individuals who are DUI don't wind up hitting anything or anyone.

Re:Will last about 1/2 hour...

[Tibor the Hun]

100 % of the immigrants are fingerprinted, or there are plans to do so.
100 % of the flyers are not in danger, since we don't expect ALL of the planes to explode instantly. A minority are.
A drunk driver encounters, I dunno, say 10 cars, 2 pedestrians, and a dog on his/her way home. All of a sudden your number of people with a problem grew from one to at least 12 + a dog.
Statistically you may be right, but God forbid, once you lose a friend or a limb, statistics won't matter. (note- i'm agnostic, i'm not pushing any religious messages)

Re:Will last about 1/2 hour...

[Evil MarNuke]

Anyone remember seat belt interlocks from the early 70's? Didn't think so - that's how long that bright idea lasted.

Yep, I have one in my '73 Charger. However, it's been disabled for 30 years.

Re:Will last about 1/2 hour...

[Tassach]

Try this one:

Amendment 14, Section 1:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

For the hard of thinking, this means all protections granted by the Constitution at the Federal level extend down to the state level. If Congress is prohibited from establishing an official religion, so are the States. If Congress is not allowed to interfere with the free practice of religion, neither are the states. If the federal government is not allowed to impose cruel and unusual punishments, neither are the states. Get it?

Please keep in mind that the judge in question swore an oath before God to support the Constitution and to uphold the law of the land. The law of the land happens to be strict seperation of church and state. Regardless of whether or not a judge personally agrees with a given law, he is bound by his oath to abide by it and to uphold it. If he could not agree to those terms, he should not have swore the oath. By violating that oath, he is not only dishonoring himself and his office, he is breaking a promise he made before God almighty. HMM, what does the Bible have to say about breaking convenants with God? I seem to recall that the big guy looks down on that sort of thing. While you're at it, consider the point that misappropriating public resources is theft. Does the phrase "thou shalt not steal" ring any bells?

A government official (like a judge) cannot use the power of the office he or she holds to promote their personal religion. Why does the God Squad have such a problem understanding this? Basic ethics dictate that public officials are not allowed to use public resources for personal benefit, no matter how many other people benefit from it as well.

If you still can't understand the problem, let's use an analogy to take religion out of the equasion. Let's say a government official owns stock in a company, which you also happen to own stock in. He uses the power of his office to make it appear that the Government has endorsed this company over it's competitors. While this may benefit you personally and make you happy, it is still an abuse of the public's trust and is immoral, unethical, and illegal.

Religion has no place in government. Government has no place in religion. If you don't like that fact, your choices are to: try to amend the Constitution, move to a theocracy, or STFU.

Re:Will last about 1/2 hour...

[Tassach]

That must be what I was remembering. I lived in Albuquerque about a decade ago, so pardon me if my memory of the details of vehicle inspection requirements is a bit dusty.

Re:Will last about 1/2 hour...

[sweede]

I spent about 20 minutes typing something out but fucking slashdot gave me a 500 error and i lost the text i was typing.

anyways, long post short, you ask how far can someone fly?
My brother was in an accident a few years back and went through the windshield at about 40mph, landed ~20 feet from the impact site and then rolled a bit farther from where he landed. My bro' weighs roughly 220lbs and is 6'4"

He was also traveling west on an east-west road, but was found north-west of the accident. when his vehicle struck the other, they both rotated to the left and he was thrown forward in relation to the vehicles position, which was facing north-west when he left the vehicle.

Also, in phsyics, the definition of Acceleration is the rate of change in velocity, NOT only the increase of velocity but decrease of also. so yes when you strike something with your car, any object in the car, not attatched, will begin to accelerate. This is what seatbelts are designed to counter.

Re:Will last about 1/2 hour...

[enrayged]

no need to ask for my pardon... if you lived in Albq and had to go through that then I can understand. I live in Rio Rancho, right up the hill and dont need to worry about it

Re:Will last about 1/2 hour...

[mindstrm]

Acceleration is change in velocity, yes...

but if oyu are sitting in a car, and the car smashes in to something, and there is for argument's sake nothing to restrain you, you do not accelerate, you maintain your existing momentum and just keep moving at the same velocity until something slows you down.

The CAR massively accelerates (Decelerates) when it hits the tree.

Could have been worse...

[__aaveti3199]

They could have asked for rolling urine samples and performance anxiety would have cleared the roads of cars.

Re:Could have been worse...

[korielgraculus]

But drunks would have breezed through it :)

Re:Could have been worse...

[korielgraculus]

apologies for the above, ignore me, I am an idiot and waaay too tired to be bothered thinking straight!

Re:Could have been worse...

[brxndxn]

It's all about law.. Their real intentions are to rid the roads of the nasty violent pot smokers that forget to pick up their brothers from soccer practice and let their kid sisters drown in the pool.

But, to enact a rolling urine sample is too much of a change for right now.. So, they are requiring these drunk gizmos first.

1. ban cell phone driving
2. drunk gizmos
3. pee in cup in car
4. ???

Re:Could have been worse...

[ragnar]

Wow... a solution to drunken driving and road congestion. Somebody put him on the ballot. ;)

Um, why not just for DUIs?

[bigattichouse]

Um, why not install in peoples cars that have had at least one DUI or DWI or whatever?

Re:Um, why not just for DUIs?

[Anonymous Coward]

They already do this in some states.

At least in sane states. To require it in every car is the stupidist thing I've ever heard of.

Re:Um, why not just for DUIs?

[Bastian]

Because nowadays it's vitally important to make sure that we don't discriminate against the stewheads by unfairly singling them out. In 21st century America everyone is so very equal that DUI offenders can't possibly be any more likely to drink and drive than, say, the leader of your local Prohibition league.

Re:Um, why not just for DUIs?

[stinkyfingers]

Why do people with at least one DUI still have a driver's license? If legislators in this country want to stake claim to being serious about drunk driving, legislate stiffer penalties for drunk driving.

Re:Um, why not just for DUIs?

[Tassach]

They already do that. But (amazingly) people still drive drunk, so The Govenment Must Do Something For The Sake Of The Children.

All this is going to accomplish is cause every New Mexico resident to go out of state to buy their cars.

Re:Um, why not just for DUIs?

[benzapp]

Ahh... the results of egalitarianism are starting to become all so clear.

The days of enlightenment liberalism are quickly coming to an end.

Re:Um, why not just for DUIs?

[jtheory]

Um, why not install in peoples cars that have had at least one DUI or DWI or whatever?

No, that would never work, because the drunks would just find a way to disable or trick the thing. The people most affected by this would be the regular, law-abiding folks who are too scared to try disabling it.

And wow, is life going to suck for them.

Think of a family where more than one person shares the same car, i.e., most families. Yeah, I'm gonna want to blow into the same nasty tube as everyone else, including Mom who has a horrible stomach virus at the moment, Grandpa who needs some bridgework done soon because his teeth are kinda disintegrating, and Junior who smokes 3 packs a day of the cheapest cigarettes he can find.

Don't even try to tell me that tube will be nice and pristing, either. Anyone who's ever played a wind instrument knows there's a lot of spit involved. If everyone has their own mouthpiece, does that mean you have to carry it around with you all day? What do you do when it fell out of your pocket into the urinal, but you have to get home somehow?

And good lord, what about rental cars?

Then there are the time issues. 30 seconds before you can start the car seems not too bad on the face of it. Your aren't usually driving accident victims to hospitals, and so on (though of course if you're late for work you're going to be pretty pissed off, just sitting there waiting).

Now change the situation. It's -10 F outside, and you want to start your car to warm it up, then run back inside. That's right, that remote starter you were so thrilled to get for Christmas is useless now.

Okay, now imagine your battery's low, and you can't get it started on the first few tries. If you're really lucky, the flaky power will cause some odd behavior in the breath analyser, too!

Next: what does the thing do when it breaks? When it's molded over from too much spit? Oh, just drive it to a nearby garage. Wait, did I say drive? I meant push. Unless of course it lets you start the car when it malfunctions... in which case I guarantee there are going to be a lot of "malfunctions" that people "didn't notice" so they haven't had their unit fixed.

</sarcasticRant>

I applaud the sentiment -- drunk driving is a serious problem and needs continuing efforts to stop it -- but this seriously affects the quality of life for NON-offenders without even significantly helping the problem.

Re:Um, why not just for DUIs?

[kiolbasa]

Um, why not install in peoples cars that have had at least one DUI or DWI or whatever?

This is how Florida has written their law. After a second conviction, or sometimes first, they require the driver to pay for the device's installation and monthly calibration. If you can't or won't pay, then I guess you just don't drive anymore. As for New Mexico, I have a suspicious theory about who is really responsible for the bill - manufacturers of the interlock device.

Re:Um, why not just for DUIs?

[ThisIsFred]

Because as neurotic, overreactive safety-hounds get their way in our societies, legal fixes like this lean more toward prevention (pipe dream or perhaps totalitarian nightmare) than relying on the responsibility of the citizen, or even a good balance. Simply put, making only the DWIs use it means they will be missing potentially dangerous drunks that haven't been caught yet. I'd also say something about rehabilitated drinkers, but this law punishes non-drinkers too, so it's pointless.

So, once again, our government is pursuing a technology that authorizes the use of some item deemed too dangerous to operate for "us" ignorant subjects. We've already been through this with biometric auth in handguns. Look: A car ignition system is a fairly simple device to understand. All that fancy stuff like a think steering column guard, steel keyhole guard and double-sided key- it just protects two wires. Cross those two wires, and a relay shuts and spins up the starter. There is going to have to be a whole other agency to inspect these vehicles for compliance. It will be prohibitively expensive. The random tests would be more of a distraction than a loud radio and wireless phone combined. It won't be 100% accurate (oops, you used a strong mouthwash this morning?) What's to stop a driver from drinking until he is intoxicated while he is driving around?

If DUI is such a runaway problem in NM, why don't they:

1. Put a freeze on liquor licensing for about 10 years.
2. Raise taxes on alcoholic beverages to...
3. ...hire more highway police
4. Suspend licenses for a minimum of 90 days after a DUI arrest
5. Have police include popular bars and package stores in their routes at night (very effective way to catch drunks in the Northeast).

I see a lot of huffing about blood alcohol levels, but I've yet to see a study that includes information about where the drunks are coming from. Do they drink at home? Do they drink in a bar? Do they go to a package store and drink while they drive home?

Re:Um, why not just for DUIs?

[Skye16]

I'm not sure anyone thinks that. While I don't agree with it, the law is probably intended to keep all drunk people off the road, no matter what. Who cares if someone got 4 DUI's before they killed someone vs. someone who never had a single DUI before they killed someone? The end result is the same: someone is dead and those rat bastards need to be hung by their own intestines.

Re:Um, why not just for DUIs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then just require certification of interlock installation prior to car tag application.

Re:Um, why not just for DUIs?

[kannibal_klown]

In response to the "biometric auto in handguns"

I believe it would be a great FEATURE in a handgun. I'm not saying 100% (hell, even 50%) of handguns should have a sensor on it. However, I think they should be made and offered as an alternative.

Many parents have guns. And while some make sure they teach their kids not to ever touch it, or how to respect it, there are A LOT of people that ignore the problem.

To top it off, suicide by handgun is the most efficient way, meaning if a kid at their weakest moment decides to do it, there's no looking back. Where as pills and cutting can often be saved.

Having the OPTION of buying a gun with a sensor of some sort would be a nice safety net. It would prevent suicides and accidental deaths. The whole "police officer's gun being used by a criminal" is another good reason.

Re:Um, why not just for DUIs?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure anyone thinks that.

You must not live in the US. Around here, if a cop pulls over a it's automatically harrasment. However, if they pull over every X car it's ok.

It's called profiling and it makes sense. Unfortunately some people have abused it in the past (like pulling over someone just because they are a minority and giving them a hard time because they don't like that race, not because they did anything wrong) so now you are not allowed to do it.

Cops are not allowed to hang outside of bars and see the people who can't walk a straight line get into their cars and then pull them over because that's "Entrapment."

Instead of assuming everyone is a criminal by installing a breath test in every car, fines and penalties should be stronger for people caught with a DUI or DWI. It should be attempted second degree murder because that's what it is. You get behind the wheel of a car drunk, you can possibly kill someone.

I find it hard to believe anyone thinks this is a good idea. If you are convicted of a DUI then yes, mandate that something like this be done by Court Order... oh wait they already do that to some extent. Maybe we should do that more often rather than assume everyone is a criminal.

America used to be land of the free, now it seems it's just land of the criminals who must be monitored at all times. Some of these lawmakers really need to be quartered and shot. I can still say that can't I?

Re:Um, why not just for DUIs?

[drinkypoo]

How about, why don't they lock people up who have driven drunk and are caught driving drunk again? They're out on the street the next day. Here's some other ideas; terminate their general assistance, food stamps, etc. If that means that they're neglecting a child, you take the child away, of course. But don't punish the innocent in order to catch the guilty just because you're too lazy to address the real problem.

Re:Um, why not just for DUIs?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

In 21st century America everyone is so very equal that DUI offenders can't possibly be any more likely to drink and drive than, say, the leader of your local Prohibition league.

It isn't that the DUI guy is more likely to repeat, it's just that the head of the prohibition league hasn't been caught.

Re:Um, why not just for DUIs?

[lrt512]

Now change the situation. It's -10 F outside, and you want to start your car to warm it up, then run back inside. That's right, that remote starter you were so thrilled to get for Christmas is useless now.

Yep, those famous New Mexico winters.

Re:Um, why not just for DUIs?

[stephenbooth]

Assuming the situation in the US is similar to the one on the UK then the answers to the question are "Lobbying" and "Attitude". Basically there are very strong lobby groups who pressure lawmakers to work infavour of the pro-motor groups. One of the lesser known functions of AA (Automobile Association not Alcoholics Anonymous) and RAC (Royal Automobile Club, I think) is to push a pro-car point of view in parlement. Until quite recently drunk driving in this country has always been viewed with a degree of humour. People have been quite boastful of 'getting away' with driving well over the limit. Fortunately (with greater publicity of deaths through drunk driving) more people are realizing that it's not funny, it's lethal.

Personally I think that getting caught drunk driving should result in a ban for a significant period of time. Say 36 months for a first offense then double for each subsequent offense for life (so 4th offense results in a 24 year ban) and require that drivers retake their driving test to get their license back (for any driving offense that results in a loss of license, not just drunk driving). Some people argue that people shouldn't be banned because they need to drive for their job so they would lose their job if they lose their license. Well, I think that if you know your job is dependant on having a driving license you should be extra careful to not do anything that would cause you to lose it. There are lots of people in jobs where they have to keep up their qualifications to continue in that job, needing a driving license for your job is just like that.

Stephen

Re:Um, why not just for DUIs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of these lawmakers really need to be quartered and shot. I can still say that can't I?

you have been deemed a terrorist...please hold your hands in clear site and step away from your computer. your local police have been dispatched to come and take you away for the protection of yourself and others.

Re:Um, why not just for DUIs?

[dnijaguar]

The first company that takes exploits this law by patenting a 'standard' breathanalyzer and gaining a monopoly will be quite successful. New Mexico, by the way, is the only state I know of where a DWI "operation checkpoint" officer was arrested for DWI at a DWI awareness event.

Re:Um, why not just for DUIs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, there are plenty of ski resorts in NM. Even places like Santa Fe may sound warm to you, but it'll be below freezing there tonight.

Yeah, -10 is probably an exaggeration, but there's pleny of high elevation in NM that can make for high winds and cold temps.

Re:Um, why not just for DUIs?

[brian ferullo]

doing this only for DUI offenders (even repeats) sounds alright until you consider it's effectively punishment for crimes that haven't been committed yet.

lest that sounds retarded (punishment? sounds more like a simple annoyance), consider a hypothetical person who's successfully completed his twelve steps. he may have had six DUIs in the past, but is unlikely to do it again. he's also already been punished for them.

i'm not saying i'm supportive of drunk bastards driving to endanger, just that it's a little less black and white. say someone had a DUI fifteen years ago: should he be forced to submit to breathalyzer tests every time he starts his car?

Re:Um, why not just for DUIs?

[in7ane]

A couple of more points: if it goes wrong and causes an accident (and the following lawsuit) who is going to pay?

Transmision of disease (rental cars) lawsuits...

Let me think of a few more :)

Re:Um, why not just for DUIs?

[OracleOfTangent]

They do suspend the licenses if they catch somebody driving drunk in New Mexico. The problem is, people with suspended licenses have a tendency to drive anyway. If the police pull somebody over and they're driving on a suspended license, they just suspend the license longer, which, if they were already driving on a suspended license, isn't really a deterrent at all.

Re:Um, why not just for DUIs?

[tkg]

Haven't spent much time in the northern mountains out here, have you? Below zero temps are not at all uncommon.

Re:Um, why not just for DUIs?

[MachDelta]

Don't even try to tell me that tube will be nice and pristing, either. Anyone who's ever played a wind instrument knows there's a lot of spit involved. If everyone has their own mouthpiece, does that mean you have to carry it around with you all day? What do you do when it fell out of your pocket into the urinal, but you have to get home somehow?

Most people leave the mouthpieces (because you get more than one - as many as you want, infact. They're just cheap $0.02 molded plastic pieces) in their cars.

Now change the situation. It's -10 F outside, and you want to start your car to warm it up, then run back inside. That's right, that remote starter you were so thrilled to get for Christmas is useless now.

Yup. Remote car starters are disabled when the interlock is installed. Passing a law making interlocks mandatory would completely kill the remote-starting industry, so I think they'd raise a pretty big fuss about the whole deal.
Its worth noting that the boxes do have a "warmup" mode though. Unfortunatly this is mislabled, because you can't actually warm up your vehicle with it. Most cars have a high and low idle, and when your car dropped from one to the other, the box would think you were driving and demand an immediate retest. Warmup mode should really be called standby, because thats about all its good for. It gives you 30 minutes that you can run into a store without having to shut your car off, or whatever.

Okay, now imagine your battery's low, and you can't get it started on the first few tries. If you're really lucky, the flaky power will cause some odd behavior in the breath analyser, too!

Yup. Well sorta. It was a requirement of the interlock program that your "vehicles electrical system is in proper functioning order" or whatever. Because, as you hinted at, a flakey electrical system could cause problems. The box itself draws very little power, especially when its turned off (fractions of an amp, IIRC). The most common problam was during starting. Kicking an engine over requires a hell of a lot of power to be sucked from your battery... potentially leaving none for other accessories. Meaning that, on some vehicles with low batteries or faulty electrical systems, you were able to successfully complete a sample, but the moment you started the engine, it would draw so much power that the box would reset itself... and instantly give you a warning for starting your car without providing a sample. Fun! (Goddamn did I ever hate working on poorly maintained vehicles...)


They certainly aren't foolproof devices. Infact they were a pain in the ass most of the time, but I suppose thats because the ones that worked properly almost never had to come back for service, so all I usually saw were the problems :P

Re:Um, why not just for DUIs?

[ThisIsFred]

Straying offtopic (my fault), but:

To top it off, suicide by handgun is the most efficient way, meaning if a kid at their weakest moment decides to do it, there's no looking back. Where as pills and cutting can often be saved.

This is a whole other discussion, but yes, I follow the reports from CDC/BATFE/FBI, and self-inflicted wounds is the #1 cause of death involving guns. Being a pro-gun guy myself, I'm a little worried that this is apparently swept under the rug. I don't know if bio-auth is going to have any effect on this, but there doesn't seem to be a whole lot legislation or studies involving suicide. Or maybe there is and no one knows what course of action to take? Considering that suicide accounts for more than half of all gun-related deaths, I don't understand why accidental deaths (very small percentage) or death by assault weapon (either accidental or homicide - still small percentage) attract so much legislative attention.

Mixed feelings

[Anonymous Coward]

The Navajo reservation doesn't allow alcohol to be sold on it, and there are often long stretches of road with no lights or anything. So, when Indians get drunk and drive home, it is significantly harder than it is, say, for me when I have too much at the BW3 5 minutes away.

I'm kinda on the fence about this one. It is a good idea, but the target market (the drunk drivers most likely to have problems) are more likely to drive old cars without this modification.

Re:Mixed feelings

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

So, when Indians get drunk and drive home, it is significantly harder than it is, say, for me when I have too much at the BW3 5 minutes away.

*Ride* home you mean, I presume. Indeed it's hard to retrofit an ignition interlock to a horse.

Re:Mixed feelings

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you talking about? Apparently you are not up on your history... the modern American Indian lives in a trailer home and drives a Ford Bronco.

Re:Mixed feelings

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoosh! That was the sound of the guy's joke going right over your head. You're quite the thicko aren't you?

no thanks

[deviantonline]

I dont drink and drive so obviously this has no appeal to me.

We do already have this in Ontario as some sort of punishment for convicted DUI'ers and I think its a great idea for them - but as a non-drinker-and-driver I wouldnt want to deal with the inconvience on a daily basis, and I think I can speak for everyone else who fits that criteria.

Re:no thanks

[canadianjoe]

I agree. This makes perfect sense as part of a sentence for a DUI offence after your licence suspension is over.

For the rest of us, this would be just a big pain in the ass.

Re:no thanks

[Trurl's Machine]

I dont drink and drive so obviously this has no appeal to me.

Substantial delay in starting your own car plus random distracton while driving has no appeal to you?

Re:no thanks

[]ix[]

I dont drink and drive bit this has lots appeal to me.

In Sweden (where I live) 50% of all car related casualities are also alcohol-related. The technology for detecting a drunk or stoned (or sleeping) driver does not have to be intrusive. It could just as well be a sensor on the dashboard tracking iris movements or similar. This type of "driver aware" technology exists and will only save lives if its mandatory. I for one will gladly pay the extra cash for a more secure car knowing that the cars around me also are more secure (or at least have more secure drivers). This also have anti theft uses...

Re:no thanks

[Alsee]

I dont drink and drive so obviously this has no appeal to me.

As opposed to people who like drinking and driving who will obviously find it appealing when the #@%&$ car won't start :D

-

Re:no thanks

[crazy blade]

Fortunately, most (hopefully) people dont drink and drive, but I'm not sure it doesn't appeal to them. What if some DUIer runs into you (or over your children) while you are legitimately driving your car? Still, even so, I am ambivalent on the issue of whether so much control is a good thing.

Re:no thanks

[Col. Panic]

that made me think: what if your car stalls? now you are sitting in moving traffic with an extra 30 second delay trying to hum into a tube. wtf?

Re:no thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

How does that help, though? The majority of drunk drivers and drunk driving fatalities are caused by first time offenders. It's not like you're mitigating the risk by putting it only in the vehicles of drunks.

This is the problem with our society -- we're too obsessed with recidivism instead of prevention. If drunk driving is a huge social problem, we should be pursuing technologies that prevents all drunks from driving.

This is no more inconveniencing the innocent than driver licensing and mandatory accident insurance is inconveniencing the innocent.

Re:no thanks

[Googo]

I agree. I would rather wonder about the safety issue if nay some murderer was after you and you were not able to start your car instantly to get away.

Re:no thanks

[Tibor the Hun]

I do fit into that criteria, but you may not speak for me.
I would not mind doing the test daily if it would mean 90% less intoxicated/alcohol impaired people on the roads.
I know tons of people who drive impaired for years/decades before they get caught.

Re:no thanks

[HD Webdev]

I agree. This makes perfect sense as part of a sentence for a DUI offence after your licence suspension is over.

For the rest of us, this would be just a big pain in the ass.

That's an understatement.

It will even be deadly.

I've seen numerous situations in my life where a person who was most likely over the local limit, and normally didn't drive under the influence had to use a vehicle for an emergency.

The DUI laws are supposed to be there to protect us from people who don't have the good judgement to have a designated driver when they drink. Punish them harshly. Don't pre-punish people who might have a very valid reason to temporarily need a vehicle to save a life.

Before anyone argues that there are NO situations where a person should drive impaired. Imagine your mother is having a heart attack and you've had a few beers at home. If you are unable to get assistance fast enough (for whatever reason, 'all circuits are busy', etc...) would you let her die because you just drank a few beers?

On top of that, how would you feel if she died because that interlock stopped you from saving her life?

Re:no thanks

[FrostyWheaton]

we should be pursuing technologies that prevents all drunks from driving.

Yeah, I'm still waiting for the hypoallergenic safety bubble I was promised. And what about the technology that prevents people from lying, cheating, stealing and thinging 'bad thoughts' that I read so much about back in the 80's?

And we call this progress, Sheesh!

Re:no thanks

[FrostyWheaton]

I for one will gladly pay the extra cash for a more secure car knowing that the cars around me also are more secure,

And my 'more secure' you mean 'at risk of being sponaneously shut down and screeching to a halt in the middle of traffic' because the onboard safety(TM) measures determined the driver was too sleepy to continue driving?'

Sign me Up!

Re:no thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but, your counterargument is fallacious. Simply because it isn't possible nor necessarily desirable to prevent people from lying, cheating, stealing, &c. does not mean it isn't possible and desirable to prevent drunks from driving.

I've seen all sorts of quotes like: Why don't we ban all pointy objects, then! And the answer, of course, is that it is impractical and the "collateral damage" is too severe. Ignition interlocks seem, to me, to be specifically targeted, technologically possible solutions to a public safety issue. The two are nothing alike.

Re:no thanks

[globalar]

Put that way, it almost sounds like a using a cellphone in the car!

Re:no thanks

[]ix[]

I hope your not an automotive engineer.

If the car determines that the driver is sleepy it should turn on (up) the stereo and perhaps start a mild vibration in the stearing wheel (that usualy gets your attention). If the driver fails to wake up the car will already have crashed or he isnt sleeping. Its not microsoft who designs these systems you know....

Re:no thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

>For the rest of us, this would be just a big pain in the ass.

Then you're doing it wrong.

Re:no thanks

[FrostyWheaton]

I hope your not an automotive engineer.
Rest assured, IANAAE.

But I'll say something anyway. Sleepy/drunk driver detection systems (patent pending) are only effective if they can convince the sleepy/drunk person to stop driving. The only way to reliably do this is to somehow disable the vehicle (a softer version of the "slam on the brakes" solution), which is difficult to do in a reliable and prompt manner. Even if it was doable it would still be quite dangerous.

Those issues aside, there is no way such a system could reliably detect an impaired/distracted/etc. driver. False positives are annoying, if downright dangerous if they distract an otherwise alert driver, and false negatives are as bad as no system at all. To have a system be effective enough to be worthwhile it would be too over-reactionary to be tolerable. Overall the problem is just too hairy to tackle in realtime which is what the great-grandparent was proposing.

This test is UNBEATABLE!

[karmaflux]

There's NO WAY to blow air into a tube wihout it coming from a human lung. Billows do not exist. And these things are so inexpensive, they can put two or three in each car, to make sure the passengers are sober too!

Wait, none of that is true.

What the story doesn't mention is the Special Edition model for bishops and politicians. When they fail a drunk test, a HUD shows up on the windshield and locks on to pedestrians. Makes life a LOT easier, let me tell you.

Re:This test is UNBEATABLE!

[b0r0din]

This is the dumbest law I've ever seen.
There are so many implications it's not funny.

1) Carjacker's paradise. Carjacker now has a good 30 seconds while the person is blowing into a fucking tube.

2) Disease. What about rental cars? What if a friend wants to drive you home in your car and you're sick. What if you've got Obsessive Compulsive disorder? Did they really think this through?

3) Emergency. I can't wait until someone sues the state because they couldn't get someone to the hospital because it took them an extra 30 seconds to start the fucking car OR it was life or death and they were drunk. If my kid or wife was dying and I was drunk and I had no other choice, I'd risk it.

4) People with lung problems can't drive now? What if you have asthma? Does this cause problems? I don't know but I suspect there could be problems.

They should have much stricter drunk driving laws for DUI offenders, not make breathalizers necessary for every citizen. If that becomes law and I lived there, I'd probably exit the state.

Re:This test is UNBEATABLE!

[B'Trey]

From here:

Hum Tone: Requires the client to deliver a hum resonance while blowing the alcohol test prior to starting the vehicle. Deters techniques utilized to mimic human breath or to absorb alcohol.

So the billows may not work. Of course, these are designed to be regularlarly monitored, which makes sense for someone on probation following a DUI conviction. Without monitoring, they can be easily bypassed. So is everyone going to have to have their car checked once a month? Who's going to pay for that? The whole idea is simply stupid!

Re:This test is UNBEATABLE!

[4of12]

Special Edition model for bishops and politicians.

Here in New Mexico, that's part of the problem.

Clearly, this is an unwieldy technical solution to a social problem: drunk driving would be cured in a hurry if strict laws were accompanied by adequate funding for the courts, which are way overloaded (letting people off due to technicalities) and by an attitude shift.

Currently, there is an attitude that "taking away the vehicle of the family breadwinner" would constitute an undue hardship on some individual. Yes, it would. But having that individual kill off some other family's breadwinner constitutes what I would call "an undue hardship" on that other family.

A lot of these issues have come to a head over the past 10 years or so after a couple of spectacular fatal accidents involving drunk drivers. That, and a newspaper reporter uncovering that one guy was still behind the wheel after being arrested 27 times for DWI.

[BTW, a similar line of arguments are responsible for New Mexico's high rate of uninsured motorists on the highways. But that's another story.]

Speaking of politician stories, though, you'll like this one.

A few years back in New Mexico a member of the state legislature was arrested for DWI. (Not the first time that such an event took place.)

His defense attorney mounted an effort to get the charges dismissed based on the "human brewery defense". The argument was that food items ingested by the defendant during lunch had started to ferment in his stomach and to produce the alcohol that was certainly observed in the administered tests. [Fortunately, I don't think the defense's story was bought].

Re:This test is UNBEATABLE!

[pacc]

4) Disabled people get special parking lots etc. etc. You could start helping them by not abusing those instead of using their problems as an excuse for your own lazyness.

3) Sitting around doing nothing about drunken drivers is of course morally acceptable in your world, as opposed to some hypotethical 30-second delay that could prove fatal.

2) People that don't use public toilets and stay away from restaurants that use recycled plates (iich) will probably not want to use rental cars today anyway.

1) If this is a good argument for you I guess you could become a car-jacker instead of nagging so much.

Re:This test is UNBEATABLE!

[cr@ckwhore]

The answer is handicap plates ...

Got asthma? Handicap plate.
Got COPD? Handicap plate.
Got lung cancer? Handicap plate.
Got obsessive compulsive disorder? Handicap plate.

Guilty until proven innocent. Fuck that, I hereby declare my own country.

Re:This test is UNBEATABLE!

[radja]

>>1) Carjacker's paradise. Carjacker now has a good 30 seconds while the person is blowing into a fucking tube.
yeah, it's much worse than the warm-up time a diesel needs.

>>2) Disease. What about rental cars? What if a friend wants to drive you home in your car and you're sick. What if you've got Obsessive Compulsive disorder? Did they really think this through?

yes they did, cardboard tubes cost next to nothing. saliva is not toxic waste.

>>3) Emergency. I can't wait until someone sues the state because they couldn't get someone to the hospital because it took them an extra 30 seconds to start the fucking car OR it was life or death and they were drunk. If my kid or wife was dying and I was drunk and I had no other choice, I'd risk it.

see diesel arguement.

>>4) People with lung problems can't drive now? What if you have asthma? Does this cause problems? I don't know but I suspect there could be problems.
the only real point, IMO. they would need some kind of dispensation.

>>They should have much stricter drunk driving laws for DUI offenders, not make breathalizers necessary for every citizen. If that becomes law and I lived there, I'd probably exit the state.

they're not making breathalyzers for every citizen. they're for cars. you still have enough choice in mode of transportation. bus, train, bike, walking, subway, trolleybus, whatever.

I do think the law as proposed is too heavy-handed, but only because it's too easy to circumvent, and the cost to carbuyers is too high.

Re:This test is UNBEATABLE!

[Anonymous Coward]

What about ketones?

We who are low-carbing these days sometimes have ketones in our breath. Its normal and expected, but would this breath machine be able to figure that out?

I'm not changing my diet program because some liberal representative wants me to PROVE I'm not too drunk to drive my own car. I don't even consume alcohol on a regular basis! I maybe have half a glass of wine about three times a year!

Re:This test is UNBEATABLE!

[Anonymous Coward]

Bellows will be outlawed under the DMCA as a circumvention device.

How long after the law is in effect will it be until someone sues either the car mfr or the state govt because they had an accident caused by having to give a "rolling retest"?

Re:This test is UNBEATABLE!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm against it but I still had to reply to this hysteria...

1) You can still drive it, it'll just be blasting the horn and lights.

2) They'd obviously use disposable tips

3) You'll spend more than 30 seconds trying to get to the hospital door or dialing 911. If your life is in that kind of balance odds are you're not going to make it no matter what.

4) They'll roll out the inevitable list of exceptions of course.

Why don't they put a device testing your ability to react? That would eliminate people who ignored the "Do not drive while using this medication" warnings too. Hell, just ban frigg'n cars and solve lots of problems all at once.

Re:This test is UNBEATABLE!

[doru]

2) Disease. What about rental cars? What if a friend wants to drive you home in your car and you're sick.

That's why you should thoroughly disinfect the device with alcohol before taking the test. Erm... I mean...

Re:This test is UNBEATABLE!

[EvanED]

"yeah, it's much worse than the warm-up time a diesel needs. ...
see diesel arguement."

Yes, and because of the very large majority of cars that are sold with diesel engines, this is a good argument.

Even ignoring that, this is an entirely different matter: Diesel engines take a long time to warm up because that's how they work, not because there's an ignition interlock on the car mandidated by law with too little reason.

Re:This test is UNBEATABLE!

[dexter1]

Currently, there is an attitude that "taking away the vehicle of the family breadwinner" would constitute an undue hardship on some individual. Yes, it would. But having that individual kill off some other family's breadwinner constitutes what I would call "an undue hardship" on that other family.

The reasoning behind this attitude is solid. I have lived in New Mexico all my life and, with the exception of a few areas, it is pretty much impossible to survive without a vehicle. Public transportation, where it exists, generally does not go to all areas and has a limited schedule. Many people have to commute long distances to get to and from work. The net result is that people will drive. You can take away their license, but people will drive. This isn't excusing their behavior; it is a simple fact.

Personally, I think a better solution would offer more public transportation/safe ride(s) home--preferably very cheap or free (NM is a poor state) and would lock those convicted of drunk driving up every Friday & Saturday night for a certain length of time (the length depending on a number of factors--how many convictions, how intoxicated the individual was). Granted, this wouldn't stop them from druck-driving other nights, but I do think it would help reduce the problem.

Re:This test is UNBEATABLE!

[GizmoToy]

How did this even get modded up?

First of all, Athsma does not qualify for handicap plates (at least in Ohio). The parent never mentioned anything about handicap plates. Where did that come from?

Second, the parent never claimed to support drunk driving. This effects everyone, including drunk drivers. Why wouldn't it just cover drunk drivers?

Carjacking would be a serious concern. You're a sitting duck. The theif knows that there is absolutely nothing you can do to drive away. You might as well just hand over the keys!

This law will NEVER come to pass, and if it does it will be overturned swiftly.

Re:This test is UNBEATABLE!

[radja]

>Yes, and because of the very large majority of cars that are sold with diesel engines, this is a good argument.

if I see the amount of diesels sold here in europe... yes.

Re:This test is UNBEATABLE!

[EvanED]

However, this is the US we are talking about, specifically New Mexico. The argument would hold better water in Europe, but here in the US there are *very* few diesel powered cars, even among SUVs.

Re:This test is UNBEATABLE!

[Anonymous Coward]

Another self righteous asshole... this has nothing to do with handicap plates and special parking...

of course, in "your world", everyone must suffer for the bad behavior of a few... why not start having full body searches in every public place because *someone* might have a gun... or how about we have to get written permission to spend money because some people spend it on drugs... or how about everyone with kids has to have child abuse cameras installed about their home in case you beat your kids...

your logic is retarded. please kill yourself.

Re:This test is UNBEATABLE!

[strike2867]

your logic is retarded. please kill yourself.

Awesome statement. I suggest my sig for grandparent.

Re:This test is UNBEATABLE!

[frankie]

warm-up time a diesel needs

My VW TDI starts in 1 second in warm weather, about 4 seconds in snow.

Re:This test is UNBEATABLE!

[Anonymous Coward]

The above poster is getting quite close to the root of the problem here in New Mexico (and possibly elsewhere).

The problem is uneven enforcement and lack of enforcement of Drunk Driving laws. Much of New Mexico is very rural. We live in small towns and villages where everyone grew up together and family histories go back centuries. Being so rural, everyone has to drive to get anywhere. It's very difficult for elected judges to come down too hard on their neighbors and cousins for having "one too many" before they drove home, when it's quite possible they've done the same.

We are in the midst of an attitude change regarding drunk driving in NM, but los hombres viejos will take a while to come around.

Re:This test is UNBEATABLE!

[startled]

"There's NO WAY to blow air into a tube wihout it coming from a human lung. Billows do not exist."

Cops don't catch everyone, but they still have 'em. People can bust down my door, but I still lock it.

Re:This test is UNBEATABLE!

[HD Webdev]

There's NO WAY to blow air into a tube wihout it coming from a human lung. Billows do not exist. And these things are so inexpensive, they can put two or three in each car, to make sure the passengers are sober too!

Not to mention, there are easy ways to clear alcohol vapors out of lungs long enough to fool the machine.

And, for anyone who saw the Mythbusters where they 'proved' that alcohol testing machines can't be fooled, notice that they only tested ways to add something to breath to fool the machine and completely dodged the ways to temporarily remove the alcohol vapors themselves.

Re:This test is UNBEATABLE!

[Anonymous Coward]

5) Entire new industry springs up to test the device. Similar to California's smog test but way more irritating. $50-$100 test fee every year.

Re:This test is UNBEATABLE!

[symbolic]

That, and a newspaper reporter uncovering that one guy was still behind the wheel after being arrested 27 times for DWI.

This alone says more about the problem than anything else I've seen. The only thing we're seeing here is a spectacular failure of the legal system in getting and keeping this guy off the road.

Think about it. Let's say that by 2008, all new cars need to have the built-in breatholysers. How many people so inclined to drink and drive will have a new car? Do you have any idea how many older model cars are still on the road today? Even if someone with a newer car is inclined to drink and drive, do you think for a minute that they're going to be the least bit concerned about disabling the device?

This law does only one thing - it places the utter failure of the legal system on the shoulders of law-abiding citizens by unconstitutionally restricting their freedom. I expect to see this law tossed into the ever-growing chasm of stupid human tricks.

Re:This test is UNBEATABLE!

[Anonymous Coward]

they're not making breathalyzers for every citizen. they're for cars. you still have enough choice in mode of transportation. bus, train, bike, walking, subway, trolleybus, whatever.

You realize, of course, that NM is a rural state and public transportation is rare to non-existent? Riding a bike 30+ miles to work each day, particularly between Santa Fe and Espanola, would be suicidal.

Re:This test is UNBEATABLE!

[4of12]

I recognize that in a largely rural state that a car is a necessity.

Unfortunately, public transportation is too expensive an option to run one person 10 miles out on a dirt road. The economics can't support it.

But here's my take.

In Scandanavia, there are rural areas and there are people who like to drink (and serious drinking, too, to combat the lack of daylight during the winter months). Yet, they have strict drunk driving laws. Some knowledgeable can correct me, but I seem to recall laws like: first offense means 1 year in jail. Serious penalty. And, AFAIK, there's not a big problem with drunk driving over there.

The problem in NM is that folks like to get together socially at the end of the work day to drink together. Meanwhile, your Scandanavian rural drinking resident is willing to go home and drink alone (but at least not be on the road)? Or, if he drinks, to stay the night within walking distance of the bar?

Face it, in a social group, who wants to volunteer to be left out of the drinking part so they can have the privilege of driving friends home to destinations scattered across 60 miles of rural roads? Not unless they get some serious respect for doing so.

Everyone has to agree to serious consequences in order to get the wholescale society change of behavior. Otherwise, behavior won't change.

Good luck trying to leave in a hurry...

[SoTuA]

...after eating apples, or after brushing your teeth and using a mouthwash chaser.

It's idiocy to punish all for the idiocy of few. Why do I have to pay more and be subject to this if I don't drink and drive?

Re:Good luck trying to leave in a hurry...

[ubrgeek]

A recent (?) episode of Myth Busters proved that brushing one's teeth (or, in New Mexico, tooth) and using mouthwash does not affect the validity of a breath test.

Re:Good luck trying to leave in a hurry...

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd have to try with one that contains alcohol, and probably be really bad about rinsing your mouth :)

Anyway, breathalizers are not all that accurate. In my experience, I have seen people take them and pass the test (and I had been drinking with the guy, so I KNOW he should have come off positive) and, OTOH, I have seen people told to blow until the damn thing gave a positive (this actually happened, the cop just wanted to ticket the guy. He even switched machines (after three negatives) until he got a positive!)

Re:Good luck trying to leave in a hurry...

[cdrudge]

Did you actually watch that episode? In case you didn't, the one guy swished around some mouthwash, he blew a .48 BAC. Note that the legal limit is .08 in most (all?) states. Now that .48 tapered down quite quickly, but it still obviously effected the results and brought in doubt as the the true accuracy of his BAC. Most likely a cop would retest after a few minutes of observation if a person belew a .48 since many wouldn't even be conscience at that level.

Re:Good luck trying to leave in a hurry...

[Whispers_in_the_dark]

A recent (?) episode of Myth Busters proved that brushing one's teeth (or, in New Mexico, tooth) and using mouthwash does not affect the validity of a breath test.

I love that show and that was a fun episode -- try to fool the machine into producing a false negative :). However, IIRC they didn't test high blood sugar conditions to see if that generated false positives (high blood sugar can be acompanied by excessive ketone bodies which cause bad breath in some diabetics). Does anyone know how these devices react for these individuals? (Here is a google groups (AKA usenet) posting on the topic, but as with any sort of blog I take it with a grain of salt.

Re:Good luck trying to leave in a hurry...

[DivideX0]

The mythbusters episode was using mouthwash to HIDE the presence of alcohol. There are instances where mouthwash gives false positives for alcohol. This was not covered by mythbusters. In fact, some brands of mouthwash do contain alcohol such as Listermint.

Re:Good luck trying to leave in a hurry...

[Fishstick]

> A recent (?) episode of Myth Busters

OT: That show rocks. It's the new "junkyard wars" except those two are insane and like to destroy things.

I watched the episode this week where they tried to prove/disprove that cellphones caused gas station explosions. When that obviously didn't work, they turned to the theory that women's panties built up static electricity as the source of ignition. They built a leyden jar and charged it by rubbing a pair of panties on a length of pvc, and then discharged it it a lexan booth filled with gas/air mixture.

BOOM! The one guy had all the hair on one side of his face singed off. They also microwaved CD's and spun them at crazy speeds to see what point they shattered (to explore the myth that 52x readers cause disks to shatter). Hell, we used to do stuff like this is my Dad's garage, but no one ever offered _us_ a TV show!

I missed the one with the breathalyzer though (should never have showed the kids how to manipulate the season pass on the TiVo -- I got "Totally Spies" instead of that episode).

Re:Good luck trying to leave in a hurry...

[RicktheBrick]

Being a alcoholic is a disease and as in all diseases everyone should help in trying to prevent it. This idea is still wrong instead we should have a license to drink or even possess alcohol. Anyone with a dui conviction would be denied that license for five years for the first conviction. A alcoholic would have the option of voluntarily giving up the license and have the rest of the population help that person stay away from alcohol. The loss of income to the alcohol industry will make it very difficult to pass that law.

Re:Good luck trying to leave in a hurry...

[Politburo]

The Federal limit is .08 BAC. That means a state must set their limit to .08 or lower to recieve federal highway funds. I believe Alaska is the only state that does not recieve federal highway funds. Their drinking age is also 18. Federal law states that the drinking age must be 21 to recieve federal funding. States' rights? They're a red herring.

Re:Good luck trying to leave in a hurry...

[nomadic]

Yeah, my Jack Daniels brand mouthwash has a little alcohol too.

Re:Good luck trying to leave in a hurry...

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I can tell, Alaska's drinking age is 21. I have found multiple sites that agree and none that disagree.

Re:Good luck trying to leave in a hurry...

[Ralph Wiggam]

Has anyone else noticed that Republicans yell about state's right right up until a state tries to do something they disagree with? When a state tries to let 19 year olds drink or let cancer patients smoke pot, where do all of those state's rights conservatives run off to?

-B

Re:Good luck trying to leave in a hurry...

[Politburo]

Whoops! My mistake! They must have caved to federal pressure, and now that you mention it, I seem to recall it occurring about 2 years ago. (But obviously I couldn't be bothered to search for it, since I didn't the first time..)

Re:Good luck trying to leave in a hurry...

[nharmon]

The accuracy of a PBT (portable breath test) is not compromised by persons with diabetic reactions. This is because the device tests for alcohol, which as you said is not the chemical produced from high blood sugar.

PBTs are so good at this, that a drunk who claims their open beverage is non-alcoholic is quickly proved wrong by inserting the mouth piece of the PBT into the open end of the container. It is a neat trick that is sure to make the drunk feel like a dumbass.

Re:Good luck trying to leave in a hurry...

[Galvatron]

New Hampshire also does not receive federal highway funds. However, their drinking age is still 21.

Re:Good luck trying to leave in a hurry...

[CharlieG]

Which is part of the reson I say the Federal Income Tax is the most evil law EVER passed.

It allows the Federal Government to control local laws by saying
1)We raise a specal purpose federal tax (Fuel in this case)
2)An then saying "Unless you do XXX, we won't give you the money back"

I think we should get at least ONE state with BALLS, who says "Fine, don't give us the matching funds"

Re:Good luck trying to leave in a hurry...

[swv3752]

Many years ago when I was in Highschool, Vermont had a drinking age of 18 and NA beer could be sold to minors. I think that changed before I turned 18 though.

Louisiana had a work arouund from some Napoleonic grandfather clause that allowed Private clubs to sell alcohol to those that were 18 and up. All that was required to be a private club was to sell membership so most clubs sold $1 memberships at the door.

Re:Good luck trying to leave in a hurry...

[will3477]

West VIrginia is sitll at .1 last time I checked, though they have tried lowering it to .08. ACtually come to think of it, I think it was lowered, or else they woulda lost federal funding. Anyone know?

Re:Good luck trying to leave in a hurry...

[devnull17]

Most likely a cop would retest after a few minutes of observation if a person belew a .48 since many wouldn't even be conscience at that level.

Most people would be dead. 50% of the population dies at .4.

Re:Good luck trying to leave in a hurry...

[IronChef]

"Diabetics who are unaware of
their condition or not under good control can have acetone in their breath which could register as alcohol."

People on low-carb diets can have acetone in their breath too. I am on one of those diets and I just plain STINK right now. Good thing I was recently laid off, I don't have to be around anyone!

"False positives"?

[armando_wall]

What if you are in the industry of alcohol selling?

Don't want to arrive to a place by walking with those huge bottles of alcohol on my shoulders, just because my car "doesn't want to" take me there.

But,

[deltagreen]

but, but, what about all those movie scenes where's it the middle of the night, and the woman desperately tries to start her car, while the stalker is running towards her. I'm sure that the 30 second breath test will be the death of large numbers of movie babes...

Re:But,

[Sancho]

Also, consider the rolling retest. If they think driving while talking on a cellphone is bad, imagine trying to grab the tube, bring it to your mouth, and then blowing forcefully (enough that some people with low lung capacities can get dizzy and light headed). Cute.

Although the fact that rolling retests are possible means that it should be possible to let the car start and drive away without a test, but if a test isn't taken within, say, 60 seconds, then the alarms start going off, etc. Solves the "quick getaway" problem, though then we are back to the issue of fumbling with the gear while you're driving.

Re:But,

[DVDAshot]

Actually in all seriousness this is a valid point. Imagine a lady being followed by someone on foot and needing to get out of there in a hurry. I for one don't won't my wife having to wait around where she is in danger waiting for a breathalyzer to complete so she can start her car.

Re:But,

[ShiftlessXL]

What if they're going a rolling retest AND talking on the cell phone at the same time?

Re:But,

[Superfreak]

Doesn't matter. It's a well documented movie fact that cars absolutely WILL NOT start at least until the attacker is banging on the window. 30 seconds sounds about right - the only thing that would be missing is 30 seconds of "rowr-rowr-rowr--rowr----rowr-------clickclickclic k 'Come ON! (Thud) rowr-rowrrowrrowrVroom"

Something about the stalker providing percussive maintenance to the vehicle allows it to start in movies...I've wondered how people who *aren't* being stalked drive at all....

Re:But,

[rhaig]

true, but New Mexico does have Concealed Carry, so when that thug comes to your car when you're trying to start it, threatens you, puts you in danger, just put two in his chest, and call the cops.

Re:But,

[Anonymous Coward]

> If they think driving while talking on a cellphone
> is bad, imagine trying to grab the tube, bring it
> to your mouth, and then blowing

AH HAHAHAHAHAHA, hehehehehe.

I wonder if, when I'm older, I'll stop finding stuff like that funny...

Hollywood won't like it

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Ignition interlocks require a breath test, which takes 30 seconds to complete, to start the car as well as random 'rolling retests' to discourage others from taking the test for you.

Yep. I can see car chase scenes in movies becoming really boring very soon. Like the guy who robs a bank, runs to his getaway car, blows real hard in the breathalizer shouting COME ON! COME ON! then, 30 seconds later, puts the pedal to the metal.

More seriously though, what happens if you're in a lurch and you really need to get the hell out of here fast? Sure it doesn't happen often, but I can think of several parts of my town I sometimes have to go to, where I really appreciate to know my car will start rightaway if I need it fast.

Re:Hollywood won't like it

[endx7]

Yep. I can see car chase scenes in movies becoming really boring very soon. Like the guy who robs a bank, runs to his getaway car, blows real hard in the breathalizer shouting COME ON! COME ON! then, 30 seconds later, puts the pedal to the metal.

What about the rolling tests? Let's say there is some chase scene, and all of a sudden, one of the main characters slows down and starts blowing real hard into the breathalizer without watching where's he's going?

Re:Hollywood won't like it

[HD Webdev]

Yep. I can see car chase scenes in movies becoming really boring very soon. Like the guy who robs a bank, runs to his getaway car, blows real hard in the breathalizer shouting COME ON! COME ON! then, 30 seconds later, puts the pedal to the metal.

It won't stop James Bond. They always come up with the nifty devices for him.

I can see it now 'Take this prototype breathalizer deactivator pen with you, James. You'll need it since no one else loves to drive around and kill people while under the influence of Martinis'.

April 1st already?

[eatdave13]

Wow. Either I overslept and it's April 1st, or they hate selling cars in New Mexico, because there's no way in HELL I would ever buy a car with one of those things on it.

Seriously, this has got to be a joke. I could almost understand it if it was required that anyone convicted of a DWI have one.

Re:April 1st already?

[dsoltesz]

I think you've hit on the real point - New Mexico car dealerships (and autotrader publications) will all go bankrupt because folks will go to neighboring states to buy their cars. I forsee the state border ringed with car dealerships so folks can just hop across the stateline to do their car shopping. eBay Auto will be wildly popular. Unfortunately, regular folks won't be able to sell their cars once they've bought them unless they ship them out of state.

Re:haha

[dave420-2]

They don't just take a percentage, but a fixed amount plus a percentage. So a fixed fee of $200 plus 5% of $0 is $200, not $0 ;)

Nice idea, though :) I'd love it if it were true ;)

I had no idea...

[lynx_user_abroad]

I had no idea New Mexico had such a ubiquitous problem with drunk drivers as to require such intrusive and expensive actions.

Scratch that state off the vacation plans. Heck, I wouldn't even want to drive through it.

Thanks for the warning, though.

Drinking and driving?

[ObviousGuy]

I don't support this latest measure as I find the inclusion of such an invasive device completely inappropriate, but I think that something must be done to curb the plague of drunk driving in America.

New Mexico is especially vulnerable to this because of its long straight highways which lure even the most level-headed driver into thinking that one or two drinks couldn't hurt too much.

Too often, those two drinks are the difference between making it home safe and killing an entire family in a horrific accident.

I think that there should be measures put in place to curb drunk driving, and I think they should be mandatory, but I also believe that as long as they are invasive (as this requirement is) then they are useless. The measures must be invisible but accurate. A sensor that detected the level of alcohol in the air of the car would be appropriate, but anything that required user interaction is entirely inappropriate.

Re:Drinking and driving?

[dknight]

So, just to get this straight.. You dont approve of this, but you think it would be a good idea to have a device in a car that wouldnt allow for designated drivers? "Whoops, sorry guys, I cant drive you home, the sensor is picking up how drunk you all are, and wont start the car"

This is a problem that cant be solved so simply.

Re:Drinking and driving?

[arkanes]

While I don't condone drunk driving, I think you'll find that the vast majority of drunk driving cases where a whole family is wiped out in a horrific accident are caused by people well above the limit, not by borderline cases (which is what that couple of drinks is). The real problem is people who don't think through thier ideas. For example, a sensor that detected the alcohol level in the air of the car would shut you down when you hadn't been drinking (say you were driving a drunk friend home), and wouldn't if you HAD been drinking (because you didn't drink enough to get spoppy and spill on yourself).

Re:Drinking and driving?

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you weigh that one drink is going to cause you to kill someone? Are you the stereotypical 95 pound loser nerd or what? I weigh 215 and one drink doesn't even start to effect me. And, in most states, it still leaves me under the legal limit.

Re:Drinking and driving?

[BoomerSooner]

Get rid of alcohol. It worked for drugs. Hell I haven't heard anything about drug usage since Nancy Regan started her "Just Say No" campaign. Too bad GWBush didn't read the papers back then.

Re:Drinking and driving?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoops, sorry guys, I cant drive you home, the sensor is picking up how drunk you all are, and wont start the car"

This is a problem that cant be solved so simply.

uhm tell you friends to get out the car still you start it perhaps ?

Re:Drinking and driving?

[dknight]

rolling tests, remember? kinda suck to have to have everyone get out all the time.

Re:Drinking and driving?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a GREAT idea! We'd have to come up with some catchy name to get people to accept it... let's see, how about *prohibition*. Get it, because we are "prohibiting" alcohol. Get it? eh...

Real costs

[Jon_Sy]

a) I think it's a bad idea. Smells of big brother to me. Next, there'll be blood tests to start your car.
b) That said, i don't see why dealerships and drivers should be paying. I'm sure insurance companies and governments could find an effective way to pay this off. Here, check out how much drunk driving costs. (ncpa.org)

In trouble...trying to get away...

[Hangtime]

whoops took 30 seconds to come back, your not going to make it.

Great idea who don't have the self control to not drive drunk, bad idea to force this on everyone. I am not guilty until proven innocent.

Creative punishment

[kefoo]

Ohio has an interesting way of discouraging drunk driving. Anybody caught driving drunk has to get yellow license plates, so everybody will know they have a DUI.

Re:Creative punishment

[SomeguyX]

That's an excellent idea.

Personally, I say if you're caught driving drunk you shouldn't drive again.

I know most counter-arguments claim it would impede someone's right to get to work. Tough, take the bus rummy.

Re:Creative punishment

[datasetgo]

hmmm. New Mexico plates are ALREADY yellow. Damn, whatever shall they do?

Re:Creative punishment

[the argonaut]

Ever wonder why New Mexico's license plates are yellow?

Re:Creative punishment

[scrytch]

Ohio has an interesting way of discouraging drunk driving. Anybody caught driving drunk has to get yellow license plates, so everybody will know they have a DUI.

Ironically enough, New Mexico license plates are all yellow. Just to throw on my 2 pesos (Oh hey they use US currency in new mexico? I didn't know it was a state now! [folks who've lived there will get that]), assuming this bill had a chance in hell, no, a computer salesman's chance in Amish country or a logical thought's chance in a lawmaker's head, they may as well simply retitle it the "No New Cars Sold In New Mexico Act".

Re:Creative punishment

[Tassach]

Ah, a scarlet letter law that not only brands the offender, but his or her entire family. That sounds like a really good idea.

<sarcasm>After all, if they're related to a criminal they must be criminals themselves, so we better be safe and lock them all up.</sarcasm>

Re:Creative punishment

[Sloppy]

In New Mexico, we all have yellow license plates. I look forward to plenty of dirty looks if I ever have the pleasure of driving through Ohio. ;-)

Re:Creative punishment

[Anonymous Coward]

There's only one problem with your idea... the license plates in New Mexico are already yellow.

Re:Creative punishment

[Observador]

Over here in Puerto Rico yellow license plates belong to government cars so it wouldn't work he... oh, ohh... now I get it!

Re:Creative punishment

[Anonymous Coward]

Judging by your response being the only reasonable one, it appears that only about 1 out of 10 /. posters have the slightest grasp of the issues here.

So now we know lawmakers in New Mexico AND Ohio are incompetent. That's no suprise.

Re:Creative punishment

[kefoo]

If you drive through Cincinnati you'll get dirty looks if you're a good driver.

Re:Creative punishment

[Syberghost]

Ah, a scarlet letter law that not only brands the offender, but his or her entire family. That sounds like a really good idea.

If you don't want your family to be ridiculed, don't drink and drive. People get ridiculed for having a drunk for a father anyway.

Hell, you could make the same argument against selling VW bugs in that awful radioactive green color.

Re:Creative punishment

[peeping_Thomist]

a scarlet letter law that not only brands the offender, but his or her entire family.

Damn right. Don't drive drunk, or you'll shame your whole family. Works for me. If I go postal and kill a bunch of people at the workplace, my family lives in infamy for the rest of their lives. Jeffrey Dahmer's father and mother are forever known as the father and mother of a monster. And drunk drivers and their families should receive precisely this treatment. Yellow tags sound like a good approach to me.

There's never been a functioning society in which shame attached only to individuals and their actions. Shame always spreads around to affect more people than just the guilty party. And that's a good thing, because human beings are social animals, not atomic individuals. Bad luck can leave good people (like Dahmer's parents) in a shameful position. Dahmer disgraced his parents. Don't you understand what it means to disgrace someone else?

Re:Creative punishment

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty sure that wouldn't work in New Mexico. There would be a LOT of drunk drivers.

http://www.pl8ster.net/NM/nm.html

Re:Creative punishment

[peeping_Thomist]

In addition to the shame angle, having yellow license plates is helpful in itself, because if other people see yellow plates on the road late at night, you know to give that car extra space. There've been lots of times I was driving behind someone who seemed to be DWI, but couldn't really be sure. Seeing the yellow tag would be one more piece of evidence I could quickly assess to get the big picture.

Re:Creative punishment

[Politburo]

Humiliation seems to becoming the "in" thing again in punishing people. It's been a while, but remember when we used to put people in the stocks, and they had to sit in the town square for a few hours, or maybe even days? Then some people would come by and throw shit at them, or maybe just laugh. Yeah, that ruled! And, it really solved our crime problems!

We've seen this type of thing come back in niche cases recently. Remember the judge in Texas that sentenced some people who had fought to be handcuffed together? I thought that kind of thing only happened on reality shows that bombed.

Shame has also been used in the past by various movements, religous and non-religous, to deter various behaviors. The prohibition movement was based almost entirely on shame. Look where that got us.

Identifying criminals, in general, does not welcome them back into society. If criminals are not reintegrated into society after jail, they will frequently return to a life of crime, and return to jail. I realize that this profile does not really apply to DUI, but if they are willing to make laws that say DUIs have to have yellow plates, why not start using other identifiers for other vehicular infractions and crimes?

PS. The only reason they can do this is because driving is not considered a right, but a privilege. That means the government can place requirements on the ability to drive that do not have to meet constitutional standards.

Re:Creative punishment

[Rhys]

Or you could look at it as a warning to other drivers, much like "STUDENT DRIVER TRAINING" that says basically, "hey this car is driven by a moron, expect it to act in stupid/dangerous/unreasonable ways while on the road."

Other countries have you have special plates for the first year or two when you start driving.

Re:Creative punishment

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually that's not true. They have the same system where residents with DUI's must use yellow plates. You're not the first one to mistakenly think ALL New Mexico plates are yellow.

Re:Creative punishment

[Anonymous Coward]

I totally agree. After all, your family is often partially responsible too. Did your wife let you go to a bar without a designated driver or other way home? Did the parents let their kid go to a drinking party (if they didnt know it was a drinking party, tough, that's still due to their irresponsibility)? It's actually a really weak way of encouraging people to live up to their responsibilities to their family.

Re:Creative punishment

[Anonymous Coward]

So you think sexual offenders shouldn't have their records published despite the incredibly high rate of repeat offense?

Although I would argue the purpose of that isn't to shame the offenders, but to allow people to keep the sexual offender from positions where they're trusted with children.

Re:Creative punishment

[Anonymous Coward]

sure, how about red for road rage and/or aggressive drivers?

Re:Creative punishment

[Dusty Bottoms]

I think this was an attempt at humor.

All license plates in New Mexico are yellow.

Re:Creative punishment

[bluGill]

On the car? How does that help when he sells the car?

I know of a case where a guy got a DWI while driving a company truck (after hours, legally he can only drive it for work purposes). They fired him of course, but that company was now stuck with a license plate with the offender label (in MN, IIRC this means it had a W on it or some such).

Seems like the wrong solution to me. This guy can still drive someone else's car without the plate, while the company he used to work with is stuck with the truck that advertising a drunk driver at the wheel.

Re:Creative punishment

[Anonymous Coward]

That was a terrible post. Just terrible.

Re:Creative punishment

[autocracy]

Yeah, because they all put the yellow plate on their car before they drive drunk in it. Especially the first time, and not to mention when they're using their friends car. I'm sure their family members appreciate that the odds of being pulled over go up when driving that car as well.

A magnetic tag for people with a license for less than a year is one thing - but to expect somebdoy who's drunk to have the presence of mind to put up a warning first is stupid.

Re:Creative punishment

[peeping_Thomist]

A magnetic tag for people with a license for less than a year is one thing - but to expect somebdoy who's drunk to have the presence of mind to put up a warning first is stupid.

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought the measure we were talking about was having convicted drunk drivers forced to have a yellow _license plate_, which is more or less permanent. If it is just a magnetic tag, then I agree it's stupid.

Re:Creative punishment

[poot_rootbeer]

...or why New Jersey's plates all switched from blue to yellow several years ago?

Re:Creative punishment

[Politburo]

No, I agree with offender lists. I'm talking about badges of shame, not records. I'm not saying that criminal records and proceedings shouldn't be public. I'm saying we shouldn't be using shame as our tool of punishment. I agree with your opinion on the purpose of sex offender lists.

Re:Creative punishment

[Tassach]

"hey this car is driven by a moron, expect it to act in stupid/dangerous/unreasonable ways while on the road."

I assume every other car on the road is being driven by a moron; I'm rarely disappointed. It's called defensive driving. Give it a try.

<rant>
Of course if you are driving on the DC beltway, there are special tags you can use to identify the most idiotic drivers. They're the ones that say "BMW" and "Lexus". Of course it's hard to read them when they're weaving in and out of traffic, but they make it a little easier on you by not using those distracting turn signals.
</rant>

Re:Creative punishment

[autocracy]

The problem with something that's more or less permanent is that I don't expect there's any rule saying they can't drive another person's vehicle, and that it would terribly suck to be the non-convicted driver of a car with one of those plates.

Where to start ....

[IamGarageGuy 2]

First off, this is insanity at a new level. 30 seconds to start your car?!?!!
The real point is the argument for drunk driving. Now don't get all up in arms hear but listen first. In the US you are innocent until proven guilty. This is one of the first laws that convict a person before he has committed any wrongdoing. I am all for throwing the book at somebody who has maimed or killed another after getting behind the wheel, but when that person has not harmed another and we presume he will that is being guilty before any crime has been committed. If I hold a knife while drunk, does that mean I should be liable for stabbing an innocent bystander before the crime has been committed? Constitution? Liberty? Freedom? They are all thrown out the window in the fight against that evildoer known as the drunk driver. I should note that I do not drive after drinking, not because of the law but because I am a responsible person who believes I should be responsible for my own actions.

START THE FLAMES !!!!!!

Re:Where to start ....

[Anonymous Coward]

You aren't going to get flamed. What you've said is perfectly in line with Slashdot groupthink. Who knows, you might even get some karma!

Re:Where to start ....

[stevelinton]

In a rather chilling experiment a few years ago, someone took a group of professional long-distance lorry drivers. Sober, on average, they would confidently drive their lorries at 30+MPH through a gap 6 inches wider than the lorry, slow down for narrower gaps and refuse gaps narrower than the lorry. These men (I think they all were men) routinely drank 10 to 20 pints of beer at a session when socializing. The experimenters gave them 1/2 pint each and allowed time for it to be absorbed. Now, they would confidently attempt to drive their lorries through spaces 1/2" NARROWER than the lorry at 30+ MPH.

In other words they thought they were still safe drivers (and they were well under any blood-alcohol limit), but in fact they were dangerously overconfident.

I respectfully suggest that you are doing the same thing.

Re:Where to start ....

[vidarh]

Since when did a 30 seconds delay to the start of your car journeys constitute a conviction or punishment for anything?

Do you consider regulations requiring use of seat belts a nuisance too? What about places where lights needs to be turned on during daytime and you have to spend two seconds flicking them on? Or all that time and money spent to ensure your car passes safety regulations?

As a drive, you will already be spending a lot of time and money that are related to ensuring the safety of yourself and others already, even though you might always drive responsibly and be perfectly capable of compensating for any technical problems with your car. How is this any different?

Re:Where to start ....

[Anonymous Coward]

I just don't buy the idea that just because you've had a little to drink that somehow you are "impaired".

Yeah, and I don't buy the idea that just because we breath air that we need oxygen to live. Pfft, Doctors. What do they know about the effects of various substances on the human physiology?

Re:Where to start ....

[Hoi Polloi]

"First off, this is insanity at a new level. 30 seconds to start your car?!?!!"

I can't wait for the person who, for example, stalls their car at a railroad crossing and can't restart it because of this thing.

I guess it is better to die of an equipment failure than a drunk driving accident.

Re:Where to start ....

[notbob]

Bah my depth perception is soo wavering and inconsistent picking out that f'in line in the road is a pain and it moves cause of muscle problems but I can still drive... just move out of my way :D

Last night in a turn a guy decided to not look while moving lanes and almost creamed my BMW. But even my shitty sight let me move :)

PS: the lorry drivers were just tryin to be modest about the size of their lorry

Re:Where to start ....

[jmpoast]

Holding a knife while drunk isn't illegal, driving while drunk is. It doesn't turn into a crime only after you injure someone, driving drunk is a crime the second you get behind the wheel. Big difference.

Re:Where to start ....

[LokiSteve]

Lets say that you were a volunteer firefighter. The safety of others depends on how fast you can get your butt on that truck and out the door. 30 seconds isn't a lot of time when you're heading to the grocery store to pick up some ramen noodles, but it is a hell of a long time when you're waiting for help. What if there is a false reading or an error in the system? Now you have a full minute wasted, sitting in your driveway.

Another situation. Your kid is sick. You need to take him to the hospital, your hands are shaking. Are you going to be able to activate some interlock?

Most likely, people living on the border will just travel to another state to buy a car, that'll do wonders for the economy. Now car dealers will loose money because they have to install interlocks, and can't sell cars because most people just go out of state anyway.

These issues haven't come up much because of the few people that have interlocks installed, but will become much more common if a whole state has them installed.

Re:Where to start ....

[Neurotoxic666]

I am a responsible person who believes I should be responsible for my own actions.

Wow. Phew... I thought I was alone, with all these stupid comments about what MORE we could do to take away people's rights.

That bill is a troll. Mod New Mexico down! Seriously, there are more and more of these incredibly unbelievable laws passed, mostly in Canada and the USA. Whether they are about music, the internet, movies, alcohol, guns, etc - in every case, they assume we are children. There are ALREADY laws for that, and if people do not respect these laws, voting a bill that forces you to respect the law is completely illogical.

1. These breath-thingies will be hacked
2. criminals will continue their business as usual
3. Honnest citizens will pay the price twice
4. Profit? No. In the end, as many people will die because they were drunk (or drugged) while driving.
It is not about the cars, about the alcohol or about the laws -- it is about a society. Better education and higher penalties for offenders is the way to go. Otherwise, we're just not solving the problem.

Re:Where to start ....

[ImpTech]

Carrying a RPG (or any other banned weapon) is a crime the second you pick it up. Nevertheless, we don't put metal detectors outside people's houses.

Shoplifting is a crime the second you walk out of the store. Grocery store clerks still can't pat you down on the way out.

This is just not the way a free society should enforce laws.

Re:Where to start ....

[lone_marauder]

Since when did a 30 seconds delay to the start of your car journeys constitute a conviction or punishment for anything?

Since the concept of operation of this device presumes guilt and requires proof of innocence before the car can be operated. This is in direct controversion to the U.S. Constitution.

Do you consider regulations requiring use of seat belts a nuisance too?

A device intended to protect occupants in a crash does not, as a basic concept of its operation, presume guilt and require proof of innocence. Even if such an interlock were tied to the operation of seatbelts, there are cases when seatbelts are needed that do not involve criminal liability.

What about places where lights needs to be turned on during daytime and you have to spend two seconds flicking them on? Or all that time and money spent to ensure your car passes safety regulations? ... blah blah blah... How is this any different?

The operation of headlights is not a valid example, unless the car is going to turn them off at random intervals to make sure you know to turn them back on. An annual inspection is not unreasonable search and seizure. Forcing your vehicle to presume guilt at random intervals and require you to blow into a test tube, on the other hand, violates several of the Bill of Rights.

Re:Where to start ....

[jmpoast]

I agree that this law is bogus, and in no way support it. I was just pointing out the severe flaws in your analogy.

Re:Where to start ....

[Anonymous Coward]

with all these stupid comments about what MORE we could do to take away people's rights.

When did driving become a right? Which part of the US constitution lists "drunk driving" as a fundamental right?

Better education and higher penalties for offenders is the way to go

The united states of america has one of the highest rates of incarceration in the world. People simply DO NOT CARE about the consequences of their illegal actions. For this reason, it has become time to make it more difficult for criminals to risk OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES. If you don't like it, fine, but there are many of us who not only support this action, but think it doesn't go far enough. There are many technological solutions to make driving safer, and more of them should be made mandatory.

Re:Where to start ....

[grvsmth]

I'd just like to point out here that driving a car is a privilege, not a right. Do you believe that driving tests "convict a person before he has committed any wrongdoing" too?

The real problem is that NM has spent billions on car infrastructure and next to nothing on public transportation. I lived in Albuquerque for two years without a car, and they made life difficult for me. But I was able to do it because I chose to live and work near downtown and transit. It's almost impossible to live in some parts of NM without driving, which is why most of the people with suspended licenses get right back on the roads.

Re:Where to start ....

[Neurotoxic666]

There are many technological solutions to make driving safer, and more of them should be made mandatory.

You just can't replace a responsible person by a machine. I doubt any of these "marvels" will actualy solve any problem.

Besides, they're hackable. And I'm the first on the list who would screw the thing up if it was installed in my car. It is NOT safe to breathe in a tube while driving -- I'm concentrating on the road, not on your device. And I am not going to tolerate being considered a criminal. I drink alcohol sometimes, and I drive everyday. But I do NOT drink and drive, and I do NOT need that piece of crap. Forget it. *I* happen to be a responsible person, and the people I vote for are there to manage the country, not to baby-sit me.

And if I am forced to use it, I'll force the poor techie to find a way to install it on a Ford T.

Re:Where to start ....

[Anonymous Coward]

In the US, you're also innocent after proven guilty, if you're a drunk driver. Rather than see this big-brother "solution" bullshit that penalizes EVERYONE, why not enforce current drunk driving laws? Get caught with a joint in your pocket and you can spend a few months in jail. Get caught driving while intoxicated for the 20th time and you'll get a slap on the wrist, but you can still go back to driving and not really serve any time in prison (if ANY AT ALL).

Maybe we should be taking drunk drivers more seriously when they're convited in the first fucking place, hmm....?

Re:Where to start ....

[Anonymous Coward]

In the US you are innocent until proven guilty.

I think this would be a good idea, yes.

Re:Where to start ....

[LihTox]

First off, this is insanity at a new level. 30 seconds to start your car?!?!!
This reminds me of the old joke about what would happen if Microsoft designed cars.... With my old Vic-20, I would flip the switch, wait three seconds, and boom it was up and running. What's next? Maybe cars should ask for your password before starting? "Press Ctrl-Alt-Del and blow in this tube to start the engine."

Re:Where to start ....

[Sanction]

So you're suggesting that I should be able to cart my rifle down to the county fair and start firing into the crowd, but until I actually hit someone I'm not guilty of anything? How about dropping bricks off the local tall buildings during the morning commute?

Just because you happen to get lucky and not kill someone that time does not mean that you have not committed a crime. Drunk driving is just a cross between reckless endangerment and attempted vehicular manslaughter.

Oh this makes sens... huh?

[zzyzx]

So I'm driving in the snow trying to make a difficult manuver when I suddenly have to take my eyes off of the road, find this hand held device (a photo of one of these interlocks is here), breathe into it, and if I don't the horn will start going off. Explain to me again how this bill promotes safety.

Re:Oh this makes sens... huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, that's an impressive website the interlock people have. Of course nobody will ever have a browser window more than 973 pixels wide! I really trust these people to deliver robust and reliable technology after seeing how well designed their online presence is.

Re:Oh this makes sens... huh?

[Smallpond]

You're right. It should do periodic test of your ability to focus by playing the sound of a baby crying in the back seat and checking that your steering doesn't become erratic.

There should also be a periodic eye exam for older drivers where an eye chart drops down in front of the driver and they have to read off the bottom row.

Its clearly the auto makers who are at fault in every accident by letting unqualified drivers operate their cars.

Re:Oh this makes sens... huh?

[raider_red]

Just remember though, it's still illegal to use your hand-held cel-phone in the car.

This is almost to the point of creating a new class of criminals just because we don't have enough of the old ones.

Re:Oh this makes sens... huh?

[marcopo]

yeah... those new mexico snow storms can be hard.

Re:Oh this makes sens... huh?

[warpSpeed]

You're right. It should do periodic test of your ability to focus by playing the sound of a baby crying in the back seat and checking that your steering doesn't become erratic.

Don't forget the random sounds of:
a ringing cell phone
bickering children
spilled drink in the back seat by bickering children
Nagging spouce, "Stop and get directions"
random car horns
siren approaching from the rear

If you can manage to listen to all that and still maintaing a steady hand on the wheel can you give me some hints as to how you do it?

Re:Oh this makes sens... huh?

[introverted]

Explain to me again how this bill promotes safety.

Oh, this will promote public safetey one way or another. On the one hand, anyone stupid enough to re-elect the people who passed this bill shouldn't be driving in the first place. On the other hand, if the public is smart enough to elect a new set of leaders, public safety will again be served by getting the idiots out of office.

Re:Oh this makes sens... huh?

[mstamat]

Snow in new Mexico?

Re:Oh this makes sens... huh?

[nicomachus]

Snow in New Mexico? Quite a lot, actually. Much of the state is mountainous, and most of the north is above 5000 feet even in the valleys.

Re:Oh this makes sens... huh?

[Schwartzboy]

I read and agreed completely with your post. Then I noticed the URL to the photo, followed it, and hoped it wasn't goatse. Intrigued, I clicked the "Home" link in the upper-left corner of the page and skimmed the text. In the context of a lot of the posts I've seen, yours included, this line almost had me falling off my chair laughing.

"Helping People Drive Safely, One Breath At a Time."

No, really. April 1st isn't for more than a month.
Can we mod the state of New Mexico -10, Dumbass?

Re:Oh this makes sens... huh?

[zzyzx]

Ever drive in the northern part of the state? One of the worst blizzards I ever drove through was right outside of Santa Fe. Between Santa Fe and Pueblo, Co, there was so much snow and ice that a foot thick layer formed on the underside of my car.

Re:Oh this makes sens... huh?

[Ziviyr]

If you fail or abort 5 consecutive tests, or if you do not deliver a test when required the unit will sound your horn. If you allow the horn to sound for 4 minutes then you will get a Violation that must be reported to the court.

It obviously encourages drunk people to drive with haste to reach a destination (like a reasonable parking place in a crowded city, or work so they don't get fired and loose the ability to make house or car payments).

All that while making alot of noise (further distracting the driver directly and indirectly through the actions of others).

Naturally being alerted that you have to breathe into an "Ignition Interlock" on the drop of a hat won't degrade a driver's focus any either...

We need a South Park where Tweak gets a toy battery powered car that uses such a system. :-)

Ah yes, another case of...

[Sinter]

Well, with all the recent Patriot Act right-restricting fun, I don't find it surprising at all that the first instinct of the government is to take the "guilty until proven innocent" route. I really think we should base our whole legal system off these principals, I mean, really, I can't understand why this hasn't happened before! /sarcasm -Sinter

What About Non-Drinkers?

[GTRacer]

Why should people like me who don't drink have to deal with this thing? Either by having to use it or when selling the car?

I don't live in NM, but I can see where feel-good laws like this could spread very quickly!

GTRacer
- Probably *need* to get drunk

Re:What About Non-Drinkers?

[UnderScan]

Exactly. How about those who can't drink? I am very sickly allergic to alcolhol. See this report for more details. There is no getting buzzed or feeling good from drinking. A glass of wine messes me up more than you can imagine and there you can not build up a tolerance to the negative effects as the problem is embedded in my genes.

Re:What About Non-Drinkers?

[vidarh]

Why should I, who isn't a terrorist, be subjected to security checks before boarding an airplane?

Because, as is the case when you start your car, I would have the ability to be a significant risk to others if I wanted to.

Re:What About Non-Drinkers?

[Anonymous Coward]

You could kill someone with your car, so why should you be allowed to drive?

You might try and stick up a liquor store with a knife, so no sharp objects for you.

You may try and download child porn, so I guess we should take that internet connection from you.

The point is, that everyone is a potential criminal and anything is potentialy leathal. Punish the guilty, leave the innocent the hell alone or what is the point? Maybe we should all be strapped to beds and fed through a tube least we get up and hurt someone.

Re:What About Non-Drinkers?

[DaHat]

However you do have a better chance of being killed by a drunk driver then a terrorist while on US soil... still both are crazy as they are simply attempts to make the public feel safer rather then actually solving the problems in the first place.

Re:What About Non-Drinkers?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Why should I, who isn't a terrorist, be subjected to security checks before boarding an airplane?
Because, as is the case when you start your car, I would have the ability to be a significant risk to others if I wanted to.

There's a large difference between security checks prior to boarding someone else's plane and starting your own car.

Re:What About Non-Drinkers?

[GTRacer]

Because, IIRC, most of our "preventive" laws are based on a risk vs. restraint kind of deal. Most of the time. Well, OK, it's the ideal, anyway.

There's a practical limit to the damage I can do in my own car if I were drunk, versus what could be damaged using a plane or other mass-transit vehicle. Plus, the car is mine. The plane (and airport, etc.) is not.

Also, I've already agreed to the "rules of the road" when I got my license. As well as consented to any sobriety test demanded by a police officer.

If New Mexico's leaders feel that putting these interlocks in every car in the state will solve their problem, they're solving the wrong problem.

GTRacer
- Mythbusters busted the "beat a breathalyzer" myths...

Excuse for the cops

[Washizu]

"No officer, she wasn't taking my breathalyzer for me. She was just giving me road head."

Re:Excuse for the cops

[Anonymous Coward]

Who on earth modded this insightful?

Re:Excuse for the cops

[Washizu]

Even I laughed at that moderation.

Re:Excuse for the cops

[Anonymous Coward]

In the UK at least, that counts as "Driving without due care and attention."

Re:Excuse for the cops

[TC (WC)]

I think that, while getting head, you've got all sorts of care and attention going on.

... uh?

[windex]

Wouldn't it just be easier to require them to have the ability to have such a device securely attached for repeat offenders? ...

Oh, sorry. I didn't realize we wern't trying to make sense.

Solution

[mbkkelsey]

Why don't they just confiscate the cars of drunk drivers? I hear they do it in Sweden.

Re:Solution

[Wyatt Earp]

In some states one can't take away one's livelyhood and that means they can't take thier vehicle.

In the US, I'd say that 80% of the West has no mass-transit and at least 30% of the East doesn't so without a vehicle there is no way to get to the job.

Again, it depends on the state. I was serving time for a non-drinking offense in '93 and a jailmate (there were two of us in the whole place) was serving 45 weekends so he could get his 90 days sentance taken care of. He'd gotten 90 days for drunk driving, but since he was an electrician they couldn't take away his job with the sentance.

Re:Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't they just confiscate the cars of drunk drivers? I hear they do it in Sweden.

Possible scenario: husband and wife. One car. While wife is in hospital, husband gets pissed, drives, gets caught.

Now, if you confiscate the car, you are punishing the wife as well. But she hasn't committed a crime; it's not as though she even had an opportunity to prevent the crime being committed.

Are you in favour of punishing innocents for crimes committed by their family? No? Then I guess confiscating cars isn't the way forward.

Draconian

[satanslackey]

As a New Mexico resident, I'd have to say that the approach would work, but it's a bit extreme. The problem here in NM is that drivers convicted of DWI are let off by judges with just a slap on the wrist, even in cases involving fatalities. Our judges just don't take drunk driving very seriously yet.

Re:Draconian

[protoshoggoth]

It would seem that some minimum-sentencing laws would be a more appropriate way to go if the judges are slacking off on these matters. This is just nuts. If it's signed in to law it will last for about one day, which is how long it will take everyone to realize how incredibly intrusive and annoying to everyone it is.

That's just dumb

[j-turkey]

Why should I have to be penalized because some people drive drunk? It's a severe inconvenience to the driver, and will increase the purchase price of the car. This is just like the federally mandated airbags in new cars. The consumer should have had the choice with airbags all along, but some legislator thought that because some people can't wear seatbelts -- we should all pay for mandatory airbags. I find this type of thinking unacceptable, and if I were a NM voter, I know who I'd vote out of office next election.

Re:That's just dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just like the federally mandated airbags in new cars. The consumer should have had the choice with airbags all along, but some legislator thought that because some people can't wear seatbelts -- we should all pay for mandatory airbags.

And that sounds unreasonable - right up until you give some kid a lift, and someone hits you, and the kid dies, and their parents sue you for choosing a car without airbags.

Re:That's just dumb

[Waffle Iron]

The consumer should have had the choice with airbags all along, but some legislator thought that because some people can't wear seatbelts -- we should all pay for mandatory airbags.

Car safety systems are optimized for the use of both seatbelts and airbags at the same time. Airbags don't just benefit the idiots who can't be bothered to put their seatbelts on; they make it safer for seatbelt wearers as well.

Moreover, the cost isn't just about your "consumer choice". If you or one of your passengers gets injured or killed in an accident, I pay more for insurance premiums or whatever other funding source is used to keep uninsured accident victims out of the gutter. You're propising to shift the cost of accident risk from your new car purchase to my taxes and insurance bills.

Re:That's just dumb

[j-turkey]

Car safety systems are optimized for the use of both seatbelts and airbags at the same time. Airbags don't just benefit the idiots who can't be bothered to put their seatbelts on; they make it safer for seatbelt wearers as well.

You're propising to shift the cost of accident risk from your new car purchase to my taxes and insurance bills.

I'm not sure that I agree with you on either count. This is exactly the rhetoric that you'll hear from the insurance industry. If a driver is seated properly in the vehicle with their seatbelt properly fastened, there is no way that their head could come into contact with the steering wheel. The world's safest cars in a crash, race cars, have no airbags at all whatsoever (in fact, most organizations ban them due to safety concerns). The drivers are in a proper seating position and are securely belted in. Now granted they have a proper roll cage (unrelated to any airbag issues) and a 5 or 6-point harness (which will help keep a driver in place), but a regular pretensioned 3-point seatbelt (if operating properly) should keep a driver's head from hitting a steering wheel. Ironically, the same type of regulation you praise keeps these 5/6-point harnesses illegal in most states, and on all cars imported to the states (presumably to protect you from higher premiums...by some logic that still defies me).

You also forget that there is no published evidence that airbags have actually cut traffic fatalities. It's been an assumption from the start (thanks Ralph Nader). Personally, I'd prefer to make up my own mind than have NHTSA push laws through without any real evidence. The idea that airbags lower your insurance premiums is toally unjustified.

Finally, with compulsory insurance laws, how can another drivers' side airbag lessen your insurance premium? They're required to have insurance. Further, how does this affect your tax bill? Are these insurance companies subsidized? I contend that it's the other way around -- more regulation means more enforcement means more taxes. Where your reasoning fails is that you're doing is piling legislature upon legialature, increasing costs of car ownership for everyone. How do we pretect people from themselves? Under your logic, more legislature (compulsory insurance laws) -- stick it to the consumer. Wait -- it's too expensive! What do we do? More legislature (seatbelt, helmet, and airbag laws) -- stick it to the consumer. Hmm -- pretty soon, we need someone to keep track of all this regulation, so we open more government offices -- more taxes. It all piles up. Combine this with a large population of people who feel entitled to someone elses money and we're left with some very steep insurance premiums.

To start with, we don't need new mandatory safety equipment on cars -- the rules are already too restrictive. All this does is makes owning a car more expensive, and increases your taxes. (Not to mention that the insurance companies are already heavily regulated by the government, and heavy government regulation typicaly equals higher cost to you in the long run). What we need more than any of this other regulation is tort reform.

For Pete's sake, we're supposed to be capitalists! Let's stop blabbing about freedom and actually practice it.

Re:That's just dumb

[Waffle Iron]

If a driver is seated properly in the vehicle with their seatbelt properly fastened, there is no way that their head could come into contact with the steering wheel.

Have you ever seen a high-speed film of a crash test? In a severe crash, the passenger compartment partially collapses, and the seats and seatbelts flex like rubber bands. Even a belted driver can most definitely hit the steering wheel, hard.

I agree that a racing-style roll cage and harnesses would be much safer. However, since those can't be stamped out like cookies the way today's car bodies are, that would cost far more than even an airbag system.

Finally, with compulsory insurance laws, how can another drivers' side airbag lessen your insurance premium? They're required to have insurance.

You're forgetting the whole point of insurance: to spread risk. The whole idea is that if you get injured, other people pay for it.

Further, how does this affect your tax bill?

Let me simplify the situation. If more people get hurt in auto accidents, then more money is being spent on hospital bills. There are only 4 possible sources of money for this: someone involved in the accident, insurance, taxes (e.g., broke injury victims go on Medicaid), or costs absorbed by hospitals (and then passed on to their paying customers). Since the vast majority of the population doesn't have the financial resources to personally cover the costs of a severe injury, most of the money is coming from one of the other three sources. All of the other three sources are paid for by people who didn't buy your car. No matter how you slice it, unless you're a multimillionaire with no insurance, somebody else is paying the costs of your accident risk.

Re:That's just dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

A very eloquent argument against government health care.

responsibility

[ZINGYWINGY]

Whatever happened to people taking personal responsibility for their actions? More and more we're babied by the state. We're unable to take care of ourselves so the state takes care of us and does our thinking for us. You can bet that this will morph into "it's Chevrolet's fault that I hit and killed your daughter because their breathalizer wasn't working right."

A device called Pass Time

[Botchka]

I am going through something similar. I've just purchased a used car and in order to get any type of financing, they are installing a device on the car called "Pass Time". Basically this device gets installed between my key and the ignition and emits a friendly chime when I turn the key to on. After the friendly chime, I can start my car. This may sound innocuous enough, but in order to start my car, I have to punch in a six digit code every month in order to start my car. When I make the payment, I get the six digit code and I can use the car I pay for for 30 days. Oh but they are so sweet.....I get a 9 day grace period after the due date when the friendly chime beeps a little longer. After that, the car is dead as a door nail until I make a payment and get the six digit code. Nich huh? And it's not being installed because I have crappy credit.....no...it's being installed because I've only been in this area for 9 months as opposed to 2 years! It's an outrage and I feel less than human. I've NEVER been late on a car payment and I show 5 paid off car loans in my lifetime. You may say that we could have walked (which I almost did) or gone elsewhere, but we tried. This was pretty much the only way for my wife and I to get a loan for a frickin USED car.

Re:A device called Pass Time

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy crap! Where do you live and what financing company did you use? I want to avoid it and them like the plague.

Re:A device called Pass Time

[dstillz]

Where is this? This is ridiculous.

Re:A device called Pass Time

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they saw your Slashdot sig...

Money not found! A)bort, R)etry, D)eclare Bankruptcy

And thought that you were a bad credit risk.

Re:A device called Pass Time

[Botchka]

Salem, Oregon As I stated, I'm stuck because I signed the contract. But I felt desperate as we couldn't get financing any other way. This was something that had to be done, because our other used vehicle was a gas hog and I spend a lot of time driving around town on my job. We were speding upwards of $400 a month in gas. I'm outraged but don't know what else to do....

Re:A device called Pass Time

[Chess_the_cat]

If you buy the car on borrowed money, the car doesn't belong to you! The bank owns your car until you pay off the loan. That's why they can repossess it if you default.

But I agree that it's an outrage if you already have proof of paying off 5 car loans in the past. I'm just saying that it's not entirely ridiculous.

Re:A device called Pass Time

[Botchka]

Thanks for making me smile at least!

Re:A device called Pass Time

[Hoi Polloi]

What does needing a loan have to do with how long he has lived in the area? There are no deadbeats in the area who have lived there 2+ years? Sounds discrimatory.

Re:A device called Pass Time

[Anonymous Coward]

> If you buy the car on borrowed money, the car doesn't belong to you!

<sarcasm>Does it ? That's interesting. In that case, what is a leasing ?</sarcasm>

Re:A device called Pass Time

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, that's a misconception. It's not the banks car or house, it's yours. The money they loaned you is theirs, thus when you default on your loan they get your collateral back (house or car) so they can sell it and recover their money.

Cut the damn thing out. It's your car.

Re:A device called Pass Time

[Botchka]

Something else that I have to state: After the fact, the credit company hasn't been able to offer me ANY assurances that this device will work properly. They haven't instilled the most confidence in me either. They missed the original appointment to install the device..no phone call..nothing. The next day, they sent a couple of yahoos out to install it. It took them 1.5 hours and had my entire dash apart. The dealer told me it was a simple 5 minute plug n play type installation. Not only that, now my check engine light came on the very next morning and it's never been on before. ALSO the device doesn't even work like it's supposed to, so it's been installed incorrectly! The dealer is willing to back out of the situation but since they've already sent my other car to auction, I'll only end up with a small check for the difference in payoff and NO car, which I cannot afford to do. Salem has a very crappy mass transit system and my car is my ability to work.

Re:A device called Pass Time

[grung0r]

Can you provide verification(a web site or some other source) of such a device? I am unable to find any evidence that such a thing exists.

Re:A device called Pass Time

[Botchka]

www.passtimeusa.com

Re:A device called Pass Time

[supersat]

Where in Salem? I grew up there, and have a number of friends there, so I'd like to tell them to avoid whoever you went to.

Re:A device called Pass Time

[Anonymous Coward]

Sue them.

Vandalism, if nothing else.

Re:A device called Pass Time

[SlaveToTheGrind]

A friend of mine got stuck with a similar deal - don't know if it's the same brand device or not. The interesting part is that the dealer asked him about his job, and when he responded that he was in a technical career, the dealer snapped his photo. Turns out they're required to take mugshots of anyone who has a technical background, as they freely admitted the device they put on his car is childishly simple to defeat for someone who knows the first thing about the subject. He took it apart once to look at it, and it was just a 6-pin connector coming into the device, being 3 pairs that needed to be shorted in order to connect all the original ignition wiring. YMMV.

Re:A device called Pass Time

[Alan Shutko]

News flash: if you couldn't get a small loan on a used car without agreeing this thing, you have bad credit. I just bought a brand new car after living here for 7 months, and didn't have a problem getting financing... even had the dealer trying to convince me that his people could meet the low interest rate I got through my credit union.

The amount of time you've lived in one place is one factor in deciding to loan money, but it's not the only one. And with a high enough credit score, you could walk into the dealership the day after you moved and not have a problem.

I'd suggest requesting a copy of your credit report, and see what's on there. Since you aver that you don't know of any reasons to say you have bad credit, it may be that you have some errors on your report you could have addressed.

Re:A device called Pass Time

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. What a loser. Yeah, I mean you.

Re:A device called Pass Time

[rark]

Sounds like a real PITA. Next time consider buying with cash. My current vehicle ('87 Toyota 4runner, just turned 208k, was around 203k when I bought it) cost me $810 (actually, the $10 was for the manual that the previous owner had). Right now it requires outlays of about $200/mo in repairs and maintainance, which is less than or equal to what I'd have to pay monthly for a relatively inexpensive used car purchased on credit. I'm expecting that to end sometime in May. Even so, it's quite drivable and has yet to strand me, which is more than I can say about my $10k 1997 saturn, which stranded me three times in the year I owned it, and ended up requiring an average of $400/mo maintainance and repair over that year (mostly fixing the transmission and brakes), on top of the $255.55 monthly payment. Not to mention the extra cost of insurance. My insurance payment with the truck is half of what the saturn was, simply because I don't have to pay for comprehensive, just the state minimum.

Granted, it's a pain in the butt when someone steals it and/or crunches it (it got stolen, crunched and abandoned within a few weeks of buying it. I've done some modding to keep that from happening again, but I couldn't prevent someone else from driving into it while it was legally and well parked on the side of the road at a friends. Dorchester drivers *suck* -- it was parked at the same friend's house when it was stolen, too) but even after repairs I've still come out ahead (though it pushed the length of the heavy repair/maintainance period -- the $200/mo until may -- out, since I had to repair the damage these dorks did to my truck as well as the existing issues).

So you might consider all this next time you're in the market for a car. Www.cartalk.com is a useful resource (and rather amusing, too).

If the 'buy a really cheap older reliable car and run it until it dies' doesn't appeal to you, at least do yourself a favor and next time you buy a new car, get the loan from a bank or credit union, rather than the dealer. Those loans are where dealers make ridiculous amounts of money -- on interest and surcharges, yadda. And apparently where they find new and interesting ways to make you bend over for them, if your story is any indication.

Better yet, find a credit union you can join, join it, and never leave. You can move states (and probably countries) and keep your accounts at most credit unions. They normally don't charge monthly fees for basic account usage, so it doesn't cost you anything to keep a minimal amount of money in there (it requires $5 to keep my credit union account open) and they'll give you the best deal on a car loan (and mortgages, and often credit cards -- I have a permanant 12.9 APR on my credit card, and my credit is not spotless by any means). And likely, they won't ask you to input little numbers once a month.

Privacy anyone?

[physicsboy500]

I haven't ever driven drunk... I actually only rarely drink more than 1 drink per day, but this still seems to me to be rather intrusive. The fact that I have done nothing to forego the right to not have one of these intrusive devices is obliterated in the proscess of this law. I really thought the american public was innocent until proven guilty. Between this and the patriot act, I have been taught otherwise.

Common sense, anyone?

[Lord Grey]

This is utterly ridiculous.

American society seems to be on this trend toward sweeping laws, regulations and decisions that are targeted to only a few individuals but affect everyone. A mandatory ignition interlock is yet another example of this trend.

It seems to me that when a solution to a problem adversely affects more of the population than the problem itself, the solution is wrong. Is that too simple a concept to grasp?

Uh, well, yeah.

[BWJones]

It seems to me that impinging upon the liberty of an entire state is a little bit too extreme. Perhaps tougher penalties and larger fines for people who actually drive drunk would be a better idea."

It seems to me that the burden should be placed upon those that have already proven they are not trustworthy enough to operate a vehicle without being impaired. The other issue is that we need to enforce the laws that already exist rather than letting people continue to operate vehicles after a DUI (or two or three or more). However, if DUI were really as socially unacceptable as it is in some other countries, perhaps we would not have the incidence of DUI that we have.

Not Moving There

[somethinghollow]

I guess that rules New Mexico out of my possible places to move list, if it was ever there. Thirty seconds to start a car is more than a mild irritation. It is a step back. If I wanted to take thirty seconds to start my car, I'd go buy a car with a broken ignition, not a breathalizer on the ignition. I imagine the next law will be to prohibit cars, since you can't drive a car while drunk if there is no car.

But, really. This is like assuming that every driver is a drunk driver. These should, alternatly, be installed in DUI/DWI offenders' cars. Leave the rest of us alone.

Also, I think "rolling tests" will end up being far worse than cellphone usage while driving. When people start killing other people by accident because they were trying to keep their car from freaking out, they might drop that requierment.

However, it would be nice to have a breath-alyzer. I wonder if I can purchase one online...

Re:Not Moving There

[mark_lybarger]

afaik, you can't purchase one. you can only rent them right now from the companies that make them. they don't want you opening up the case to figgure out how they work and find ways to easily mod the device.

i'm sure if these are ever required in cars, they'll be quickly modded as others have said.

Pointless

[Iamthefallen]

Drunk drivers aren't the problem in the big scheme of things, bad drivers are. If licenses were only granted to people who actually knew how to drive and how to behave in traffic fatalities would be lowered far far more than any pointless gesture like this.

Re:Pointless

[radja]

>If licenses were only granted to people who actually knew how to drive and how to behave in traffic fatalities

just play dead..

Re:Pointless

[Fulcrum of Evil]

If licenses were only granted to people who actually knew how to drive and how to behave in traffic

Good luck - you have the AARP brigade to contend with.

Why not sooner???

[SenseiLeNoir]

My friends girlfriend died from a crazy nut driving a car whilst drunk. My friend still hasnt gotten over it.

Laws are simply not working enough, The UK has some of the most draconian drink driving laws, yet still many drink and drive. The alcohol clouds the mind into doing things it wouldnt do.

Drinking and Driving ruins lives (taken from UK government slogans). Whatever can be done, shoudl be done.

Re:Why not sooner???

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but I didn't kill her.

Lowering the BAC limit won't work either. You'll just make the newspeople say that the guy was four times the legal limit than twice the legal limit.

Punish the offenders, punish them hard, and punish them swiftly. First offence, take away their car. Second offense, shoot them dead on the side of the highway, erect a big sign stating that they were driving drunk, and let the rodents take care of the burial costs.

Re:Why not sooner???

[Anonymous Coward]

" My friends girlfriend died from a crazy nut driving a car whilst drunk."

Not to be too callous, but people die in horrible ways from horrible things all the time. Good people. Sometimes for no reason, other times because people are doing dumb things.

"My friend still hasnt gotten over it."

I suggest that we will all die someday. I will die, you will die. We all will die. We'd like to think we'll die quietly in our sleep on our 101st birthday, but quite a few of us will die in car crashes, from horrible cancers, from crime.

She needs to get over it.

And yes, my best friend was killed by a drunk driver, but I think these things are a really bad and dumb idea.

Your girlfriend's discomfort, or mine, is no reason to punish the rest of the world. Time to move on and get over it.

Re:Why not sooner???

[Anonymous Coward]

Hypothetical response:

My friends girlfriend died from a crazy nut with a knife. My friend still hasnt gotten over it.

Laws are simply not working enough, The USA has some of the most draconian murder laws, yet still many people commit murder. Passion, greed, and envy cloud the mind into doing things it wouldn't do.

Whatever can be done, should be done. We must ban knives at once.

Re:Why not sooner???

[AgentAce]

People die every day for various reasons and in various ways. Nothing is going to stop that, especially not some moronic law like this one.

Nobody likes for people to die, so let's make a law against cellular decay!
Natural selection...it's a process...not only for "survival of the fittest" but also for "being in the wrong place at the wrong time."

America is becoming a scary place with so many of these thoughtless laws brewing. Americans are so damned scared of everything. Patriot Act, this stupid thing...insurance for every damn thing one can imagine...what the hell is this? We end up working away our entire lives for this illusion of safety and end up not being able to actually LIVE.

Re:Why not sooner???

[SenseiLeNoir]

You didnt understand the point of my post.

Drinking alcohol woudl make you do things that you wouldnt normally do. Right now you are saying that you wont drink and drive. Is that the view you will hold ten pints later?

I didnt mention in it the earlier reply, but this is the exact problem that happened tin that case, the driver was a generally law abiding citizen and intrestingly was against drink driving. That day his judgement was clouded by the drink, and he thought he was able to drive when he clearly could not. This divice would have warned him that he is not fit to drive, and maybe, my friend's girlfriend would be alive today.

Re:Why not sooner???

[YrWrstNtmr]

Whatever can be done, shoudl be done.

Remove all the cars. Problem solved.

Slashdot interlock

[CaptainAlbert]

While we're at it, can we have a device which detects whether slashdot readers are on crack and refuses to give them mod points if they are?

Re:Slashdot interlock

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called "metamoderation". But M2 is even better than breathalyzers. If you get banned for drink driving, you get your license back after a year or two. But if you get banned for bad moderation, you'll never see a mod point again.

Re:Slashdot interlock

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, with that account, anyway.

~~~

Re:Slashdot interlock

[anethema]

I guess I'm on crack. I havent had mod points in forever...

I'm at the karma cap..and I can still metamod..but no mod. Wonder why.

Re:Slashdot interlock

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called the "Reply" button.

Example of what the Road to Hell is Paved with

[KarmaOverDogma]

Good intentions.

on it's razor thin surface surface this looks just good enough to attract legislators attention.

Until we see all the various problems that will occur later:

1) the device gets removed by a smart enough technician
2) people use ballons with "sober air" to defeat the system
3) All state drivers get charged for a device that presumes guilt (constitution, anyone?)
4) repeat offenders still kill
5) out of state rentals are used and someone gets injured/permanently disabled/killed from a drunk driver in one
6) insert your "I've just lost more rights" scenario here.

I've always felt that if you put enough monkeys into the statehouse they could end up making laws that may actually do some good (just like the joke that enough monkeys in front of a typewriter could make a work as good as shakepeare).

.

Re:Example of what the Road to Hell is Paved with

[Haeleth]

I've always felt that if you put enough monkeys into the statehouse they could end up making laws that may actually do some good (just like the joke that enough monkeys in front of a typewriter could make a work as good as shakepeare).

That's not such a bad idea. Maybe they'd actually tap out some Shakespeare and it would become law? I can think of some choice passages that I'd like to see on the statute books... "let's kill all the lawyers", for example.

Re:Example of what the Road to Hell is Paved with

[(void*)]

I don't believe you. All the problems are tangential to the point, which is simply the fact that when one is inebriated, one cannot make the decision not to drive.

If you were a reasonable person, you would understand this, and then agree to have this device installed simply becuase one does not know when one is drunk, and this device allows one to know and enforce the law. Thus cutting down the major source of auto accidents - drunk driving.

Incorrigibles who want to circumvent the device will just have to run the risk of getting caught.
That's all.

Re:Example of what the Road to Hell is Paved with

[WTFRUDOINBiotch]

Also notice from the article

If you allow the horn to sound for 4 minutes then you will get a Violation that must be reported to the court.

Tell me how this thing reports back to the court without violating my rights...

Re:Example of what the Road to Hell is Paved with

[nbm]

Huh?

When one is inebriated, one can make the decision not to drive. I've been inebriated many a time, and never driven drunk.

You say that inebriated people don't know that they are inebriated. If in doubt, they can consider: have I had somthing to drink this evening? If so, they don't drive. If they want to get fancy they can calculate BAC.

Have you ever had a drink? Or is your sense of humor just too deadpan for me to get? If so, congratulations.

Re:Example of what the Road to Hell is Paved with

[Epi-man]

6) insert your "I've just lost more rights" scenario here.


This is something that gets me really upset when topics about driving come up. Driving is in no way, shape, or form a "right." It is a privilege that you are afforded. I do not believe this law is a good idea, don't get me wrong, but not because people have "lost more rights." There is no (and should not be a) "right to drive" in the America.

Re:Example of what the Road to Hell is Paved with

[Gabrill]

Standard vehicle inspection will be flagged to report to the court.

Re:Example of what the Road to Hell is Paved with

[MxTxL]

Driving is in no way, shape, or form a "right." It is a privilege that you are afforded.

That's just what you are brainwashed to think. No one would argue that it's not your right to walk places if you chose. Personal mobility is part of personal liberty. But at the next step, is it a right or a priviledge to ride a bike? How about to ride a horse?

At what point does it, fundamentally, make a difference what your vehicle is that your personal mobility is not your right?

The 'driving is a priviledge' BS is just a loophole that legislators take advantage of to be able to deny it to some people. If it were a right they couldn't deny it to anyone. Owning a gun in this country has become a priviledge not a right.... even though it was, supposedly, built into the Bill of 'Rights'. Even free speech is becoming free only for the priviledged.

Re:Example of what the Road to Hell is Paved with

[jrockway]

Your tax dollars built the road, and you paid for the car. Why isn't it your right to drive?

Re:Example of what the Road to Hell is Paved with

[Fulcrum of Evil]

I don't believe you. All the problems are tangential to the point, which is simply the fact that when one is inebriated, one cannot make the decision not to drive.

If that were true, theere would a lot more drunk drivers. From the rather low rate of DUI, we can see that most people don't do it. Why harass them?

If you were a reasonable person, you would understand this, and then agree to have this device installed simply becuase one does not know when one is drunk

I know when I'm drunk, and I don't drive, or I wait a few hours if only slightly buzzed.

Thus cutting down the major source of auto accidents - drunk driving.

Don't you mean sleepy drivers, idiots behind the wheel, and pissed off drivers?

Re:Example of what the Road to Hell is Paved with

[catch23]

So what if I used my own hand held air horn for 4 minutes?

That's it... i'm gonna go buy a bunch of air horns, go to a major intersection, and set them all off. If you see a major wacko at some intersection blowing air horns, that'll be me.

Re:Example of what the Road to Hell is Paved with

[HungWeiLo]

"WTFRUDOINBiotch, you are fined 10 credits for violation of the libations morality statute."

Re:Example of what the Road to Hell is Paved with

[(void*)]

What is the "low rate of DUI"?

I do know that the road accidents have a signicant proportion which are caused by DUI.

Re:Example of what the Road to Hell is Paved with

[Fulcrum of Evil]

I do know that the road accidents have a signicant proportion which are caused by DUI.

You mean 'Alcohol related'. Elsewhere in this discussion someone has debunked the NHSTA and MADD's stats in the matter. Suffice it to say that an alcohol related accident is one where somebody involved has a BAC > 0.02. On top of that, they add a fudge factor because not everybody gets tested for booze. This ends up inflating the numbers by something like 300%.

Wow. CBDTPA for cars. That's all we need.

[JCCyC]

Did Fritz Hollings move to New Mexico while I wasn't looking?

While Moving?

[Anonymous Coward]

These rolling retests require the driver to take the test as the car is moving.

And you thought people talking on cell phones while driving was distracting...

News From The Future

[Steve B]

Ignition interlocks require a breath test, which takes 30 seconds to complete

19 Feb 2011: Former State Rep. Ken Martinez was assaulted by A. Venger at his home. According to police reports, Mr. Venger rang Martizez's door, and repeatedly struck him with a baseball bat when he answerd.

Venger allegedly shouted that he was acting for his sister. A police source speculated off that the suspect's motivation is related to a recent case in which the victim attempted to escape her assailant, reached her car, but was unable to drive away before being dragged into a nearby alley and raped.

Re:News From The Future

[Anonymous Coward]

A police source speculated off that the suspect's motivation is related to a recent case in which the victim attempted to escape her assailant, reached her car, but was unable to drive away before being dragged into a nearby alley and raped.

Do American cars not have locking doors, then?

Re:News From The Future

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they have cars with "windows" that can be "broken", dumbass.

What happens....

[betelgeuse-4]

When somebody is killed because a driver was taking the test instead of concentrating on driving.

Who pays for this

[MyFourthAccount]

The bill makes no mention of who will have to pay for the device

What a stupid question: you and I will. (as in, anyone that drives a car).

30 Seconds?

[buzzoff]

I start my car four to five times per day. That means if I live in New Mexico I can spend 2.5 minutes every day, 75 minutes every month, or 15 hours every year taking these tests.

Life is too short to put up with this nonsense. Focing everyone to do this is not the answer. Maybe we should up the penalty for driving drunk. Maybe we should suspend their license the first time, and put them away for a while the second time. Maybe having people on the street who have been convicted of DUI multiple times is not a good idea. This kind of thoughtless legislation is not the answer.

One could also make an argument for lost freedom and constitutionality issues.

Part of the Problem

[vjmurphy]

I lived on or around the Navajo reservation for a long time while growing up in New Mexico. Part of the problem for communities in those areas is that alchohol was not allowed to be sold on the reservation. So, every Friday and Saturday, you had a great number of people hopping into their cars and trucks, making the 30-70 mile trek to the closest bar/liquor store.

Then those people would drink and drive that 30-70 miles back to the reservation. Trust me, you did NOT want to be on those roads at night those days.

I'm not sure this plan will help that situation at all: generally, when one is drunk and weaving in and out of the lane, having the horn and headlines turn on and off probably isn't going to stop you at that point. And on the reservation, at least, you won't be seeing that many cops on the road.

Perhaps a lot has changed since I left (I know, for example, that drive through liquor stores are no longer allowed). But I do know that there is no quick fix for the problems of drunk driving in New Mexico.

Re:Part of the Problem

[Big Bob the Finder]

When I moved to New Mexico in 1994, I had to take a special course (as did all immigrants to the state), which was very anti-drunk driving. I remember being in the room with a bunch of very pissed-off people, as the angle was that the state's drunk driving problem was the fault of people moving into the state; if memory serves, the class wasn't required of residents that were getting their DL for the first time. It was just stupid.

I spent several years as a firefighter in the state, with a fire department that covered >25 miles of interstate. Lots of drunk drivers piled it in over that time on that stretch of road, but the problem was much worse once you got off the interstate. The drive-up liquor windows went away, yes- but I think the only effect that had was on my roommate at the time, who was bound to a wheelchair and found it much more convenient to pick up a couple of beers on the weekend via the drive-ups.

New Mexico has a long way to go in terms of bringing itself to the modern day. Enforcement is also a big issue; in the areas where the police AREN'T corrupt, they're usually so sparsely placed that they simply can't cover it. Catron County is something like 3x the size of Rhode Island, and has only two state police officers to cover the entire area at any given time. It's amazing.

Re:Part of the Problem

[16K Ram Pack]

But from what you are saying, wouldn't selling alcohol on a reservation make more sense? People wouldn't have to drive to get booze, so could drink locally.

Re:Part of the Problem

[rotomonkey]

One of the solutions is to try to help mitigate some of the socioeconomic conditions that tend to make people want to drink. Why is there so much alcoholism on reservations? Answer that question (and take the necessary steps to reduce the problem), and the incidence of DUI will also decline.

I agree - this is a quick fix that won't work. In part, I suspect that a significant portion, although certainly not all, of DUI offenders don't drive new cars. Also, locking the ignition of a car because the driver may be drunk does little to discourage the practice of driving while drunk. After all, if the system correctly locks the ignition, that driver has already made the moral choice to get hammered and then try to drive (and any bystanders have let him/her do so). As with all crime, the best solution for reduction and prevention is to educate people to the point where they choose not to commit the crime (and eliminate any outside factors which tend to encourage the crime).

As a former ambulance worker who also lost a friend to a DUI accident, I've seen the horrible consequences of DUI and I find its occurence abhorrent. I too would like to see the problem eliminated, but this is not the way.

Re:Part of the Problem

[ericspinder]

Sounds like a great place for a roadblock.

In my old hometown, a beach resort, there is one road leading to the "suburbs" and several bottlenecks, state and city cops would often set up road blocks and catch drunk drivers by the scores. I had worked in the restaurant/bar industry there and many of the "lifers" I knew there had at least one DUI.

Personally, I can't wait until cars are able to drive themselves. I believe that is the only real answer for the drunk driving problem. Of course for now the only solution is catching the offending drinkers.

As Traffic cameras become more ubiquitous, I think that the next step is to use them to "watch" for weaving or aggressive drivers, and use that to dispatch investigating officers.

Will hurt auto dealers

[kroekle]

This law wil hurt the auto dealers the most. The auto dealers will have to install the units at there cost (passing it along to the buyer). Auto dealers in neighboring states will be able to sell the cars for less. Buyers will go to those states and buy cars or just keep there old car longer. Either way the car dealers will be hurt.

Ramifications

[picklepuss]

This is probably going to last up until the day that someone undergoes a major crisis and either dies or is severely disabled because they had to wait an additional 30 seconds for their damn car to start up. Honestly... Little Goergie here was born in the back seat of Larry's car. We could have made it to the hospital, but Larry was so nervous he couldn't blow enough into the interlock. It took him 4 tries - 2 minutes to get the car started.

Re:Ramifications

[vidarh]

People die because of seat belts all the time, so why isn't there an outcry around the world against seat belt regulations? Because they save significantly more people than they harm.

Every Car?

[mach-5]

If it is required on every car sold in New Mexico they will just cause their local auto dealerships to loose business to a neighboring state without the law.

In PA they are sometimes ordered by courts for people who have had DUI's already.

Re:Every Car?

[stoney27]

Yea and the last car I bought was via the internet from a dealership outside my state. Now I could have easily gone to the dealershp after shopping online, which would work around the NM law.

Re:Every Car?

[Suidae]

If it is required on every car sold in New Mexico they will just cause their local auto dealerships to loose business to a neighboring state without the law.

Easily circumvented by requiring the device in order to register the car in NM. One would have to register the car out of the state to get around it then, and thats probably more of a pain than most people would put up with.

I would expect it to be much more common that the device is simply bypassed with a hidden switch such that it can be enabled for inspections and disabled for normal usage.

Of course this will lead to a requirement that the device use the mobile phone network (similar to OnStar) to report violations of the usage of the device. And to make spoting violators easier, they'll want to install a GPS to locate the vehicle, accelerometers to detect erratic, drunken driving, and a remotely activeateable kill switch to disable the vehicle.

Since all of this stuff could still be disabled, but only a drunk would want to disable it, it will be assumed that anyone disabling the system is always drunk, and will have their license revoked.

Anti-drinking, or anti-asthmatic?

[oneiros27]

How many people in New Mexico have asthma?

I'm guessing that it's not a completely insignificant number, and they make absolutely no provisions for respiratory problems.

And I hope they don't put these on rental cars -- the last thing you need is to have your significant other asking you how you managed to catch mono on your business trip.

Re:Anti-drinking, or anti-asthmatic?

[SnowDeath]

I have asthma - if this ever gets passed where I live, you bet your sweet ass I will be going to fight this in court.

This has been suggested in Sweden

[Enfors]

This has been suggested in Sweden too. On www.aftonbladet.se, one of Sweden's leading newspapers they had a poll about it, asking if people would approve of a law that required everyone to pay for the installation (about 100 USD) of such a device in their cars. The majority voted for the "yes" option.

Some of you make good points about how this is an inconvenience, and that it violates your privacy and so on. And that's true. But when you consider the fact (yes, fact) that this WOULD save many human lives each year, then your arguments against it don't sound very important anymore.

Re:This has been suggested in Sweden

[Baron_Yam]

If everyone was forced to work and live in a large compound with padded floors, ceilings, and windows, and if everyone was kept seperate from everyone else by plexiglass walls, and if everyone's food was prepared by a dietician, and if everyone requiring transportation was given a padded, computer controlled wheelchair...

The point is that saving human lives is, in and of itself, NOT a valid excuse for treating me like a criminal.

Re:This has been suggested in Sweden

[Enfors]

When I arrive at work each morning, I must use my passcard to prove that I'm authorized to enter the building where I work. I see little difference between that, and having to prove that I'm not drunk in order to be allowed to drive.

Re:This has been suggested in Sweden

[trg83]

Well, Sweden is a hard-core socialist regime. Here in the U.S., we have founding fathers like Benjamin Franklin:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Re:This has been suggested in Sweden

[nomadic]

That doesn't sound like a bad life actually...

Re:This has been suggested in Sweden

[Enfors]

Well, Sweden is a hard-core socialist regime.

Uhmm, no. It's not. I should know, I live here. Sweden is run by the social democrats right now, same as most other European countries. Which reminds me of an old (supposedly true, I don't know) story about Ronald Reagan; someone suggested that he should meet with Olaf Palme, who was Sweden's social democratic prime minister at the time. To this suggestion, Ronald Reagan replied "Olaf Palme? Isn't he a communist?". One of Reagan's advisors, embarrased by his president's ignorance said "Actually, sir, he's a social democrat.". Reagan looked at his advisor and said "I don't care what kind of communist he is!".

Anyway, this is getting off-topic, so I won't reply to any other replies in this branch.

Re:This has been suggested in Sweden

[plj]

There have also been discussion about this in Finland. However, nobody has suggested such a device to be installed in every car! It has been more like, if you drive drunk and get busted, then you would not be allowed to drive without such device.

So, no insulting to those who are not criminals in first place. OTOH, this would not stop those heavy drunkers who don't give a shit whether they have a driving license or not but will drive nevertheless. Still, probably better than nothing.

Re:This has been suggested in Sweden

[zzyzx]

"But when you consider the fact (yes, fact) that this WOULD save many human lives each year, then your arguments against it don't sound very important anymore."

The problem with this argument isn't that it's not true (lives WOULD be saved) but rather that it never stops. Even more lives would be saved if there were no private cars at all. Why do we continue to allow people to drive?

Re:This has been suggested in Sweden

[strike2867]

Does that come with a machine that breathes for me?

Re:This has been suggested in Sweden

[Enfors]

Because the utility of people driving is bigger than the problem of people getting killed in traffic, seen as a whole.

Re:This has been suggested in Sweden

[Anonymous Coward]

Sex might be a problem.

Oh, wait, this is Slashdot. Never mind.

Oppurtunity knocks

[HarveyBirdman]

Who wants to join me in building a car dealrship in Arizona right on the New Mexico border?

"Rolling retests"?

[KimJ721]

These rolling retests require the driver to take the test as the car is moving.

Is highway safety really encouraged by making every driver fumble with the testing device while driving? I thought that taking your eyes off of the road even for a second was dangerous, and now they want to make drivers do it just to prove they're not drinking while zooming down the highway?

brilliant idea for asthmatics

[kcurtis]

I suffer an attack and hop in my car to go to the doctor, or to get an inhaler at the pharmacy. Or I'm driving down the road and have an attack, and the stupid horn/lights thing goes off.

Or I'm camping, and not near phones.

Oh, wait. Sorry. Can't blow enough air? That's ok, because the state is small and there aren't long stretches of desert or open roads.

Or not.

Then there is the issueof people with emphysema or other permanent breathing diseases/disorders? Guess they'll have to fork over money for exemptions, and paying for disabling the device.

Re:brilliant idea for asthmatics

[Gabrill]

And as soon as those devices are made available, then you have all the criminals going free and continuing their dangerous activities, where the innocents are harrased and made to pay extra money for the devices.

kinda reminds me of the gun laws.

Re:brilliant idea for asthmatics

[wembley]

I thought people moved to the Southwest because it cured their asthma.

Dry air, none of those annoying trees and flowers.

Re:brilliant idea for asthmatics

[kcurtis]

My asthma is triggered by allergens, but also by cold air, especially cold dry air.

And my understanding is that many communities have (stupidly) planted trees and other plants from back east, and made the area almost as bad pollen-wise.

I can see it now...

[PurdueGraphicsMan]

A woman walks slowly through a mostly-empty parking garage to her car. Suddenly she feels as if someone is watching her. She starts walking more quickly but suddenly she hears a seond set of footsteps. Her heart beats quickly as she gets closer to her car. 70 feet - 60 feet - 50 feet... She looks behind her to see a man in a black ski mask walking towards her. She knows she's in trouble. She breaks into a sprint.Just as she reaches her car and gets in the man makes starts running also. She goes to turn the key...

[voice style="gameshow_host"]Sorry Miss, better luck next time![/voice]

Re:I can see it now...

[Anonymous Coward]

She knows she's in trouble. She breaks into a sprint.Just as she reaches her car and gets in the man makes starts running also. She goes to turn the key...

You missed the step where she shuts the windows and locks the door. Wow, suddenly she's safe. Wasn't that easy?

Re:I can see it now...

[PurdueGraphicsMan]

Since when is a 20mm sheet of glass enough to protect someone? The last I knew people had figured out how to bust through glass. I could be wrong though.

Repist breaks down in tears: "WHY GOD! WHY GLASS! OH THE AGONY!!!!"

Time to start a towtruck business...

[curtisk]

....in New Mexico.

I'm all for keeping drunks off the road, but treating everyone as a drunk right from the get go is not the way to do it. I don't know about New Mexico, but the DUI violators in my state get fined out the ass AND are required to foot the bill for the Ignition Interlock installation and monitoring, so yeah, thats a big deterrent for repeat offenses, unless you are a wealthy drunk.

Laws?

[ThomK]

Why don't they spend those taxpayer dollars on a kick ass mass transit system? People don't drive from work, church, softball or their kids soccer games drunk, they drive from the BAR, drunk. Bars are usually pretty close together in a decent sized city, so make it easier (and comfortable/affordable) for people to get to and from nightspots and they won't DRIVE.

Ever hear of a lot of drunk driving in downtown New York or Chicago? Of course not, everyone takes taxis or the subway, it just makes sense.

Re:Laws?

[Wyatt Earp]

"People don't drive from work, church, softball or their kids soccer games drunk, they drive from the BAR, drunk."

Drunks get drunk anywhere. I've had fifth grade teachers who were drunks, high school teachers that got smashed in thier breakroom during school, I've had friends who go tanked at break during work, I've known people who did indeed get drunk while working at church.

"Bars are usually pretty close together in a decent sized city, so make it easier (and comfortable/affordable) for people to get to and from nightspots and they won't DRIVE."

What about in a not decent sized city? Mass transit is going to be horribly expensive in a rural area like most of New Mexico.

Re:Laws?

[bofus]

Mass transit as a solution to DWI in New Mexico?Even if mass transit was "the" solution to the DWI problem (it isn't), mass transit is only efficient when you have a lot of people in the same general geographic area.

New Mexico is the 5th largest US state in size, but the 36th in population. Outside of Albuquerque and Santa Fe (which already have mass transit), it's mostly NOTHING. Ranches, cattle, forests, etc. There's 42 Acres of land per person in New Mexico. Exactly what type of mass transit system is going to work in this situation?

Re:Laws?

[ThomK]

Busses.

Re:Laws?

[Deflagro]

FINALLY!

Exactly, that would make sense wouldn't it?! I lived in Ottawa for a few years and they have an amazing transit system for cheap. Now I live in Austin, TX and if you don't have a car you are screwed. You cannot do anything here without a vehicle and all they do is build more roads.
Why are people driving drunk you ask? Well because they HAVE to drive.

Why not take some of those DUI fines and put them toward transit programs or something. If it's such an issue, then there should be good money made from it. Goddamn government lining their own pockets. This stuff just makes me angry, they don't want to help the people, they want to control them.

Don't drink and drive!

[joib]

You might hit a bump and spill your drink!

the norm

[vijayiyer]

Impinging on the liberties of the people to try to prevent crime has become an integral part of American politics. In the past, it was limited to the far left, but has been encompassing more and more of the mainstream and has gone right of center as time has passed. I'm not appalled, but unfortunately, not surprised. Would this mean that drinking and driving is ok, as long as you pass the breathalyzer?

wow, what a surreal, stupid solution

[johnjosephbachir]

I can't believe that it is easier to get a breathalyzer installed in every automobile than it is to create $15k fines for drunk driving. Maybe there are law/psychology experts on slashdot who can set me straight here... wouldn't it be easy enough to make first DUI offense $1k and 2 year suspension, second offense $15k and 5 year suspension, et cetera? Maybe the suspensions wouldn't be such a great idea since even criminals need to get to work, but the fines would be enough of a deterrent to significantly decrease the problem.

Installing a breathalyzer in every automobile is like... well... i can't even think of anything more ridiculous to make an analogy!

Interesting, but dangerous

[lcrypt]

The idea of placing a breath analyzer in a car may work, but it also may be dangerous. The 30s it takes to do all the work might cost you life, in some rare unwanted occasions.

Thoughts...

[j0hnfr0g]

Ignition interlocks require a breath test

What about a (small) device that just blows air into the breath sensor?

which takes 30 seconds to complete, to start the car

How about you can start the car but can't put it in gear? That was during those 30 seconds you could at least have the car start "warming up".

If the driver fails a retest, the horn sounds and the lights flash until the car is turned off.

If they are drunk enough, they won't even notice (or they will think they are a police officer themselves - that's not good).

Re:Thoughts...

[filmsmith]

If the driver fails a retest, the horn sounds and the lights flash until the car is turned off.

If they are drunk enough, they won't even notice (or they will think they are a police officer themselves - that's not good).

If they're drunk enough, they won't MAKE it to the retest.

fs

Bad idea

[Steffan]

I think any law which places a burden on many citizens to police the actions of a few is misguided and sets a bad precedent. In addition to viewing the entire state population as 'guilty until proven innocent', it imposes the burden of the change upon the people. The article mentions a 'tax credit' to be given to car owners converting their vehicles, but makes no mention of low-income residents who might not be able to pay for the device and then wait for a refund.

Of course, the first thing most people will do to avoid the inconvenience is disable the system. Therefore this law will inevitably be followed by yet more legislation to make disabling the system illegal, to make selling any device for disabling the system illegal, and probably, to even criminalize the mere dissemination of information on how to perform such modifications. Oh, and of course, an agency would have to supervise the installation of such devices, with 'authorized dealers','inspection stations', and certification, adding another layer of bureaucracy and expense to this ill-advised undertaking.

If you live in NM, please take the time to phone or fax your representative and voice your opinion. A law like this is the first step to a police state with presumptive-guilt laws.

Re:Bad idea

[dave420-2]

err.. PATRIOT act, anyone? It's not as if grossly-unconstitutional legislation slips into being never happens... All someone has to do is put the right spin on it, and 7/10 Americans will gladly give up their constitutional rights. Sad but true.

Re:Bad idea

[bobv-pillars-net]

A law like this is the first step to a police state with presumptive-guilt laws.

Wake up and smell the coffee, dude. Step one was a loooooooonnnnggg time ago. We're currently at step, oh, I dunno, 65,535?

Re:Bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

HAHAHAHAHA!!! That was funny. Think of all the laws the laws makers will need to pass. Gosh the constituents will think they are actually working. That is what this is all about, its the easy way for some polititician to appear they are doing something.

Re:Bad idea

[Ziviyr]

I want to nominate the parent for Score:6

You want me to do what?

[jpellino]

You want me to sit in one place in my car for a half a minute every time I start it?
Even if it stalls at a light?
Even if I'm being chased by pirates?
Even at the gas pump?

You want me to take a breathalyzer test while underway?
You've seen the all-out exertion needed on an admissable, accurate police test - you mean like that, while underway?
I'm not supposed to be using a cell phone underway, but you want me to have to stop what I'm doing and use this?
And if I fail, I'm drunk, and I'll do something real brilliant and try and outdrive my own flashing lights and honking horn (y'all watch "COPS", right?)
And if I was going to fail, wasn't I already too close impaired to drive and take the test long before the test randomly popped up on the dash?

How does stuff like this get to "bill" status...

Re:You want me to do what?

[SnappleMaster]

Yeah, I would hate not to be able to start my car quickly when pirates are chasing me. That would just suck, especially if the first mate couldn't get the cannon reloaded fast enough! ;)

My issue (beyond all the obvious "F-U get out of my life you nazi legislators" issues) is this: A lot of people love their cars. They like the way the look. They wash them often and take pride in them. How stupid is the interior of your car going to look with a big plastic tube sticking out of the dash somewhere?

But does it WORK?

[DoctorNathaniel]

Canadian-born, I'm often a political pragmatist. My first question is not "does it intefere with people's rights" but "is the interference beneficial"?

Are these tests easy to fool? I can imagine keeping a can of compressed air handy. Can they be easily disabled? How often will the car start even if the driver is drunk? What about variability for body size?

More importantly: will having such a device actually prevent people from driving drunk? If a drunk person IS driving a car started by someone else, is it really a good idea to have the lights and horn start going off on him suddenly? How the hell do you take the breath test _while you're driving_ for heaven's sake?

To sum up: has a pilot project been done? What quantifiable success did it have?

Re:But does it WORK?

[jgoemat]

I had a friend that had one of these installed after his second DUI. It did keep him from driving drunk, or after even a couple of beers. Compressed air doesn't work, you have to hum as you blow in, supposedly it has some way to tell if it's actually a person doing it. Other things they could develop if they haven't are temperature and moisture checks for the air. It's a hand-held device about the size of a cell phone attached to the dash with a cable. While driving, the light will come on occasionally and you pick it up and blow into it for a few seconds until it beeps at you. If you continued to drive the car and didn't blow into the machine to prove your sobriety, it would be recorded and the police would be notified when you took your car in the next time to have it checked out or replaced.

Re:But does it WORK?

[satterth]

My first question is not "does it intefere with people's rights" but "is the interference beneficial"?

Driving is a privilege not a right.

Re:But does it WORK?

[nelziq]

My first question is not "does it intefere with people's rights" but "is the interference beneficial"? and thats why canada sucks and the us rules

Re:But does it WORK?

[DoctorNathaniel]

You are entirely correct: -rights +priviledges, but it doesn't read so well. :)

Re:But does it WORK?

[DoctorNathaniel]

Oh! I have been smited by the eloquance of your rhetoric! My country at least taught me to write.

America is a great place, and has admirable democratic ideals. But it's not the only place with that, and the solutions the US has are not always the solutions the rest of the world agrees with.

NO rights are absolute. My right to swing my first... your face.. etcetera etcetera. The question is about the sensible places to draw the line.

It doesn't work.

[His name cannot be s]

I had a brother who was a carreer drunk driver.

This guy spent more time without a valid license than with it. For a number of years he had one of these installed in his car. He had it circumvented in no time flat.

The company that installed it claimed it was 'tamper proof'. Kinda the way that Windows is secure I guess.

Feh. I can not beleive that these people are voting this into law. *sigh* :p

That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[DOCStoobie]

So let me get this straight, ALL OF US will end up paying for the damned drunk drivers... Cars will definitely cost more, they will pass the cost on to consumers, not to mention the PAIN IN THE ASS of breathing into a damned tube 30 times a day. I for one think that there has to be a better solution to the problem. I thought that in this country you were innocent till proven guilty, not proving your innocence every 200 miles......

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[John Courtland]

I, for one, would hack the damn tube out of my car. I think the better solution is to actually fuck up people who DUI. Like permanent license revocations. Repeat offenders spend 5 years in a damn sweat shop. You can always have a designated driver. Or save the money for your last two shots for a cab. Obviously there are some ups and downs to this (driving at .9, for example) but there's a point at which to be firm, and this is one of them. Maybe if people see their buddies never able to drive again they won't dick around any more.

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[brsmith4]

I had to bite:

driving at.9, for example

I hope that you mean .09 since .9 would imply that 90% of your blood is now alcohol and you die somewhere around .4 or .5.

FYI

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think anyone's driving at .9 BAC. In fact, I dont think anyone's moving at .9 BAC.

I think you mean .09 BAC.

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[cgb8176]

I think the better solution is to actually fuck up people who DUI. Like permanent license revocations. Repeat offenders spend 5 years in a damn sweat shop. You can always have a designated driver.

Or maybe we could just execute them? But, oh wait, we already know that the death penalty isn't a crime deterrent. What makes you think that threatening to take away their license would work?

Besides, there is a serious logical problem with allowing a person who has been drinking to decide when he is ready to drive again. And the formulas (e.g., one drink == 1 hour) often fail, due to metabolism, body weight, food consumption, level of tiredness, etc. This would end the problem of "I haven't had anything to drink in 2.8 hours, so I think I'm ready to drive again."

Of course, an alternative to this law would be to require that all alcohol-serving establishments have a Breathalyzer easily accessible to its patrons.

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[l810c]

I've always read it as .09 Percent, which would actually be .0009. Then .9 Percent would be .009.

This must be true as I don't think we could handle anywhere near 9% alcohol in our blood.

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[Anonymous Coward]

OR - you could just not drink at all if you're driving that day.

You stupid fucking lefty.

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[nelsonal]

If certain drinking establishments had a breathalizer I'd guess there would be a high score sheet next to it.

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[Anonymous Coward]

But how would you get your car home??

(it had to be said)

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[sparcv9]

I hope that you mean .09 since .9 would imply that 90% of your blood is now alcohol and you die somewhere around .4 or .5.

No, the BAC rating is grams of alcohol per deciliter of blood. If we fudge the weight of alcohol and estimate it to be the same as water, then we can equate grams with cc, giving us 100 grams of alcohol to the deciliter. A rating of .10 means a tenth of a gram per deciliter, or one tenth of one percent. Even a rating of .90 is still less than one percent.

Seeing as the average adult male has anywhere from 10 to 12 pints of blood (we'll use 10 to make the math easier), your numbers would mean that the most common legal limit (.10) is equivalent to donating a pint of blood and replacing it with a pint of pure grain alcohol! That level of BAC would do more than just make you incapable of driving a car.

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[chef_raekwon]

What makes you think that threatening to take away their license would work?

here in Canada, we go as far as a jail sentence for repeat offenders, and its not a light sentence...
and having my license taken away for a year _is_ Hell in this, the second largest country in the world.

and, yes, these are MAJOR deterrents.

Cheers

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[The_Mr_Flibble]

So where would this thing be fitted on my austin 7 ?

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the answer isn't more laws. How about we properly enforce the laws we have? Or how about we just use some common sense? How about repealing some laws? How about not taking away the rights of the citizens? How about upholding the constitution? But I know, it is for the children. Right?

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[codepipe]

Will certainly change horror movies as we know them today. "Mr. Bad Man with a Big Knife, can you wait 30 seconds before you kill me while I blow into this tube to start my car so I can flee?" Oh, wait... The car NEVER starts for the stalked girl in horror movies anyhow. Oh well...

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[Sepodati]

Hell yeah. No one is afraid of the punishments anymore... that's the problem. ---John Holmes...

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[DOCStoobie]

Fuck 'em, and their car TOO ....

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[Sepodati]

My neighbor had one of these years ago and he would just park the car next to his air compressor. When he needed to start the car all it took was a puff from the air hose to pass the test. Now how easy would it be to keep a little compressor in your car that plugs into the cig. lighter? Bottom line: people will always find a way around it. ---John Holmes...

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[kaisyain]

The problem is that the DUI laws are ridiculously stringent, thanks to efforts by anti-alcohol groups like MADD. When talking on a cell phone (even hands free), changing the station on your car's radio, driving while tired, or carrying on a conversation with a passenger contribute just as much to accidents as having had a drink or two, why should one be punished by permanent license revocation and the others not?

How about you get rid of the DUI laws and just give people tickets for driving dangerously, regardless of what the cause is?

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, no. If you read it as .09 Percent, that IS .09%.

And .9 percent would be, STILL, .9%.

Where are you getting this weird math you are doing and moving decimal points for no reason?

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[operagost]

Seeing as the average adult male has anywhere from 10 to 12 pints of blood (we'll use 10 to make the math easier), your numbers would mean that the most common legal limit (.10) is equivalent to donating a pint of blood and replacing it with a pint of pure grain alcohol!

Sounds like a party to me!

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[GreyPoopon]

Or maybe we could just execute them? But, oh wait, we already know that the death penalty isn't a crime deterrent. What makes you think that threatening to take away their license would work?

There are things that many people fear more than death. In fact, there are things so bad that people beg for death. Permanent license revocation and similar measures, although probably not feared more than death, could place enough burden on an individual that they act as a pretty good deterrant. On the other hand, they could also turn somebody into a hardcore criminal looking for a position on "Death Row."

I believe tougher penalties will improve the situation, but still won't eliminate the problem. Probably the best idea is not something that completely destroys the rest of a person's life, but a long trip to a prison where hard labor is still performed might be better -- none of these "country clubs with bars."

Besides, there is a serious logical problem with allowing a person who has been drinking to decide when he is ready to drive again.

Agreed.

Of course, an alternative to this law would be to require that all alcohol-serving establishments have a Breathalyzer easily accessible to its patrons.

I think this might help some, but many would just elect not to use it. What might work much better is a mandatory breathalyzer test prior to exit for all persons sitting at a table where alcohol was served. If the establishment is a bar, everybody gets tested. Unfortunately, this idea will probably draw similar criticism to the auto-breathalyzer.

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[mbourgon]

Damn... I should've used that last week. I _definitely_ would've gotten out of jury duty.

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[the_2nd_coming]

how about in order for a bar to sell alcohol, they make the patrons take a breathalyzer, and if it is over the legal limit, they get no more to drink until it is below the level, then you are only penalizing the drinkers. this of course does not regulate home use, but shit happens.

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[A55M0NKEY]

Actually .9 doesn't mean 90% of your blood is now alcohol. It means 0.9% of your blood is now alcohol. That is less than one percent. And you do die if half of one percent of your blood is alcohol. ( Blood alcohol level = 0.05 )

And at a blood alcohol level of 0.09 ( above the legal limit for motorists of 0.08 ) nine one hundredths of one percent of one's blood is alcohol.

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[John Courtland]

Those things piss me off too. However, juggling all those things at once is not a permanent condition (at least for the duration of the car trip like being drunk is).

I really don't like laws period, but it seems some people cannot handle knowing when they are ok to drive. I am good at knowing when I am ok to drive, simply based on my driving record while intoxicated (yet still below DUI levels, I think), but I'd be willing to never drink and drive again if it would stop everyone from doing it too.

Only ticketing dengerous driving has the unfortunate effect of allowing drunk people to actually drive legally until they hit someone. Having a .08 (sorry I typoed on the 0.9 before) BAC is a testable situation. "Dangerous driving" is more vague, and people can weasel their way out of it.

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[the_2nd_coming]

because the other activities are not impairing your judgment, just your control.

drunk drivers do not kill people because they are driving 30 miles an hour, they kill them because they drive at 100 mile per hour.

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[Dragon218]

How come this was modded insightful? Are people really this violent and hateful of other people. It's so annoying to hear arguments from people supporting torture and capital punishment, but then hear them talk about how much they love America (not that you did, sir, I'm refering to people in general). The constitution restrics cruel and unusual punishments; execution is both of these (and your suggestion is double so).

In response to you, "If you don't like it, go to China"

Never thought I'd get to use that phrase, but these are twisted times we live in. Civil disobedience doesn't work thanks to shows like "Cops" where it's entertainment to see people getting beaten and arrested. Police corruption and vigilantism isn't called for anymore thanks to movies like "Training Day". Execution is favored by people who are pro-life.

Dogs and cats live together.

Mass hysteria.

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[silentrob]

Cars will definitely cost more

Absolutely. That little device costs $10 to make and $200 for union workers to install. That justifies a raise in a consumer pricetag of $2000.

Welcome to America. Before you know it, we'll have to pay tax on our basic rights.

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[Anonymous Coward]

Why bother. Thats a lot of taxes to support our happily currupt prison system. I have the better idea get caught DUI new liscen you can only drive something under 300lbs gross weight aka a scooter. Revocation of liscences is turing people into second class citizens. I agree people should know how to drive before being allowed to but any suspension is to long. Not everybody lives or works near any form of public transportation nor does everybody's job allow for public transportation. Let face it a scooter isn't going to hurt much of anything granted it's not perfect but you get the idea of DUI means no more SUV but a tin can on wheel's that you realy cant hurt much of anything besides maybe a pedestrian.

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[Mystical]

I don't agree with all the capital punishment...but there are some cases that we need to apply it. Don't give me the excuse that we are no humane toward each other.....well guess what...when some1 rapes your wife or sister or whatever....that's no a human being....and should be treated the same. What's the point in keeping them in jail? After the first term served they still act like idiots .... And continue doing what they did before....execute them! What's the point in putting them in jail again.....clearly it's not working.

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[PantsWearer]

It's not about being violent or hateful of people in general. I'm kind overall and very forgiving unless you start killing my neighbors. It's about realizing that some people cannot be rehabilitated. There are such things as lost causes.

I disagree with the ancestor post about who should be removed from society, I think it was too stringent, but I do agree with the sentiment. I generally only stick with multiple murderers. Killing another person can be an accident or caused by a controllable condition. Killing on multiple occasions and/or through premeditation is basically unforgiveable.

I also disagree that it should be gruesome. We're talking about removal from society because of the danger that this person poses; it's not about rehab in any sense.

Also, as an aside, I'm both pro-choice and in favor of the death penalty. I also think that we put too many people into prisons to begin with. An addict does not need to go to prison for possessing his drug of choice, he needs help, not punishment.

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[jdavidb]

IIRC, the police officer who did a MADD seminar for us years ago when I was in school seemed to talk as if "point one oh" was ten times as much as "point one," so I've always assumed that the numbers aren't really decimal fractions of anything and are instead some confusing non-mathematical scale. Or else he just didn't know much math.

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[stephenbooth]

I'd like to bring back public flogging. Drag 'em into a public square, tie them to a post and whip the hell out of them till they pass out then wake them up and whip them some more. It could replace watching 'The Game' as Saturday afternoon entertainment. Get some fast food and soft drink stands set up and charge them rent, it would be self financing, probably even turn a profit.

Stephen

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[Anonymous Coward]

I've spent 3 summers in NM.
The problem is huge - I actually witnessed car accident in which husband first throw his wife out of the car (ok - stopped and threw her out) and then less than mile and a half down the road he crossed into opposite side of highway killing total of 4 or 5 people including himself. The only good he did that day was throwing his wife out, and according to news papers he was DUI.
Apparently high fines and revoking licence is not working as expected. and also large areas of NM are Native American reservations. most of them forbid alchocolic beverages on them but... maybe they do not have adequate police force...
bottom line - police always stopped me for speeding (NJ licence plates), but somehow didn't catch the drunk jerks when they were supposed....
I aggree that the law is bit extreme, but ... maybe if everything else fails...?

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[Anonymous Coward]

John, it is people like you that are the problem. you are calling for seriously draconian punishment for people that in many cases have harmed no one (I'm talking about the guy picked up at a checkpoint that blew .081 for example). but your comment later in this thread leads me to beleive that you ARE a drunk driver and dont even know it. The same judgment that impairs your ability to drive impairs your ability to rate your ability to drive. In fact, I'll bet a large percentage of the people here that imbibe have driven when they are past the legal limit at least once in their lives. With the laws today, drunk drivers are not the alchoholics anymore... they are your neighbors and friends.

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[photo storm]

We need new mod options just for this type of nonsense.

-1, Fascist
-1, Draconian

This attitude is the exact reason that the US has such a problem with violent crime. Every time someone expounds publicly on the virtues of capital punishment, these "sick fucks" just become angrier.

The solution is not to institute state-sanctioned murder - much less state-sanctioned violent, gruesome, murder. The solution is to attack the problem at its root - through rehabilitation of communities that suffer from particularly severe crime.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The way to prevent crime as a whole is to help those in need (predominantly young people) establish a stable life, a career, and a family for themselves.

Fear of tyrranical punishment does not make a society safer. It only destablizes the society.

That said, I still think murderers and rapists should not see the light of day, and penalties for violent crime should be tough. Tough, in this case, does not include flogging, stoning, hanging, or electrocution. Having to spend a few years all by your lonesome is quite sufficient.

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[iwadasn]

Being from a rural area, and now living in NYC, allow me to chime in.

While there is no mass transit, and a taxi ride out to my house from pretty much anywhere would easily blow $100, and I don't live within 10 miles of anyone, there will be drunk driving.

Now, that being said, people should be horribly punished for being wildly over the limit (yeah, driving with a .25 should probably result in never driving again), but the punishment shouldn't be so severe for borderline cases. In addition, ban cell phones from the roads, the are a far worse problem.

Lets face it, some people are better drivers drunk than a soccer mom is stone sober. If we're going to punish people for reckless driving, lets do that, punishing people for this particular "sin" and not punishing all the fine upstanding soccer moms who never could drive safely doesn't seem like a good answer.

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[cloudmaster]

Yes, lots of people think that bad folks should not be treated as good folks, and that bad folks shoudl not otherwise drain the limited resources available for all folks. Cruel? Maybe. Logical? Definately. Easy to differentiate between bad and good? Nope.

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[ari_j]

My favorite is the shooting squad, although hanging is a close second. With the shooting squad, it's perfectly possible that it'll take a second shot to finish you off, and it's gotta just be hell waiting for the bullet to come. Take that, bitch.

On a side note, have you seen Dancer in the Dark? Man, that movie sucked. Worst I've ever seen. But I did like the ending: I agree that really obnoxious bad singers should be hanged.

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[jdavidb]

Execution is manifestly not cruel and unusual under the definition of those who wrote the amendment prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment. They all expected capital punishment to continue.

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. As a social drinker, I have no problem driving with a blood alcohol level at nearly twice the legal limit. MADD has made any kind of drinking practically illegal. Plus, when I drink, it's late at night. What are your kids doing out at 2 in the morning? Shouldn't they be in bed or are you an unresponsible parent?

As proof of my abilities, I'd just love to challenge someone at a game of quick draw (you've all played it - the game where one person tries to slap the other's hands and the other tries to move their hands out of the way). Only, I'll have a few martinis and I'll be able to prove my reflexes are still above the average Joe's.

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[cayenne8]

Maybe with some people. When I've been drinking, it is actually the only time I actually try to keep an eye on the speedometer. Rest of the time, I just listen for the radar detector to go off....

I drive much faster on a consistant basis when stone cold sober than when I've had a few.

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[ExportGuru]

Iceland takes your drivers license for life if they find you with .008 ml alcohol per liter blood. There are no exceptions and the police are very aggressive about enforcement. They can get a blood test if they want itand you don't have an option. I saw them take blood through a guy's lip on one occasion. OTOH, auto insurance is relatively cheap and they have few accidents involving alcohol. It was necessary to make a cultural change as well, and this has been done. One sees four guys sititng at a table in Cluberrin or one of the other clubs and three are pouring the booze down their necks as fast as they can, while the fourth is drinking coffee. I never heard any of that macho b.s. about being able to old one's liquor, either. For us to do away with DUI here, we need to make both the legal and the cultural changes.

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the better solution is to actually fuck up people who DUI. Like permanent license revocations. Repeat offenders spend 5 years in a damn sweat shop. You can always have a designated driver.

Or maybe we could just execute them?

Given the choice between losing one's driving licence forever and death, I think I know which one people are going to be choosing.

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[ahodgson]

Permanent license revocation and similar measures, although probably not feared more than death, could place enough burden on an individual that they act as a pretty good deterrant.

Or, more likely, the same people who don't think twice about driving while loaded also won't really mind driving without their little plastic card in their pockets. It's not like taking away their license actually stops them from driving.

Anyone who is likely to be deterred from drinking and driving has long stopped doing it due to current penalties.

Not that I think this stupid mandatory breathalizer in the car thing will go anywhere - people will just buy their cars elsewhere or remove it.

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[UpLateDrinkingCoffee]

Thanks for your reply, Dragon... I'm starting to wonder if China won't soon be a bastion of freedom compared to the U.S. at the rate we are going. It's sad that I have to think twice about posting this comment, lest it be taken out of context and used against me someday.

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[BandwidthHog]

Sounds like I've figured out your problem... if you drive drunk, you're a selfish fucking asshat. Give me one good reason others should have their risk of dying significantly increased just so you can have a drink or two. Yes, just one good reason. There isn't one.

You people need to realize that neither drinking nor driving is an actual necessity. Personally, I do both. If I drink at home, there's no problem. If I drink at a bar or restaurant, I can walk home, I can take a cab, or a friend can drive me home. What part of that is so damn tough for you people to understand?

Many thousands of people die every year because some monkey juggler such as yourself decided "I'm such a skilled vehicle operator that I can do it safely even while intoxicated. My reflexes are so god-like that I need not be subject to the same rules as the common man."

So as long as I've earned myself a -1, Flamebait, I'll leave you with this: may a random family member of yours die in the street like a mangy dog in the middle of the night. It's a little thing we like to call 'karma.'

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[madcow_ucsb]

That's true. I've never driven drunk and don't intend to. But from what I've heard cops say, they don't go after the speeders for the DUIs. They go after the guys doing 50-60 in the 65 zone. The guys driving too slow and very cautiously.

Drunks always try their damndest to drive legally so they don't get pulled over. And many (maybe most?) tend to overdo it.

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[cyb3r0ptx]

I don't think the parent was referring to being drunk while driving, just over the ridiculously-low BAC for a DUI offense. There's a difference.

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[Anonymous Coward]

most of them forbid alchocolic beverages on them

This is simply not true. Most (if not all) reservations have casinos on them now, and all the casinos serve alcohol. And they don't need a license to do so.

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[cayenne8]

Hey, all I can base it on, is my track record. Clean. I've had a couple accidents...especailly when I was younger, but, was stone cold sober for those. I've had to take over for drivers in cars I was in that WERE weaving all over the place. I got us safely home....and even through checkpoints. Maybe I have a higher tolerance for alcohol, I dunno. I can have 5-10 gin and tonics....and if I have to, I could act and talk pretty much to where you'd not know I'd been drinking probably 97% of the time...so, while I don't profess to be the greatest driver on the earth after a few...I must be doing something right. Some people are able to do things other can't. Some people can't drive and talk on a cell phone..others can. So, perhaps some people can handle their alcohol and maintain better than others....both in and out of a car. I've seen people who can get buzzed off one or two beers...I can usually drink a six pack...and not feel anything...so, perhaps body chemistry?

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[pla]

Mr. Bad Man with a Big Knife, can you wait 30 seconds before you kill me while I blow into this tube to start my car so I can flee?

Though meant in jest, I see your point as the most serious a problem with laws such as this.

What happens when you absolutely need, in your example to save your life, to get into your car and have it move immediately?

What about driving, in an emergency (ie, to bring someone to the hospital if the phone goes out and you can't call 911), yet you've had two beers? Does "don't drive slightly impaired" matter more than "guaranteed death without medical treatment"?

On a more legal note (though IANAL), how does this not count as an illegal search? Yet another law that completely circumvents that whole sticky 4th amendment mess...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

When the cops pull you over for swerving, they satisfy the "probably cause" part. How does having to blow into a tube every time you start the car fit into that? Simple - It does not.

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[BandwidthHog]

It's all about playing the odds. You can either A) accept that your behavior is needlessly increasing the chance of death and/or dismemberment for you, your passengers, and, worst of all, some random innocent bystander(s), or 2) attempt to refute that alcohol impairs one's driving ability. Which of those seems more reasonable to you?

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[Lord Apathy]

It was moderated insightfull because someone else out there thinks the way I do. Tired of the revolving door for repeat offenders. Its clear the current system don't work something needs to be done. I'm not talking wholesale slaughter here, you basiclly get 3 chances then it curtains. You know the old 3 time loser option. And we couldn't be hanging jaywalkers just habital, violent ones.

Nothing unusual about capital punishment. Its been done for thousands of years, many countries still do it, hell, in biblical times it was even common. Nothing unusual there. Now the cruel, that is a matter of interpretation. Drawing and quartering, not matter how deserved, is cruel. Hanging, no, not cruel.

Oh, by the way, I don't watch Cops because I don't like the show, and I don't have a scanner to sit beside listening to the local cops. And I don't watch highspeed chases that seems to have become rather popular since a well known murder hit the road.

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[cayenne8]

Lots of things can impare ones ability....lack of sleep, distractions, alcohol. The point is, how bad you are impaired....I've not been impaired enough to have trouble driving home, that's all I'm saying.

Actually, I'm a bit surprised at the amount of completely anti-drink/drive talk here. Maybe its where I was raised, lived...but, everyone I know more or less drinks and drives. I've never seen anyone I can think of that has had to 'take a cab' or get a ride....at least not on a regular basis..only in cases of being so plastered that they couldn't stand up. I'm talking of all classes of people I've hung around with...from blue collar jobs, to Dr.'s and lawyers. Everyone meets out for drinks...usually enough to be feeling pretty good....and everyone drives home. I've never seen this much concern over the issue in real life frankly...

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Ohio not only seizes your car for certain DUIs, but prohibits you from even registering a car for 6 years.

Of course, some people will drive without registration too.

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[Anonymous Coward]

have you ever seen yourself on video, had your judgement and reactions tested independently and objectively after those 10 gin and tonics, like in those old experiments we used to run in school?

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[BandwidthHog]

And I'd say that's exactly the problem.

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[palomar_x]

this man is a bonafide moron.

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[AeroIllini]

Tough, in this case, does not include flogging, stoning, hanging, or electrocution. Having to spend a few years all by your lonesome is quite sufficient.

Yes, but unfortunately, the vast majority of the murderers and rapists (the premeditating type, at any rate) spend most of their time "all by their lonesome," quietly going mad and justifying their own actions to themselves. Even if they're surrounded by other people, they're still in their own little world. Making them sit by themselves for a few (dozen) years will not rehabilitate them. Either we have to keep them locked up for life (which costs the taxpayers a bundle) or we just get rid of them. (Any and all organized crime or gang activity is not included in the above comment -- they are a different category altogether.)

There are no simple solutions for these compex problems. Kill the offenders off, and the anti-death penalty types cry foul: "you're playing God!" Reform the prisons into places that are truly punishment (to reduce costs), and the civil liberties camp cries foul: "cruel and unusual!" Say that you will rehabilitate society instead of the criminals, and the taxpayers cry foul: "you're taking too much of our money to give to inner city schools full of kids who will be arrested later in life anyway!" Decide to impose highly restrictive measures on the entire populace to deter crime, and innocent people cry foul: "I'm not breathing into a damn tube every 200 miles in order to drive my car!"

Obviously, these are all extremes. Balance needs to be found. But what worries me is that a couple of these extremes seem to be falling neatly into place...

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[Anonymous Coward]

Rewind 40 years:

Everyone meets out for a smoke...usually enough to be feeling pretty good....and everyone smokes at home. I've never seen this much concern over the issue in real life frankly...

Society takes a while to figure things out, your part of society is apparently particularly slow at these things.

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[Anonymous Coward]

It's me, I'm away from my home comp.

Anyhow, I'm probably biting on a troll here, but I'm gonna run with it. I have driven after drinking very few times, 3-5 at most. And when I did it was for like 7 blocks from my friends house back to mine. But I always had a clear view of the road, never rushed, kept my senses about me etc. I don't even really drink, so your comment is frivolous at best. I can count the number of drinks I've had going back into last September on one hand, all of which never got me "drunk", just a bit buzzed and I STILL didn't drive until that wore off.

Also, fuck the minority who "made a mistake" and drove when they were over. It's their responsibility to know. Go buy a breathalizer if you feel you need to drink then drive. They are playing with everyone's lives on the road. Yes a 0.09 is a bit extreme to remove their license, but perhaps subsidized breathalizers are in order. Maybe the car should simply COME with one, and make the punishment super high.

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[Anonymous Coward]

The UK limit is (assuming the alcohol to be ethanol) 0.8 grams (1.014 millilitres) of alcohol per litre of blood. Thus the Icelandic limit is 0.8% of the UK limit, which seems a little wrong.

This low figure (eight microlitres, or 6.4 mg, of ethanol per litre) suggests that even orange juice (which contains a non-zero quantity of ethanol) might cause one to be permanently debarred from the operation of a vehicle in Iceland. I hope the bus network is efficient (I don't think there's much in the way of trains there, not that there's much in Britain...)

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[badzilla]

Pretty soon possession of air-compressors would be illegal. But hey, they can't take away your whoopee cushion!

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[cayenne8]

Yup...scored like Johnny Fever...

:-)

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[Grishnakh]

You're severely misguided. Back in the middle ages, public executions and torture were quite common. Guess what? They didn't have a lot of problems with random murderers, serial killers, etc. back then. Sure, the societies had other problems (especially if you were just a serf), but violent crime wasn't a big part of it. Of course, there were roaming bands of criminals, because the only way criminals could succeed was through organization. If some lone guy went nuts and killed someone, that was the end of him.

Spending a few years all alone is a much worse punishment than all those tortures you listed, and is far more damaging to society. First, it costs society a lot of money to keep someone locked up for years. Second, the person goes nuts, or becomes an even more hardened conscience-less criminal, so when you let them out (which you seem to be proposing), they do even worse crimes. How does that help?

Back in the days of Colonial America, there was no such thing as prison. Gaol (jail), yes, but only for people waiting for their trial, and the stays in gaol were very short. Prison was considered cruel and unusual punishment. Punishments, administered immediately after sentencing, were fast and harsh. Of course, they didn't have a lot of problems with murderers back then either.

Personally, I think rapists should have their genitals ripped off or burned off, and then they should be put on the rack and slowly stretched until they're dead.

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[tehdaemon]

He is just getting confused. Death occurs at about 0.4-0.5% blood content - in english about one half of one percent.

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[Grishnakh]

These punishments are far too lenient. My favorite is the rack: stretch them until they're dead. Another excellent one is where they tie the person's limbs to separate horses, then make the horses run away from each other.

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[Grishnakh]

Actually, I like drawing and quartering, and think it's a great alternative to the mental cruelty that the current prison system imposes on people.

The problem with all this is who gets the punishment, and for what crimes? Personally, I agree with most here that multiple murderers, rapists, molesters, etc. are the ones most deserving of these fates. But with the current morons running government, we now have people spending more time in prison for non-violent crimes, including petty drug crimes (which harm no one but themselves), than violent offenders. I'm not sure I trust these fools to make any other types of laws about punishments when they've totally lost sight of what kinds of crimes are really dangerous to society.

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[handslikesnakes]

You are absolutely correct.
I grew up in a rural area and practically everybody on the roads between 0000 and 0500 on a Saturday or Sunday was drunk. Most of them were teenagers driving 4x4 trucks; the kind of people who would go to the gravel pits with a 2-6 of whiskey and see if their trucks could climb up the sides.
Nobody in my high school ever got into a serious accident due to intoxication.

Of course, this was only during weekends; during the week and during the day people weren't drunk, just stoned.

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[Anonymous Coward]

...which would be perfect when the police pull you over later and you go

"Sorry Officer I Didn't Realise I Was 0.145..."

And later when doing the investigation to charge your backside bring out the "record sheet" with your own score for the evening...

(acknowledging that you probably meant the post as a joke) I know what you mean - some establishments in Australia (Victoria) do have these machines - typically they are pricey enough that having a competition would be expensive - this was one of the arguments used against their introduction.

I still find though that most the time (a few years ago before I could afford taxis, and was borrowing parents cars) when I really want a testing machine around, I couldn't find one - usually just to tell if the reason I feel wrecked is for being awake for 18 hours, or if I was over 0.05 due to the couple of drinks earlier. (yes, driving while tired is not a great idea either).

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[Lord Apathy]

Horse whipping, now there is a thought. It is still used in some asian countries that I know of. I think some of these countries have very low crime rates to boot. But then again I think some of these countries have the death penaty for pissing on the sidewalk too.

I personally wouldn't have no problem with someone getting 10 lashes at the public square for certain crimes. Maybe certian cases of domestic violence, brawlling, and the like. But I think the constitutions admendment with restrictions on cruel and unusual punishment might have had this one in mind.

Maybe some modern form of public humiliation, like the old time stocks they used to use. It might be time to bring that back for minor crimes, jaywalking, public drunkeness, pissing on the sidewalk....

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[Lord Apathy]

I think your missing part of the point there. Yeah, we can lock the sick fucks up for the rest of thier lives but at what cost. Society has to pay for room, health care, and food for these losers, sometimes at the cost of $65,000 a year. This cost increases dramaticlly if they have illness or injury. The cost of AIDS drugs for some of these asswipes can drive the cost to keep them alive to a million plus a year.

These resources would be better alocated in other locations. Notice, my original post didn't say break the law, go to the gallows. It said screw up 3 times and go to the gallows. That money that we would be using to keep one useless fuck alive would be better spent to re-educate some poor smuck who just happen to fuck up, once. The AIDS drugs could be diverted to keep a sick child alive till a cure can be found.

People seem to think that life is sacred. No it isn't. Sounds cold but that is the way it is.

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[Anonymous Coward]

So as long as I've earned myself a -1, Flamebait, I'll leave you with this: may a random family member of yours die in the street like a mangy dog in the middle of the night. It's a little thing we like to call 'karma.'

It was this that got the me to agree (meta-modding).

~Morosoph

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[BandwidthHog]

Got you to agree with which?

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[Eivind]

But is that argument valid even in the real world where 10 people die because they drive while intoxicated for every 1 that die because he *couldn't* drive while intoxicated ?

An action with negative consequences can still be worth it, aslong as the positive consequences more than outweigh the negative ones. There exist situations where a seat belt is a negative factor. Doesn't change the fact that they save lives overall. Same for airbags, laminated front-windows, ventilated disk-brakes, fire-extinguishers in houses and any other security-measure you can think of.

Fact is, they *ALL* have negative consequences. It's just that their positive contribution is a lot larger than the negative ones.

The customer always pays

[G4from128k]

The bill makes no mention of who will have to pay for the device, but it will most likely be auto dealers and citizens who have to sell their cars.

Car sellers will not "pay" for this device, car buyers will. If it costs $200 to add the device, you can be sure that car prices with rise $200 in New Mexico. This is the same logic that has government paying for things, when it is really the taxpayer that pays. Businesses, like governments, pass their spending on to customers and taxpayers respectively.

The only exception is if a business faces competition that does not have to install this gizmo. So we can expect to see some booming car sales on the borders near New Mexico.

People really need to stop looking at businesses and government as big money machines. These organizations may have lots of money, but they got it from someplace else.

Re:The customer always pays

[Bastian]

If the dealer has to pay, you can be sure it will be more than a $200 increase to the price if that's what it costs to install (wich I doubt. I'm thinking a whole lot more money than that). It would be more like a $400 increase in price because the dealers could get away with it.

Re:The customer always pays

[Col. Panic]

This still doesn't consider the recurring cost of monitoring and calibration. In FL it is $65 per month, every month.

Re:The customer always pays

[vidawho]

Oh my!....time for my auto insurance to shoot up again
PS:I live in NJ.

Great tool for road safety

[Rupert]

As if people on cellphones weren't bad enough, now every few miles a tube is going to drop down in front of you, require you to take a hand off the controls to pull it to your mouth, and blow into it, otherwise the engine is going to cut out.

How about requiring that every car be sold with a hands-free cellphone adapter?

More save the children bullshit

[duffbeer703]

Why don't these people just get over themselves and go for prohibition again?

Drunk driving, while obviously a bad thing, is probaly the single most blown out of proportion issue in the United States.

If you actually get your hands on a study proclaiming that 70% (or whatever unrealistically high percentage) of crashes are "alcohol-related", look at the methodology. Crashes where the driver was perfectly fine, but a passenger had A DRINK were considered "alcohol-related"... as was a closed case of beer in the trunk.

Traffic statistics are among the most abused and oft cited. The folks who sell highway signs claim that 60% of accidents are caused by bad signage; police unions say that speedng causes up to 75% of crashes.

Re:More save the children bullshit

[HeghmoH]

No, terrorism is the most overblown out of proportion issue in the US.

Imagine, total invasion of privacy, random searches, mandatory ID checks, and a large hit on our right to travel, all to counteract something that has killed about 3,000 people in the US in the past five or so years, and has killed exactly zero people in the US in the past two years.

Drunk driving comes in pretty badly, though, I must admit. As does child pornography, AIDS, and lots of other things. Come to think of it, every single issue that people have used as an excuse to eliminate our rights is completely overblown. What an incredible coincidence.

Re:More save the children bullshit

[Alsee]

70% of crashes are "alcohol-related"
60% of accidents are caused by bad signage
speedng causes up to 75% of crashes

I was speeding to get to the liquor store because the store sign mistakenly said they closed an hour before they were really going to close.

P.S.
The crash happened while I was talking to them on my cellphone to find out the correct closing time.

-

Re:More save the children bullshit

[jskiff]

Homer: Aw, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. Forty percent of all people know that.

Re:More save the children bullshit

[radish]

I'm curious - which of your rights have been taken away to help the fight against AIDS? Your other examples are good, insightful even, but AIDS? This is a disease which is killing millions of people worldwide, has already devastated certain communities in the US (and other "western" countries) and threatens more. I say fight it.

Re:More save the children bullshit

[HeghmoH]

Please notice the difference between these two statements:

1) Every issue that is overblown has been used to take my rights away.
2) Every issue that has been used to take my rights away is overblown.

Do you see the difference? I said #2. In other words, there exist things which are overblown and aren't used to take away my rights (like AIDS). There do not exist things which are used to take away my rights and are not overblown.

Re:More save the children bullshit

[radish]

Wow. Sorry. I had no idea I'd stumbled into a logic class. Taken in isolation of course you are right, but your phrasing led me to believe you were inferring a relationship between overblown-ness and rights removal. So there was a misunderstanding. Whatever. It is possible to correct a misunderstanding without coming over as an asshole. Again, whatever.

Re:More save the children bullshit

[crimethinker]

Imagine, total invasion of privacy, random searches, mandatory ID checks, and a large hit on our right to travel, all to counteract something that has killed about 3,000 people in the US in the past five or so years, and has killed exactly zero people in the US in the past two years.

Careful, there. The proponents of such heavy-handed police-state tactics point to the fact that no-one in the U.S. has died from terrorism in the last two years as incontestible proof that the invasion of privacy, restrictions of rights, and nearly strip-searching large-breasted young adult women in public at the airport does, in fact WORK and protect us from evil terrorists.

-paul

Re:More save the children bullshit

[HeghmoH]

I didn't think I was being an asshole, it was just clarification. I don't know the depth of your misunderstanding, so I had to explain it all. No offense intended. I just get annoyed when people take what I say and blow it up into something I didn't say.

Re:More save the children bullshit

[penultimatepost]

100% of accidents are caused by passengers who had a drink and missread a sign while the driver was speeding to deliver closed a case of beer to his roommate.

Re:More save the children bullshit

[Tackhead]

> Why don't these people just get over themselves and go for prohibition again?

Speaking of prohibition, if we add a second sensor to the device that detects THC in your breath... if the vehicle has OnStar installed, the device silently phones the cops and reports your GPS location!

Re:More save the children bullshit

[HeghmoH]

If that is true, then they and the people who believe them are either willfully misrepresenting the situation or they are morons. Nobody died of terrorism in the US in the two years before The Unpleasantness Of One September Tuesday Morning either.

But of course you knew that. I don't see any reason to be careful, though.

Future Crimes Division

[Gnascher]

Nothing like being punished for a crime you might commit!

The 30 second pre-startup test is one thing ... but the rolling retest not only borders on the rediculous, it is a full on invasion into rediculous territory.

If this bill ever passes, you'll be able to recognize me as the car with the honking horn and flashing lights going down the left lane in protest!!!

So who gets sued...

[jstave]

...when someone dies because they were screwing around with a "rolling retest" instead of concentrating on driving safely?

This is really irritating

[rhadamanthus]

I am imagining a bad scenario here:

A young woman is being chased by a large man who has the apparent desire to physically harm her with a large, blunt instrument. The woman makes it to her car, gets in and..."Damn! The breathalyzer!" Woman breathes into autmobile, menawhile the man breaks through the window with his large, blunt instrument, and proceeds to maim woman....

Now, my rant: This is so typical of government and corporations nowadays. Don't solve the problem, just inconveniance everyone under the false pretense of security! Yay, I have to be assaulted by security guards at Best Buy! A real criminal will just run out the goddam store -- the security dopes cannot do anything about it! Yay, I have to type in 50,000 character codes before installing software! The real pirates (arr) will get a code off the internet and install it anyway! Yay, I cannot rip my CD to mp3 anymore because anti-copying software won't let my CD-ROM drive see an audio-CD! Anybody can still play the CD on a player with a line-in to soundcard and rip away! Yay, "anti-terrorism" activities make me inconvenianced and stripped of liberties! Actual terrorists won't stand in nice, long lines at airports, they'll get guns and bombs and blow up people somwhere else! WHY! Why am I persecuted for someone else's stupidity?!!?!!?!!?!

I hate this shit.

--rhad the embittered and cynical

liberal weenie judges

[uuesley]

new mexico has a very small group of habitual offenders (habitual=10+)that continue to somehow stay out of jail and keep their cars...i believe that NM already has the laws that might entice some of these people to act otherwise, but they seem to get in front of judges who refuse to impose the laws that the people have voted for....

wastin' away...

[chow_mein]

Population New Mexico: 1,829,146

Estimated 1 out of every 5 people are drivers

Estimate each driver starts car approximately 4 times

Time wasted from drivers waiting for 30 sec to take stupid test: 12194 hours

And I thought I wasted time!

The Finnish way..

[Anonymous Coward]

Fine the crap out of them. It works.

This problem will fix itself in year 4000...

[Anonymous Coward]

Natural Selection will eliminate any gene that makes a person to drive while drunk.

If we want to speed up the process, just give the police the order to shot on the spot any person who is caught drunk while driving.

This is Nature way of solving problems. Because of that, it is WISE and GOOD. And, more important, it WORKS!

Dial tone interlock

[frankthechicken]

I've often wanted and required one of these placed on my mobile phone, simply for those post drinking sessions moments when it seems like an ideal moment to call my ex.

It would certainly prevent those next day conversations when she calls you up wondering exactly what you were trying to say/sing on her answering machine.

Re:Dial tone interlock

[steveorama]

A friend of mine had an interesting credit card lock. She froze her CC in a block of ice in her freezer.
Any time that she wanted to use it, she would have to take it out and let the ice melt first, giving her time to think about the purchase in question.

Re:Dial tone interlock

[frankthechicken]

Interesting, I had the same idea for my phone, but I started to get a problem with too much cold calling.

I'll get my coat.

Hold on a second there.

[jellomizer]

There is a N E W Mexico?

Re:Hold on a second there.

[enrayged]

wow... you didnt know this? where did you go to school, in New Mexico? :-D

Human Justice

[Jerf]

Support Human Justice for Human Beings.

This story is part of a larger pattern, where law enforcement thinks it can farm its job out to machines. DRM is another instance of the exact same bad idea.

But machines enforce a machine version of the law. We are human. We need fuzziness, and we need the expense of prosecution, as well. (See my linked essay for a justification of that second clause.) This is a feature of the law, not a bug!

What do you do when the machine gets a false positive? Or your life depending on going somewhere right now? Is the state going to take responsibility for the extra 30 it took to get someone to the hospital while they are having a heart attack, or on the verge of a potentially life-threatening birth??

Machines and law enforcement do not go together!

Re:Human Justice

[Anonymous Coward]

Machines and law enforcement do not go together!

You shouldn't say things like that in public. Now you're going to be pulled over by ED209. "Please step out of the vehicle. You have 10 seconds to comply."

Virus vector

[sammyo]

Dateline 2010: Massive flu epidemic traced to auto breath tests.

easy way to get around this

[glen604]

Assuming the "hose" or whatever it is that you breathe into is long enough- couldn't you just turn the fans way up in the car, put the hose up next to the fans, and have it simulate someone breathing into it?

A better use

[marcopo]

would be to require breath analysis for coding. that should improve source quality. And of course a "rolling retest" for every compiler warning.

While this is clearly a ludicrous proposition, increasing penalties may not be the best thing either. Various studies (which I'll have to search for) show that by a large margin the most significant deterrent to crime is the probability of being caught. This is considerably more influential than the expected penalty. Surely there are better ways of finding drunk drivers other than such silly annoying measures (e.g. more patrols looking for people who drive dangerously).

This will certainly backfire...

[Gudlyf]

...when someone needs to rush another person to the hospital. Thirty seconds can be the difference between life and death when you need to rush your hurt kid or pregnant wife to the hospital down the street.

Then also imagine this all happening in the morning, right after you downed a couple spoonfulls of cough syrup because you weren't feeling so hot, and the car refuses to start because it thinks you're drunk.

Re:This will certainly backfire...

[dkone]

Not that I agree with the law, but there are warnings about operating equipment (cars) when taking cough syrup. Also the I believe that the term is DUI, means driving under the influence. We just assume that it is the influence of alcohol, but I believe it covers any substance that impairs your abilities to drive.

this is unpossible!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Only Nazi Ashcroft and Bush take away our civil liberties!!

Unfunded Mandate

[RailGunner]

Nothing good ever happens from an unfunded Government mandate like this - this law is just ridiculous. All this law does is increase the cost of producing the car, which in turns just costs the consumer more money, all to stop someone from driving drunk. "Hey - this guy over here is a screw up, so let's punish everyone else".

You want to put a stop to drunk driving? Here's a hint - you can't. But what you can do is increase on the punishment of a DUI conviction, and that might make some people think twice about it. That's really the only way to do it.

Now, this is not meant to be flamebait, this is my honest opinion, feel free to disagree, but it really shouldn't surprise anyone that a Democrat proposed this (and that the Democrat Governor there would likely sign it), since the Democrats always seem to favor stuff like this to protect people from themselves at the expense (in this case, financial) of others. Not to mention that laws like this never work...

Re:Unfunded Mandate

[RailGunner]

Other unfunded mandates in products that were just as stupid include: The V-Chip in your television! Because the benevolent Government wants to protect the children (as opposed to... the PARENTS).

Will the lawmakers be exempt?

[JLyle]

It's an interesting and timely story considering some recent news from Alabama. To quote Birmingham's WERC News Radio:

"The Alabama Constitution says legislators can't be arrested for some crimes while in session. Among those crimes they can be arrested for ... treason, felonies, violation of their oath of office and breach of the peace. The lawmakers began talking about changing the law after Representative Alvin Holmes was stopped last week by a Montgomery County sheriff's deputy for suspicion of drunk driving. Even though the deputy says he smelled alcohol, he couldn't arrest the Holmes, so they took him home. Holmes says he is being harassed by racist deputies."

Yes, I know the Slashdot story related a proposed bill in New Mexico, but I wonder if legislators there (or in other states) would be exempt from those laws, as is so often the case?

Re:Will the lawmakers be exempt?

[nomadic]

So often the case? Do you have any cites beyond the one you put up? I've read a lot of statutes in my day, believe me immunity for government officials (in criminal cases at least) is very, very rare.

Re:Will the lawmakers be exempt?

[JLyle]

I've read a lot of statutes in my day, believe me immunity for government officials (in criminal cases at least) is very, very rare.

I guess I was thinking about the general problem of lawmakers passing laws that they themselves are exempt from. For example, the laws that do not apply to congress.

Re:Will the lawmakers be exempt?

[nomadic]

I think a lot of that comes down to separation of powers; everyone is concerned about placing the legislative and executive branches under judicial authority except as prescribed by the Constitution. Generally the government is protected from civil suit under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, but this usually doesn't apply to acts of government officials conducted outside the scope of their employment. I don't think there are any exemptions to anyone except foreign dignitaries in terms of criminal charges.

Re:Will the lawmakers be exempt?

[Anonymous Coward]

So often the case? Do you have any cites beyond the one you put up? I've read a lot of statutes in my day, believe me immunity for government officials (in criminal cases at least) is very, very rare.

Well, you can add Tennessee to the list. Several years ago there was a huge story regarding one of our state senators (John Ford) who was pulled over for speeding while driving from Memphis to Nashville. He was heading to the capital for official business and he was doing somewhere in excess of 90mph.

After getting stopped, he screamed and cursed at the THP deputy, it was all recorded on tape. "You can't lay a fucking finger on me," etc. He was right; since he was on the way to state legislative proceedings, they couldn't give him a ticket, but the cops kept him pulled over for a long time trying to figure out what to do about it.

The senator and the highway patrol duked it out in the media for awhile, THP was upset at how the senator had treated the deputy, the senator was upset that he'd been delayed.

service market

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember occasionally paying drunks to buy me a bottle or two before I was "of age".

Now I can pay, well, anyone else(?), to lean in and start up my car.

Didn't realize how dirty that sounds! Wow - a good writer could produce an ingenious short-story satire on the American pseudo-sexual relationship with their automobiles, directly from this crazy idea. (c.f. Isaac Asimov's "Sally")

Big Brother strikes again

[Anonymous Coward]

What is it with politicians that they feel they have to meddle in and micromanage every aspect of people's lives?
Democrats seem to be particularly fond of doing this.. "oh look, there's a problem here, the solution must be more government".
A 30 second delay when starting the car, and being forced to re-do the test every so often whilst driving along? I can imagine this playing really well with teetotallers, Muslims, and other alcohol non-drinkers.
This has to be a joke, right? Right?

Machismo

[jcsehak]

This might not be as bad an idea as we think, for one reason: I expect a lot of driving drunk happens not because the person hates the idea of cabbing around, but because they want to sortof prove to their friends that they're fine to drive even after drinking a lot. "That whisky was nothing," "I drive fine drunk," etc. But putting the control in the hands of the device would let them save face, as it were ("man, I was fine to drive, but the fuckin car wouldn't start. Mind if I crash at your place?").

Of course, I sure wouldn't want one in my car, but maybe the same thing can be done by installing breathalizers in cars that don't connect to the ignition, just provide information. I wouldn't mind one of those -- I tend to have no more than one beer the whole night, though I'm pretty sure that puts me way under the legal limit. It'd be nice to know my blood alcohol level for sure, and if I could safely have another.

Send some auto-engineers in there to smack'em

[Illserve]

What an awful idea, it's just another expensive way for modern cars to stop working, as if they need one. I can't imagine such technology would be reliable over the long term, and in different weather/environmental conditions. "No sorry, can't drive today, it's too humid/dry/cold/hot."

I predict $500 repair bills for replacing $5 chemical sensor elements. I also imagine refit kits available on the internet to disable these things, or to store up sober breaths (& later reheat/hydrate them) to be used later.

I'm sure it'll reduce drunk driving, but sometimes the cure is worse than the problem. I don't want to be stranded on the motorway at negative -10 degrees farenheit because my breathalyzer is broken.

I think the US will finally have reached the end-state of its current decline into lunacy when everyone is implanted into an environmentally sealed, armored chamber at birth. We'll become the land of the bubble people. Noone can do anything, but our lifespans are .4 years higher so it's worth it.

No doubt - consider safety

[Anonymous Coward]

These people are worried about drunk drivers...I'm worried about someone who needs to get away. I don't mean to sound demeaning to women with this example but: consider a woman who is going to her car and being pursued by some lunatic. WTF? She has to hop in and use the blasted breathalizer? Is he going to wait while she does this, or break the damn window? Say she has up to two minutes before she needs to do this (start car, timer commences), it's still a safety concern. How would someone in a state of panic remember to use a breathalizer?

Fuck this. It cripples the functionality of a device (a car in this case) and can put people in harms way....only from the opposite side of what the people in New Mexico are trying to address.

Re:No doubt - consider safety

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah.. and what happens when you stall out on a busy highway and have to start your car again?

It's never...

[herrvinny]

...going to pass New Mexico's Senate and governor. And yes, I think this is a stupid idea.

This is going to be tough for a lot of people.

[YouHaveSnail]

Pizza delivery guys, UPS drivers, and lots of other people who make many short hops in their vehicle every day will have to either add 30 seconds to each and every stop, or else just never turn off their vehicle. Unintended consequences of this law could be a decrease in worker efficiency, increased pollution, and increased vehicle theft.

interlock no, breathalyzer yes

[Mr. Slippery]

While I don't think it should be attached to an interlock, if I'm going to be subject to arrest based upon a test I ought to be able to administer that test myself. (You can buy cheap pocket breathalyzers but they are not legally binding, therefore useless.)

DUI laws are odd in that its quite possible to violate them unintentionally. When I go somewhere and have three or four beers over the course of the evening (or maybe only two if they're strong trippels), the only way I can figure my BAC is to approximate that it takes about 75 minutes to burn off one drink. But both the alcohol content of a drink and the metabolic rate of consumption are highly variable figures.

Last time I drove home from a party, sure, I waited, I felt fine, I had no problems driving, I had every intention of being within the law and believe that I complied. But I can't know for sure because the legal standard I'm held to is something I can't monitor myself.

Either the use of chemical tests for impairment should be stopped, or all cars ought to be equipped with breathalyzers just like they're equipped with speedometers.

Re:interlock no, breathalyzer yes

[BandwidthHog]

Or maybe you just work out alternate transportation when you're out drinking. I know, I know, radical idea and all, but recent advances in theoretical physics indicate it just may be possible.

Re:interlock no, breathalyzer yes

[Mr. Slippery]

Or maybe you just work out alternate transportation when you're out drinking.

If I'm going out with the intention to do a lot of drinking (which I rarely do), yes. If I'm going to drink one champange toast at a four hour event, it's clear that I don't need to do this.

The problem is the grey area in between...that "oh, I had some wine with dinner, but just two glasses, I guess I can have one after-dinner drink, after all I won't be leaving for a while" space.

But you bring up another point - a lot of drunk driving could probably be prevented if there were decent transportation alternatives. Good mass transit would save a lot of lives, directly from reduced accidents as well as indirectly from lower ecological impact.

I understand why, but this is hopeless and wrong

[Tex Bravado]

NM has a very high per capita drunk driving rate, and it's hard to drive there for long without eeing some truly horrifying things (e.g., cars zig-zagging across all lanes of a freeway at 30 MPH, because the driver's reflexes are that shot; pedestrians staggering into traffic or down the middle of a highway.)
As has already been commented here, most of these folks are well out of the income levels where they'll be buying a car anytime soon (does the bill include pickup trucks; SUVs ?)
These are also people who will be unaffected be license revocation (that happened long ago, if they ever bothered to get one) or fines (you could impound the vehicle, but there's no fixed income or real assets.)
This might reduce the rate of certain types of car theft, I guess.
Bottom line: If you don't drink, don't drive :-)

Easily Defeated

[Deanasc]

I have a can of compressed air that say's this test will become useless before it's even implimented.

Being From New Mexico

[jatencio]

I am here in New Mexico and I think idea has far more consequences besides those opinions already expressed here. Do you know what I am going to do? Buy my vehicle from another state. Texas, Colorado, Arizona, Oklahoma are all states that are near by that just might find that their border car dealerships are suddenly doing well.

This amidst the fact the New Mexico's economy is the best to begin with and I can see how this would hurt vehicle sales that take place here. Also, if I ever decide to sell my truck, I cannot make a profit if I have to install one of these devices. I would eventually try selling it in another state or something like that. I think it is an awful idea and I am surprised that it passed. Even the author of the bill was surprised at how much support it received.

I see a Major Lawsuit ..

[Zordas]

I can envision a major lawsuit when the first person dies because the driver couldn't get his/her car started fast enough to take someone to the hospital.

Re:I see a Major Lawsuit ..

[galego]

Or better yet ... because the ambulance was delayed ...

1. Becuase the driver had trouble with the tube thingey. OR ...
2. Because the ambulance couldn't be heard to get through because of all the honking and blinking going on already on the road!

The myth of drunk driving

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been reading some rumblings in the popular press (i.e. Car & Driver) that the drunk problem is now overstated, and that organizations like MADD exist at this point mainly out of inertia.

C&D is no proponent of drunk driving; they want the laws to be strict, but it appears this is an issue like violent crime, that is, its not really an issue because we've managed to get the worst offenders off the road.

This isn't a flame, but I just think that sometimes politicians focus on feel-good stuff like this while ignoring real issues that aren't glamorous and need to be addressed (i.e. crumbling infrastructure, improving tax codes, removing favorable status for industries that don't need it).

What kind of weird place do you live in?

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on, that place was the best you could do? I bought a car in september with crappy credit and I've never lived in one place for more than a year at a time. No one tried to sell me a ignition interlock device on my car so that I'd pay the car loan. What happens when you transfer the loan to a new bank to get a better rate? What happens when you finish paying the loan? Does the "device" come off? If so, why not get a mechanic friend to "fix" that for you by bypassing the ignition key and starting with a switch. I think someone is using your trust to take *you* for a ride.

Re:What kind of weird place do you live in?

[Botchka]

As I tried to explain, I'm self employed and my wife has a full-time job but has only had it 3 months. We've only lived in Salem for 9 months. They've told me that if I can get the car refinanced, or sell it, or get it paid off, the device comes out. The dealer and myself spent 2 weeks attempting to get financing on the vehicle. My wife and I personally went to 3 different credit unions in this area and they wouldn't loan us $8200 to buy this car. Their excuses were because I was self employed and we've only been here 9 months. I don't know what else to say..

Re:What kind of weird place do you live in?

[vidarh]

Credit isn't a right. If devices like that hadn't been an option, you would have likely been turned away as a too high credit risk anyway. Why do you care? It's not like it reflects on your economy or person. When I moved to the UK nearly 4 years ago, getting credit was hell as well, because companies here generally want 3 years of credit history in the country because they can't get any info from outside the UK. People that have recently moved are often considered high risk, for this and similar reasons.

Re:What kind of weird place do you live in?

[Botchka]

Why do I care? Where does this type of treatment end? Will it be your apartment next? Make your rent payment on time and have the right to get back into your apartment for the next 39 days? WTF? Why do I care???

Re:What kind of weird place do you live in?

[revery]

Will it be your apartment next? Make your rent payment on time and have the right to get back into your apartment for the next 39 days?

That's pretty much how it works everywhere I've ever lived (though it was usually a little longer than 39 days)

--
looking for automated code conversion services?
(COBOL, Fotran, PL/I, Assembler to COBOL, C, C++, C#, Java, etc.)
Check out Datatek, Inc.

sanitation?

[Anonymous Coward]

So let me get this straight:

If I borrow your car, when I blow into the interlock, I am blowing into every interlock that you have ever blown into?

Ewwww.

Ever play a horn or wood wind? you know what those little valves are for? Yeah thats right, to let the spit out. Are interlocks going to have this or are we all going to have chronic bacterial mouth and lung infections?

Good idea?

[spludge]

Drunk driving is such a large problem that I think this would be a good idea if it was implemented correctly and works reliably.

The biggest problems I see:
1. Someone else could blow into the tube. However, then this person should be legally liable for the consequences.
2. So you want to start your car quickly for some reason in an emergency, well now you can't. It would need an emergency override, but then that defeats the whole purpose of the system!

Perhaps a good solution is to force car manufacturers to provide a breathalyzer with the car but not to use an ignition lock. Although I can't really see a drunk person paying any attention to a breathalyzer.

Required usage?

[drunk_as_in_beer]

I don't see anything in the bill that says you are required to use it. Just that the cars must have it. Maybe it is something that can be enabled when necessary?

In any case, won't people just buy cars in other states?

If it is the case that everyone has to blow into a tube to get their car started, this is the kind of law that assumes someone is guilty until proven innocent (they have to prove they are not drunk to be able to drive). When you are always assuming people are guilty, these people will assume they are supposed to be guilty, and are more likely to do the crimes. This is the case in law enforcement, and also the case with parenting or any other authority situation.

Enforce those laws on the book, k?

[onyxruby]

Drunk driving is a problem, every four years or so we get enough people killed by drunk drivers to equal the number of Americans lost during all of Vietnam. It kills somewhere around 15,000 people a year. Fine, it's a problem, I can accept that. So why don't they enforce the laws they already have? Better yet, why not have a California style three strikes and your out law. Drunk drivers are a menace to society, so why not lock them up for life without after their third DUI conviction?

Having said all that, leave my car the fuck alone. It's mine, got it? Big brother riding shotgun, I don't think so. Under the auspices of the slippery slope of this program we might as well have gps governors, insurance tracking and automated tickets. Just because technology can do a thing, does not mean that is should do a thing, especially for the masses. At some point, a line must be drawn that says you may not exceed X just because technology allows you to.

Re:Enforce those laws on the book, k?

[doppleganger871]

Politicians never want to enforce the laws that are already there... that would mean someone would have to step up to the plate and be the bad guy. So, instead, they just pass new laws that are more oppressive than the laws that were never enforced. It's partially judges' faults, too. They're the ones handing out the sentences. Nobody wants to be held accountable for anything they do, so everyone rolls over and plays dead.

Remember Demolition Man? Even though that was a fictional movie, it seems we're moving closer to it every year. ::Sigh:: Time to get my self a good 'ol non-computer, carbureted vechile, with ignition points instead of electronic ignition.

A 1972 Buick Skylark GSX sounds about right...

Re:Enforce those laws on the book, k?

[Flabby Boohoo]

Not that I agree with the issue as a whole.... but..

Enforcing a law like that does not prevent someone from getting killed, it punishes the person who kills.

This would stop the trajedy before it happens.

Emergency run to the hospital ?

[LouSir]

I can't wait till someone sues the state for manslaughter over this stupid possible law. "Honey, your heart attack will have to wait. The car is processing my breath. THEN we can go to the hospital." or "Honey, squeeze those legs together. You can't have the baby until I breathe into the car." Wow, it doesn't get any stupider. I would rather have a drive and chat on cell phone test to get your license then this. Lou Sir

We already do

[Anonymous Coward]

"So let me get this straight, ALL OF US will end up paying for the damned drunk drivers"

We already do in the form of higher insurance payments, loss of life and limb etc.

Re:We already do

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody mod this guy up.

Re:We already do

[The_Mr_Flibble]

Yes but once all the drunk drivers are taken care of the insurance premiums will come down. Yes ? Sorry what am I thinking

Re:We already do

[That's Unpossible!]

I'll stick to paying higher insurance rather than blowing in a fucking tube every time I want to drive some place, thankyouverymuch.

Why don't they use this technology in something a bit more critical, such as an airplane?

Re:We already do

[leonardluen]

I'll stick to paying higher insurance rather than blowing in a fucking tube every time I want to drive some place, thankyouverymuch.

this is why they make aircompressors

Re:We already do

[Afty0r]

We already do in the form of higher insurance payments, loss of life and limb etc.

As far as I am aware, an insurance premium does NOT pay out if you are driving under the influence, so other than those few accidents where someone DUI is not discovered to be so, your insurance premiums have NOT risen due to drink driving, they have instead risen because of the compensation culture endemic in the USA.

Re:We already do

[cbiagini]

this is why they make aircompressors

Haha, oh, is that right? It's good to see that somebody finally figured out what to do with them. If this law passes, I'm buying stock in Sears, Roebuck, and Co.!

Re:We already do

[cbiagini]

God damn it. Here I am trying to make *you* look like a retard, and I can't even close the freaking tag.

I guess I really should have used the Preview button.

Re:We already do

[Anonymous Coward]

Drunk driving is a 60 billion dollar industry... it is a HUGE windfall for local police department, the court system, insurance companies, defense lawyers, and the private companies that run the alternative programs.

Re:We already do

[skaffen42]

Ah, but they do pay if you are the guy hit by the drunk driver. So yes, it does affect your premiums.

Re:We already do

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure that there will be enough people who get their cars started and drive under the influence and have the "rolling test" initated which will cut the engine and thus the power steering which will cause just enough accidents to justify higher insurance rates.

Re:We already do

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes but once all the drunk drivers are taken care of the insurance premiums will come down.

In Texas there was recently voted in a maximum amount that a person could sue their doctor for in a malpractice suit (for punitive damages or suffering; actual cost of loss of work or the like still has no set maximum). This measure was touted as ensuring a reduction in the malpractice insurance that doctors had to pay, to supposedly help the doctors that are being priced out of the medical field.

Malpractice insurance costs have gone UP anyway. Insurance rates never go down overall (they might go down for individual people). Insurance is a business like any other, and they want every penny they can bribe the government into forcing the people to pay to them.

Insurance exec's should be the second set of 'tards up against the wall come the revolution.

Re:We already do

[Anonymous Coward]

It's only been a few months since the vote, man. Give it time to take effect, then deride it as useless.

Circumvention

[marcopo]

could be as simple as breathing into the analyzer through an appropriate filter. surely several folded layers of tissue soaked with some chemical to interact with the alcohol would work. You only need to reduce the level to below the analyzer's threshold. Any chemists here?

Re:Circumvention

[Jaysyn]

Not a chemist, but I think plain old charcoal would do the trick.

Jaysyn

Just an extension of DUI stops...

[FlyGirl]

That's all this is. Can anyone explain how it is any different (other than extent)? Detaining/postponing/delaying/inconviencing the innocent to TRY to get the guilty.

There WAS a time when a few judges had the guts to say that DUI stops were "fishing expeditions" and there was no reasonable reason to stop and detain people with NO evidence that they had done anything wrong.

But, alas, we become more and more of a police state every day... :-(

It's all Bush's fault

[pcaylor]

This is yet another example of Bush and Ashcroft trying to enslave us all for the benefit of the rich CEOs who just want to outsource our jobs so we can flip burgers at minimum wage.

What, a Democrat proposed this?

This is very confusing. Does this mean that no one political party has a monopoly on dumb ideas? But everyone on Slashdot says Bush is evil and stupid. Therefore, he has to be responsible for anything that is evil or stupid. Right? But Bush had nothing to do with this. Does this mean that I'm going to have to form my own opinion?

NO BLOOD FOR OIL!

(Whew, that was a close one, I almost had an independent thought.)

Re:It's all Bush's fault

[doppleganger871]

Uh... wrong soapbox, dipshit. Go ride your bicycle somewhere, the rest of us have lives to live.

Presidential elections are up this year

[Britz]

So when the reps start complaining the dems go "Hey, look at the good example W and hist daughters set".

Welcome to 2004

Drive-thru liquor stores in NM

[Anonymous Coward]

When I moved to New Mexico a several years ago, I was amazed to see drive-thru windows in some liquor stores. A true convenience for drinkers, they made it easy for people too drunk to walk to buy more booze.

So...

[martin-boundary]

I guess the cops will ask for a special dispensation. I can't imagine that they'd appreciate it if the horn starts sounding and the lights start flashing as soon as they start the car to tail a bad guy.

The problem will still exist

[hottoh]

There will still be drunk drivers on the roads in NM. Devices are disabled; people drive in from other states. Better yet are high on some other drug or are simply unfit to drive a auto.

Sure you will get a percentage of the drivers, but not enough of them to call the legislation a success.

Sorry NM Legislature, but you are thinking like a 'middle-schooler'.

And how quick can a disease spread with that?

[Graemee]

Sort of gross if you need borrow a car. What about rentals?

Douglas Adams in the HHTTG books told of a civilization being wiped out from a disease caught from a dirty telephone. Even his imagination could not have dreamed up an idea like this one.

It has come!

[SQLz]

The stupidest idea knonwn to man!

stupid idea

[geoff lane]

What is being detected by the test? Stupidity?

If such a test becomes required, shortly afterwards there will appear on the market tubes of activated carbon (or similar) that absorb the material the the tester detects.

There is a _reason_ why breath tests must be done before a witness...

Re:stupid idea

[Steve B]

What is being detected by the test? Stupidity?

No -- that is being detected on the floor of the New Mexico Legislature ("yes" vote = "stupid").

Re: Authorized access vs presumed guilt

[Baron_Yam]

If you don't understand the difference, you're too stupid to have a job; I really hope you're just trolling.

Cheating the system

[oneiros27]

Well, more than likely, someone's going to find a way to make a little battery powered device that mates up to the mouthpiece, then blows with the required force for the correct amount of time.

And, just to make sure that I can include this for searches on prior art, should someone go and file a patent on this, you could also make it powered by the cigarette lighter, or some other power source. You could also push air at a greater force than required, and you could do so for a longer time than necessary.

So, hopefully, we can all agree that trying to beat the system is not novel, and if anyone attempts to patent this, they're an idiot for wasting their money on the filing fees.

Guilty until your car says so?

[SlashDotForever]

Your supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. This is working on the premise that everyone that drives is occasionaly drunk while doing it. I'm pretty sure that isn't the way the law is intended to be used. If New Mexico has a drinking and driving problem how about looking at why these people are drinking? How does throwing them in jail, more fines and all help? By the time you catch them they might have already hurt someone. You need to PREVENT not PROSECUTE.

Re:Guilty until your car says so?

[vidarh]

No. It is done on the premise that lots of people are killed by drunk drivers, and making it harder for people to start a car journey when they are drunk will save lives. Just as you aren't legally allowed to drive without a driving license even though you might be a perfectly good driver. Just as you need to go through a test to verify that you meet certain minimum criteria, they are now suggesting to enforce a check that you meet certain minimium criteria before starting a car.

This IS about prevention, not prosecution. This IS about making it harder for people to commit a crime rather than punishing them after the fact.

Re:Guilty until your car says so?

[SlashDotForever]

I stated my point based solely on this: Ignition interlocks require a breath test, which takes 30 seconds to complete, to start the car as well as random 'rolling retests' to discourage others from taking the test for you. These rolling retests require the driver to take the test as the car is moving. Do you really think this is reasonable? The number of people that don't drink and drive outnumber the number of people that do. I am not suggesting that something not be done, but the solution needs to be targeted at the 'drinkers' not the 'drivers'. It would make more sense to do something at, say, the 'bar'(E.g. You want a drink? Hand over your keys. The establishment keeps them until you can prove, by some means, that you are compent to drive). Basically, you need to get majority support to make any changes, and the majority of people are not going to go for the proposed solution.

fines

[Anonymous Coward]

i not sure fines will solve the problem.
take into perspective, that 5% of world
population own 99% of all money ...

maybe a "hardware" solution is more
"just".

hack?

[johnjay]

Wouldn't a balloon full of air serve as a "hack"?

Having a balloon full of air in your car would require planning for drunk driving, or someone else's help (to fill a balloon with alchohol-free breath), neither of which seem very likely.

But, along the same lines, what about using one of those cans of compressed air that are sold to clean youur computer?

Re:hack?

[CrazyTalk]

Planning for drunk driving seems pretty likely to me. Hypothetically speaking of course, I know if I'm driving to a bar and planning to drink. I could just keep a box of balloons in the car and blow one up before walking in. I can't recall ever drinking by "accident"

activate interlock?

[nomadic]

Didn't they have one of those jobbies in Voltron? If it's good enough for Voltron it's damn good enough for ME, let me tell you...

A Car is a Dangerous Weapon

[the_duke_of_hazzard]

...so when are they going to put these on guns?

Hmmmmm

[Gilesx]

So it's not okay to speak on a cellphone whilst driving becuase it's distracting, but it is okay to be expected to take a rolling retest and blow down a tube whilst you're driving. How is this any less distracting than talking on a cellphone, particularly if you have to focus on the tube and inserting it into your mouth?

Great news for the budding homicidal maniac...

[StressGuy]

We've all seen the movies....woman running from maniac with a pickaxe gets into her car and starts fumbling with the keys. Then the car won't start until after about two good pickaxe shots throught the roof.
.
Now, on top of everything else, she's got to manage to breath into a tube between screams of terror.
.
yup, great day to be a homicidal maniac.

Re: Authorized access vs presumed guilt

[Enfors]

I am not trolling, and no, I do not understand the difference. Please elaborate.

What about speeding?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a superb idea!!!!

But what about my brother Boob (That's bob with two "O"s) he drives really fast! Can't someone install some kind of tech thing-a-bob, that shuts off his car when he speeds? 90 to 0 in 1 sec! That will learn' him!

And what my dear grandma? God bless her, see can't see a thing and drives about 10mph in a 55mph zone! What about a device to speed up her car?!?! That way she has to go the speed limit

Oh wait I forgot they are both really liqured up when they drive, never mind!

Cash Money..... + Motorcycles??

[georgep77]

Don't worry everyone. As soon as the polititions realize that normal people will be upset for having to PAY for this it will disappear. Either that or everyone in New Mexico can just get a motorcycle!

Cheers,
_GP_

not so bad thing

[Atreide]

30sec is a bit long, however this proposition has the advantage to try to solve a problem.

For centuries, fines have proved not be solutions. When did crime declined because of fines or imprisonnement ?
When someone does not want to follow the law, then no monetary penalty will compell him to follow the law. Even more, many people who drive drunk are indeed alcooholics. No possible fine can counter balance the addiction. Because every one would choose the profit of fun right now (drinking) over the security of maybe one day getting fined.

I am quite sure that if the test would require only 2 secs lots of people would still continue to argue against it. The problem is lots of people just want not to abid to law, but they want to abid to what they agree is a good law : that is a law that does not impact them.
Well, said otherwise I believe __we__ are lots of egocentric people and we accept constraints that apply to others but not to us.
By definition law is supposed to apply to every one.

This New Mexico proposition has indeed lots of inconvenients, but at least it is a courageous proposition and not one that pretend to change things by harder fines.
Fines would indeed be a good solution if there were a garantee everyone would be catched everytime. Maybe something like the film "the 5th Element" where the car itself fines you ?
Get buy one at a Big Brother's near you ?

rolling test?

[Sharkus]

is it just me that thinks that sounds a little dangerous? bit like talking on a cell phone and driving?

Low carb dieters beware!

[balthan]

Diabetics who are unaware of their condition or not under good control can have acetone in their breath which could register as alcohol.

Low-carb dieters routinely have acetone in their breath. This law could be quite interesting if it takes effect.

False positives

[shoppa]

Gees, if only 1 percent of the readings are false positives, there will be tens of thousands of disabled cars a day in that single (small population) state. Resulting traffic congestion and accidents would probably kill more people than saved.

so

[NoGuffCheck]

What if I stall my car in the middle of an intersection. I probably wont but the person in front of me will, I can almost guarantee it!

false positives...

[tuxette]

I tried to search for information on the percentage of false positives these devices give, and most of the resulting homepages had FAQs that claimed that false positives were not a problem. Howerver, I did find some interesting things beyond the mouthwash false positives, for example that cigarette smoke and acetone breath (for ex. in type 1 diabetics who either don't know they have the disease or do a poor job in controlling it, or people on Atkins) can cause false positives.

Re:false positives...

[ncr53c8xx]

I tried to search for information on the percentage of false positives these devices give, and most of the resulting homepages had FAQs that claimed that false positives were not a problem.

That might've been the case when the limits were first imposed. However, the current limit is lower than the tolerance on the reading, so that 50% of the non drinkers will be stopped!! Ever notice how most politicians have zero science background?

Re:false positives...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh no... I'm on the Atkins diet, smoke 2 packs a day, use mouthwash, and drink a sixer before work... I'm screwed!

US Translation --

[oneiros27]

for those not aware of european number formats --

That's not a typod '$200.00' (two hundred dollars), that's '$200,000' (two hundred thousand dollars).

Of course, there was the guy from Nokia, I think it was, who got his sentance reduced based on his reduced income from the time of the ticket, and the time it got to court.

[Of course, the solution to this is to hire a chauffer, who makes significantly less than you do, and just pay all of his/her fines for them]

Re:US Translation --

[acidrain69]

[Of course, the solution to this is to hire a chauffer, who makes significantly less than you do, and just pay all of his/her fines for them]

Um, doesn't that sidestep the whole driving drunk problem anyway? If a chauffer is driving for you?

Re:US Translation --

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia drunk chauffer drives sober you home.

Re:US Translation --

[juhaz]

[Of course, the solution to this is to hire a chauffer, who makes significantly less than you do, and just pay all of his/her fines for them]

Well, most of the very rich people probably already have a chauffer for most things, but at least the younger ones might want to cruise around and boast with their shiny new sports cars themselves every now and then...

I live in New Mexico

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in New Mexico and I can not believe this state! I've lived here for just over 5 months and the people here are ridiculous.

Everyone drives badly, and guess what the police do about it? Nothing!

The usual speed is 20 MPH above the limit. Guess how many times I've seen a car pulled over? Twice! But that's to be expected, the police go even faster then the rest of the drivers (and for no reason at all, just to waste taxpayer's money).

To get my driver's license here, I had to watch a little "DWI" video and fill out a test. The easiest test in the world, all I had to do was fast forward to the answers at the end. Woo! That'll stop drunk drivers!

If it weren't for my good paying job, I wouldn't be here.

Re: I live in New Mexico

[nullforce]

Besides our legislature, police officers, and city council members, most of the people caught for drunk driving are driving cars that they've owned forever and wouldn't buy a new car, one with the device installed on it. I don't see how installing this device on new vehicles would solve the problem anytime soon.

There is already a law on the books that allows installing a device like this in the vehicles of drivers convicted of DWI. The judges need to be less lenient and start ordering these be installed in those vehicles. Meanwhile, we have people who've been arrested multiple times for DWI that haven't served more than a few days in jail.

Re: I live in New Mexico

[glorf]

It doesn't matter if you aren't buying a new car. Once this law passes, how difficult would it be to add the requirement of a functioning breathalizer as part of the state auto inspection process? They have done it for emissions.

US Constitution, Fourth Amendment

[Evil Adrian]

Relevant portions bolded:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In other words, if there's no indication that I'm drunk, no one has the right to run a breathalyzer test on me.

Even if this crap bill gets passed, the Supreme Court will knock it down.

Re:US Constitution, Fourth Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless they run the test on everyone under the same circumstances.

Then there's the issue of the continuous retesting while driving and the horn going off.

What about emergencies?

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine you've got an badly injured member of your family and you need to take them to the hospital now. This is BAD, so time is of the essence! You put the person in your car, jump in... and now you have to WAIT 30 seconds for the car to decide if you are DRUNK or not, even though you NEVER consume alcohol. Oh wait, that was a false positive... now you've got to turn the car off so it stops honking and flashing its lights. Now take the test again while your family member is bleeding in the back seat...

Laws don't physically stop them

[mekkab]

Montgomery County, Maryland has an enormous drinking and driving problem, but its with repeat offenders who are not at all disuaded by the law.

There is a PER SE provision where if you blow .08 the cop takes your license on the spot (and gives you a 10 day temporary).

But this isn't enough to discourage people who have no respect for the law. As long as they have a car, keys, and gas, nothing is physically stopping them from driving.

Now if you told me this technology would be mandatory for anyone convicted of a DUI/DWI? I'd probably be in favor (kinda like sexual abuser registry).

Re:Laws don't physically stop them

[jrockway]

Has there ever been any technology that successfully prevents one from using their own property? CSS? That worked really well. iTunes DRM? Nobody cracked that? Etc, etc, etc. Satellite TV? Can't get that for free anymore.

My point is, I'll be the first one to hook this thing to 120VAC and see what happens. Did you short out? Ohhhhhhhhhhh. So sad. Guess what. If you turn off the lights and disconnect the horn, it can't sound the horn and flash the lights.

BTw, don't call 1-800-328-9890 and ask them about this. Oh wait. Do do that.

Re:Laws don't physically stop them

[Anonymous Coward]

"Now if you told me this technology would be mandatory for anyone convicted of a DUI/DWI? I'd probably be in favor (kinda like sexual abuser registry)."

Documentation of new product idea:

Here is a twist.

Anyone so convicted would have to wear a collar/bracelet/etc that they could not remove. Interlock wouuld sense such a device and would require testing if one was near, otherwise, car functions as normal.

OK, so this still has the negative of the expense (a big minus, could this be offset with lowered insurance premiums for cars so equipped) and not dealing with non-convicted individuals. Then again, what happened to presumed innocence?

A Nony Mouse

life-saving?

[verrucagnome]

I have to admit that this does seem very draconian, but imagine how much good it could bring. http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/alcohol/imp aired_driving_pg2/NM.htm An estimated total of 18,710 crashes in New Mexico involved alcohol which killed 206 and injured an estimated 6,700 people. Alcohol is a factor in 35% of New Mexico's crash costs. he estimated cost per injured survivor of an alcohol-related crash averaged $98,000. Moreover, whilst it may seem expensive to implement, attaching an interlock to a car for a year after its operator is convicted of driving while intoxicated would reduce recidivism by an estimated 75% and alcohol-related fatalities by 7%. It would save almost $8,200 per vehicle equipped. Including equipment and case management costs, interlock costs would total approximately $990 per vehicle. The above numbers can't be easily worked into a system where *every* car had an interlock installed, but it does show that installation costs can be retrieved. I also thought that www.vv.se/traf_sak/t2000/909.pdf was interesting. It says that whilst using Ignition Interlocks on *just* the cars of those with DUI, is effective, but not ideal because 50% of these people have access to non-interlock cars within their family. Also, existing interlocks have security features to limit circumvention, e.g. by measuring CO2 concentrations to make sure it's expired human air. At the end of the day though, you might find some way around the interlock. In that case you'd just prosecute more heavily in those who'd circumvented and had an accident. On the other hand, 30 seconds to start your car is ridiculous. There's no reason this couldn't be reduced in the future. My diesel VW Golf takes about 10seconds to start. It seems to me that if this device was properly implemented it could almost eliminate the 6700 annual injuries that occur because of drunk driving, and at almost no cost to the end-user. Just my 0.02

Re:life-saving?

[Jaysyn]

If it's so freaking great, then why can't they limit this to people who have *actually broken the law*. Better yet, if someone gets a DUI, revoke (not suspend) their license, if that doesn't work *take their fucking car away from them*! You can't kill someone with a car you don't have. Don't punish me for other people's driving habits.

Jaysyn

Re:life-saving?

[verrucagnome]

If it's so freaking great, then why can't they limit this to people who have *actually broken the law* Well, 2 reasons really: 1. Like I said, 50% of those previously convicted can access a family members car. So...you can't kill someone with a car you don't have, but you can with one you don't own. 2. Whilst someone with a previous DUI is more likely to have an accident than someone who has not, the sheer majority of those driving without previous conviction means that only targeting only those with previous conviction will have very little effect. For example, we don't try to limit heart attacks by only gearing health promotion to those with previous heart attacks. We aim health promotion at everyone, because that's where the greatest gains can be made. You can liken such problems to icebergs whose visible tips can neither be understood nor properly controlled if they are thought to constitute the entire problem. A population strategy to sink the iceberg rather than to attack its tip is necessary whenever risk is widely diffused throughout the whole population.

Re:life-saving?

[Jaysyn]

Still, I didn't break the law, so don't punish me. I will never see the supposed benefits to this but I *will* see the cost. And don't give me any crap about "oh but your insurance rates will drop" I don't care. I pay about $70 a month for full coverage on my car, and I doubt it will go much lower than that regardless, plus that if this was enacted in my state, I'm sure that the insurance companies would eventually be the ones responsable for replacing/upgrading breathalysers in cars (Google for windshields, Florida & insurace & you'll see my point),which would then drive my insurance costs up. So thanks but no thanks, you can *keep* your socialist utopia to yourself.

Jaysyn

Whats really to be done?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have spent most of my life in New Mexico... I remember hearing about a guy who went up before a judge for his 9'th DWI, driving on a revoked/suspended license, and *finaly* hurt someone.

The real problem is that they do not really enforce the laws that are on the books. What do you do with someone who lives in a very remote area (the nearest city maybe 30+ miles away), living in an area that has 40% or more unemployment, and who only makes a few thousand dollars a year... I have lived in places and situations like this.

In the case above where the guy was up for his 9'th DWI -- fines do nothing (he doesn't have the money to pay them). Education/consuling does nothing (he was sent to special DWI drivers education more than once). Revoking the lisense does nothing (he gets ahold of another car and drives wherever). Jail/prison (our state prisons are already overfull, and I forget what percentage of the populations is or has at one time been incarcerated). What is really to be done in situations like this?

So, why did the senate pass the bill? Election year and they needed to be seen doing something because of the Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) lobyists... With all that being said, do you have any viable solutions?

Big Hole in Plan

[Wyatt Earp]

The Indian Reservations.

This law wouldn't apply to thier cars on or off the Reservation.

In New Mexico there are alot of them.
http://www.fema.gov/graphics/tribal/indian_ reserv_ r6.gif

So why is marijuana illegal?

[cr@ckwhore]

This proves one thing ... why is marijuana still illegal?

To the point -- Our government obviously believes it's necessary to protect us from our own behaviors via devices such as the "ignition interlock". They argue, "well, you're impaired - you can't make that decision on your own". Well fine! So why then is marijuana still illegal? Impairment from marijuana is in the same playground as impairment from alcohol. With more and more devices coming into use that will supposedly prevent me from doing certain things while I'm impaired, why is marijuana still illegal?

Why stop at alcohol and marijuana ... why not E, Coke, or other illicit drugs?

My point is this... if the government is successful at controlling what we can and can't do while under the influence of certain substances, there stands no reason to keep certain substances illegal. But, is it worth the trade-off? Allow our government to control our behavior like this? I don't think so.

The American Revolution 2.0 -- coming to a theater near you.

A tube in every car?

[imadork]

Why do we need a breathalyzer in every car? That's a lot of points of failure in the system, what happens if the car's breathalyzer breaks? Or worse yet, fails in such a way that every one tests positive? Your car may need to be towed to the shop because it won't let anyone drive it.

If people are so concerned about drunk driving, they should put breathalyzer machines in the bathrooms of places that sell alcohol. At least that way someone can figure out if they're over the limit without guessing. And while the devices can still fail, at least the operation of your car isn't depending on it.

adds 1 minute to my commute

[glsunder]

This would add 1 minute to my commute... to the liquer store.

Possible scenario...

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay. A possible scenario once this becomes law...

Imagine a woman being chased on foot through a parking lot at night. She's 5-10 seconds in front of her persuer. She reaches her car, climbs in and locks the door. She begins the breathalizer test to start the engine. Since the test takes 30 seconds to complete, her attacker has 20 seconds after catching up to her vehicle. The woman's sodomized body is found in the parking lot the next day.

I smell some wrongful death liability lawsuits arising from this.

need automatic blood analyzer too

[Anonymous Coward]

That would jab you in the arm everytime you
sat in the car seat and extract some blood
to see if you are doing any nasty illegal
drugs. A small price to pay for the privilege
of driving which is not guaranteed by the
constitution.

10,000 pounds or less....

[Genjurosan]

No worries! By the year 2009 this law will be meaningless. Why? Well read this:

(2) "motor vehicle" means a passenger motor vehicle, including an automobile, pickup truck or van normally used for personal, family or household purposes, that is sold and registered in this state and whose gross vehicle weight is less than ten thousand pounds.

I feel confident that the Hummer H3 will weigh far more than 10,000 pounds, along with all the other SUVs.

So I'm covered!

Also, the government will pick up the tab for my 12,000 pound party bus!

Slight suggestion...

[Professr3]

Why not only make this mandatory for people who have had previous drunk driving convictions? I suppose they could drive someone else's car, but not long term. You'd think it would solve a lot of the problems with the idea.

Uber SUVs

[Monty845]

the bill provides the exception "that is sold and registered in this state and whose gross vehicle weight is less than ten thousand pounds." So the simple solution is to just make sure your new uber SUV is over 5 tons and your all set...

How will this stop the designated blower?

[Jerry]

So you're drunk but your friend isn't, and you ask him to blow into your car's breath tester. How is the device going to know the difference?

Re:How will this stop the designated blower?

[thebatlab]

Then why wouldn't the non-drunk just be driving in the first damned place

Sorry, didn't mean to blame you...

[Anonymous Coward]

But really, I would seriously consider refinancing or having a lawyer look over the contract. I own a $15,000 car, I'm self employed and the dealer ship bent over backwards to try to convince me to finance with them even though I got a loan at a bank. I had to show the past 5 years of tax returns but I had those around anyway. But seriously get out from under that. Its not a fair contract for something as simple as a car.

Re:Increased punishment does not reduce crime

[DoctorNathaniel]

It's been shown in numerous cases that increasing punishments only increases desperation not to get caught; it rarely reduces the actual incidence of crime.

I would think that this case is one where this is even more obvious: the person in question is already drunk when the decision is made. Or, if he's not drunk, he's had a few drinks.. but that means he may be OK to drive. As the severity of the crime increases, his judgement decreases.

Now, that's not to say that drunk drivers aren't criminals or shouldn't be treated harshly. But it's far from clear that treating them more harshly will mean there are fewer drunk drivers.

In fact, there ARE ways to reduce drunk driving: For instance, put the pub within walking distance and don't have a parking lot. Make sure cabs are available late at night. Don't penalize people for leaving their cars parked overnight. Give more power to servers to say "no" to those who have had too much. Encourage friends not to drive, even after only one drink. Increase road checks (i.e. increase the chance of getting caught, not the penalty for getting caught). Install breathylizers in bars as a novelty. Reduce the use of cars if you can't reduce the use of alcohol.

I simply do not believe in "getting tough on crime" as the answer to every social ill.

--N

Circumvention devices

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, I wonder if now balloons, portable medical airtanks, and plastic flexible containers of all types will now by outlawed under the DMCA??

I see a new business opportunity for selling air!

What a stroke...

of genius this idea is.

What about emergencies?

[Anonymous Coward]

So let me get this straight...

My child injures himself badly enough that he needs medical attention NOW. I jump in my car to drive him to the hospital...but I have to wait 30 seconds just to prove to the car I'm not drunk. Meanwhile, he's bleeding to death.

In other news

[Anonymous Coward]

New mexico is working on a legislation to deal with random rapes across the state. Men all across the state are expected to . . .

What If You're Drunk and Need To Escape...

[Axmondo]

...from an ax-weilding or gun-toting maniac? You're dead meat, just because of this law. It should make for some amusing new horror / comedy movie scenes!

Great News for Michigan

[EriDay]

In winter in Michigan we put salt on our roads to melt the ice. This causes cars to rust out in a very few years. Used cars from warm dry places like New Mexico sell for a premium. I'm looking forward to whole bunch of nice used cars around 2009.

How about this...

[avgjoe62]

Let's make a drunk driver install this on their car after their second offense. Why punish everyone for the actions of a few?

Yellow plates?

[Anonymous Coward]

So I gues this means they're ALL driving drunk?

http://www.plateshack.com/y2k/New_Mexico/nm2000n os logan.jpg

How about interlock keys on the buildings in D.C.?

[Anonymous Coward]

To check the B.A.C. of our elected representatives. Heck, let's include a full blood test for drugs and STDs before admitting them while we're at it. And lie detector tests. Surely our nation's integrity takes priority over anything else.

groklaw sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

18 February 2004 Hutchinson Kansas

Like all long-lived online communites Groklaw has become it's own worst enemy.
While high quality research piles up unpublished in the Groklaw inbox, PJ hurls
insults of "I told you so" and spams the listening SlashDotters with
rehashed Bloomberg reports they are too slow to comprehend for themselves.

New visitors are greeted by Headlines that shout "Attachment C to
Yesterdays Headline Now Available in an Assortment of Colors" with an
article that provides this breathless analysis "the pdf is here"

I am going back where I came from now. If anyone else is interested in coming
they are welcome to join me. I refuse to stay and watch this any longer.

In Other News

[Bruha]

Scores of New Mexicans were found dead today after a deadly spread of SARS. Medical Examiners and the CDC have determined the disease was spread through the interlock systems on many cars.

Prediction:

[Anonymous Coward]

No 2008 vehicles will be sold in new mexico.
Car sales in the surrounding states will sky rocket.

Is it just me or are the laws being passed these days only getting worse and worse, eliminating more and more freedoms?

Whatcha gonna do when they come for you

[Dachannien]

"Perhaps tougher penalties and larger fines for people who actually drive drunk would be a better idea."

Dude, do you not watch Cops? Practically everyone they pull over is driving under the influence on a suspended license.

About the only thing that will get repeat-offending DUIers off the streets is a prison sentence, instead of wrist-slapping them for the fifteenth time.

Personally, I think this NM bill sucks. But at least it acknowledges that license revocation is about as effective for stopping DUI as herbal supplements are for anatomy enlargement.

Is this a fucking joke?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who drives with one of these in their car has not one shred of dignity left.

Technology vs human nature

[Moderation abuser]

This is just one of those technology vs human nature things that stupid politicians come up with on occasion.

So far, technology hasn't got any points on the board. Technological solutions just don't work when it comes to beating determined individuals. The success (or lack of it rather) of security products for cars is testament to the fact that if someone wants something, they'll have it.

I predict that within a month of these devices being fitted, there will be alcohol/acetone scrubbers, software modifications, detector bypasses and a host of other techniques which will allow anyone to bypass, switch off or remove the systems.

A 'govt doing something' law?

[16K Ram Pack]

This sounds more and more like laws we get in the UK, where the new bill is worthless, but makes out that the government cares. So, when someone says "senator, what are you doing about the problem of drink driving?", they can say "we are introducing these things by 2008". It's so far away, that by then (and certainly by the time the bill shows itself to be worthless), they're either gone or the issue is forgotten about.

Re:A Better Idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not 'La Cucharacha', its 'La Cock-a-roacha'.

Enter ACLU, Stage Left

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully this won't conflict with their agenda.

Are we going to

[Anonymous Coward]

Install thsese devices in ALL Police, Fire and public transportation vehicles?

Re:Are we going to

[Anonymous Coward]

Police, Fire and public transportation vehicles?

I'm sure they'll exempt those, but more of a concern is how to exempt private vehicles used by fire volunteers, volunteer ambulance drivers, etc. which are the norm outside of "the big city" (where apparently these New Mexico legislators live).

I strongly doubt they'll let me skip installing one on my personal vehicle just because I have to race up a mile to the station. Guess you all will see your houses burn down.

And don't forget all the other folks that use personal vehicles. Pizza delivery, rural mail (who often stops/starts), weather spotters ("hey - move from you location right now - there's a tornado bearing down on you. What? You have to wait for what???") etc.

Congressfools. Nothing like a good ol' public square whipping for this nonsense that would fix New Mexico's problems.

Letter to Senitor

[MhzJnky]

I live in Albuquerque New Mexico. Below is the letter/email I sent to all the state senitors. Thankfully the bill seems dead as there will be no time to vote on it during this session. I recent local TV poll showed people were 85% to 14% against the measure

To Albuquerque Senitors:

I'd like to begin by stating that I do understand we have a large DWI problem in New Mexico. I personally lost my father years ago to a drinking and boating accident. I know the pain families feel when people decide to recklessly endanger themselves and others.

However, I must speak up about the "Ignition Lock" legislation recently passed by the legislature and pending in the Senate. As much as I want our streets to be safer this measure goes way too far in my mind. You're basically asking people to prove they're not committing a crime just to go somewhere.

I'd also like to make sure some possible ramifications to this law have been thought out. People would likely start leaving there cars running when they make quick stops. This could lead to an increase in motor vehicle theft. We are also talking about technology here, which is not always 100% reliable. What if someone gets stranded in the back country because their Interlock malfunctions? Or, if it hinders someone's ability to get moving quickly in an emergency situation? Or even the possibility of spreading disease when several people share a car.

With the projected cost of $600 you are also punishing the underprivileged. For some people they do not have that much to spend on an entire car, let alone a state required accessory. You're raising the cost of entry of vehicle ownership over the $1200 mark. For some people that's too much.

The intentions of this law are good. But monetary and societal cost seems too high. Our civil liberties are vanishing too quickly in this country, and this is a large step in the wrong direction.

Re:Letter to Senitor

[Quintin Stone]

How about some fact checking from the editors? Despite what the submitter wrote, this bill was not "passed", it was introduced. When a bill is passed... well, technically bills don't get passed, laws get passed. Bills get voted on and approved and become laws. If this bill had actually become a law, you can bet there would have been a HUGE outcry across the entire state, not to mention plenty of newspaper links on the local, state, and national level. So, yeah, this is a horrible idea, but let's not overreact, everyone.

On Motorcycles too.

[Anonymous Coward]

He also want the interlock put on motorcycles, police cars, etc.

Can you see a motorcyclist with a full face helmet trying to blow into the unit?

Overlords?

[u-235-sentinel]

Would this be a good time to bring up the "We welcome our new Overlords" joke?

Rapists Vote 'Yes' On New Law

[mattwarden]

Running to your car to get away from an attacker? Might get raped? Might be murdered? Well, I'll be damned if you don't take 30 seconds for a breathilizer test.

News Mexico or the UK

[mirio]

Did you say New Mexico? I could have sworn something like this must be coming from the UK, given their predisposition to declaring the average driver a retard or a threat and forcing said drivers to pay for technology in their cars that they don't want that gives the government control over *PRIVATELY* owned vehicles....geez...

Going way too far

[nurb432]

This goes way to far to interferer with the rights of the law abiding citizens.

If you are convicted of a DUI, sure require the thing to be installed..

But for those of us that don't drink and drive ( or even drink ) then its an unacceptable requirement.

If I lived in that state, id be moving and taking my tax paying family elsewhere to a state that doesn't violate my rights like that.

Grandstanding.

[Jaywalk]

The House is just playing to the crowd on this one. "See? We're really concerned about this! Vote for us!" Since it will never get signed into law, they'll never have to deal with the consequences. Like how many accidents will be cause by someone futzing with the "rolling test" rather than looking where they're going.

If you want to use interlocks, make them a punishment on first offense DUI. Don't wait until someone gets killed before the punishments get serious. Just the threat of having to deal with the things should make people think twice about combining liquor and driving.

Small enough?

[Syberghost]

As one of the smallest states in terms of population, I wonder how many manufacturers will respond to this by ceasing to sell cars in New Mexico.

People predicted that would happen in California for some emissions standards changes and it didn't, due to the huge population there; but New Mexico is something like 5% as large as California.

How many people will just go to Texas, Colorado, or Arizona to buy their cars? Again, that didn't happen in California, since they require the emissions standards be met to drive the car there; but this bill doesn't make that requirement, so it's a real option.

Penalty and Consequence

[Barracuda Watch]

I don't agree with mandatory hardware on your car, but to your comment about higher fines & time; You don't intimidate first time offenders that way, they have no idea of the implications of their actions until they a) kill or maim someone or b) have to reseach what kind if trouble they have gotten themselves into when they're faced with fines and suspensions. That's too late for jacking up the price of consequence as a deterrent. At that point they either don't care and are going to repeat or are scared silly and never treat alchohol the same way.

Perhaps part of the DMV test should focus more on the penalty aspect of driving offenses and require a 100% on that section to get your license to play GTA. I've heard too many unlearned people poo poo a first offense dui as a gimmie. It isn't usually quite that easy.

Cruel and unusual punishment - revoking license

[dpilot]

Suspending the "right to drive" has become crippling, because the US has become so terribly addicted to underpriced transportation. In most places today, outside of a major cities, it's nearly impossible to live without access to a motor vehicle. Outside of mid-sized cities, you lose public buses, as well as subways, making private motor vehicles a practical necessity.

Can't get to work.
Can't get to the grocery.
Practically nothing is in walking distance, any more.
Most of the area (not necessarily population) of the US needs a car to live.

Not to mention that in the US we're just plain addicted to our cars and trucks. Years back I saw an editorial cartoon. It featured a man in a car in a traffic jam. The same thought-bubble pointed to every car, "If we had public transportation, I'd have this road to myself."

Re:Cruel and unusual punishment - revoking license

[Anonymous Coward]

So dont fucking drive drunk! Accept some personal responsibility! Oh wait, that's not the American Way anymore is it... my bad.

Re:Cruel and unusual punishment - revoking license

[dpilot]

If the Founding Fathers were writing the Constitution today, they'd have enumerated a Bill of Responsibilities as well as the Bill of Rights.

(But they'd have also been concerned about Privacy, and separation of Corporation and State, too.)

What?!?!

[moonboy]

And they say that cell phones are distracting while driving.

"...as well as random 'rolling retests' to discourage others from taking the test for you. These rolling retests require the driver to take the test as the car is moving. If the driver fails a retest, the horn sounds and the lights flash until the car is turned off."

What the HELL do they think this will be?

A better idea

[howajo]

How about if we enact a law that requires potential politicians to take and "pass" an IQ test before they can run. The complete morons like this Ken Martinez can be "weeded out" before they waste everyones time and money with idiotic ideas like this one...

Re:laws - bullshit!

[Neurotoxic666]

Having a parking lot at a bar is like being an accessory to the crime

You are assuming each and everyone of us are unable to drink alcohol in a moderate way. It is not about the taxes collected from the sales of alcohol, but about our freedom.

I do not need an idiot senator or a frustrated, clueless individual like yourself to make new laws that require people to respect laws that are already there. The argument is stupid.

Maybe we could ban the internet too, eh? Making this evil technology available to the public is being accessory to crime, because we know the internet is only used to download music illegaly.

If you have an alcohol problem and you can't behave in public places, get some help. I'm certainly not willing to give away my rights just because you're a moron.

Wonderful...

[Millennium]

Another 'liberty-for-safety' mess. What's worse, this will probably pass, because people will talk about all the children who die in DUI cases. It's always about the children, isn't it?

Now, here's what I'd propose instead. On your second DUI conviction, you are automatically required to have the actual device installed, for a period of five years, and you may not drive any vehicle where such a device is not installed without a police escort or special court permission. Removing the device (or driving a vehicle you have not been authorized to drive) extends this penalty from five years to ten; a second removal extends it to life; a third removal revokes your license and bans you for life from getting another one.

Draconian? Yes, I suppose so. But someone who continues to break the law like this has already shown that only a draconian penalty is going to have any effect.

Of course, the big problem with these is that they only test for alcohol. Theoretically devices like this should be made to screen for other intoxicants where possible.

This will die in the NM Senate this morning.

[Chyeburashka]

Relax, this just is not going to happen. The NM Legislative session is scheduled to end at noon MST today, and this bill is as dead as a drunk driving victim. No real legislation will get through the NM Legislature until the elected drunks (yes, some of our NM representives have DUI convictions) are thrown out of office. Will that happen anytime soon? Probably not. Driving drunk is embedded in part of the culture here, and until that changes, we here in NM will still have our drunk driving problem. Our Governor Bill Richardson missed yet another opportunity to fix a problem which has now become known world-wide. Shame on you Bill. You let us down again.

Mandatory prison time for all citizens

[Anonymous Coward]

Next law to be passed in New Mexico: Mandatory prison time for all citizens. After reaching 18 years of age all citizens of New Mexico must serve 5 years in state prison for 'Future Crimes to Be Commited.' This will keep children safe by keeping future criminals off the streets and in jail where they can be rehabilitated in advance.

Bad news for car salesmen in New Mexico

[ShiftlessXL]

I guess everyone will go out of state for a new car. This will obviously not work out at all.

one more reason

[pablo_max]

just an other reason not to go to new mexico.
It would seem unlikely for other state to follow suit. I will not be surprised when this is over turned by the courts.
It about as silly as posting a cop out side your house to make sure that the house you are going into is really yours.
Its assuming that you are quilty of drunk driving before being convicted, which the courts should have a problem with...at least they freaken better have a problem.

Get your pen out guys and write that dumb ass!

Simple suggestion: TAKE THEIR CARS

[frankie]

I've been proposing this for years. For your first DUI/DWI, you get a fat fine and points on your license. For your second conviction, the police takes your license, and your car. For #3 and beyond, it's license, car, and go to jail. Most people will stop driving drunk pretty quickly.

It's a simple solution that's easy to implement, isn't intrusive on innocent people, and provides non-tax revenue for local government. Do any states do this? I contacted my local legislators but they weren't interested.

Re:Simple suggestion: TAKE THEIR CARS

[knghtrider]

Sadly, some people won't.. Case in point..

(from 2003)ANDERSON, Ind. -- He has been arrested at least 400 times, and on Tuesday, he was sentenced to 17 years in prison on drunken driving charges.

Virldeen Redmon, 74, of Anderson, Ind., was arrested in July while driving even though his license had been suspended for life, according to authorities.

Redmon's license was originally suspended after scores of alcohol-related offenses. Redmon has apparently had his license suspended for life five times.

Police have been arresting Redmon since 1947.

I grew up in Anderson, and I know Virldeen Redmon--or rather, know who he is by sight. He's a rather sad, lonely old man--but he was always a dedicated and diligent worker. He just is addicted to alcohol. While I moved away some time ago, I do believe he never hurt anyone--except his brothers because they like to fight when they're drinking. This doesn't excuse his behavior, but stiff penalties don't help. He's done 8 years in prison, and on this one, I think he got 30 years. The man is nearly 70, he will die in prison, on our tax money. sad..but true..

Re:Simple suggestion: TAKE THEIR CARS

[Anonymous Coward]

some people won't.. Case in point.. He has been arrested at least 400 times

Obviously, the police did NOT take 400 cars away from this man. Probably not even one car, just his license. It would have solved the problem years ago.

-F.

Re:Simple suggestion: TAKE THEIR CARS

[Anonymous Coward]

Argh, fucked up the link. It should be http://geocities.com/francis_uy/politics_old.html# dwi

-F.

Re:Simple suggestion: TAKE THEIR CARS

[/dev/trash]

You mean like how, criminals aren't allowed to own or posses a gun, but yet somehow, they always seem to have one?

Re:Simple suggestion: TAKE THEIR CARS

[knghtrider]

No, to my knowledge, they didn't take even 1 car--Indiana doesn't have confiscation laws for alcohol related offenses. However, the point is that stricter laws don't discourage everyone. They took his license, but he still drove--he drove his car, a car he just bought from a friend; or even one he borrowed. The point is that he DROVE..whether licensed or not. Stricter laws do not stop people; they will just find means of circumventing the law.

However, you need to read my sig--it sums up my attitude.

Re:Simple suggestion: TAKE THEIR CARS

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm... are you claiming that people will decide to become car thieves just so they can drive drunk???

Re:Simple suggestion: TAKE THEIR CARS

[Fulcrum of Evil]

You mean like how, criminals aren't allowed to own or posses a gun, but yet somehow, they always seem to have one?

I would imagine that concealing an illegal car is a bit harder than, say, a pistol.

Re:Simple suggestion: TAKE THEIR CARS

[frankie]

stricter laws don't discourage everyone

I still say it would have discouraged that guy if he lost a car every time he got caught. 400 arrests!!!

Re:Simple suggestion: TAKE THEIR CARS

[enrayged]

They already do this in Albuquerque, NM 3 DUI's and they will take the car you are in, regardless of who it belongs to... (I wonder if they would take a rental car that way)

Drunk driving without the damn license?

[Anonymous Coward]

After reading some comments about how not having a license don't stop drunk people from driving, here's an idea (was even in a damn movie, "The 5th Element" - I don't know why they still haven't done that in real life yet).

There is no car keys anymore - your license is the key to enter/drive your car. If you get your license revoked, you can't drive your car (but can still lock/unlock/enter it - it's still your car after all). And your car can only recognize a few licenses, which must be registered as well - so you can't borrow someone else's license to drive your car (and they won't want to lend it to you since they need it to drive their car).

I know some people will say this isn't bullet-proof, but it's still far better than the current key/paper license solution we have right now.

As for the "big-brother" implications of such a system, I don't really have a problem with that if nothing else is patched to the solution (which I won't mention here since I fear the morons-in-charge might add them in the process).

Re: Authorized access vs presumed guilt

[Steve B]

Duh. The difference is that your employer owns/rents the building where you work, and therefore has a right to set conditions for setting foot there.

(No, the "public roads" argument doesn't apply, unless the device has an override switch that allows you to ignore it when driving on private property.)

In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

This device become absolutely useless if the driver smoke crack or sniffed coke. The vast majority of car accidents occur because of other drugs too, not just alcohol.

Ha-Ha!

[cavemanf16]

A close friend of mine spent a year in New Mexico at NMMI. He more or less hated it.

It doesn't surprise me that such a "well though out" plan to curb drunk driving like this one was suggested in New Mexico. My friend always complained about all of the freaks who were WAAAYYY too into Area51, all the people that believed in Aliens, the fact that there actually was an "alien museum," etc. If I were you, take my friend's advice and stay AWAY from New Mexico! LOL!

30 seconds?

[Grave]

Excuse me, but if you install such a device in any car that I buy, I will remove it. I don't care if there's a $1000 fine for removing it, because this is by far the most assanine proposal for dealing with drunk drivers I've ever heard of. You want us to do re-tests while driving? Then repeal all laws regarding cell phone usage while driving, because that's probably just as bad. I will not, under any circumstances, wait an extra 30 seconds to start my car. What if it stalls in the middle of an intersection? Then what am I supposed to do? If you want to make it mandatory for DUI offenders, fine, but I don't think it's going to help. But if you expect law-abiding citizens to have to deal with this hassle, you can kiss my ass.

Wow, even states can be unpatriotic.

[Gr8Apes]

This proposed law is so idiotic, I don't even know where to start. (Then again, it being idiotic doesn't appear to dim its chances of passing, logic was never a mainstay of politics). It seems to me that such laws that are a sweeping brush to deal with the issues raised by a few by penalizing everyone are unjust. Hopefully New Mexico will get a dose of that "uncommon" sense and soundly vote this down.

Quick fixes are almost never that, and this one appears to not be quick, easy, or inexpensive.

.... NIMBY

[iamcadaver]

Not a chance in the northeast. Or the north at all.

A day like yesterday, you _will_ die if you can't keep the car running in -9 degree weather "until you sober up".

Guaranteed to happen to someone, somewhere.

My aunt was killed by a drunk driver there

[holy_smoke]

I have relatives in NM, and coincidentally my aunt was killed by a drunk driver there. This drunk driver (female in this case) was a repeat offender. Folks in NM tend to do what they want regardless of the law (wild west aspect), which partly explains their DUI problem. Passing laws like this isn't going to address that _basic_cultural_issue_ in an effective manner. Those who have spent time in NM among the locals understand what I am saying.

A couple of obvious problems with the bill: What consumer would buy a car that had that feature? And if they did buy it, how long before they took it off the car? Would car companies be liable if the breathalizer read green but you got pulled over and arrested anyway? What if during a random "check" on the highway @ 65 MPH your car decides you failed and shuts down the engine? Its just too absurd to think about in a serious fashion.

Excessive Drinking is the problem, so they should focus on fixing that - not the symptom of driving while intoxicated. The current DUI laws need to be tougher and enforced with more vigor.

Car Gestures

[kaycee]

Okay, so to start your car you have to have a breath test. Next to stop speeding there will be some kind of gadget to lower the ceiling on your top speed. Next, we'll have some pattern recognition systems to force you to pull over and take a timeout everytime you flip the bird to the moron behind you. You may as well take away the steering wheel and pedals and just have the car drive itself to whereever your going. This is not a solution. Making the penalites extremly harsh is a start. My attitude is that if you drink and drive, you should become a pedestrian for life. Period. If you were to put some sort of controls onto a vehicle in an attempt to prevent someone from doing something. Wouldn't you maybe make it more generic? For example, make Driver's Licenses smart cards. A car won't start up until you insert your license. When you get tickets or charged with an offence, your card is updated to prevent you from starting up a car for a period of time or to impose some other limit. Yes, it can all be hacked and gotten around with various methods. But most things can when you put your mind to it.

A prime example of ...

[galego]

Engineering Design done by a legislature:

These rolling retests require the driver to take the test as the car is moving. If the driver fails a retest, the horn sounds and the lights flash until the car is turned off.

I mean ... I'm all for reducing drunk-driving, but they obviously haven't considered the full impact of this. Just a few human factors/reality issues:

• Carmakers sued because someone couldn't get someone else/self to help in time due to an emergency situation and the person died ... since the driver had to do a breathe test. I'm not saying it's likely ... but hey, Coffee cups now have warning labels about hot contents don't they?
• Teenagers: "Let's all go caravan in our cars (or parents' cars) and nobody do their rolling retest" ... and purposely drive around annoying everyone (but I'm sure some law will cover that too, right?)
• Breath tester thingamajig malfunctions and shuts car won't start/starts tooting and winking at random internvals
• General American Populus becomes more grumpy in the AM because they are delayed 30 more seconds by breathe test.

And then the funny/unrealistic (but still possible ones)

• System mistakes unbrushed teeth/bad breath for drunkenness and sends driver home for hygiene maintenance
• Police cars winking and honking while driving down the street.
• Police (or Keystone cop) car won't start for 30 seconds while criminal speeds away (who has bypassed his system anyway). They shouldn't be 'above the system, no?
• Beneficial one here ... system becomes new alternative to 'jump-starting your car'
• New Bumper Stickers: "Stop Breathing, Start Driving"

Who This is Good For: El Paso Car Dealers

[Nova Express]

Since no one is going to buy a car with this screwey Big Brotherlizer built in if they don't have to, I forsee a gold-rush of New Mexicans streaming over into to Texas to buy new cars (perfectly legal).

As a Texas resident, I would just like to thank the legislators of New Mexico for generously reducing the burden of the Texas taxpayer while increasing their own. Thanks guys!

yay for arizona and texas

[PHlLlPY]

well this would destroy the car sale business in new mexico as the very idea of this is too big of a hassle for most people to even think about. and so if you live in new mexico just head on over to neighboring arizona or texas (I might set up a car lot on the border just to make it convenient for you)... would asthmatics get an exemption? or how about old people on oxygen tanks? if it says in the article I am sorry but this is /.

My favourite is "stalled in an intersection".

[Moderation abuser]

Yeah baybee, SUV bearing down on you, lets see how fast you can get the tube, and don't forget to hum that little tune they taught you.

In related news...

[hackhound]

car sales in Texas, Arizona, and Colorado are on the increase...

Never happen...

[nsxdavid]

I think it is safe to predict that this law will not stand the test of time. The year 2008 will roll around and there will be no such devices on cars in New Mexico. Expect it to be repealed in swift order.

Bottom line, people will just go out of state to buy a car. The hit to the local economy would be too great and that, my friend, is that.

Rolling Retests? Great Idea!

[fuzzybunny]

Me: Vroom! Vroom! Yee-haa, 250km/h! *pop open a cold one to celebrate* *glug glug glug*
Car: Sir, time for a rolling re-test!
(cue: honker breathalyzer tube falling from the ceiling)
*whap!* Smack in the face!
Me: Eek!
Car: Screeech! WHAM! *flip* *roll* *bounce bounce bounce* *BOOM!* (Car explodes in kindergarten playground off shoulder of autobahn, splattering passer-bys with bits of 3-year-olds)
Me: Ooogh. Pain.
Onlooker: Well, at least he's not a traffic hazard anymore.

Sign me up...

Border states car dealer bonanza

[PerlDon]

Seems like car dealers in border states would reap the benefits. Not to rant, but this seems to by a typical solution to social problems by liberal politicians. Penalize everyone and assume the individual always acts in his or her own worst interest. Forget individual responsibility. The state knows best and needs to regulate you REGARDLESS of your behavior, since you can never bee too sure.

Used cars too?

[__aafutm5472]

Interesting...so by 2009, all used cars will have to have this device installed.

I guess that'll kill the resale value of many classics. I wouldn't expect many shops in New Mexico that specialize in restoration to be very happy about this. I mean, do they seriously think that they're going to get somebody to put this device on their Model T? Gullwing Mercedes?

Tell you one thing, if this law comes to my state, I'll either move, or circumvent it. No way are my MGs having these things on them...

false positives

[Anonymous Coward]

Will the honorable Representative Martinez come and pick me up at 2:30 in the morning when I have to take my sick 3 y.o. kid to the ER and the *&^% interlock goes false positive because I sloshed some mouthwash to wake up. Or will the state be paying the funeral expenses if something goes really bad?

This could be bad.

[SeaDour]

Imagine you and your buddies are hanging around drinking some beers and watching the game on TV, when all of a sudden your friend starts having a massive heart attack. For one reason or another, the ambulence can't make it to your house (this has happened before!) and you realize you need to drive him to the hospital ASAP. Unfortunately, even though you are barely over the legal limit and your friend is about to die, you cannot start your car. This is only one situation I can think of off the top of my head where a breathalizer in your car would totally fail to serve its purpose. I also don't like the idea of having to wait an extra thirty seconds just to start my car, and I really don't understand how they could breathalize you WHILE YOU'RE DRIVING -- wouldn't that be a cell phone-like distraction?! Unless there was some sort of "hands-free" way to do it (a robotic arm? A tube down your throat?), I don't see how it's even plausible. I hope this bill gets stopped, for New Mexico's sake.

Re:This could be bad.

[/dev/trash]

And when it went to court the first thing that the defendants ( The State) would pull out is a medical report saying that the alcohol contributed to his heart attack and it was not their fault.

A way to fool it?

[Mostly Monkey]

Wouldn't someone be able to fool it by blowing up a couple of balloons before drinking? It would be pretty easy to control the airflow as they deflate to realistically simulate blowing into the sensor. I kinda doubt that they will have a thermo sensing built in.

I got an idea...

[member57]

Why not install cameras, microphones, blood test machines, IQ test equipment, anger management help software, oh ya, shove a leash up my ass while you at it. I mean come on, all this equipment would only add a couple of 10,000 to each vehicle, I mean gosh, aren't we all rich crooked politicians....

As if we needed one more...

[Frobozz0]

As if we needed one more reason to NOT move to New Mexico-- this is the icing on the cake.

Why fix the problem when you can cover it up...?

[winstarman]

I dunno, but this sounds to me like a very short term solution to a long term problem.

Considering I never drink I feel it would be a big inconvenience.

And why make new laws when we don't sufficiently enforce the ones we have? I'm now necessarily saying it's a bad idea, but it does seem that this legislation could be serious overkill.

R-

Economics, distractions and government..

[dustinbarbour]

When laws are passed, the *only* people who pay for them are the consumers. That's it. Nobody else. So New Mexico ersidents will be getting the shaft.

One thing that pisses me off is the passing of laws because they look good on paper. Yes.. we all want to work on eliminating DUIs and the accidents/deaths attributable to them. But this new law is a bit extreme. How are you going to enforce it?! What if I happen to know a little bit about electrical engineering and rewire my car to disable the breathalizer? Are cops going to pull me over and check it? I doubt so. Police officers cannot even keep up with the number of speeders, let alone those who disable their breathalizers.

And what's the idea with these "rolling retests?" Sounds to me like they'll be distracting the driver for *more* than can be afforded. Hell, people get into accidents because they looked down at their radio for 3 seconds. What is 30 seconds going to cause?

Here's a freakin' novel idea.. Let people know the risks of driving. If they accept thsoe risks and get into their vehicle and drive, then it's their problem. Government CANNOT solve al problems. So back the f*&% off!

Re:Economics, distractions and government..

[Pansurfer]

I agree that, while well-intentioned, the government cannot solve all our problems. I have had one of these "kazoos" installed in my car, and it is a pain in the ass. It did, however, keep me from driving with even a small amount of alcohol (0.030%) in my bloodstream. The real problem is the approach. Instead of the "lock-'em-up" enforcement (which doesn't work on drugs, ether) stand, take the $$$$ we're throwing away and direct it towards treating the 10 - 15% of the drivers who need treatment for their disease - they're the ones who are the repeat offenders responsible for most of the DWI's anyway. Then we're all safer, and the disease is dealt with constructively. But, then again, that may be too mature for an obviously juvenile society.

Right, this greatly reduces danger...

[rmsousa]

Now I am driving on a reasonable speed (say, 100km/h), and my car fires the "must rebreath" alarm. So, (1) my car starts blinking and shouting like a cheap toy until I find some sideways to stop, or (2) I forget about the road, and run over some 10 children while blowjobbing that interlock stuff for 30 seconds.

Really increased the security of your roads. Thanks guys!

30 seconds!

[ImWithBrilliant]

30 seconds before anyone (DUI's & tee-totalers) can drive off? That'll be the day. Maybe just for repeat offenders, and it'll be illegal for them to operate a non-configured vehicle.

Ridiculous

[jeffkjo1]

This is absolutely ridiculous.

I worked at a Quick-Lube type place this past summer and we had a gentlemen come in one afternoon who told us he had to start his car because it had an ignition interlock.
I didn't think anything of it (thinking it was some sort of secret code type thing) until I realized he had a breathalyzer machine mounted to the floor of the vehicle.
Being that it wasn't a busy day, and we were all curious, we asked the guy about it as his vehicle was being serviced.
Apparently he had been convicted for drunk driving and the only way for him to get his liscence back (It's a mandatory 1 year suspension where I live), was to pay to have this device installed in his vehicle.

The price?
$3000.00
That's right, 3 grand. And New Mexico thinks it's going to get people to install this in every vehicle? I've owned cars that doubled in value when I got new tires.

Relative driving dangers

[Hoi Polloi]

"New Mexico is especially vulnerable to this because of its long straight highways"

The state would save more lives doing something about people falling asleep at the wheel. I believe that is either the number 1 or 2 cause of fatal accidents in the US. Long straight highways are the sleeping pills of the nation.

Maybe instead of drunk driving gizmos they could loosen the laws on pulling over onto the shoulder and taking a nap when you need to.

In other news...

[skia]

Air pollution in New Mexico has dropped 80% as motorists, waiting for their cars to start, decide to walk instead.

"Ah, fuck it!" said one driver, when asked for comment.

How many drunk drivers would there be...

[chrisatslashdot]

...if every state required forfeiture of the vehicle on the first DUI offense? 25 states have some sort of confiscation law now.

...if drunk drivers had to purchase a special DUI offender's license plate? Are drunk drivers any less of a public safety threat than sex offenders? Sex offender info is very public information, why not DUI offenders?

Re:How many drunk drivers would there be...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's worth mentioning that MADD has become so mind-bogglingly anti-drinking-of-even-the-responsible-kind that their *founder* left them to become a lobbyist for the liquor industry. If that's not a sign to take their info with a grain of salt (preferably on the rim of a tequila shot) then I don't know what is.

Re:How many drunk drivers would there be...

[rk]

Personally, I think that the registered .* offenders lists, and DUI plates are a bad idea. If this person is still a danger to the community, that what the hell are they doing still free? Lock them up, or let them be.

Re:How many drunk drivers would there be...

[chrisatslashdot]

It turns out that at one state actually has these DUI license plates...Ohio.

Re:How many drunk drivers would there be...

[El]

Forfeiture I agree with. Special plates/bumper stickers won't work. Are they going to put a Scarlet Letter on every vehicle owned by the family, thus penalizing all the other family members? Or can the drunk get around this just by driving their spouse's vehicle? Sounds like a pretty fuzzy-headed idea to me...

Re:How many drunk drivers would there be...

[chrisatslashdot]

Actually this is already being done in Ohio. See my earlier post in this thread.

My car is my jury?

[Talthybius]

I would prefer my car to assume I am innocent until it proves me guilty.

Just another example

[e2d2]

of how willing law makers are to infringe on your civil rights. First they create an infrastructure where if you don't drive you are basically crippled and then they tell you it's a priveledge.

I will protest by driving a small obnoxious electric powered 45 mph top speed car with lots of D&D stickers on the back.

flawed

[Anonymous Coward]

this helps because most if not all drunkards drive brand new cars as opposed to dingy brown old buicks...NOT!!!

Two words

[niall2]

Valet Parking. It will be the big "growth industry" in New Mexico.

Let them pass the law

[Omega1045]

I am sure it will just get struck down by the courts anyway as an invasion of privacy. When it does, there will be precedent to strike down any similar laws in States that follow the idiotic lead of NM.

Just Wait...

[CapLinux]

Wait until the first person is injured/killed because they couldn't start their car fast enough.

Re:Just Wait...

[jjohnson]

Or because they're drunk and fumbling with the tube at 70 miles an hour on the interstate.

Industry for anti Interlock devices

[scarolan]

No doubt this will create a whole new industry for a device that blows out 1-2 liters of body-temperature air that is balanced to appear exactly like it was exhaled from human lungs.

Either that or some kind of 'mod chip' that you can turn on to get instant ignition, and turn off when you need to go get your car inspected, or if a cop pulls you over.

This thing will never fly, there's just too many complications.

Driving is a priviledge, not a right

[NiteHaqr]

I think that this system sucks big time - tho I suppose that in actuality it blows :)

My thoughts are ditch this and put in harsher penalties.

1) Confiscate the vehicle

2) Ban them from driving ever again

3) Very harsh penalties if ever caught behind the wheel of a moving vehicle again

With the number of people who need a car to go shopping or to work it would make the cost of DUI too high.

As for those now stuck in the middle of nowhere without transport - tough luck

Just to play devils advocate

[twfry]

Not that I agree with this, but this winter in Vermont I was hit in a major head on collision by a drunk driver. I never thought it'd happend to me, but she was flying down hill around a turn and while it was both snowing and below zero (so the salt doesn't work well at that point).

The car was at maximum crumple zone and I was very lucky to come out of it OK. But you have to realize that there are completely irresponsible people out there who can/will attack you without any concern for their actions. (btw this chick also never even appoligized for almost killing me)

This law is probably being pushed by those who have been seriously injured or had family members killed by drunk drives and in a way I agree with them because our drunk driving rules are way too lax.

Here's why...

[WIAKywbfatw]

Because it's about prevention. I'm sure the number of DUI and DWI incidents that involve first-time offenders is higher than the number that involve repeat offenders. And I'm sure that previous DUI and DWI offenders don't always drive in the same vehicle: what about the times when someone steps into a car belonging to a friend or family member? Or when they buy another car, new or used?

Above and beyond stopping people who are clearly intoxicated above legally acceptable limits, such a measure would act as a mental deterrent to drink driving in general. If people were used to a quick sobriety test before they pulled away then public awareness of issues such as DUI and DWI would increase and people would be less likely to down a couple of beers and get into the car hoping that they would be safe according to the meter, or as they do now, down a couple of beers and get into the car hoping that they don't get pulled over. Even on drink can have a serious affect on your reaction times and make the difference between life and death: too many motorists forget that.

Remember, DUIs and DWIs cost everyone money. If you're not worried about the lives they wreck when they hurt or kill someone then worry about the cost of cleaning up their mess, the police, other emergency service and court time taken up by them, the higher insurance premiums you have to pay to cover their asses, etc.

This will kill people

[Julian Morrison]

...when their engine craps out on the freeway, or their car starts honking and flashing lights, startling all the other drivers. When they can't get the car started in an emergency. When it strands people in inclement weather, or in the middle of the desert. When a bug in the code sets it off without warning, or locks up and refuses to recognise a good test.

Maybe when those damn idiot legislators see the death toll, they'll learn that it takes a human to make a judgement call.

Some New Mexico Background

[esm]

I live in New Mexico (Los Alamos). The ignition interlock bill is indeed moronic; it's a poorly conceived feel-good shock tactic by ignoramus politicians.

But NM does really have a high incidence of DWI. Partly because distances are enormous and there are no alternatives to driving: no bus service, no taxis, pretty much no public transportation of any kind. Partly because population density is fairly low: this results in a low probability of any given drunk-driving session resulting in a crash, so stupid people think "hey, I've driven drunk before and had no problems, I'll just keep doing it". A large part of the problem is that penalties are nearly nonexistent. A mild slap on the wrist.

The current legislature has just passed a measure increasing penalties: you might get 2-3 years for your seventh conviction. Whoa, that will sure get the drunks off the road! Oh, incidentally, the rules aren't always too well enforced.

False positives

[Hoi Polloi]

Just think how people are going to react when the inevitable device false positives results in the local police chief or some grandmother stuck in a car that is screaming that they are drunk.

"But I'm not drunk!"
"Then why are the lights flashing and the horn blasting, boozehound?"

Unconstitutional

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't even play an attorney on TV, but...

Requiring someone to prove their innocence before authorization presumes guilt, which makes all such kinds of interlocks unconstitutional. Interlocks could be OK if they were warranted on an individual basis, but when it's indiscriminate, it's strictly out-of-bounds.

In contrast, the original seat belt interlocks of the 1970s existed before any seat belt laws, and so did not have to jump the same constitutional hurdle. Today, they'd probably be illegal too. (Ever wonder why seat belt interlocks didn't return when the seat belt laws were enacted in recent years? Probably they were already known to be a no-go.)

However, other forms of authentication or authorization, like the presence of car keys, are deemed OK since, with a key, you have the freedom to leave the key in the ignition and leave the car unlocked. Not so with breathalyzers. They render the car inoperable to its owner.

Finally, the state's requirement that you must have a driver's license in order to drive does not presume guilt either, but simply authorizes you to drive on public roads, again, freeing licensure from constitutional strictures. The same tack cannot apply to cars, since you must have the right to start your engine, even if you cannot drive the car. To claim otherwise would invite wholesale reconsideration of even the very ownership of a car as authorized or not, like a deadly weapon, e.g. an assault rifle.

In the end, I don't think the New Mexico supreme court is ready to equate cars with assault rifles.

Vintage/Antique/Muscle Cars

[TheTomcat]

My uncle is a classic Mopar guy. So is my father.

With a '68 Road Runner, a '69 Dart, and a '72 Challenger in the collection, I'm sure they're happy they don't live in New Mexico.

There's no WAY they'd bastardize the hours and hours of meticulous restoration that they've put into these cars, with a big ugly breathing tube.

S

And in other news...

[Frobozz0]

And in other news, say hello to the new "anti-ignition-interlock" industry, or "AII" in new Mexico.

education and tougher laws

[martin]

have worked well on the population of the UK.

Very graphic adverts showing the results of drink driving have had a large impact.

Of course there is still the hard core of abusers who still instist on DD, but they 'tend' to be above 40 where they didn't have this hammered in from a early age.

It's become socially unacceptable to DD over here, although of course people still do..

Tough laws along with this have helped as well.

Using technology for the sake of it will only make a black market in getting around the device.

Increased policing on the issue had gone someway as the 'named driver' getting cheap/free soft drinks in some areas around various hi-days and holidays.

I think making it socially unacceptable is the key, this takes time and education, and of course the tax payer has to pay for this education.

Re:education and tougher laws

[Inda]

It helped for a while but I think you should take a step back and look at the figures again.

There has been a rise since around the year 2000.

There are no good site refernces that I could find quickly. The BBC, and the various government sites comfirm this but 2003 is missing from them all.

Re:education and tougher laws

[The Queen]

Very graphic adverts showing the results of drink driving have had a large impact.

This would never work in the U.S. since we thrive on violent imagery. We'd rather our kids see blood and gore than t&a.

Re:education and tougher laws

[ross.w]

Random breath testing was the answer here in Australia, we still have a problem with ppl driving dui, but nowhere near as much.

There is always the risk of an RBT waiting around the next corner.

I have been tested about three times in twenty years, and it never takes more than a few seconds. Much better than some stupid device that you have to get past every time you drive your car, but then I guess that's another thing that having an 18th century Constitution forces on you.

Re:education and tougher laws

[UpLateDrinkingCoffee]

the U.K. also has an exceptional public transportation system compared to the U.S. In addition, the pubs all seemed to close down at 11pm. I think this would help considerably in the U.S. We still have drive through beer stores and the bars close at 2:30am in my state.

I don't think many people go out with the plan to drink and drive illegally... and it's definitely not socially acceptable. It's just that after you've had a few is the wrong time to determine whether you are ok to drive.

you can forget brushing your teeth in the morning!

[nxs212]

Listerine is 80 proof. I guess you'll have to wait for your breath to "wear out" before you can go to work.

Re: Authorized access vs presumed guilt

[Enfors]

True, but the principle is still the same - you have to prove that you are innocent (authorized), something which we generally dislike. And like I said, it does save lives, so I'll live with it. We make compromises for safety reasons all the time, and this is a compromise that I'm willing to make, especially since it could save my own daughter from being killed by a drunk driver. Like somebody else mentioned, 50% of all car accidents resulting in death in Sweden are alcohol-related. Meaning, these deaths could possibly be close to reduced by half with these devices. In my book, that makes it worth it.

Better living through chemistry

[Jahf]

Is it really so hard to defeat something like this? Sure, there aren't any products that do it now because it is such a niche market (not alot of breathalizers installed today), but once it is in every vehicle that will change.

Other drug users can scam most drug tests if they are done in privacy by swapping out samples. All you would probably need to defeat this would be a compressed can of "breath" (compressed without any additional chemicals, perhaps from a pump), either sampled from you before or if the machines aren't very discerning (and face it, they would have to be cheap to be installed in all -used- vehicles) not even from a person.

The only way this thing would work against people who -want- to defeat it would be to have a cop be present at each startup. Otherwise the very people who need to be monitored in such a fashion will be the ones who find ways around it.

And random rolling re-testing? Seriously, can you say hassle? Besides, if a friend is going to be willing to start the car because you're too drunk, maybe they deserve to ride with you (as long as your impact is with a tree).

I'm not pro drunk driving, but this thing is a bit invasive, no? What's next, having the computer in our car analyze our driving and if it detects drunken patterns like weaving it will announces such to the police (or better, just turn off your car while you're going :)?

A better, but still stupid solution

[acidrain69]

Have special cards that are necessary to start cars. If you go to a bar, they have to swipe the card. The car will check your card if you try to start it, and then require these silly tests. This way only people who purchased drinks are tested. Everyone else's card is steal clean until they purchase a drink. And it can be time stamped, so if you buy a drink and drive 6 hours later, you don't get denied.

The drawback is now you need bars to have special equipment. And now you run into the problem of people swapping cards, or requiring further biometrics to stop THAT problem. It just seems ike WAY too much work for a problem that isn't that prevalent, except maybe in New Mexico :)

A better solution is to just put more piggies on the road that can pull over people near bars. Money stays in the community, you aren't buying some crappy technology that infringes on 99% of the population.

The "REAL" problem is....

[Anonymous Coward]

You see...we elect all of these people to the Legislature, from the local level up to the Federal level...and they think they need to write some laws...that's what the Legislature does. The problem is that we have been doing it this way for a long time now and all the good laws are already written...so the only posibility left is to dream up bad laws and get them passed.

I propose a two prong fix for this problem. The first step is to make a Law :) saying that a pre-requsite for running for the Legislature is that you CANNOT have a Law Degree. The second step is to require that each time a new law is passed in the legislature, it must include the REMOVAL of two existing laws from the books.

Ok... Hypothetical situation here...

[Caeda]

3 Situations actually... 1.. You take off too fast and kill the car as your pulling through an intersection... Can you restart the car and take off? Nope... gotta wait 30 seconds by which time the light has changed 1 or 2 times and everyone is staring at you, in the middle of the intersection... all because of a stupid device... 2 Your car stalls on railroad tracks... a train is coming. Thanks to this device, you cant start your car no matter what you try because theirs a 30 second start up time... 3 Your a single woman... man.. teenager... whatever, in the year 2009... Your in the parking lot, heading for your vehicle, and you notice someone is following you... You run to your car, they run after... you jump in, turn the key and... nothing... Why nothing? Because even though you have never once driven drunk, and you werent even anywhere near a place you could drink, you have to wait 30 seconds longer to start the car because someone put a stupid device into it... and so, the person who was chasing you catches up, axe murders or rapes you or otherwise, and all because they decided to fuck up a perfectly good ignition system... Sounds nice doesnt it?

This will make the roads safer

[PalmerEldritch42]

For all of those who feel that driving a car under the influence of a cell phone is dangerous (and I include myself in that group), this is among the most foolish laws enacted in recent history. The driver of a given car should have his/her attention focused on the road. That is all. Not on the phone, or on the pizza they are trying to eat with one hand, not the beer in the other hand, not the wireless PDA that is streaming the latest slashdot rant (or Goatse pic if that is their preference...), and certainly not on the plastic tube that they have to blow into while they are speeding down the freeway. All this law is going to do is cause more people to find exciting ways around the device. Perhaps a law that makes the roads safer would be a better place to start than by just punishing everyone else on the road who has to deal with sober people having another reason to swerve around the lane while attempting to orally manipulate this device.

More money for the state

[ehiris]

If the driver fails a retest, the horn sounds and the lights flash until the car is turned off.

Sounds more like a way of increasing the state budget then making the streets safe. In Arizona, it is illegal to drive impaired. You get ticketed for both being impaired and being over .08 if you fail the Breathalyzer test.
There are studies that show the emotions you are affected with if you talk on a cell phones while driving are the same as being at a .08 BAC.
While I do agree that impaired driving is a problem, it's what the impaired driver does that causes accidents. Driving 30 miles over the speed limit, swerving really fast, going through red lights, and not having your lights on at night are the actions your car should turn itself off on unless you have a history of violations while impaired by alcohol.

Simple Fix

[Anonymous Coward]

Price of the first drink at the bar - Car Keys, license plate number.

ie - when you leave, you take a sobriety test. Pass - get your keys back, fail, take a cab. If your car / vehicle ends up missing (ie spare keys), you get a DUI, period, no exceptions.

If someone else needs the vehicle, they show up, take a sobriety test, get the keys.

Quick, painless, and highly effective.

Big Brother IS Watching You...

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone else worry about this (who am i kidding - this is /. ) becoming a bit too much. how long until you fail the breath test, and have penalty points added onto your licence before you even get home.

it concerns me that we could take people out of the law equation. (note - justice and law are very different...) after all what about extenuating circumstances?

Just to make the point clear, i am not condoning drink-driving - it is stupidly irresponsible - and the punishments should be tougher. but that doesn't mean that people shouldnt be able to explain themselves, and as long as judges can see through the legal crap, i have not problem with this.

Time for common sense to return to the legal system methinks...

Well there is another solution.

[SmallFurryCreature]

Would you have preffered if you had been given the loan at say twice the interest rate? Carsloans are often not paid fully. If they can't reclaim the car then it is people like you who do pay of their loans who pay for it. So either you pay the car for every person who doesn't fullfill their contract or you take this device.

Yes it sucks for you and quite frankly this is the first I heard about such a thing. Then again if this is the sixth car you buy on a loan and it is a used car might I suggest that you set off every alarm bell at every finacial institution? You need the loan (I presume) because you don't have the money. Banks hate this. They want to be sure they get their money back plus interest. They don't like to take a gamble. Not even with a used car.

Oh and this might be rude but since you don't sound young (sixth car and all) can I suggest that you now start saving so you can buy the next car cash or with only a small bank loan instead of financing. Yes saving is hard but it will save you lots of money in the long run. Do the math sometime. You could probably have bought a new car of the paid interest.

Author arrested for TUI.

Re:Well there is another solution.

[ragnar]

You need the loan (I presume) because you don't have the money. Banks hate this.

Many people get loans because they get a better rate of return investing their money than the rate charged by the bank. In fact, banks probably dislike people who don't need loans the most because they aren't customers. The bank is in the business of selling loans and savings packages.

can I suggest that you now start saving so you can buy the next car cash or with only a small bank loan instead of financing

I can't speak for the parent post, but it is condescending for you to offer financial advice to someone you don't know.

Re:Well there is another solution.

[Anonymous Coward]

My arent we the little moral beaver, damn how could anyone have gotten along without you. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and most of them stink.

What about the EMT folks? The military? CivPilots?

[ScottyKUtah]

Ignition interlocks require a breath test, which takes 30 seconds to complete, to start the car as well as random 'rolling retests' to discourage others from taking the test for you.

Is this really going to be forced on all the cars in the US? What about the US military? Will they put these things in the tanks? Why stop there, how about the civilian aircraft pilots?

What happens the first time somebody has to go to the hospital, and they have to wait for 30 seconds for the test to complete, before they can start the car? I'm sure the EMT folks will love it.

But on the flip side, this should cut down on the amount of cars being carjacked and stolen.

Stupid idea

[MyFourthAccount]

First of all, installing this in used cars is stupid, mostly because it is expensive:

I owned a very fast car once. It came with an aftermarket alarm. It had an ignition interlock, the insurance company required it. Guess what failed? I tell you, it's a hell of a lot of fun to have your ignition kick in and out while you are applying 300 horsepower to the rear wheels.

Perhaps tougher penalties and larger fines for people who actually drive drunk would be a better idea

As someone who was convicted for DUI, I can tell you the punishment is not trivial. It's just that most people don't realize what kind of impact the punishment has on your live. (and yes, I am thankful that I got a DUI _before_ I actually hurt someone else, and NO, I don't drink and drive EVER anymore)

You will spend time dealing with it on a daily basis, for probably half a year or more. And that's for a 'simple' DUI, e.g. just being pulled over for a trivial reason and being found under the influence.

If you think that a night in jail, between $1000.- and $6000.- cost in fines and lawyers, 1 month no driving at all, 5 months no driving except to work, forced classes for one night a week for 6 weeks and two nights a week for 6 weeks and 10 weeks or so community service work every Saturday (or alternatively 48 hours or so in jail) is trivial, then a DUI might be just the thing for you. Of course if you actually hurt someone else in the process the punishment is most likely to be a lot worse than what I just described, not to mention that you'd have to live with the guild for the rest of your life.

I think it would probably help to 'educate' drinkers about what the consequences really are.

What also would help is:
- don't give people j-walking tickets when they cross the street to get to a cab (I've seen it happen in Mountain View, CA)
- let taxis pick people up close to bars (Again Mountain View city for a while did not allow this, you had to walk to the train station)
- don't have taxi monopolies where only this or that taxi company is allowed to service a certain area (dare I say, again...) so it takes 3 hours before the freakin taxi arrives because they're busy
- have (m|h)otels with 24 hour check-in around areas with bars etc (this is how I got my DUI, the hotel we intended to stay at, had 'closed' for the night...)
- have fairly regular public transport until at least 2 or 3 am

In other words, make it EASY to NOT take the car. I know this is the responsibility of people who drink, the trouble is that most people that drink and drive just don't think it's a very big deal. They need to realize that they have to work on alternative transportation methods.

Stats Generation

[iCoach]

Over the last 10 - 15 years of my life I have been inundated with enough statistics to choke a goat. Part of the problem is that I am somewhat immune, and I think a lot of people are still over-reacting to statistics.

• Fact: Over 17,400 people are killed each year in alcohol related car accidents. That's one death nearly every 1/2 hour in this country at the hands of a drinking driver.
• Fact: Approximately 275,000 persons are injured or disfigured yearly by alcohol-impaired drivers. One third of these are children.

Boo-fsking-hoo!

Unfortunately the stats A) don't lie, and B) don't tell you what area they are looking at. Is it in a state? The country? North America? My point is that most of these legislative attempts are based on one crying mother and whole crew of people waving sheets of paper with stats just like that above. When you really look at it, it isn't that bad. Particularly in more populace areas. This country has bigger problems than drunk-driving. Like raising your damn kids so that they aren't drunks.

-Coach

Icy sidewalk

[ArseneLupin]

> Low-carb dieters routinely have acetone in their breath.

The guy was drunk, damnit!

(SCNR)

Neighboring states will start selling more cars...

[Samuel Nitzberg]

People will sell or buy their cars from the next states over...

Actually, I see another problem with this, as well. Some older drivers, as well as Asthmathics may be capable of driving perfectly well, but not capable of blowing for a sustained period into the device.

Also, would it be illegal to have a machine (air compressor?) blow into the device's air intake?

- Sam
http://www.iamsam.com

the one advantage

[parawing742]

You won't have to worry about drunk college teenages trying to jack your car after they've spent an evening drinking.

At least get it right, Slashdot...

[Jack Zombie]

For those who say "use a baloon full of air":

Hum Tone: Requires the client to deliver a hum resonance while blowing the alcohol test prior to starting the vehicle. Deters techniques utilized to mimic human breath or to absorb alcohol.

For those complaining about "rolling retests":

Random or Fixed Retest: Programmable. The client is alerted and given a grace period to retest after the vehicle is put into the run state. The test can be delivered while operating the vehicle or after pulling off the road. Breath test refusal or failure is recorded and sanctions are imposed, including honking of the car's horn. Deters drinking after completing a sober start and vehicle idling at bars.

Disabling the damn thing:

Bypass Detect: If a vehicle is started and the breath test is not passed, the horn will begin honking until the vehicle is turned off or a breath test is successfully completed. All events are recorded. Deters hot-wiring and push-starting of vehicles.

Events Log: A built-in memory chip records all events associated with the use or misuse of the device. Reports are generated through a personal computer in a summary and complete hard-copy format.

Power Interrupt: A dated record, in the event 12 volt power has been disconnected or interrupted. The device maintains memory through an onboard back-up lithium battery. This condition (other than tampering) can occur when a vehicle's battery is disconnected due to repairs or is replaced. Clients are required to provide documentation of repairs.

(data from here)

I can't say that I agree -- or disagree -- with this bill, but that's only because I don't know enough details about it, since Slashdot is such an unreliable news source (new here, yes). The technical features of the ignition interlockers can probably bypassed by some smart hackers, sure, but it surprises me -- OK, not really, heh -- that the Slashdot crowd didn't consider that there would be safeguards against the most obvious fallacies of these things.

"Perhaps tougher penalties and larger fines for people who actually drive drunk would be a better idea."

Yeah, the death penalty! Fear of punishment: that sure will prevent drunk people from acting drunk! Yee haa!

Re:At least get it right, Slashdot...

[Steve B]

Requires the client to deliver a hum resonance while blowing the alcohol test prior to starting the vehicle.

Well, that removes the problem of asthmatics being unsure whether or not they'll be able to start their cars. They'll know up front that it's "not".

Taxes and you

[Anonymous Coward]

"enforcement is just about useless (even the cops admit it). The court system is overloaded"

Let me take a guess, NM is a conservative state and as such is dead set against people paying taxes for the common good? Every man for themselves. Well, that is what you get when you don't strike a balance between reasonable taxes and the ability to run a society. Police cost money and courts cost money so instead of paying for cops and courts they pass the burden onto the citizen by raising the cost of vehicle ownership by requiring this device. You'll pay one way or another.

Re:Taxes and you

[the_2nd_coming]

Democratic governor and 2 Democratic senators...hardly makes then republicans....the fact is that it is a very rural state and as such has a problem raising taxes since land is almost worthless and there is not a large enough tax base to make a new tax raise any significant sum of money with out taxing the population into the poor house.

Re:Taxes and you

[tkg]

Pete Domenici is a republican and so is Heather Wilson(House). About 80% of the _state_ legislature is Democrat, however. You are right that the relatively low per-capita income (a fair fraction of these people are already at or below the poverty level) in the rural areas are what keep property taxes comparitively low, although Santa Fe county is getting up there. They could raise taxes (and probably will to pay for Richardson's commuter rail) around Albuquerque since about 60% of the states population lives within 50 miles of the city.

Re:laws - bullshit!

[Anonymous Coward]

You are assuming each and everyone of us are unable to drink alcohol in a moderate way.

No, I think he was assuming that each and every one of us could recognize sarcasm. Obviously he was wrong.

Here's an idea...

[ConceptJunkie]

Let's equip every legislator in the country with an electric collar that delivers a moderate shock every time the legistalor has an idea that doesn't pass the laughability test. In other words, if they so much as propose a law as ludicrous as this, they get 200 volts to the brain stem. If such a law gets passed raise the voltage to 1000. Perhaps we need monitoring equipment to detect the rate of rotation of our Founding Fathers spinning in their graves. Right now I'm expecting to see some of them burrowing through the ground like a Horta. At this rate, in another few years, we will see violent eruptions of 18th century corpses spinning themselves out of the ground and spraying the surrounding area with friction-scorched earth.

The nanny state is alive and well in the U.S. It's only a matter of time before we're reduced to the level of toddlers, stuck in our playpens with woolen mittens tied to our hands for our own safety.

Fortunately, you New Mexicans have a couple years to straighten out this travesty. Voting out everyone who voted for this absurdity is a good start. I'm sick and tired of being jerked around by people on the miniscule chance (really, zero chance from my point of view) that I might be a criminal. Insurance companies do it in spades, the RIAA, MPAA and software industies are perfecting the art and government is the heavyweight champ in hassling the innocent. Fight for your right not to be treated as an idiot.

Re:laws - bullshit!

[mjprobst]

I think you misunderstand the point of that poster. That person _also_ thought that this is stupid, but he realizes that with the legal limit going so incredibly low all it takes is one drink, plus a poorly calibrated breath tester, to screw someone over. You think that they _won't_ have the car phone home and charge you with something just for even _trying_ to drive?

I would trust this lots more if I weren't aware of the calibration problems with low-end breath testers, and I doubt the expensive units will be affordable for this purpose.

I'm so glad no one in DC is this stupid......

[Sergeant Beavis]

Oh wait....

Nevermind.

Dumbest thing I've ever heard

[st0rmshad0w]

Does driving under the influence cause injury and death? Yes.

But what are the 2 most common factors in accidents resulting in injury or death? Excessive speed and failure to keep proper distance from the vehicle in front of you.

So where are the laws requiring speed limiters?

Where is the mandatory sensor that will slow the car if you're tailgating at highway speeds?

More smoke and mirrors attempting to make everyone prove they are't a criminal before they act. This place is getting sickening.

Tabloid Journalism

[Anonymous Coward]

No, not "in EVERY car" but rather every car in New Mexico, a state in the USA.

Attention grabbing headlines belong in the tabloids.

A message to the good people of New Mexico...

[n9hmg]

On behalf of the auto dealers of Colorado - Come on up! Despite the cesspool on the Platte, we're still mostly a Republican state.

Re:A message to the good people of New Mexico...

[doppleganger871]

Hahah... I live in NY... But I'm planning on taking a cross-country trip one of these years, so I'll have to drop by there... I'll be sure to avoid NM, though.

Re:A message to the good people of New Mexico...

[briansz]

After living near the CO/NM border for a time and observing how the state of NM likes to set up unconstitutional road 'checkpoints' (fishing expeditions), I'd say you'd do well to avoid NM highways.

A shame, really, as I know some nice folks there and parts of the state are quite beautiful. The bottom line is that at the end of the day harassment is harassment, no matter where it happens.

move along, show's over

[kin_korn_karn]

this is just some political crackpot trying to make a point in an election year. It'll never pass, it's too invasive. Especially out west, where people value their privacy.

Did they

[beforewisdom]

also propose a device that would stick something in the ear of the driver to test whether or not they were using a cell phone?

I have close calls a weekly basis on the account of people using those things.

Steve

not well thought out

[goatan]

Car dealers are going to hate having to fit out second hand cars with this interlock as they make most of there profit on the second hand car rather than a new one. I wonder how many are going to insist that any cars they buy coming up to the dead line are fitted out.

The interlock is something that has been talked about on and off in the UK don't think any has ever been successful commercially or has even got out of the prototype stage, but then there hasn't been a law requiring them here either.

random 'rolling retests' to discourage others from taking the test for you. These rolling retests require the driver to take the test as the car is moving.

how would that work if it tested the air of the car then you could be sober as the day you where born but the car won't start because of your drunken mate you've picked up (so he wouldn't have to drive) alternatively the driver could blow into a tube which would meen a break in concentration taking eyes of the road as dangerous as drink driving

oh boy.

[DotQuantum]

yeah so now.. late night parties include.. condoms (well you know).. money(for: beer, etc).. and balloons(for: Ignition interlock), who would have thought?

Wrong device

[Anonymous Coward]

all the reps should have them installed in thier own cars for a year or so

No. You're probably thinking of the stop-sign/red-light runner detector for congresspersons.

Of course, if they could adapt this breathalyzer to fit on a congressperson's chair in the assembly and passing the breath test as a prerequisite for voting on bills, maybe it could prevent absurd taxes and foolish restrictions of our liberties!

"Save a life... stop a Senator!"

This is just so wrong

[roman_mir]

I live in Toronto, Canada, and there was this idea that these breath testers should be installed in all cars. There was a radio talk-show about this, so I called in and disagreed. You see I never drunk in my life. Never had any alcohol, no beer, no wine nothing. My car is also a very expensive lease, so I never give it to anyone. So I asked them to tell me why are they going to punish me by installing this device in my car? Install in cars of those who were convicted for DUIs whatever, I don't care, but you cannot presume guilt on everyone.

Besides, those who do drink and drive will simply disconnect the device or use a fake breath blower of some sort or will have filters installed on the tube, how difficult is that?

The only real way to fight DUIs is by strict laws and severe penalties.

Better solution

[Zog The Undeniable]

I'm surprised we don't have cars that drive themselves at least some of the time. We already have cruise control, proximity control, auto-parking and GPS. Besides allowing you to drive while - ahem - "tired and emotional", driving is such a colossal waste of time because you can't do much else while behind the wheel.

They need to get tougher on DUI!

[callipygian-showsyst]

Do you know that if you're convicted of DUI you can be DRIVING AGAIN within weeks (to and from work, only) and get full driving privs back in THREE MONTHS?

Why don't they do something like 6 MONTHS IN JAIL and NEVER DRIVE AGAIN?

*That* would fix the problem. Of course, President W wouldn't be able to drive, but the SS does that for him anyway.

Great idea!

[fafalone]

Now let's require rolling blood samples too to make sure people aren't using the many other substances that impair driving ability!

Or better yet, we could install a device in every car that automatically turns it off if the driver drifts out of their lane or exceeds the speed limit.

And coming soon: AI holographic doctor to perform a complete physical evaluation to determine if you should get behind the wheel every time!

Idiots.

Re:laws - bullshit!

[Neurotoxic666]

could recognize sarcasm

My bad then. My apologies to the parent poster. BUT, lots of people seem to think this way. Just look at the bill that was passed -- was that bill sarcasm too? Maybe I just didn't get that one...

I've got a great idea

[Wedge1212]

Lets just throw due process out the window. While we're at it lets get rid of the bill of rights too. I mean, hell! Who needs those first 10 amendments anyways. They're always up for debate in some form or fashion. Obviously this would never pass

Ugh!

[beforewisdom]

I definately relate to the objections. I don't even drink. Why should I pay extra for a new car for this feature? Why should I forced to take a test everytime I want to drive?

DUI related problems will be reduced when strict laws are made AND enforced.

Europeans drink more then we do, they also have higher speed limits. Guess what? They also have fewer drunk driving accidents. They have strict DUI laws that they enforce.

Steve

New dimension

[ObNoX]

This sure adds a new dimension in horror/action movies.

Picture this:

It's the usual scene where the victim flees from his/her stalker and runs to the car to get away fast. Now they can skip the boring scene where the engine refuses to start with a scene of the victim furiously blowing into the breath analyzer and anxiously waiting for the green light so they can start the car and flee!

from personal experience...

[painehope]

I can tell you that these things suck. Big time.

I had one of these things installed as a condition of probation, about five years ago, and it was horribly inaccurate. I could drink a few beers, and the thing would start most of the time ( even though mine was set to never start if I'd been drinking ). But if I, god forbid, ate some chewing gum, used mouthwash, or smoked a cigarette w/in a half-hour of trying to start the fucking thing, it would fail me as having drank alcohol. Even rinsing your mouth w/ clean bottled water, as the assholes who put this thing in my truck suggested, would not generally be good enough to cover up a cigarette or anything else. The people who had installed it were generally either uncontactible, or unwilling to even look at it, and once threatened to report me to my probation officer for questioning them ( okay, and swearing at them, but it's not against the law to cuss ). The nastiest part of it all is that there is no burden of proof for them. If their little black box says you were drinking, the courts take it as concrete evidence, despite the fact that the unit is faulty/improperly tuned, and you are the one who goes to jail.

After one particularly nasty episode where it failed me five times in a row, when I hadn't touched a drop of alcohol in a week, had gone through an entire large bottle of water rinsing my mouth, and the fucking thing left me stranded at a store, I just flipped out and ripped the head unit out. Which caused an electrical fire. Which did 1000 USD worth of damage to my truck's electrical system. And burnt my hand.

As a final humorous side note, the company later contacted me w/ a large bill for services rendered ( monthly fees ), and cost of unit replacement ( since I hadn't been able to get ahold of anyone at the shop where I had it installed, I had just junked it in a closet somewhere ). I called them back and offered to sue them for my truck's repair bill ( even though it was technically my fault - hey, what they don't know won't hurt them, and I had no reason to care whether I was screwing these assholes over ) if they kept sending me bills, and then shipped their broken, half-burnt unit back to them. Good fucking riddance.

I suppose the only good thing about the consumer units will be that the things won't report them to anyone. I wonder how long it will be before they do, however.

But, regardless of whether breathalyzer's work or not, I am of the opinion that I should have the right to make my own decisions in this matter. There is a law that says I should be driving if my BAC is above some level ( 0.08 right now - bah! ), and if I choose to disobey that law and get caught, that's my business. I suppose it's part of the current cult of irresponsability that we are in. After all, it's only freedom if you're going to obey the law, right? Pretty fucking disgusting, huh? It's something of a slippery slope once you start taking away people's freedom to make a decision between a right and a wrong choice.

Simple Workaround

[Anonymous Coward]

If you wanna drive drunk, get your buddy to blow in the tube. What's so hard about that!?

So this thing is useless. Hell, it might promote homosexuality; You and your friends are drinking one time, chilling. It's time to go home. You're plastered. You go, "Hey dude, gimmie a blow. I gotta go home." The friend says, "Sure," and, well, hopefully he gives your car a blow, not you.

Follow the money

[lightspawn]

Who's making money off this kind of device? What are their ties to the NM house of representatives?

On the plus side, this would make car chase scenes in movies set in NM that much more fun. Imagine, the bad guys try to escape the scene in their motorcycles. The hero leaps into his ferrari, and...

Non-drinkers, non-maniacs, &c.

[Anonymous Coward]

You could kill someone with your car, so why should you be allowed to drive?

Well, you're not allowed, at first. You have to be licensed to drive for precisely that reason.

I don't see how this is such a problem. In most places, you have to buy accident insurance (why? because you could be a risk to others and have no money to pay damages). In Europe, you're often obligated by law to carry a spare tire.

So, in New Mexico, you're obligated to prove you're not drunk before you can drive. Sounds about as fair as having to prove you're not a shit driver who's liable to kill someone before being issued a license.

If you lived here...

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in New Mexico and am happy to report the bill has been shot down and stands no chance of becoming law... this time. We have a huge problem with idiots driving drunk here and one might argue the number of alcohol related accidents cost the taxpayers plenty, so it's not the issue of additional costs involved with ignition locks being installed in all vehicles that bothers me, it's the inconvenience imposed on those of us who are law abiding citizens. If there was a system that could be implemented that would not require user participation (short of getting in the car and starting it as usual) to determine whether or not the driver is sober I would support it 100% even if it added $5,000 to the price of a vehicle. And to make it clear, when I mention our drunk driving problem I am not referring to Joe Schmoe who had a couple of drinks and is legally over the limit because I feel that by routinely lowering the blood alchohol level permitted by law we aren't doing anything to stop the real problem which is the habitual 12 pack a day people who continue to drive and end up taking innocent lives.

Car sales for NM's neighbors will sky rocket! :)

[xheliox]

This is absurd. All it will do is hurt New Mexico's economy. If I was a resident there, I would travel to Arizona or otherwise to get a new car. Rarely do I drink and I certainly don't drink and drive, but this really offends me.

I'd be for this...

[iamthedarkangel]

I'd be all for this if they subsidized the cost of the part through a tax breaks AND through insurance breaks. I pay more for insurance to offset the costs of people who drink and drive when I don't drink at all.

I have too many stupid friends who drive drunk and this would end the risk to their lives and to the other innocent people they knowingly endanger. (Yes, they are too stupid to ask me to be their designated driver too since I don't drink).

too much distraction

[kyoko21]

Talking on a cell phone, eating, changing the radio station, and now a random breath test while the car is moving. Let see, I have 2 hands, and 2 knees. Though I am not sure if I can do all that now.

I install these things.. This is a stupid idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is honestly a stupid idea. I know the "bill" for the unit here in PA from a company called "CST" runs something like $700 to "rent". The units are so easy to bypass, which means without a montly check-up on these systems, there is no guarentee the unit will even be hooked up.

The other issue is the whole breathing into the thing while driving. It's honestly hard enough to blow in the unit while sitting still testing the install. The other installer I work with who puts these units in can't even breath hard enough for long enough to pass the test. Maybe it's his asthma (sp)? I can't imagine trying to breath into it while driving. It also requires you to watch the screen to see when to blow.

It does give you 4 no-blows before it toots the horn, and another 4 before the horn starts honking on and off, but it's another distraction we really don't need.

Based on everything I know about this unit, it's a hidiously stupid idea that will just cost the tax payers extra money, can be easily defeated, and in nearly all cases won't be worth it. Oh wait, then again, doesn't that sound like the typical government?

Re:laws - bullshit!

[Nurseman]

realizes that with the legal limit going so incredibly low all it takes is one drink, plus a poorly calibrated breath tester

Actually, for a 200 lb man you would need >4 drinks in a two hour period. A drink is defined as 1 1/2 oz 80% proof booze, or 12oz beer/wine. This assumes a normal person, with a healthty liver.Here is a little tester Breath Wheel
As for the poorly calibrated breathalyzer, the police must maintaine records of the machine being calibrated. If you are ever stopped, refuse the field test and ask to be taken to an ER for a blood test. Make sure they use soap and water and not an alchol wipe before they draw the blood. This will be the most accurate level.

Stupidest Idea I've Ever Heard

[Egekrusher2K]

This is, quite honestly, ASTONISHINGLY stupid. No further comments necessary.

Much better solution

[multimed]

I'm a huge supporter of tough drunk driving laws--I get absolutely furious when I see fatal drunk driving accidents where the driver had been arrested 5, 10 sometimes even 15 times for drunk driving. Personally if some one close to me were injured or killed by a repeat offender drunk driver, I will try everything I can to sue the judge and state legislators for gross negligence. Education, fines, blah blah blah with these repeat offenders, they're not going to stop doing it until they kill themselves or somebody else or they're locked up in prison.

That being said, I'm also a pretty big stickler for the Constitution--I can't imagine this wouldn't be thrown out by the courts in a second. This seems like a clear cut case of a violation of illegal search & seizure laws in the fourth amendment. But the much simpler, and more effective solution is to put the ignition interlock in the cars of the people actually conviced. If you're convicte of a crime, you voluntarily surrender rights, so I see no Constitutional problem there.

The other thing I'd like to see is a different license plate for convicted drunk drivers. That way the rest of us have a little advanced warning and a little public humiliation and stigma ain't such a bad thing for people who willingly violate serious laws.

Re:Much better solution

[Lothar 0]

I'm a huge supporter of tough drunk driving laws--I get absolutely furious when I see fatal drunk driving accidents where the driver had been arrested 5, 10 sometimes even 15 times for drunk driving.

A wise judge once said that we should put those we genuinely fear in jail, not those that just make us angry.

If you genuinely fear a drunk driver like you would a murderer or a rapist, fine, but I'm sensing a bit of the rage quotient here.

Re:Much better solution

[El]

The other thing I'd like to see is a different license plate for convicted drunk drivers. Right, 'cause obviously none of these people are going to borrow their friends car, and of course you should penalize the one spouse for the actions of the other... I've got a better idea: every time you catch somebody driving drunk, confiscate the car. Period. Eventually they run out of cars, and their friends learn not to give them their car keys...

Re:Much better solution

[radja]

yes, I genuinely fear drunk drivers. that's because I'm usually moving around by bike, or on foot. it's the cyclers and pedestrians that get killed. drunk driving should be punished as attempted physical abuse, IMO. In fact, I'm more afraid of getting hit by some drunk bastard then of being raped, or murdered.

Driving is a priveledge, not a right

[ahecht]

Nowhere in the constitution does it say we have the right to "life, liberty, the persuit of happiness, and driving large metal objects down government built roads and highways."

Sure, if you buy a car and never drive it off of your own property, you are free to do whatever you want with it, including disabling the interlock. It is when you go onto public roads that laws take effect.

The same argument is used to allow random breathalizer tests without a warrent. Sure, you can refuse to take the test, and there is no criminal penalty, but you will lose your license (since submitting to tests when requested is a condition of holding a license).

Re:Driving is a priveledge, not a right

[Tassach]

Nowhere in the constitution does it say we have the right to "life, liberty, the persuit of happiness, and driving large metal objects down government built roads and highways."

No, but it does say that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." While the right of free passage on public lands and highways (using the prevailing transportation technology of the day) is not explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights, it was a well-recognized right under English law, dating back at least to the reign of King Edward I (1272-1307). The founding fathers would have considered this right so basic and universal as to not need explicit protection. It defies the imagination to say that the 9th Amendment does not protect, at a minimum, any rights which were universally understood under English Common Law at the time it was written.

And if the device doesn't work right....

[Mistshadow2k4]

...then you're just screwed? Figures. Hell with that; if it's in my car it's getting the hell out, one way or another. And, no, I don't drive drunk; in fact, I don't even drink, period. But I'm not going to be putting up with that crap.

I'll pay off my tuition...

[Anonymous Coward]

...by standing outside of bars offering to start people's cars for them for $10.

--------------------
obvious joke follows
--------------------

And I'll be sure not to offer my services by saying "I'll blow for $10."

I'm I the only one ....

[hetairoi]

who thinks this bill was sponsored by car dealerships in the surrounding states?

To the Republicans:

[Rufus88]

I'd just like to say that our lunatic fringe is only slightly sillier, and far more benign, than yours. :)

The devil is in the details.

[sbaker]

This is going to be trivial to circumvent - so the bad guys will continue to drive drunk - and law abiding citizens will pay the cost.

1) How does the car know you are breathing into it's sample tube and not squirting air into it from some other source?

2) Note that breathalyzers only produce a valid reading 15 minutes AFTER you've taken your last drink. For some of that time, the alcohol remaining in your mouth will give a false positive if you have had a drink but are well below the legal limit. For the later part of that time, the alcohol has not yet passed from your stomach into your blood stream and thence into your lungs - so you'll get a false negative for people who are already legally drunk.

So the test that happens as you get into the car could produce either a false positive (making it impossible to drive your car for 15 minutes after you've just finished a single glass of wine with a large meal) - or a false negative (allowing people who will shortly become drunk as a skunk to get their car started before the full effects are noticable in their breath).

3) Since there is also the obvious "getting your friend to start the car" trick - the initial test is essentially worthless. The whole thing stands or falls on the 'random retest'. Are we to believe that the car beeps at you and demands that you blow into a tube whilst you are driving along...all day - every day? Isn't that gonna be kinda distracting? Am I going to have to prove I'm not drunk every day I drive to work - or 50 times during a long road trip?

How often does it do it? If it's going to do it once every (say) 10 hours of driving, then that won't be a deterrent to someone who is stupid enough to take the risk of driving drunk. If it does it once an hour - then *maybe* that's a deterrent - but it's also a major pain to have to do this two or three times a day on your daily commute.

This is a stupid law.

Here in Texas, the penalty for drunk driving is pathetic - hardly more than a speeding ticket. In UK, there is a HUGE fine (thousands of dollars) and they automatically take away your driving license for 18 months (more for a second offence) - and of course your insurance premiums are going to be astronomical for the rest of your life.

Now *that* is a deterrent.

Re:The devil is in the details.

[MachDelta]

The ones I worked with, IIRC, were once every 20-50 minutes.

In other news, the cathlic church...

[Anonymous Coward]

has mandated that all priests wear penis-monitoring devices. If the priest gets an erection, his optical implant takes a picture of what he's looking at.

Judges in New Mexico

[imAck]

I live in New Mexico. I see the news stories about people with their 50th DWI's. It's pathetic. While I agree that in our state, tougher penalties are needed, one of the major problems is that offenders are hardly ever prosecuted to the full extent of the laws that already exist.

And what about these guys with 10+ DWI's? Within a year, they are back on the road. No license, no insurance, no problem...My point is that even if the laws are toughened, the judges have to be willing to enforce the laws to make a difference.

pretty stupid

[oohp]

30 seconds to take the test? If Ace Ventura had one of those things in the car, there probably wouldn't be a second Ace Ventura in Africa at all. Anyway, I bet the ignition thingies can be easily defeated.

It's a growing trend by lawmakers...

[Anonymous Coward]

To consider people living in the United States as "consumers," not "citizens." Consumers don't have rights. Citizens do. Someone should go give them a right ding alongside the head, and tell 'em to stop treating citizens like consumers. We're CITIZENS, not CONSUMERS!

Who made up that stupid word anyway? Personally, I find the term degrading.

Simpleton!

[FatSean]

So...Being drunk makes you a poor driver...and you want to murder them? What about people who read while they drive? Or talk on the phone? Often these distractions affect driving ability more than being drunk!

only in America

[Anonymous Coward]

go ahead, call me a troll.

This has got to be a joke...

[SmurfButcher Bob]

Think of the health hazards of putting your mouth on a tube that's been slobbered all over, over a period of years.

two words

[Anonymous Coward]

ulawful search.

That's what it is. Well defined in law and maybe even in the constitution.

Overrated

[amightywind]

Your breath comes out at apporximately body temperature, for example, and making the air in a balloon body temperature plus or minus a few degrees would be tough.

I've got it! Try filling the balloon by blowing into it, then immediately placing on the device. The air will be within a few degrees of body temperature. What a dumb comment!

Re:Overrated

[Rostin]

If you're drunk, the air you just exhaled into the balloon will set the machine off. If you aren't drunk, why the hell would you waste time with balloons, anyway?

Re:Overrated

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you often feel like the end of a runway?

Where's the common sense?

[Whatthehellever]

Perhaps tougher penalties and larger fines for people who actually drive drunk would be a better idea.

My brother-in-law is a chronic drunk driver. They slap him on the wrists and tell him "Don't do it again, okay?"

The police do not enforce his 'no driving' order, as he has a job driving large industrial equipment that he got after his conviction.

The Government's solutions are stupid. You drink and drive, you lose your licence for life so you don't have a chance to hit a busload of kids in the future.

How hard is this concept?

Re:Where's the common sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

You drink and drive, you lose your licence for life so you don't have a chance to hit a busload of kids in the future.

This is common sense? I had a DUI arrest when I was 19. I shouldn't be able to drive now, at age 37, because your brother is an idiot?

What About Asthmatics?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the dumbest law on the planet. Asthmatics could trigger an attack, make an existing attack worse or, during an attack, be unable to operate this equipment.

Nice to know some innocent person with a common health condition will die so that this asshole can be "tough on crime".

Thanks Martinez for showing everyone that both parties are filled with complete idiots.

Re:What About Asthmatics?

[Anonymous Coward]

Want to get tough on crime? Put recreational use of alcohol in the same basket as recreational use of marijuana. Don't give me a bunch of lip about how that's impossible, they already tried prohibition, etc. They figured out how to work around the impossibilities of prohibition with marijuana, now they can apply what they learned to alcohol.

Put tobacco on the controlled-substance schedule also, while you're at it.

Will it solve the problems? Hell no. But it would be the big wedge needed to end the war on drugs...

Lesser of Evils

[Belegothmog]

I don't agree with this law. The interlock is too dangerous. There are times when starting a car drunk is the lesser of two evils which should be allowed.

Examples:
Billy and Jane drive out to secluded beach and start drinking.
1) Billy decides to rape Jane. Jane realizes Billy's intentions are bad, but is unable to start the car and get away. Jane is raped.
2) Jane is injured climbing a pretty beach cliff and needs urgent medical care. Billy is unable to start the car. Jane dies.
3) Billy and Jane see a powerboat pulling up to the beach full of al Queda terrorist drug-running suicide bombers. They are unable to drive the car to report to authorities. They are gunned down on the beach. The city of Portland is nuked and the city of Seattle is stoned.

These are all situations where I would/could forgive the danger of driving after having too much to drink. Sure, the situations could have been avoided, but I don't agree that all potentially hazardous situations should be avoided.

One strike rule

[digitalgimpus]

I've always been a fan of a one strike rule for drunk driving, as some other nations are implementing.

Since it's never an accident (you intentionally drink, hence accept the responsibility for your actions). Do it once, and you can no longer have a drivers license.

A simple solution that doesn't burdon the rest of the population who knows how to avoid a car when they are drunk.

No reason why a few idiots who enjoy driving drunk should ruin it for everyone. I know people who do it for the challenge. See how much they can drink and safely drive home with. Bragging rights.

There's really no legitimate reason to need to drink and drive. Perhaps an exception in the courts for an absolute emergency (to be judged in a court of law). Though 911 tends to bring mobile help to you... But other than that.... you do it, you consiously chose to give up your right to drive.

Right away, that would be the end of drunk driving.

It's not like you have to drive after drinking. Alcohol comes in portable easy to carry containers so you can take it to a location where driving after is not needed (such as your home). It also makes it very easy to fall asleep at the location of consumption ;-).

There's really no legitimate reason to ever drive drunk. So why do we have the world's weakest laws for drunk driving?

Lets make it a one strike rule. That way those who are responsible don't have any problems. And those who are out to ruin the party... ruin their own lives.

I'm not fan of this Interlock bill, though I support the idea behind it.

IMHO if your an a hazard, lets remove you from society. If your so stupid that you are willing to endanger lives... what if your a doctor by trade? Do I want a doctor with that quality of judgement being responsible for my wellbeing? I think not.

Lets not ruin the party for everyone. But lets make sure people who try to ruin the party, never get a second chance.

Just my $0.02

Re:One strike rule

[Anonymous Coward]

"I've always been a fan of a one strike rule for drunk driving, as some other nations are implementing."

In Hungary, before the revolution, the penalties for drunk driving were the most harsh I have ever heard of:

First offense: Death Penalty.

If you manage to get off your first offense charge without being executed, the SECOND offense carried a death penalty for YOU and YOUR SPOUSE.

Re:One strike rule

[SuiteSisterMary]

What's to prevent somebody from driving without a license?

Death penalty for non-capital offenses

[gumpish]

Or maybe we could just execute them? But, oh wait, we already know that the death penalty isn't a crime deterrent.

The death penalty isn't a deterrent for capital crimes since you basically have to be insane or not place great value on your own life to commit such an act.

I tend to think that if the death penalty were applied all the way down to seemingly innocuous offenses - jaywalking, for example - that you would see a hell of a lot less jaywalking.

Personally, I would not want to live in a world where the authorities have so many opportunities to take lives. On the other hand people who drive while impaired are sociopaths and should be treated accordingly.

(This comment reminds me of that early ST:TNG episode where Wesley is to be executed for stepping on some flowers.)

Re:Death penalty for non-capital offenses

[Tackhead]

> Personally, I would not want to live in a world where the authorities have so many opportunities to take lives. On the other hand people who drive while impaired are sociopaths and should be treated accordingly.
>
>(This comment reminds me of that early ST:TNG episode where Wesley is to be executed for stepping on some flowers.)

Are you sure you're still against the death penalty to petty crimes? :)

I piss everyone off because I think that both the law enforcement and the prison industries consume far too many tax dollars. On grounds of fiscal sanity, I argue favor of legalizing (and taxing!) drugs, and in favor of eliminating the appeals process / expanding the use of the death penalty. Smoke and drink what you want at home, but if you drive to the 7-11 while under the influence, expect your next of kin to be notified within the hour as to where they can pick up your body and pay for the cost of the executing officer's bullet.

Re:Death penalty for non-capital offenses

[gumpish]

Smoke and drink what you want at home, but if you drive to the 7-11 while under the influence, expect your next of kin to be notified within the hour as to where they can pick up your body and pay for the cost of the executing officer's bullet.

That sounds good on paper (to me anyway), but as more offenses become punishable by summary execution it becomes increasingly trivial for corrupt cops to frame someone they want dead.

Re:Death penalty for non-capital offenses

[Warped1]

Believe it or not, innocent people do get convicted for crimes they didn't commit. This will always be a problem as long as humans control the justice system for their government.

Throwing away appeals and expanding death penalties would get more innocent people jailed or killed. And don't just ignore that point thinking, "What are the chances it would happent to me?" All I know is that if I was convicted of a crime I didn't commit, I sure as hell would appreciate the ability to appeal the decision to another court.

Re:Death penalty for non-capital offenses

[AeroIllini]

This will always be a problem as long as humans control the justice system for their government.

So we'll just have to wait until the computers can deal out justice.

I'd probably lend my time to The JusTeX Foundation, an OSS group building automated judging software called JusTeX (which uses the TeX engine for all the legal documents). Such software would be a little harder to operate, but it would be fair to everyone and very stable. With our luck, though, 95% of courtrooms would be using MS Justice, which would have slick graphics and commercial tie-ins, but would crash regularly and set you free only if you gave it a big bag of cash.

Re:Death penalty for non-capital offenses

[Tackhead]

> That sounds good on paper (to me anyway), but as more offenses become punishable by summary execution it becomes increasingly trivial for corrupt cops to frame someone they want dead.

"Knowing How Not To Piss Off Cops" is a pretty good survival trait, even in our lenient legal system, and even when dealing with cops that aren't corrupt.

HA!

[medelliadegray]

i would move out of that state...or if i were financially unable to, i would just let the car beep and honk while i drive it. perhaps i'd get the horn modified to be one of those "ouuuga" type sounds.

Well...

[Faw]

I agree that this is a stupid law but...

Yes, you own your car and you should be able to do whatever I like with it, but the streets are not yours, they are public property. If you want to drive in public streets you have to comply with any law they come up with.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Urgh! I really don't like people who believe in community rights over individual rights. If I buy something, it's mine. Not yours. It's mine. Is that too hard for you to understand?

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that's not hard to understand.

But, if you want to use your something on my property, I have the right to ask you to refrain unless you meet the conditions I stipulate.

You can tell me to fuck myself -- in which case you're not allowed to do it on my property. Or, you can comply.

It's the same as with cars and the streets.

[OT] Re:US Translation --

[oneiros27]

Oh, sure...and you want the post to be on topic, too?

I guess it all depends if you have a lush for a chauffer or not.

And now it looks like I'm trolling for a Princess Diana comment.

Where do I start?

[operagost]

You are attacked by a predator in a parking lot because you had to sit for 30 seconds and take a breathalyzer.

Someone died or was crippled because you couldn't get them to the emergency room in time.

Your car stalls, and it doesn't know any better so you have to take a breathalyzer while trying to muscle your unpowered car to the shoulder.

You just rinsed your mouth with Listerine, so you fail the test.

Cans of compressed air (with the proper CO2/O2 balance) for beating the breathalyzer appear on the market, or

People just remove the fuse for the system.

It penalizes people who are not under suspicion for committing a crime.

This will work about as well as the federal safety belt interlock in the 1970's. It was repealed after a year and dealers were allowed to disable the systems. The systems would often malfunction, or refuse to start the car because a package was on the seat.

Re:laws - bullshit!

[Anonymous Coward]

> 80% proof booze

doubleplusgood!

Liberalism at work!

[Anonymous Coward]

What a great example of liberalism run amuck.

Re:Liberalism at work!

[doppleganger871]

Yep, too bad you posted as AC.

Anybody here ever driven in NM?

[radar_uk]

While I'm not a fan of this proposal, I do have experience with driving there. I got a safety briefing when I arrived in Albuquerque (pretty much the only city in the entire state).

IIRC, approx. a third of the cars on the road between 7 PM and 3 AM on Thursday through Sunday nights are being operated by drunk drivers. And something like half of the cars on the road are being driven without insurance. (I have no reference for these stats, it was what I was told)

I do know that my insurance rates for my own car went through the roof when I got there, and I was introduced to a new concept: mandatory "uninsured motorist" insurance. The chances of getting hit weren't just high, they were also pretty good that whoever hits me won't pay (and they didn't).

Say what you like about these laws, but that is one state that needs to do something about drunk driving. It's way out of control there.

Correction...

[Ryatt]

In addition to viewing the entire state population as 'guilty until proven innocent'

In fact, they are saying that the good citizens of New Mexico are 'drunk until proven sober'.

But yes, if you do live in NM, you'd better start contacting your congressperson. It's the best way to instigate change.

Booze or mouthwash?

[amigabill]

So, what if I'm on my way to pick up the babe of the evening and swish some listerine to freshen up before I leave to pick her up? Mr. Car says "sorry, there's some strong stuff on your breath, you can't drive". Man, this is going to encourage bad breath, which is going to discourage dating. Well, guess all Americans will soon know what the life of a slashdotter feels like. :)

P.S. I don't drink, why would I need one of these things?

wow

[bmajik]

where do you live ? russia ?

Please tell me, so i can never, ever, visit there, as the place is rife with assholes.

Guess what - whatever they installed on your car is easy to disable. I suggest you do so.

What kind of car is it ? I'd go to the local car parts store, get the Chilton's manual for that vehicle/vehicle family, and study the wiring diagrams for the following subsystems:

ignition key switch
fuel pump circuit
ECU inputs/outputs
coil input lines

if the device keeps the car from starting, its doing it one of two ways:
- interrupting fuel
- interrupting spark
you can manually bypass the ECU -> fuel pump signal (and make the fuel pumps run anytime there is power). At that point, the ECU just sends spark signals to the ignitor (or coil packs, if you have those) at the appropriate time. Unless there's a modified ECU, i'd guess that if they were doing spark / FP relay interference, that this box sat between the ignitino cylinder and the "start" input on the ECU. Obviously you can bypass that.

If they're super thorough and they've actually got a modified ECU, just find the factory unmodified ECU for your vehicle, and swap them :)
junkyard would be a good bet..

Re:wow

[Anonymous Coward]

dmca, i can twait until they try to use this law to prevent you from working on your car.

I am glad I have a motec, i can install it on ANY motor. m880 and a backlight ADL. its the trick setup. soon everyone will have one.

Sucks to be a Mechanic

[Anonymous Coward]

When my car was in the shop, my mechanic was telling me about how he hated those interlocks. Since he had to start the car to work on it, he also had to blow into the interlock regularly. Even though he was not driving the car, he was not allowed even a single beer on his lunch break or else he would have to wait about an hour for the alcohol to leave his system. The passing of the law would definitely piss off every mechanic in New Mexico.

*grumble*

[Anonymous Coward]

Welp, I now have another reason to never move to NM. Personally, I think this is a HORRIBLE Idea. First off, if you have to retest while you're driving. You have to take your attention away from the road. Think about all the people that can't chew gum and walk at the same time.

You're going to have an increase in accidents because too many people will be watching the gauge or whatever. Or are they going to just give you an extended tube that you can just stick in your mouth and hold it there the whole time you're driving?

No matter what, any time you take your attention away from the road you run the risk of an accident. Even the split second you look down at the gauges could cost you your life (or someone else's).

Personally I'm a fan of public execution of sentence. Let's say you get caught DUI. Walking around town with a sign around your neck for 30 days saying "I was caught drinking and driving" is one sure fired way to solve part of the problem. First time they get embarassed by having to do that, they'll definitely think twice about doing it again. It's all phsychological. People will be laughing at you...hell, there will even be smartasses making comments.

Alot of these DUI laws need to be revamped. This is coming from someone who has been arressed for Public Intoxication for blowing a .07 at 4am. I think if I was gonna be drunk at all, I would be a 4am. Instead of making me go to AA meetings for a year and all this other crap when I wasn't even drunk...let's just say there's some anger there for being treated like a public menace when he wasn't even legally drunk, I wasn't doing anything other than walking down the street minding my own business. I ended up having to pay over $1200 in fines and fees simply because the cop (knew him from highschool) didn't like me. Of course that cop is no longer a cop (helps when your mom was a cop at one time and you're friends with the cheif and mayor...small town politics *sigh*)

Anyway, I digress....there's alot of laws that need to be redressed, and I seriously believe the more embarassment you cause someone who is ACTUALLY committing a crime the less likely they are to do it again, which of course will free up our legal system for real problems and they won't have to rush through cases as much and really get to the truth.

Granted that doesn't go for things like rape, murder, and other violent crimes. Those people know they shouldn't be doing what they are doing. I don't see why we feel there's even a chance to rehabilitate them. From the age of 12 you know murder and rape is wrong. And what about these practically unlimited appeals for Death row??? c'mon. We only get one chance to convict, they shouldn't only get maybe 3 times to overturn. well, I'll get off my rant before I go too far...

Re:*grumble*

[tkg]

Personally I'm a fan of public execution of sentence. Let's say you get caught DUI. Walking around town with a sign around your neck for 30 days saying "I was caught drinking and driving" is one sure fired way to solve part of the problem.

They already tried this. DWI offenders were required to do community service by picking up trash on the roadsides while wearing pink hats that showed them as DWI offenders. It was dropped because of complaints that the public humiliation was too cruel. The punnishment wasn't in use long enough to see if it had any effect. You still see people from the jails picking up road trash in their orange jumpsuits, but the pink hats designating the DWI offenders are gone.

Simpler solution to DUI

[wowbagger]

There is a far simpler solution to the problem of DUI.

Public flogging.

Think about it - the first time somebody DUI's, is caught, and is flogged, that person will in all likelyhood never DUI again. And the likelyhood of other people DUI'ing goes way down.

Ask yourself this - how many people do YOU personally know who were busted for DUI.

Now, look at the DUI statistics. Given how many people are busted for DUI, do you know enough people to match those statistics? In all likelyhood, you DO know somebody who was busted, you simple don't KNOW that you know them.

At the same time, the sentence is over and done with fairly quickly - you don't lock somebody up for months at a time, so they don't lose their job. They lose a couple of days.

In many ways, a public flogging is far less "cruel" than locking somebody up for many months.

Re:Simpler solution to DUI

[SuiteSisterMary]

Public humiliation in general; give community service some teeth by dressing people in distinctive coveralls and making them clean up public areas. Boom, done.

Cars don't need to warm up in New Mexico...

[ahecht]

That's a northern thing.

Re:Cars don't need to warm up in New Mexico...

[Anonymous Coward]

You've obviously never been to Albuquerque and parts north.

This sucks!!

[MasterMynd]

I live in Santa Fe and one thing is certain, if this bill does become law and when it comes time for me to buy a new car, I'll cut it out of my car with considerable aggression and throw it through the window of Rep. Ken Martinez. I've never had a drinking problem so it is unjust to punish me for the problems of others. This law is no different than collective punishment.

Diesels in the real world

[SpinyManiac]

Direct injection diesels do not require a pre-heat delay. They start within a few seconds.

I don't know of any indirect injection diesels still on sale.

Wrecks

[dmaxwell]

What if your car was hit in the front while that thing is in your mouth? Depending on the design, you will have at least one of these happen to you: a tube jammed into the back of your throat, lose some teeth, get your face smashed, or a neck injury. You might even get some other part of your body impaled on thing. Not only will this thing cause accidents, it will increase driver injuries as well.

Even a hit to the back might jerk some front teeth out.

Just curious...

[Anonymous Coward]

You said you live in Salem. Which Salem is it?

Re:Just curious...

[Anonymous Coward]

i don't know, but it sounds like they like doing witch hunts if that is any indication...

Sunrise, sunset....

[jefu]

Sunset provisions are a great thing. However, predictable timing on them is not so good as it gives the people in favor of the law advance warning that it might expire, so they can go around and find/manufacture reasons to keep it in effect.

Most especially, think of the effect of having a sunset law for various pieces of the bureaucracy. If Department of Redundancy Department knows that their funding/enabling legislation will expire in the next year, they would then take all their time to find reasons why they are indispensable and ever so valuable. Veritable bulwark of democracy. , they are (or so you'd believe if you listened to them).

I don't quite know how it should work, but I'd propose having a "Law Lottery". Every year 20 percent of the laws would be picked at random and reviewed (really random!). This means laws would probably be reviewed relatively quickly on average. If the legislature did not vote to retain the law within one month it would be tossed out. The law would need at least a 3/4 positive vote of the legislature (both houses in the case of bicamerality) to remain in place (but no executive approval). A law could continue on an "emergency" basis for one year with a 2/3 majority but would then expire completely. The short time frame is to make it tougher to plan/fund campaigns of special interests to support it.

If nothing else it would keep our idiot bastard legislators busy enough so they'd not have as much time to meddle in everything else.

Sadly, it would not work. Someone would rig the lottery. The well funded special interests would pay well to have instant notification of a review and would have lobbyists ready to jump in at a moments notice where the citizens would probably never get notified so would not have an opportunity to speak. (I know, what else is new.) Legislatures would pass hundreds of junk laws just to reduce the probability that real laws would be picked.

But still, its a fun idea.

Re:Sunrise, sunset....

[Banjonardo]

Special Interest Groups are a Good Thing. Read Federalist Papers #10 and 51, where Madison talks about how they ("factions") ensure that laws won't pass unless almost everyone likes them. This is also why we have a bicameral legislature- bureocracy and congressional delay is GOOD, because they believed that government shouldn't meddle in what isn't necessary. And proper.

Re:Sunrise, sunset....

[Eivind]

The overflood of laws is because it's always easier to make your own suggestion rather than removing something people have already voted in favour of. There's prestige attached -- why should we now vote to remove this law that we, ourselves passed ?

An interesting idea is the one used in the fictive government proposed in Heinleins "The moon is a harsh mistress".

The elected lawgivers are divided in two chambers. One of the chambers can create new laws. They require 3/5th majority. So, new laws gets created, only if 60% or more in this chamber are in favour of it.

The other chamber is the interesting idea. Their power is limited to one thing, and one thing only; They can remove existing laws. Doing so requires a pure majority.

The reason this twist is interesting is because it forces half of the elected lawgivers to focus on a question that hardly any politician spends any time on today: what laws are bad ? What laws would we be better of without ?

My guess is that such a system would result in a much more manageable amount of laws. The current situation is becoming ridicolous, we're approaching a situation where you could not, even in principle, know about all laws effecting you, because even if you dedicated 100% of your wake time to reading up on them, you'd not manage it.

Re:laws - bullshit!

[pboulang]

Not to mention the 15 minutes to half hour it takes to get to the ER and have someone draw the blood and test it.

New Mexico's real problem...

[hcuar]

The real problem is the cops don't give a damn in New Mexico. The cops are there only to clean up the mess once a citizen caps a few people. Nothing more.

Tougher penalties

[quisph]

It seems to me that impinging upon the liberty of an entire state is a little bit too extreme. Perhaps tougher penalties and larger fines for people who actually drive drunk would be a better idea.

Sure, it would be a better idea. The problem is getting the tougher penalties to pass. These kinds of initiatives are usually shot down, because so many people feel that it is their God-given right to drive drunk. So, while I don't support this ignition interlock idea, you can't blame them for trying. Other less intrusive avenues have been tried, and closed off.

Existing law

[Loconut1389]

I say keep it the way it is, once you get a DUI, you get required to have the interlock installed. Dont make it happen from the get go. Or even if installed from the get go, then dont enable it until an offense occurs, but then thats retarded anyway. If the test takes 30 seconds, then what about when youre in a hurry and really need to get going fast, or in an emergency of some kind. What if the car stalls out and you have to restart it? Do you have to puff in the middle of the street/intersection? Id quickly not drive the car ever again if I had to puff every time. Id buy a motorcycle or ride my bike, id rather ride 1000 miles than blow into a stupid straw every time i want to start the car. Id probably hack the thing and disable it with a switch thats hidden so if i get pulled over i can re-enable it fast. For the record, i dont drink alcohol at all.

ok...lemme get this straight....

[bigkahunafish]

Since I don't drink and am against alcohol totally I will have to do the following things to start my car.

--sit down and buckle up (wait thats not a part of the system..so I dont have to do it right?)
--hum and blow into a tube

and then, when i'm driving, I will periodically be required to:

--RETEST?? (yea, and we thought talking on cell phones was bad)

And thats not it folks... Basically it looks like this requires me to NOT do my own work (ie documented servicing), also if it determines that I havent been a good boy three times, I have to go check in with big brother....

I have some serious issues with this... what about emergencies?? Like I need to get someone to the hospital, but no... i have to wait and hum in to a frickin tube while someone is dying in my seat...

or... what if some drug dealers are chasing me, yea, i get into my car and try to start it up to get away...I'm sorry, but you have not submitted your breath test. ... yea tell that to the people going to kill me...

This is technology gone wrong...Legislation gone wrong...
I'm all for stiffer penalities for DUI/DWI (including drug influence).. Like how bout taking their car away... yea...I think you may think twice then...

Re:ok...lemme get this straight....

[Sancho]

I'd be pretty happy if DUI offenders were never allowed to drive in the US again. That'd be a good friggin penalty.

Senator Emailed...

[Loconut1389]

I sent the senator an email with the subject "Are you crazy?" no body. *shrugs*

Stupid stupid stupid - how about an IQ interlock ?

[freddled]

So, in 100 years they haven't managed to build an ignition system that can't be bypassed and they think this will work. Right. Someone has shares in the company, methinks. And another thing. Every few minutes I have to blow into this tube while I'm driving, right. Hmm. Wouldn't it be a better idea to build a system which measures the consistency of your driving, swerving and reaction speed and if you don't measure up, gradually cuts the speed of the car and sets all the lights flashing ? How about an IQ interlock test. You have to keep proving that you are smart enough to drive half a tonne of metal around at high speed without killing anyone. That should empty the roads. How about the same thing for politicians: excuse me Mr Bush, please hold your speech for a second while I measure your ego . . .

Proper laws

[Alioth]

Why can't they just have proper anti-DWI laws?

Most US states have incredibly soft DWI laws. For example, in Texas where I lived for about 6 years, IIRC, if you got banned for your 3rd DWI, they'd still let you drive to work.

Where I live now, the first offence causes a ban. Banned means banned - you're going to have to find some other way to get to work. The ban starts at 2 years, and getting insurance afterwards is tough. A subsequent conviction results in prison. The penalty for driving whilst banned is prison.

If you need your car for your livelyhood, the answer's simple: don't drink and drive. Why NM can't have a proper ban on the first offence is a mystery.

Hello from New Mexico

[Sloppy]

There's a big push here, for smacking down drunk driving. You know how it goes ... drunk driver kills a whole family including little kiddies (but leaving one survivor who wasn't in the car, who quite understandably, becomes activist), and population goes into "something has to be done" mode, thinking with hearts instead of heads. I haven't been following the debate terribly closely, but I've heard some of the pro-lock arguments, so here are some of them...

First of all, about the intrusiveness and blowing. Today's systems are like that. They're saying that by 2008 it'll be completely passive. As you pull the upper restraint of the seatbelt across your chest, some sensor will automatically check you, instantly, right then. The periodic retesting is something that you supposedly won't even notice. Of course, this is science-fiction future stuff. Plausible, but AFAIK it's not here today. If they're right about that, then most of the people who say they'll hack the system, are full of hot air. You won't remove it, for the same reason that you probably didn't remove your government-made-me-do-it emissions equipment:.

Cost... they're saying the cost will go down, due to economy of scale. Right now, ignition locks are rare. When they become "standard" equipment, they'll supposedly be cheap.

Another point: with cars, the slippery slope started a long time ago. There's already a bunch of equipment in your car that is mandated by law, rather than being there because customers asked for it. It's not like with computer software, where we still have freedom worth protecting. You've lived without pure freedom in car implementations, all your life. Cars are already heavily regulated.

About false positives.. heh, they're trying to solve social problems with technology. What do you expect? Of course innocent people will get screwed. That's how it always goes. Oh wait, I only meant to talk about the pro-lock arguments. Forget I said that.

I'm against this one for idealistic reasons, but from a practical point of view, it looks like it's just going to be life as usual.

Now this is a little bit more reasonable...

[StarKruzr]

... and affordable, too.

"Of course, an alternative to this law would be to require that all alcohol-serving establishments have a Breathalyzer easily accessible to its patrons."

I like this idea. Seriously. I'd like to have access to that information about myself every time I go out. And no, I'm not willing to spend hundreds of dollars on a Breathalyzer myself (the cheapo ones advertised for the consumer are wildly inaccurate to the point of uselessness), but it's really not that big an expense for a business.

EVERY car? Police, fire, rescue, etc?

[gosand]

Everyone else has already pointed out how stupid this concept is, but imagine how it will impact the police, firemen, rescue workers, etc. Now it accounts for their professional vehicles by stating:

"motor vehicle" means a passenger motor vehicle, including an automobile, pickup truck or van normally used for personal, family or household purposes, that is sold and registered in this state and whose gross vehicle weight is less than ten thousand pounds.

But what about on their personal vehicles? Volunteer firemen use their personal vehicles to get to the station. Cops are pretty much always on duty, and may need to get somewhere in a hurry in their personal vehicle. Rescue personel, doctors, etc. What about on motorcycles? Are they going to let people drive them drunk? Can you imagine trying to do a rolling test on a bike?

I think this is just a F'n stupid bill that will get shot down. If it would actually pass, you'll see so many lawsuits it will make your head spin.

Government preferred alternatives

[Anonymous Coward]

The car is mine, and while on my private property I should be able to do whatever I like with it.

That's why there's Segway and an increasing variety of Slo-Go mobility devices.

Cars are for responsible drivers the government can designate and trust. Consider, a car irresponsibly driven can be a flying missile, is often used by terrorists as weapons (ever hear of a car bomb?), can potentially outrun officers of the law, are used by pedophiles and other criminals to abduct persons, and in general is much more responsibility than most citizens are equipped to handle. Timothy McVey drove a car to flee the scene, and drove a truck to destroy innocent citizens. We don't let people own grenades or missiles, and owning a car or truck has become nearly as dangerous.

Unlike developing EU measures to restrict car ownership to by fiat (forcing the masses to take public transportation), early US national and municipal studies recognized that US citizens were unlikely to abandon transportation forms that restricted their liberty. Hence the Federal subsidies and purchasing support for Segway and similar low-speed, low-risk mobility devices (aka "Slo-Go").

With a Segway (or comperable Slo-Go mobility device), drunk driving consequences are reduced to a few bruises or possibly a broken bone. Death to innocent parties in a collision? Absolutely not. Road rage at 10 mph? Equally limited consequences.

Fleeing law enforcement (in autos) in a Segway would only be a few minutes of absolute amusement for the officer involved, before the fleeing party was apprehended. Road wear and a variety of other issues with big vehicles would all be eliminated.

Congressional studies suggested an initial step in the next five years to dramatically hike auto registration/ownership taxes beyond the reach of many, creating a market preference shift for slow-go devices. Blanket auto ownership restrictions would probably meet extreme initial resistance, so punitive taxes gradually increased would be the most effective way of shifting ownership and encouraging the growth of the slow-go market.

The car experiment has been a collosal 100-year failure. Transition to Slo-Go is the only proper way for letting the masses drive. If you agree, be sure to check out the leading Slo-Go website EVWorld.com

Re:laws - bullshit!

[tdemark]

If you are ever stopped, refuse the field test and ask to be taken to an ER for a blood test.

If you were in Pennsylvania when this happened, let me be the first to congratulate you on losing your license for 12 months.

When you receive a PA drivers license, you agree in advance to consent to a breath test if stopped and that you understand that failure to comply will result in 12 month suspension of the license regardless of its outcome.

- Tony

Wow...

[Dracolytch]

Do they have any idea how much something like this woulf f-ing piss me off? Thinking about it pisses me off. I don't drink... Never have, and I doubt I ever will. To have a device to keep me from driving drunk that interferes with the startup and continued operation of my vehicle is just a pain in the ass. This sounds really invasive. I would ~not~ be happy. In fact, I'd be so unhappy as to go buy a car in another state. I bet the dealerships will LOVE to hear that.

Don't punish me for other peoples' stupidity.

~D

Market for air compressors for breathalisers?

[Anonymous Coward]

What a stupid law? How will they enforce it? Let's say I have a small compressor in the car to give the sample the circuitry requires. How will they know?

I hate Technocrats

[the_2nd_coming]

they think that using technology to make sure laws are obeyed is not infringing rights.

they are dangerous bastards.

when I move to NM, I will be buying my cars in Texas.

Re: Devices

[A55M0NKEY]

I agree, there are so many things wrong with this assinine proposal that I hardly know where to begin.

• Nobody wants to pay $1000 extra for a device to be installed in their car to do the cop's job. For $1000 per car on the road, you could hire alot of cops...
• Easily circumvented. Anyone with a pair of wire cutters and access to a Radio Shack can bypass this.
• Ppl would buy their cars out of state to get around this
• Flashing lights! At night??!!!?? Honking horn! At night?????!?
• Violates innocent until proven guilty principle, therefore degrading.
• Will cause accidents. If you think cell phones were bad imagine hyperventilating sober drivers passing out at the wheel.
• Easily circumvented. Even if you don't like wire cutters, you can fill up a balloon with air to blow for you. ( or another low tech solution devized by the same people who can make a bong out of *anything* )
• A 0.1 BAL limit is appropriate. Sorry, 0.08 is too strict. And age doesn't affect the drunkeness of someone with a given BAL. There is no justification for 'zero tolerance' laws that are used to convict minors of drunk driving who have BAL's of 0.02 or higher. Sure, age may play a role in how many drinks *will get a person to a certain BAL* but the BAL *is* the only easy objective measure of how intoxicated someone is. A minor caught with a BAL of 0.03 maybe should be penalized for drinking illegally, but not DUI, since they were not intoxicated while driving. There is MUCH difference morally between drinking a beer that the law says you can't have, and drinking a six pack that the law says you can't have and then going for a spin. Drinking 1 beer and driving home is no different morally than drinking 1 beer at home, or drinking a six pack at home and staying there. It's what one would call responsible drinking.
  

  Of course, a minor found driving while truely intoxicated ( at the adult limit in their state ) should be convicted of DUI as should anyone else, but applying the much harsher penalties meant to deter irresponsible drunk drivers from killing people to responsible minors who drink illegally and happen to be driving home with a safe BAL that is above zero is stupid and cruel.

You blow it

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn dude, your math skillz BLOW

Every nerd here should be required to pass a 3rd grade math test before they post on /.

Car Chases!

[scovetta]

Ignition interlocks require a breath test, which takes 30 seconds to complete...

Can you imagine the car chases in movies? Good guy jumps in through the open window... fumbles with the keys as the bad guy is getting closer... puts the key in the ignition... BEEP! PLEASE BREATHE INTO THE STEERING WHEEL AND WAIT 30 SECONDS! BEEP!

Keeping warm

[Baron_Yam]

I believe that in most jurisdictions, having the keys in the ignition is enough to get you charged... leaving the car running is just asking for it.

If you're going to drink and need transportation afterwards, you have choices: leave enough time to sober up at night's end, get a cab, or have a designated driver. Anything else should be treated as attempted murder.

Re:Keeping warm

[iamcadaver]

I think I left off: ... because of ignition interlock malfunction.

Remember, these will be integrated to RF ignition systems, auto starters, etc. Can be buggy == Will be buggy,

But, thanks for the insight.

how to start each of these new laws...

[swschrad]

there should be an initial period in which these de jure (meaning "because we can") laws only apply to the governor and legislators in the particular state. so, for instance, all the big suits in new mexico have to blow into their drunk-o-meters every 15 minutes while driving for a couple years, and then and only then can they remove a sunset clause in the law and apply it to the general public.

we will need a federal statute to make it happen. write your congresscritter now.

Re:how to start each of these new laws...

[jafiwam]

Holy cow, that is the most insightful, intelligent and JUST idea I have heard in a long time.

I hope you don't mind if I spread the word.

Re:how to start each of these new laws...

[j-turkey]

there should be an initial period in which these de jure (meaning "because we can") laws only apply to the governor and legislators in the particular state.

That's probably the smartest thing I've heard all day. It's so concise that just about anything I add to it would just detract from the clarity of his comment...with the exception of the following: me too!

Re:how to start each of these new laws...

[ajs318]

Brilliant idea. While we're at it, can we have the management at bus and train companies, and in the public transportation departments of councils, forbidden to own cars? And the people who set the levels of welfare benefits forced to live on the amount they specify? I'm sure there are more examples. This category of thinking deserves a name.

Re:how to start each of these new laws...

[Computer!]

AWESOME.

Re:how to start each of these new laws...

[Reziac]

That's a damned good idea, and let's make sure it also applies to new taxes as well. Oh, and one additional penalty for a public official convicted of circumvention (including "having someone else drive for him") should be that he loses his job.

That's the problem with most new laws now, in a nutshell. They're designed to apply only to people OTHER than the select group who pass and implement them.

Re: Authorized access vs presumed guilt

[Steve B]

it could save my own daughter from being killed by a drunk driver

Fat lot of good that would do if the 30-second delay prevents her from escaping a murderer or rapist.

Time cost of this

[bjdevil]

I figure that my work time is worth $50/hr. If I have to wait one minute for every time I want to go somewhere and return, who do I bill $303.75 for the 6 hours and 5 minutes I'll be wasting every year, even though I don't drink a drop of alcohol?

Here's the real fix.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always been a big advocate for the ultimate drunk driving deterrent: the death penalty.

Others' lives aren't worth enough to you to be sober while driving? Fine - your life might as well be held at the same value.

The selfish shits who get caught drunk driving deserve to die.

Re:Here's the real fix.

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen. Remember how alcohol prohibition was an utter failure in the 1930's? Well they've solved the problems with the War on Drugs. Just make Alcohol a Schedule I Narcotic, using the same argument that they used to make marijuana and ectsasy illegal.

The whole problem of not having enough prisons, not having enough police, etc., all that was fixed when people in government realize that police and prison expansion could be turned into a profit instead of a cost!

The problem of organized crime taking over is solved by labeling them as terrorists!

You really want to reduce drunk driving? Just ban the dangerous drug alcohol! It makes more sense than most of the drugs that are banned already.

Re:Here's the real fix.

[pclminion]

Others' lives aren't worth enough to you to be sober while driving? Fine - your life might as well be held at the same value.

Ever toss rocks over a cliff just to be a dork? You might have hit someone. That's reckless endangerment. So you think people should be executed for that?

Ever drive and talk on a cell phone? You could be distracted and kill someone. Negligence, or reckless endangerment -- there's arguments either way. You think people should be executed for that?

Ever get drunk at a party and hang out on a balcony? You could trip and push someone over. Happens all the time. You think people who drink on balconies deserve to die?

Your "solution" is idiotic. Under your system, a person driving drunk who kills nobody would be executed, while a perfectly sober person who deliberately rams into another car and kills people would be sentenced for murder and just end up going to prison for a while. Yeah, that makes a lot of fucking sense.

Get your head screwed on straight. Among people who have driven a car and who drink alcohol, 99% have driven while intoxicated at some point. The difference between drunk drivers and you, is that they kill accidentally (although they are still responsible for the consequences), but you... you would kill out of cold blooded hatred.

Re:Here's the real fix.

[Anonymous Coward]

...you would kill out of cold blooded hatred.

And the world would be a better place because of it. Removing irresponsible idiots from the gene pool (hopefully before they can reproduce) can only help the human race in the long run.

Re:Here's the real fix.

[pclminion]

And the world would be a better place because of it. Removing irresponsible idiots from the gene pool (hopefully before they can reproduce) can only help the human race in the long run.

Sure, that sounds like a great idea. Until several people decide that you are an irresponsible idiot. Which I think you are. Luckily, I'm not evil like you, so I won't have you killed.

Stalin's followers gleefully carried out his orders, until he got tired of them and decided to have them shot.

Keep up with your ruthless hatemongering. It makes it quite clear to everyone what sort of dangerous individual you are.

Re:Here's the real fix.

[kilfarsnar]

Cool! Are you a parent? Just wondering how excited I should get about your impending suicide.

Re:Here's the real fix.

[Anonymous Coward]

... SMOKES THE POLE ...

Yet another reason not to buy a "new" car...

[domsol]

... seeing that there's absolutely no way to retrofit it onto my existing vehicle.

For your own good

[jefu]

But, but, but....

They're doing it all for your own good.

Clearly all of us are too stupid, drunk, evil or whatever to make reasonable choices for ourselves. So, they should (because they have been elected and are thereby the "voice of the people", imbued with superior wisdom, intelligence and wonderfulness) make them for all of us.

And of course we should ban the internet. Thats been on the table for years.

Just think of all the evil on the internet :
Support for terrorists
Child porn
Pirated music
Slashdot
Porn in general
Drug information
Information about elected officials that they don't control

And the list goes on and on and on. Don't forget the CDA, it comes back over and over in slightly different forms - all aimed at making sure you do the right thing.

amusing

[mu51c10rd]

I for one would be amused to drive through the streets in New Mexico on a weekend night and watching the cars all honking and flashing their lights...

Have you been to a car dealer lately?

[duffbeer703]

The $200 device would probaly cost like $2,000 after labor. A dealer mechanic bills more than an attorney these days.

'scuse me ma'am

[trainsnpep]

Robber: Do you think I could rob you really quick?
Lady: Oh no, I'll run away. Could you wait 30 seconds while I take a breathalizer?
Robber: Let me think on that, and I'll get back to ya.

Anyone else imagine this problem? Cars sometimes need to be gone. Fast.

Here's another scenario:
Fire Pager: Dooooooooo-dooooooooooooooooooooo....dooooo-deeeee eeee....This is 4-12-0, the Pleasantville Fire Department signing on the air with a signal 13 at 23 Lovely Drive. Company 4 area, all companies to respond. The time now is 23:12 I hear a variation of that maybe every week or so. After that, my brother jumps out of bed, throws on a pair of shoes and clothes which are by default waiting at the end of his bed, and is out of the house in less than a minute. He then needs to rush to the fire house. Would you like to add 30 seconds to the response time? He can't not have an ignition interlock, since most of the time he doesn't use his car for fire calls.

Lets try something else:
You're in the middle of Podunk, NM. Your 73-year-old wife is having the symptoms of a heart attack. You call 911, but they're only staffed 6AM to 10PM, and it's midnight. You need to rush her to the hospital. What do you do? Looks like there's another 30 seconds in your way.

It all boils down to this:
How can you prove urgency to a dumb timer?
You can't.

A good idea

[minairia]

I think this is a great idea. I hate it when I go out and then ready to go home and have to worry if I'm over the legal percentage or not. (I stop drinking an hour or so before I leave a party, etc. but I still am insecure about eactly when my blood/alcohal level has become legal.)

Another idea might be for restaurants to have breath analyzers at the door. When you leave you check to see if you were legal to drive or not. Although, as the effect of alcohal is to impair thinking, the idea of having the car itself not start is better.

I am in most cases a complete libertarian who hates any invasion of privacy, government monitoring, etc. However, drunk driving is a horrible scourge in society that we have to wipe people's judgement. i.e. the law abiding person who would never something so stupid has that part of his brain turned off my two much booze, drives home and kills a kid.

I am against the part that constantly requires retesting as you are driving. That seems too much and very bothersome. Those people who would get drunk and deliberately try to get around this system and so evil anyway I'm sure they'd find another trick.

Re:A good idea

[MCZapf]

I think it's better to require anyone with a liquor license to have one of these devices available. I also think that most people, like you, wouldn't drive drunk if they knew their blood alcohol content. But, if they are forced to guess because no breathalizer is available, they may wrongly think that they are OK to drive.

If you want to be really strict, post a police officer or some other public servant at every restaurant and bar, and have them check people as they leave. But don't saddle cars with them. That would be really unfair to people.

Leave it to a Democrat...

[ClubStew]

Leave it to a Democrat for a quick-fix "solution". Something like this won't last long. Think about the dangers of these running breath tests. It's bad enough with people talking on their mobiles or even doing work on their laptops on the freeway. And imagine the disruptance to other drivers when someone's car goes crazy. Anybody that's already a little unnerved by driving on the freeway is going to freak and probably cause an accident (and at those speeds, they're often fatal).

Quick - and stupid - fix indeed. Long-term solutions may take a while, but they tend to stick. They've pretty much been all laid out on the table, but this friggin' liberal congress / nation doesn't want to take time.

Re:Leave it to a Democrat...

[kilfarsnar]

Yeah! It's a good thing a Republican would never cook up a hair-brained scheme

And don't get me started on that liberal congress. If the Republicans controlled both houses, things would be different...

Troll...

where the drunks are coming from

[Anonymous Coward]

Do they drink at home? Do they drink in a bar? Do they go to a package store and drink while they drive home?

They drink on the rez. Obviously you've never been to NM.

Re:Increased punishment does not reduce crime

[RailGunner]

Getting tough on crime might not be the answer to every social ill, but for this one it is. In the case of Drunk Driving, it's a problem of recurrence - here in Texas there was recently a little girl killed by a drunk driver that had over 10 previous DUI convictions. By increasing the penalty, and locking this guy up for a while - we save that little girl's life.

People are people, and will continue to make bad decisions, but if we as a society tell people that if they misbehave, that they get a timeout for 5 years in prison, they'll shape up. If you're in prison, you're not killing pedestrians because you're driving drunk.

I'm not opposed to bars installing breathylizers, as long as it's the bar's choice and not the government telling bar owners that they have to...

One Word

[Anonymous Coward]

Fascism Oh, and one more word. Revolution. If our government keeps turning into a totalitarian state, some may feel like the time may be right to follow the model of our founding fathers, make use of the second amendment that they conceived, and overthrow the government, so that they might enact their own freedom loving government. thats a heckuva runon sentence, but what the heck ;) I'm posting anonymously to preserve my privacy from the gov't.

Re:One Word

[einTier]

Don't worry, by the time we take enough rights from you to get you sufficiently pissed off, we'll have gotten rid of all the guns.

Shit, didn't you know the first amendment was all about hunting? And in our society, why do you need to hunt? You can buy everything you need at the local grocery store, and if you are so poor that you can't afford that, there's always food stamps.

reply!

[QEDog]

Don't you hate it when you get moderated up. But there are no responses to your post.

Yes, I do!

I predict a few crashes

[fudgefactor7]

These rolling retests require the driver to take the test as the car is moving.

Great, so someone has a new distraction in their car to go along with cell phones, the CD player, kids...etc. Wait until a few people wrap themselves around a tree. Then I wonder if the state may be liable for passing retarded legislation.

Good one, lawmakers. Strike another blow for stupidity!

Re:laws - bullshit!

[ObiWanKenblowme]

I'm pretty sure the same applies here in Florida...

Mod UP!!!

[strike2867]

I replied in thread earlier so cant mod up now.

There is a reason for these laws

[kcurtis]

You are a Democratic senator in the US Senate. There is a close vote coming up. Ashcroft suggests to someone in law enforcement that the inability for you to vote would be nice. This person (cop/agent/whatever) pulls you over and claims you were travelling 140 in a 55 zone. You are held in jail until a hearing. You miss the vote, which passes by one.

Our founding fathers knew that this might happen, and included a clause about it in the US Constitution:

Article 6: Clause 1: The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, beprivileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

They thought it could happen. It has happened in other times and places. It could definitely happen here.

Such exemptions are not as "evil" as most people think. They certainly weren't included in federal and state constitutions as some sort of underhanded means of ignoring criminal laws.

You must be new here

[Tibor the Hun]

So I'll give you a little pointer:
Under no circumstances are you to apply reason when it comes to issues regarding anything even remotely related to personal privacy, rights or property.
Especially things that have potential to save lives.
And yes, I'm still pissed off about seat belts! I have to touch cold/hot metal just so I can have better control of my car and potentially save my life. Not to mention that there is a possibility of them locking me in, while the car is overturned, under water and on fire, no less! (With possibly someone running to attack me!)

(although i must admit that my seatbelt probably did save my life after a very intoxicated driver nailed me head on)

Get a clue people, I don't want drunk fuckers driving all around me, my family, and my kids, just because you find it inconvenient or conspiratory to blow in a tube for 30 secs.

Typo alert

[A55M0NKEY]

And you do die if .... ( Blood alcohol level = 0.05 )

The blood alcohol level you die at is 0.5, not 0.05.

Re:Typo alert

[Molt]

Ah yes, but having the DUI limit at almost twice the lethal dose makes it so much easier to spot them.

Pissalyzer Test?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not just hook a catheter up and you can re-test all you want... with minor discomfert.

Repeal Laws!? Wisconsin would be overrun with

[ChinaJoe]

Citizens from minnesota with chickens on their heads!!
These laws are necessary and must continue to be enforced! I do not, nay could not, stand for anyone crossing into my state with a chicken on their head.

Oooohhh, the indignity! The Shame!

Interlock for the legislators

[minniger]

Sound like the need an interlock on the capital building
there in NM. Probably a fancy one that will also detect crack
use.

Actually, might not be bad for the CA legislators either.
There is some seriously weird stuff going on around here.

Enforce the laws we already have.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why in the h**l do people always want to pass new laws? The problem is not with the current laws the problem is with enforcemet of the current laws.

Make the records public

[stephens_domain]

If you could get it added to the bill that the records of this system will be made public for public officials, it would probably die a quick death.

another arbitrary deterant

[happyfrogcow]

not related to cars, but similar in the way people think passing of time means something for credibility. I had opened a checking account years ago, and when you order new checks you can say what number you want them to start at. So i said 950 or something since I had a used the first 50 or so, maybe initially my checks started at 900. Anyway, I go to a store to buy some stuff, was going to pay with a check, but they didn't allow checks numbered lower than 1000 because it means you don't have money(?) since you just opened the account(?). I was pissed, and left the stuff I was going to buy scattered on the counter, and gave them a semi-polite peice of my mind. It was a small local store, it was highly probable that the guy behind the register was the owner. Such an arbitrary requirement. Much like the 2 years the credit unions wanted from you. Time is so arbitrary. So, from no on, when i order checks or open a new account, I start the checks with a higher number. Though, i hardly write checks anymore.

Significantly less harsh than your situation.

Public Transit

[metamatic]

Loutish, drunken behavior is a serious problem on public transit. Just wait until they fit these devices on the buses...

Re:Sunset and Omnibus bills

[A55M0NKEY]

I can imagine all the pork attached to the Anti-Murder re-up bill... Governor: "Yeah, I know the bill is full of crap, but if I don't sign it, then I've just declared anarchy!"

Too low?

[sjb2016]

In Sweden, any alcohol in the system while driving is an offense. Two things need to change here it the U.S. We need to change our attitudes so that getting sloshed and having somebody else drive home (via bus, cab, friend) has no stigma. In my host family in Sweden and others, the parents would drive to the city. Get hammered and take a cab or bus home, pick up their car the next day. Here in America, people are convinced that they can drive drunk. Not sure why this is, or how to change it, but it needs to be changed.

Also, we need better public transit. I know in my hometown the only transport is car, not even an expensive cab. It is limiting, but again, not sure how that will change given the spread out and massive nature of this country.

Personally, I don't drive for an hour after having one drink, and never drive if I've had more. I'm pretty big so one drink after one hour is almost non-existent in the blood stream. I think the legal limit should be one drink in the bloodstream.

Re:Too low?

[Major_Small]

In my host family in Sweden and others, the parents would drive to the city. Get hammered and take a cab or bus home, pick up their car the next day. Here in America, people are convinced that they can drive drunk

that's great, but here in america, you head to the city, get drunk take a subway to the train ($2) take the train back to your town ($20) and take a cab back to your house ($20)... then you find a way back into the city the next morning only to find that it'll cost you another $200 to get your car out of the police impound...

I'm not saying that you should think this way at all... I agree with you somewhat, but you shouldn't generalize 'americans' that way... alot of the people I know always have a safe way home after getting drunk...

this car thing is just a stupid idea though... for several reasons:

1. your wife's in labor. do you really have an extra 30 seconds to wait for some stupid breath test?
2. your wife's in labor, it's three in the morning. you quickly swash with mouthwash while she's getting out of bed because you have terrible morning breath. you run out to the car with her, get in, fail the breathalyzer...
3. 'rolling tests' are just another distraction
4. your beeping horn and flashing lights are a distracation to other motorists

who thought this up, anyway? things like this make me wonder wether americans really have all the control we're told we have...

Re:Too low?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, 5. My wife has asthma. If she needs to get somewhere, having to do a 30-second test to start the car may send her to the ER.

Re:Too low?

[MechaStreisand]

I think Sweden's is a ridiculous limit, and should not be held as an example for anyone else. People with small amounts of blood alcohol are not the ones causing accidents and killing people, at least not any more than sober drivers. Drunk drivers are the ones who are the real threat. There is no need to punish people who aren't a danger just because they are similar in some way to those who are.

That is legislation based on stupidity, and it's wrong.

False Positive or Breakage.

[Deathlizard]

I can already see the fun this will be for the towing industry already.

For Example. My mother owns a cadillac with one of those antitheft passkey systems in it. One night, I decided to go to Sheetz to get something to eat. The car drove fine to the Gas station, but once I got my food, the car wouldn't start saying that the Theft system is activated and the car needed to wait three minutes to start.

Waited three minutes, tried again, car didn't start. well you get the Idea. After all the towing, the new igintion Lock for the car, as well as new keys it ended up costing us $300 Dollars.

Now, I see the same thing happening to anyone equipped with one of these stupid things in them. If it failes in any way, Your Screwed and you better start walking. Which sounds great in New Mexico, which is mostly desert.

And this is not counting False Positives. I remember watching Mythbusters where they tried to fool a breathalyzer. In one of their tests, they used mouthwash and it spiked the meter to over twice the legal limit. What Happens If I'm late for work and I just brushed my teeth and try to start my car now? I bet it would be great telling your boss your car wont start cause the breathalyzer wont let you.

Simply put. This is unneccessary for anyone that has never had a DUI Charge. You want to make life a living hell, make it for the convicted DUI Offenders and force them to have it and not the general public.

Obligatory Star Trek Reference

[Cytlid]

Computer, start the car please.

I'm unable to process your request, sir.

Computer, please explain.

Sensors indicate a high level of alcohol in your bloodstream, sir.

Computer, what can I do?

Please have a responsible, lucid and sober person pilot the machine.

Number two, make it so.

Gave up mod'ing to post...

[GooberToo]

but, this is one of the more bonehead ideads I've heard in a very long time.

If he really wants to make a difference, it's very, very easy to do. This smells like a worthless politician simply attempting to get some news coverage. He clearly is not attempting to address the problem. Addressing the problem really is fairly easy to do.

To address it, you fine people 20% (incrementally increasing for each offence (20%, 40%, etc) of their post-tax yearly income, due immediately. Failure to pay immediately results in the loss of their vehicle. If you retain your vehicle, it should then be required to have one of these devices installed, at your own expense. It should be required to remain in place, for some number of years. Inability to pay to have the device installed, should require the vehicle be impounded until it is installed. Repeat offenders, forfeit their license for a year or so, and pay their fine. Drunk drivers involved in even minor accidents (which is fairly common) should face all the above, loss of their vehicle, and the loss of their license for several years, and a mandatory 6-months in jail. Removal of the device from your vehicle should be loss of vehicle, fined as defined above, and a year in jail. Plus, drunk drivers with a record should be required to pay a premium drunk-driver's tax on all vehicles that they purchase for the next 20-years, or some such thing. This would help prevent the disposable car problem which also seems to pop up with some drunk drivers.

Seems like only the most idiotic of drunk drivers would willing want to get involved in something like that. Obviously, it's not going to stop the hard-core drunks, but I have a hard time imagining that a casual driver isn't going to reconsider.

dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

I work across the street from the capitol bldg in Santa Fe NM. If you are a friend a any municipal judge you will never be fined or go to jail for DUI.
If you are not a friend of the judge you will still not have to go to jail or pay much of a fine. Every day there are stories of some guy that just got arrested for his 18th DUI and nothing is done about it. If the current laws were enforced there would be much less of this kind of problem. Our legislators are a bunch of knee-jerk reactionists without a lick of sense. Ken Martinez's daughter is a lobbyist for the company that makes the breathilyzer device. They have been installed on bunch state vehicles and they do not work very well. They give false positives a lot of times. There is no provision for another company to provide the device. Is the state going to pay to repair them when they break? Already it is common for drunks to have thier kids drive them home. Why not just have your kid blow into the device. New Mexico is home to Los Alamos National Labs - Sandia Labs - National Center for Genome Research - Santa Fe Institute and host of fairly brainy people. How long before some makes a device that bypasses the device.

Sign me :
Drunk, Stupid and suffering from the plague

WWMPD? (What would Mr. Pink Do?)

[telstar]

Mr. Pink breaks into a full sprint ... diamond-filled briefcase in hand with three cops in hot pursuit. Knocking down pedestrians, he dashes down the sidewalk, around the corner, and across the street ... smashing shoulder-first into a slowly approaching car. The collision leaving a spider-web-like smash in the car's windshield, and a terrified soccer-mom in the driver's seat. Mr. Pink turns and fires off a full clip of bullets in the general direction of the cops, tagging one. In one swift motion, he yanks the driver out of the car and climbs in to make his get-away.

*pause*

He inserts the breathing tube into his mouth and performs the requisite 30 second slow-breathing test. Three puffs out, three puff in.

*hold on a couple more seconds*

*a few more*

*where were those cops again?*

Passing with flying colors, he starts rolling. Wait ... another quick test to make sure it's really you that did the first one.

*come on man, you're SAVING LIVES*

Passing again, he continues his "get-away".
Just think of the impact a requirement would have on the movies. A chase scene with a required breath analysis? I don't think so....

Next thing they'll be requiring seat belts...

[lma]

Next thing you know they'll be requiring seat belts in every car and requiring you to wear them.

Larry

Re:Next thing they'll be requiring seat belts...

[kilfarsnar]

Yeah, but your car still starts without the seatbelt fastened. Imagine how much fun it would be if your car would only run if your seatbelt were fastened...

Re:Next thing they'll be requiring seat belts...

[lma]

Ack! Don't suggest that! Someone will think it's a good idea and try to make it a law.

In fact, I bet if someone had thought of it at the time, it would have been proposed as an alternative to imposing air bags on everyone.

Larry

Re:Next thing they'll be requiring seat belts...

[kilfarsnar]

The sad thing is, you're probably right.

Lawsuit?

[erl343]

So what happens after I catch a communicable disease after the valet is forced to blow into this device on my car?

Motherly Government

[Craig Maloney]

I'm so grateful that I will have to pay a higher cost for my next car just so the car can administer a breathalyzer to me. Maybe they can also have technology to ensure I'm not entering a store without shoes or shirt so the clerk doesn't have to tell me that they can't serve me. This has got to stop before it gets too far out of hand.

Thanks mom!

In other news...

[silentrob]

Automobile sales in the state of New Mexico drops to an all time low.

Man dies in auto accident after breathing test takes his attention off the road.

Woman dies in parking lot while trying to evade criminals and having to wait 30 seconds to start her car to get away.

breath tests in bars instead

[br3itain]

Why not just have more breathalizer tests (the coin-operated sort) in bars, instead? There are a few like that in Cleveland and actually, the bars probably make decent money off of them as people like to use the tests as a "progress marker" to see how well they're doing or to compete with their drinking buddies. Of course, people also use them in the manner intended, i.e. to make sure they're not too drunk to drive.

will this work

[genetic_freak]

what is going to prevent people from just hooking up one of those cans of compressed air to a hose and using that any time the car wants to test them?

These breath tests seem a little too easy to beat if you don't have someone there monitoring them.

what's even worse is that we already complain about people using cell phones while driving, how may accidents will be caused by people blowing through a tube till they are blue in the face while driving?

My old man had one of these after a DWI in PA

[Tsu-na-mi]

My dad got stopped for speeding (and subsequently DWI) in 1990 and as part of a Pennsylvania first-time offenders program he paid a fine, did time in AA meetings, and had one of these installed in his car. By doing so he avoided the mandatory 48 hours jail time and loss of license.

It cost around $2500 to install, and he had to keep it in the car for a year. You had to blow in a pattern, and the thing was fussy as hell. Like blow for 5 seconds, stop, blow for 2 seconds, stop, blow for 2 seconds and pray you did it close enough. Don't blow too hard, or too softly. It was easy to screw it up and have to redo it. It was right around then that I started to drive, so I got the old car and my mom started driving the car with the interlock on it. She had a hell of a time getting it to work under normal conditions. On more than one occasion she failed the 3 times and was stuck waiting 30 minutes for the lock to time out.

Maybe the technology on these has improved in the last 14 years, but I'd bet they're just as fussy as they ever were. Bad idea, too expensive, and why are we punishing 100% of the citizens for something .08% or less of them do? I'm all for whoever suggested the politicians all 'test' this idea for a year to see how it goes before enacting it as law.

More power to the states

[spikenerd]

Fortunately, the founding fathers of this country had the foresight to give everyone a constitutional right to move to another state whenever they feel like it for any reason. That way when one state does something stupid, they just lose taxpayers. Now if the federal government does something stupid, on the other hand, the people have to live with it until some terms expire. (And if the Supreme Court does something stupid, we're hosed.) Just be thankful the states still have some of the power to govern themselves so the fed won't do it!

Letter to the ACLU in New Mexico

[Anonymous Coward]

was Re:Will last about 1/2 hour...

As you mention, interlocks now are used by court order only. This is Constitutional and reasonable. Someone needs to re-educate Mr. Martinez about the Constitution:

Speeking of the Constitution, I found this at http://www.peeniewallie.com/documents/ACLU-NM-2004 -02-18-PW.html:

American Civil Liberties Union, New Mexico Chapter
PO Box 80915 Albuquerque, NM 87198
(800) 773-5706 (outside Albuquerque)

KRQE-13's web site has a story about a new bill requiring breathalyzer ignition interlocks in every vehicle in New Mexico,
at http://www.krqe.com/expanded2.asp?RECORD_KEY%5bBig LocalAdvanced%5d=ID&ID%5BBigLocalAdvanced%5D=3 247

Date Posted: 2/17/2004 | Time Updated: 12:24:56 PM

'Breathalyzer in every car' bill passes house

Some state lawmakers are convinced they have the answer to solve
the D.W.I. epidemic and want to require everyone on the road to
take a breathalyzer test before they can start the engine of any vehicle.

Today, the proposal is one very large step closer to becoming law.

A bill requiring an ignition interlock device be installed on every car,
truck, bus or motorcycle in New Mexico passed the state house today and
is on its way to the senate.

[snip]

The bill also has perked the ears and raised concern at the local chapter
of the American civil liberties union.

"We are concerned that if you've got to sort of go through a mini search
every time you drive your car," says Reber Boult. "That's very invasive."

Welcome to my world.

As one of the tens of millions of law-abiding gun owners in this country, I have to go through a background check, and wait for government permission, every time I purchase a firearm. Such background checks could be described as "a mini search" that's "very invasive."

I don't have to do this because guns are more dangerous than cars.

There are about 220 million vehicles in the United States [1].

There are about 250 million guns in the United States [2].

From 1999 to 2001, there were 130,215 motor vehicle related fatalities, or 43,000 motor vehicle related deaths per year [3].

From 1999 to 2001, there were 87,110 firearms related fatalities, or 29,000 firearms related deaths per year.

This means there are about 20 deaths per 100,000 vehicle per year, and 12 deaths per 100,000 guns per year.

A given car or truck is 1.7 times more likely to be involved in a fatality than any given gun is. It should also be noted that, unlike automobile deaths, 60% of the people killed by gunshot wounds chose to end their own life. With an automobile, there is rarely an intent to cause death. Yet vehicles are still involved in more deaths -- both in terms of absolute numbers and per-unit -- than firearms are.

Unlike the privilege to drive, the right to "keep and bear arms" is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. While claiming to be "neutral" on the issue of gun rights, the ACLU has stated that "If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns [4]." While I had always hoped that the "license guns like cars" argument would lead to broader rights for gun owners (since vehicle licensing and registration is actually very lenient compared to gun control laws), I shouldn't

Another fantastic idea!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh what a great system this sounds like!!! (Note the irony).

Let me tell you a little story.

I was 18, had just received my license (we get em that late in some parts of Europe).

However living in a small community a had agreed to be driving some people home, being a designated driver was a good deal since it ment I could get home faster from the place I was working.

I dropped off the first three and was driving the fourth to his home.

What happened next makes me wonder what it had ment for my personal life if such a system had been installed in my parents car.

I had the great fortune to be threatened by a %&%ing Psycho.

This guy insisted I was sweet and good looking and that I was to come with him inside, or he'd pull out his knife he added.

My heart went thumping - was this guy for real?

Well his serious attitude and the way he squeezed my leg with his firm hands sure didn't do anything to reassure me.

And his repetition of the threat combined with a more intense squeeze convinced me.

My mind raced - I definately did not appreciate him calling me a pretty boy, but I was young and afraid and not able to assert myself like I would have done today. (Became a bouncer and in 5 years only had one run in that I couldn't talk myself out of)

However back to the story. I managed to lure him to lock his door when we got out after which I jumped inside turned the key and sped away leaving him standing in complete surprise under a barrage of gravel n'dirt from the wheels.

To bad the system wasn't installed or that guy might have gotten "lucky" that evening.

And I can only imagine that there must be thousands of incidents like this in a country thousands upon thousands the size of my native country.

And wasn't there something about a pre teen kid driving a sick/wounded parent to the hospital a few years back?

How would such a system have worked if the kid couldn't reach the breath tester, or if the kid had been unable to sustain the exhalation required for such a test?

All I can say is:

DO NOT LIMIT OR HAMPER THE ABILITY OF PEOPLE TO START THEIR VEHICLE AND DRIVE IT INSTANTLY IN ANY WAY! - THE CONSEQUENCES COULD BE DISASTROUS

Oh please

[Jethro]

I don't drink.

In fact, I hate alcohol. I hate any mind-altering drug.

And I really hate idiots who think that they can "handle it" and drive under the influence.

And even I think this is law is completely stupid.

canned air, etc.

[Fratz]

Can you bypass it with the use of canned air? If so, will it then become illegal to transport canned air in the driver's compartment?

I'm all in favor of things that make people not drive incompetently, but aren't there general-purpose eye-tracking solutions that apply to any type of impairment, like sleepiness, drug use, cellphone use, or having children in the car?

Statistics

[Zilfondel2]

This just MIGHT be related to the very high rate of driving under the influence in New Mexico, and the high numbers of people killed by drunk drivers. In 2002, there were 215 traffic deaths related to alcohol.

Not only that, but in 2002, 17,419 people in the US died in alcohol-related accidents.
In 2001, 500,000 people were INJURED in accidents involving alcohol.

Rights be damned. If everyone is being so ridiculously irresponsible with drinking, then YOU SHOULD NOT BE DRIVING A CAR! Stop whining, drink at home or get a damn designated driver.

mod -1 BAD MATH

[gonar]

no, it would be 1/10th of a pint or a litttle less than an ounce.
yes, that's 1 shot of everclear and you're legally drunk (or damn close to it).

the reason they say "two drinks an hour" is that most drinks have 1 shot of 80 proof (40% alcohol) liquor in them (a 6 oz glass of wine (@~10%) or a 12 oz beer is roughly equivalent).

assuming your liver can process alcohol at that rate (a wildly variable rule of thumb) then you can drink 2 drinks an hour till the cows come home and remain just below the legal limit.

Re:mod -1 BAD MATH

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you smoking? 1/10 of a pint is exactly two fluid ounces! That's 56,8ml for people in civilised countries BTW.

RE: mod -1 BAD MATH

[sparcv9]

no, it would be 1/10th of a pint or a litttle less than an ounce.

Seeing as there are 16 fluid ounces in a pint, one tenth of a pint would be 1.6 ounces. Who's bad at math?

yes, that's 1 shot of everclear and you're legally drunk (or damn close to it).

Um, that's my point. I said "by YOUR numbers", referring to the original poster. I was pointing out the absurdity of his claim that .90BAC meant that one's bloodstream was 90% alcohol by showing that .10BAC couldn't possibly mean that one's bloodstream was 10% alcohol.

I have an idea

[RealRav]

When this is passed lets all refuse to take the retest while driving on a busy city street. Shut a city down for a couple days and see what happens.

Statistical Suicide ( and Who Really Pays )

[stress4dad]

Provisions like this amount to nothing more than statistical suicide (or murder)...that is, by taking resources through regulation (to pay for the new devices) to prevent some deaths, you actually prevent those resources being applied to other more likely and more serious threats. The benefit to society would then be generally lower (less benefit for a given cost). And just remember who will really pay...the consumer will pay through higher prices, less choice, and less freedom. Oh yeah...don't drive drunk. I work with a lot of young men and women in the local prison system, many of whom have had problems with alcohol. It's just not worth it.

The way to stop this stuff

[glsunder]

The way to stop this kind of stuff is to pass a law stating that anyone who introduces and supports a new law like this has to abide by it for 1 year if it _doesn't_ pass.

In this case, the group of people and politicians who supported it would have to get this breathalizer installed and use it for one year. I bet they'd think things through a bit more the next time they got a harebrained idea.

Of course, this post is a harebrained idea too...

Nation of Criminals

[illuminatedwax]

There is a disturbing trend toward laws that treat the consumer or citizen as though they have already broken the law. Apparently, the promise of punishment is no longer effective and therefore we must move toward preventitive measures. There is a disturbing amount of people who, in recent times, have clamored for laws like this, saying things like they will "prevent something terrible from happening" and "only drunks will not be able to drive anyway." We've become so paralyzed with fear that we just want bad things to stop. This is very dangerous, to both our privacy and outr freedom. The point is that, in most cases, we need to have the freedom to break the law.

What I mean is that our actions must not be censored, that we need to be able to break the law. These kinds of laws are, simply put, destroying our free will. What these laws do is presume that every one of us has a possibility of breaking the law. In effect, this car law assumes that every person purchasing a car is in fact, a criminal, and will attempt to DUI. If a nation is to be free, there is a certain amount of faith that it must give to each of its citizens. Otherwise, the entire nation is viewed as a nation of criminals, and any idea we once had of freedom disappears.

This is more important than you think.

bored at work,
--Stephen

Re:Nation of Criminals

[kilfarsnar]

Hear Hear! I am of the opinion that Americans, by and large, take their freedom for granted. They just don't think "it could happen here". Indeed, the American system is very strong and resists infringement on freedom. But it has been said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. We need more vigilance.

Thoughts...

[Magus311X]

I have 1 drink a year, at New Year's. Why should I have this?

My father is having a heart-attack and the ambulance has no idea where I live Oh well, I have to wait 30 seconds for my breath-test to compelte before I can attempt to get him to the hospital.

The unit fails, or is horribly uncalibrated, and my car stops. Again, why should I be inconvenienced?

If this is installed in every car, it should be DISABLED by default, and ONLY enabled for DUI offenders.

-----

Of course, remember folks, people will ALWAYS be idiots. Yesterday there was 5 inches of powder snow, and plows didn't bother coming to my neighborhood. There's a large downhill golf course 2 blocks away that's GREAT for sledding. But instead, some woman has he 4 young kids get on a sled, and hold onto the rear-bumper of her SUV as she drives around at 25-30mph. All fun and games until someone slides through a stop sign or loses control on the ice.

People are stupid, and they can't be protected by more foolish laws

----- ----- -----

Re:laws - bullshit!

[74nova]

i live in one of the wettest college towns around so i know a few folks that have had at least the old tech version of these things installed in their cars following dui's. one guy had it prevent him from driving because he had just eaten some baby carrots.

if they make the technology for this bulletproof(yeah, right) then i think its a reasonable idea. i SERIOUSLY doubt that it will be implemented properly.

as a side note, the laws are so screwed up in this town that its "safer" (as in not getting ticketed) to drive home than walk. they ticket more people for public intox for walking home than they pull over for dui. how much sense does that make? as someone who has NEVER driven anywhere near intoxicated, this angers me. i could have children here someday get killed because somebody wanted to avoid a ticket so they drove home drunk.

mainly, it's a cultural thing

[kd4evr]

Prevention of drunk driving by breath on-board sensors? Silly idea! It's not the cars that are on the sauce...

Some people will no longer drive drunk when punished once.
Some people will not even try to get caught if the fines are heavy and furhter sanctions follow.
Some people, however, especially alcoholics, will simply carry on until they roll in a ditch, license or no license.

Tougher sanctions do help.
Prevention in the sense of frequent highway patrols in right places, notes at bars, taxi offers, awareness campaings help, too.
But mostly, it's a cultural thing.

For example, in Europe, the souther you go, the more tolerance is present ( with some high-tolerance exceptions in cultures that specifically "worship" alcohol regardless of the climate). In Scandinavia, for example, few people even dare try drunk driving, and it's not just that they get caught and are heavily sanctioned, they are ASHAMED! In a country I know on the south side of the Alps (embarassed to name it) drinking, driving and avoiding cops is a folkore ritual: every other weekend someone we know has to get caught, and starts a get-away-with-it process that may include bribing the police, obstructing the court proceedings, or avoiding sanctions imposed. Tougher sanctions and campaining are starting to show some effect, though. Compared to the 80's and 90's, people are gradually getting more responsible. Will take a few more decades, I imagine, to reach a respectable level.

People and communitites tolerate drunk driving in others until someone close and innocent is badly hurt on acount of that, and most people stop bad practices until they or their close friend are heavily sanctioned (some tough cases having to be fined and license suspended for say 2 or three times ;-)...

The best investment is campaining, education, awareness raising... Installing breath sensors into cars will only develop a market for "illegal" cars that carry alcoholics. And let traffic control be what it is supposed to be, and deal with alcohol addiction in humans in general, not only while they may be crawling into the driving seat.

MADD is mad (we need YRC: "your rights in a car")

[Uksi]

If MADD had their way, they'd have a detector that if you touched a bottle of alcohol in the last two hours, you'd get a ticket for attempting to start your car. You think I'm kidding, but with an ignition interlock and the ever-falling BAC levels, it may just happen. (Do everyone a favor and read why MADD is mad.).

BTW, unlike MADD or a rambling lunatic, I'm going to back up every claim with a link.

MADD (and NHTSA) grossly overexaggerate their claims of "drunk driving accidents," which are really alcohol-related accidents (a misleading statistic used by NHTSA). Did you know that if you, while 100% sober, hit a drunk pedestrian, it counts as an alcohol-related accident? Or did you know that if you get in an accident and EVERYONE is sober (driver, pedestrian, passengers), you can still be counted as alcohol-related due to the statistical correction that NHTSA uses, since only 63% of drivers are tested for their BAC level!

MADD claims that 0.08 BAC reduction saves lives, yet a study by NHTSA found no proof of such reduction after North Carolina enacted the lower BAC limit: "There appears to have been little clear effect of the lower BAC limit in North Carolina. Survey data indicate that the general public believes the new law was well-publicized. Although awareness of the new lower limit was not particularly high nearly 18 months after the law took effect, frequent drinkers did evidence a substantial degree of awareness that the law had changed and about what the new BAC limit was. As is typical in North Carolina, enforcement of the lower limit was vigorous and strict."

MADD wants to lower the BAC limit lower and lower, to 0.05. It claims victory over the 0.08 law over the previous 0.10 standard. However, it has been found that "the relative risk [of being in a traffic accident while using a cell-phone] is similar to the hazard associated with driving with a blood alcohol level at the legal limit." The legal limit in that paper was 0.10 BAC. Another interesting note is that "These data also call into question driving regulations that prohibit handheld cell-phones and permit hands-free cell-phones, because no significant differences in the impairments caused by these two cellular devices were found.", but that's another topic of conversation.

Point is, why do they want to keep lowering the BAC when it has been shown that the vast majority of drunk driving accidents occurs with drivers with over 0.10 BAC, and that below that, it's as risky as using a cell phone? Why is MADD targeting low-BAC-level drivers, such as 0.08 (and as they hope 0.05), with huge fines, property confiscation, loss of driver license, and obscene insurance surcharges? MADD wants to bully states into the 0.08 BAC law by passing legislation that threatens their funding.

Furthermore, when NHTSA's accident data was loaded in a database and independent statistics were ran on it, the massive exaggerations were exposed. Quote from the previous link: "Through the use of this tool we were able to discover that across the entire country NHTSA nearly doubles the number of instances of drunk drivers. And this is prior to them implementing their "Multiple Imputation" methodology w

Welcome to New Mexico, please leave common

[JohnnyGTO]

sense and personal responsibilty at the border!!

Maybe a 30 day waiting period on booze and any food produce that can be destill? Better add perscription medication to that to.

What about...

[big_knuckles]

In the winter I usually like to leave my car on for 5-10 minutes for the engine to warm up. Would I still be able to do that?

And what about those people who use their headlights for other purposes, such as aiding someone in changing a tire or jumping a car battery? These processes can take a lengthy amount of time.

(reminds me of that car battery commerical where they use the headlights as light to play basketball)

How about inforcing the laws we've got?

[Kick the Donkey]

I consider myself fairly liberal (in the American scence), but the older I get, the more I want the gov to just enforce the laws we do have.

I agree with the posters commnet: Stiffer penelties. But, we also need to realize that the current level of at which someone is considered drunk is NOT truely drunk for a large portion of people. In fact, the founder of MADD (Mothers against drunk driving) is kind of dis-heartened with the way this country is treating drunk drivers. Her intent was to never make it illegal to have a cocktail, and drive. She wanted to stop the true drukards from getting behind the wheel.

What I'm trying to say, in my rambling way, is that we should punish the true drunk drivers. And punish them hard. But, don't punish citizens who have never driven drunk (or, in the case of my state, arrest people for public intoxication because they where walking home! [why where they walking home? Because they where too drunk to drive! Give them some credit for knowing their limits!]

A victim's tale

[christurkel]

My parents were killed by a drunk driver when I was 18 and a device like this would have saved their lives so from that perspective, it is easy to be for this law.

However, I think this this idea is punishing everybody for the sins of the few and is a bad idea. A better idea would tougher drunk driving laws, including making vehicular homicide, for those with an illegal blood alcohol level while driving, a first degree murder felony.

Re:A victim's tale

[Anonymous Coward]

... including making vehicular homicide, for those with an illegal blood alcohol level while driving, a first degree murder felony.

I'm sure your loss has given you a very personal desire to see those who have committed vehicular homicide pushed approperatly.

However! 1st degree murder means pre-meditated and should not apply to vehicular homicide. (Unless the person in question had a plan to kill someone with a car and happened to be legaly impared at the time.)

I understand the desire to see justice done can be very strong when you are personally involved with something as terrable as what you had to go though but please think about what you are asking for and weigh it against the types of crimes that that offence is reserved for.

This isn't a new idea...

[manduwok]

This system is already available for DWI offenders. I live in Maryland, and a friend of mine drove drunk while under the influence... the next time I saw him, he had one of these contraptions on his car... we affectionately called it "blow-n-go."

Great for CO, TX, AZ, used car dealers

[theonetruekeebler]

Car dealerships along the NM border will spring up the way lottery outlets and fireworks stands spring across the state line from where those are illegal. You're going to see a hell of a lot of cars being driven by NM residents, but owned (and registered) with their out-of-state sibling.

Also, does anybody remember back in the mid-1970s in the US, when all cars were required to have a continuously sounding buzzer if the seatbelt was unfastened, and some cars had seat belt interlocks? More to the point, does anybody remember that the very first trip taken in one of those cars was to a mechanic to get the interlock disabled?

Third, who's going to compensate the families of those who get killed when a driver is too distracted by fiddling with their rolling re-test device to pay attention to the goddamned road?

BTW, how long until there's a video recorder to make sure the driver isn't molesting a child in the back seat?

No way!

[jdavidb]

Years ago when my family was in Albuquerque we had some creepy looking panhandler come up to our car in a restaurant parking lot. He looked a little bit unstable and dangerous. We decided to eat somewhere else and took off as fast as we could. Under those circumstance, having to wait 30 seconds for the car to start would have been completely unacceptable and possibly life threatening.

Perhaps New Mexico needs to do something about its panhandling problem first so it will be safe to install this measure.

only DWI? Come on now!

[jbeamon]

Only alcohol testing? Please, people. Why not have every vehicle test us for alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, LSD, ecstasy, opiods, tryptophan, prescription drugs that have "do not drive or operate machinery" labels, IQ, a valid license, vision, unpaid parking and traffic tickets, and a properly executed parallel park before letting us on the street?

Seriously.... this is alcohol-only because it's backed by a "DWI special interest group" mentality. Not a group of people, but a mentality that progresses from a single symptom to a broad sweeping cure-all. There's already a black market for clean urine samples. It'd be even easier to provide a puff of clean air for a tube. The problem is not "drunk driving", per se; the problem is that people get away with DWI and DUI crimes that are already clearly defined, either without being caught or without a seriously prohibitive and @*$#-scary set of consequences. If people had their licenses revoked for a year on a DWI/DUI conviction, it would go farther to prevent the offense than new laws or expensive and mandatory new technology.

Great

[wrax]

So when your rolling down the highway and are forced to take this test, hopefully you won't have to take your eyes off the road to do it, you could end up causing an accident.

Read the law

[Anonymous Coward]

"that is sold and registered in this state and whose gross vehicle weight is less than ten thousand pounds."

So you can have a semi and drive as drunk as you want. Looks like Peterbilt sales will rise dramitically. Makes me feel safe.

Increase punishments & enforce three strikes..

[TheRealStyro]

Every time I watch an episode of Cops, or read a news report on DUI, I remember an episode of Cops about a driver getting stopped for his 15th DUI. This has got to stop.

Punishing the general driving population by requiring breathalyzer tests is not a good idea. Even if it includes a generous insurance reduction, it would still be a bad idea. A good idea to handle DUI offences is to improve the punishments and get the habitual drunks off the road.

An example: After the third strike he should never get a drivers license in any state, never own/register another motor vehicle in any state, and be sentenced to minimum five years community control (ankle strap, payments & all). No hardship, no pleas, no nonsense.

are you a time-traveler from earth's distant past?

[Anonymous Coward]

circa 1990?
nice use of 'NOT', I bet your kids think you're totally hip with the lingo.

"cool. do kids still use that word? cool?"

Laws always make you buy things

[Facekhan]

The solution to every problem is to force everyone to pay for something they don't need or want while surrendering both privacy and personal freedom because someone might commit a crime.

This law consistutes a search of everyone who drives a car every time they turn the car on and again when they drive for 20 minutes or so.

Its ridiculous. It will probably not pass because it puts the burden on everyone except those who drive drunk.

What states should really do is enforce good neighbor laws that tell businesses such as gun stores and liquor stores and bars not to sell to people who are already intoxicated or those who the business operator reasonably believes will use said product for an illegal purpose or in the case of alcohol will drive.

Another thing is that people who are caught on DWI should have their right to buy alcohol suspended as well as their right to drive. A note should be put on their driver's license/state id that they are not permitted to purchase alcohol until x amount of months after the DWI/DUI

No way

[pergamon]

Having to wait even 3 seconds every time I want to start up the engine on my car is a ridiculous proposal and completely unacceptable.

This bill will be thrown out within 24 hours of the first time someone dies because they weren't able to start and move their car out of the way in time.

Aside from the safety issue, this is an all-too-easy way to introduce additional required monitoring of what goes on in a car. See this comment for more details.

Shame on New Mexico for electing the moron who started this and those who voted for it.

My Hack

[phishtrader]

My work around for this assinine law would be to. . . um. . . buy a car in a different state.

Re:laws - bullshit!

[yerfatma]

The first time you (or a loved one) get hit by a drunk driver, you'll realize that this limits the freedoms of a drunk driver, but increases the freedom of innocent people like you and I.

Wow. The first time you slow down and re-read that, you'll realize your logic could justify taking away any and all rights.

Re:Rental Cars?

[mwronski]

So what about rental cars? I am not wrapping my lips around the blow hole on some Ford Tarus that Hertz rented to god knows what kind of scum bag.. Those cars are nasty enough after their supposed "cleaning" between renters.. Then again there would then be the new cottage industry of Booze Puffer Disposable Mouth Guards (TM). My idea! Consider this my prior art just in case this BS comes about!

Remedies

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that people will prepare bottles of compressed air with a pipe to put it inside the control device when needed.

Hecatombles

Treating symptoms of a problem, not the cause

[Internet Dog]

Perhaps we should ban having children in the back seat or make it illegal to have cell phones in cars. The statistics support the notion that driving while using a cell phone is at least as bad as driving while drunk and have they ever studied the impact of having children misbehaving in the back seat on the accident rate? It is very easy to vilify people who drink. I am not trying to justify people who get in accidents when they have taken a drink. I just think it is a witch hunt. Bad driving is bad driving, regardless of the cause. To the person who is killed by someone in a vehicle, it doesn't really matter if the person was drinking, talking on a cell phone, or running a light to get to soccer practice on time. They are still dead.

There is a very real discrimination against people who drink acohol. Some people are very capable of safely driving while at a 0.7 to 1.4 range and others who are stone sober should never be allowed behind the wheel. In some cases they simply don't understand the laws of physics. In other cases they are agressive or self absorbed people who thing they have a right to violate traffic laws when they are inconvenient.

The laws simply do not take into consideration the ability of the driver.Why can't I be qualified to drive with a 1.2 blood alcohol content? I'd pay a premium for the privilage, but I have no such option for being tested for this special skill.

The laws regading driving with children do not have such a bias. I'm scared to death of a soccer mom with a van full of teenagers. First, they don't know how to drive a large vehicle. Second, they are always in a rush and violate more traffic laws than any other group I've seen on the road. the laws are designed to punish behaviors which are disliked (drinking) but not to punish as harshly those behaviors that are tolerated (using cell phones and transporting kids to participate in social activities).

Prior driving records should be given much more weight in the case of driving offences. Like many people I know, I have had no moving violations in over ten years, and yet this has nothing to do with whether I have had a drink before getting behind the wheel.In contrast, I have a friend who never drinks, yet she has had so many accidents that the insurance company almost canceled her coverage. Which one of us is the greater danger to society when behind the wheel?

Let me make it clear that I don't think repeated offendors should be treated the same as those who have demonstrated their ability to make good driving judgements. I know of one person who was involved in a single care accident after he had been drinking. The passenger was killed in the accident. He had at least one prior conviction on a DUI. In the prior convition he had been driving over 70 MPH in a 30 MPH zone. His license should never have been returned based on this first conviction. He had shown a complete disregard for the law by driving in a very inappropriate manner. The offense was clearly worse because he had been drinking. (I'd say the same thing if he had been using a cell phone at the time.) To quote Dirty Harry, "A man's got to know his limitations."

One final observation for those of us in the USA. The society continues to promote the use of human controlled vehicles as the principle means of transportation. The technology exists for creating a transportation system that does not require people to drive long distances with a human controlling the vehicle. It is time to automate the transportation system (with personal vehicles, not buses and trains where I have to sit in a room with people I don't know) so that people are taken out of the control loop. The last major upgrade to the transportation system was the Interstate Hyway System. Fifty years later it is time to make another major infrastructure investment. The side effect will be a massive public works employment boom that can't be sent off-shore.

This is the most idiotic idea ever:

[pclminion]

Deadly scenario 1: You're driving down a city street, perfectly legitimately. Your car buzzer sounds. It's now time to prove to your own property that you have the right to use it. You reach down for the breath tube, taking your eyes off the road. At this moment, a four year old runs into your path. You splatter her all over the asphalt because you were distracted by having to blow into a fucking tube in order to keep your car working.

Deadly scenario 2: You're parked at a rest stop. A runaway truck comes careening into the parking lot, hurtling straight toward your car. You need to start your car and drive out of the way before he gets there. Too bad, it takes 30 seconds to start your car because you need to blow into a fucking tube. You get splattered all over the inside of your car.

Deadly scenario 3: A cranked up carjacker jumps into your passenger seat in the Costco parking lot and holds you at gunpoint. You take off down the road. Suddenly your car starts honking the horn and flashing its lights. His mind clouded by being awake for the past 72 hours, and panicking because of the lights and horn drawing attention, the carjacker blows your head off and takes off on foot.

I could list reasons why this is idiotic all day long.

Re:This is the most idiotic idea ever:

[BrK]

I could list reasons why this is idiotic all day long.

Please do, I find your thoughtful scenarios delightfully humorous :)

Re:This is the most idiotic idea ever:

[pclminion]

Another scenario then, which hits close to home with me, because I'm (sort of) a mountaineering type:

Deadly scenario 4: You're up on a mountain in September. A sudden fall storm forces you down below timberline. On the way down the trail, you slip and break both ankles. Luckily, you've got a radio, so you radio for help to your friend, who is 5 miles away with his truck, camping at a camp site. He says he'll come pick you up. Unfortunately, your friend has had two beers. He's not legally drunk, and even if he were, it wouldn't matter because it's a remote, deserted road after the summer season -- nobody to hurt, except himself. Too bad, he still can't start the truck. You end up stuck on the mountain all night. The next morning your friend comes to retrieve your frozen corpse.

Re:This is the most idiotic idea ever:

[BrK]

Thats a good one, I like that! You have any scenarios in mind that involve bleeding to death on an interstate?

Re:This is the most idiotic idea ever:

[Anonymous Coward]

Deadly scenario 1: You're driving down a city street, perfectly legitimately. Your car buzzer sounds. It's now time to prove to your own property that you have the right to use it. You reach down for the breath tube, taking your eyes off the road. At this moment, a four year old runs into your path. You splatter her all over the asphalt because you were distracted by having to blow into a fucking tube in order to keep your car working.

Scenario Solution: all 4 year olds should be armored by a ton of metal. Why wasn't he driving? Get that kid a car, and bad things like this won't happen.

Deadly scenario 2: You're parked at a rest stop. A runaway truck comes careening into the parking lot, hurtling straight toward your car. You need to start your car and drive out of the way before he gets there. Too bad, it takes 30 seconds to start your car because you need to blow into a fucking tube. You get splattered all over the inside of your car.

Scenario Solution: You reach into the glove box and find your vodka bottle. Chug. Blow into tester. Test fails, car alarm starts, horn honks. Noise wakes up the truck driver who fell asleep at the wheel. He veers off at just the last second, narrowly avoiding killing you.

A cranked up carjacker jumps into your passenger seat in the Costco parking lot and holds you at gunpoint.

Scenario Solution: always have a concealed hip flask of hard liquor on you. If someone carjacks you, create a distraction and then start chugging. "Sorry, carjacker, this damn car won't start. Let's go hijack something that isn't a lemon!"

Re:This is the most idiotic idea ever:

[Anonymous Coward]

Deadly scenario 5: You're racing down the interstate in your car in excess of 100 MPH to get your pregnant wife to a nearby hospital. She is in labor and is bleeding. Your car suddenly requires you to take a breathalyzer test. You take your eyes off the road to breathe into the tube. You look up again just in time to collide with the gasoline tanker in the lane in front of you....

A dozen people are killed in the subseqent explosion including you, your wife, the tanker driver, and nine other people who were in vehicles near the gasoline tanker....

the interlock isn't for everyone

[patrick.whitlock]

im originaly from atlanta, and a good friend of ming, who IS a habitual drunk driver, now has one of theese in her car. i can see some merit in the device, but the problem is, if you're chewing any kind of mint gum before you blow into this thing, the car cuts off or dosen't start. if you brush your teeth right before you leave the house... the car won't start. if you smoke a cigarette before the "test" guess what... the car cuts off or dosen't start, if they want to put theese devices in every car.. despite the extra unnessessary cost, they should really fix the technology so that someone dosen't get stranded in the middle of the interstate during morning rush hours because they diddn't spit thier gum out quickly enough.

Re: dangerous effects

[_ZenZagg_]

It's not necessarily the person that is dangerous.

The meme behind the idea is that if you try to absolutely control every aspect of a citizen's life, in theory, you can control their behavior.

The problem with this law, and many other like it, is the simple fact that those who want to break the law, will do so regardless of what is written on paper (or otherwise hampered).

All you would have to do is hook up some sort of portable pump to the verifier to pump in clean alcohol-fume free air into the reciever. How are they to tell the air comes from you or not? Check moisture content? Get a wet bag. Better still, just crack the system behind it.

Forcing the majority to behave as if they are assumed drunk every waking moment they are in a car will not only backfire against the governing authority, it will set a precedent that it is OK to interfere with every part of our lives for the vague semblance of increased safety. Can something wrong be done with your computer? I guess we should force every single PC to have surveilance measures "just in case".

Wait, they're trying that now too.

Wrong.

[ArmorFiend]

It seems to me that impinging upon the liberty of an entire state is a little bit too extreme...

Wrong. First of all, its not the state, its people. Second, its not all people, its the people who actually drive, which IMO is probably about 50% of people. We must not forget the elderly, children, and people who use public transit and bikes. And as a member of this non-driving half of the population, I have a message for all you drivers: WAKE UP! I'm fed up with your drunk driving, reckless, cell phone chatting, falling-asleep-at-the-wheel, exhaust-fume-producing, stereo-blasting, drag-racing, ped-running-over-on-a-yellow bullshit!

I think a device that takes 30 seconds to remind a driver that safety is their #1 goal before every drive is a great idea. Lord knows y'all aren't thinking about it unaided.

Re:Wrong.

[Vegeta99]

A yellow light indicates to the driver that the light is about to turn red, hence removing his right of way, and transferring it to another lane/road, or the pedestrian via the walk/do not walk signs.

In any event, it's the moron pedestrian's fucking fault for walking out into open traffic. Hell, I remember being taught in grade school to never cross a busy street unless it was parallel to a road with the green light.

Re:Wrong.

[ArmorFiend]

Pedestrians have right of way over cars, period. Its the brain-dead drivers fault for not knowing the rules, and a general attitude that "just because I'm driving something that can go fast, it means I have a right to go fast". If a car ever hits me in a crosswalk, that driver is going to be in a world of liability lawsuit pain.

Re:Wrong.

[Vegeta99]

No, you're wrong. At least in Pennsylvania.

If you aren't in a crosswalk, you don't have the right-of-way EVER.

If you are in a crosswalk, you only have the right of way when you have a WALK sign, or the parallel street has a green light.

Otherwise, you're just a moron who doesn't know how to look for high-speed lumps of steel.

Re:Wrong.

[nmjon]

automobiles are operated by humans they are here and they are going to stay. If you are afraid to get on the road and join and the human race then don't. But don't whine about the way the rest of us drive!

Re:Wrong.

[ArmorFiend]

I met a cop in Oaklahoma, who'd seen duty in Vietnam. He said the carnage he saw there didn't compare to what was common on our highways. And we were doing it to ourselves.

At the rate we're munching fossil fuels, even taking into account rising prices making it economical to exploit marginal fields, in our lifetime the gas powered car will be gone. I too believe they will eventually find an alterernative fuel, but obviously not this decade.

I was one of the few drivers that did actually try to drive safely, however, I often desired to go faster and circumvent delays. I just stopped driving because I didn't need the pressure. I admit a large minority, or possibly even a majority, of our citizens don't do this, but when they fuck up, I'm going to make them wish they had.

Proud member: MADD

Re:Wrong.

[ArmorFiend]

This discussion is in the context of a stoplight, where 99% of the time there is a corresponding crosswalk.

Even J-walking, the driver's still in trouble if they're speeding, which they practically always are.

I can't remember the last time I saw a car stop for a ped at the crosswalk on my street.

Re:laws - bullshit!

[cayenne8]

If I get pulled over...and am tanked...I'm just refusing any tests! I'll just have them cuff me and take me in. If you take the field tests...all that does is give them evidence. They can't force you to give blood. So, yes, you'll lose your license for a year in most cases...possibly get 'wreckless driving', BUT it is still better than getting a DWI. And in most cases, especially with first offense...you can get a temp driving permit to allow you to go to work, grocery store..etc.

Ignition Interlock

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that this interlock ignition idea can be a great idea. There are a few problems i have recognized though. There will be some way that people will try to get around the ignition interlock, of course if someone is stupid enough to drive intoxicated they will be stupid enough to try to get around this. The intoxicated driver could use a non-intoxicated freind to blow into the breathalizer unit causing the tool to read "zero". There may be ways of preventing people from tampering with the device but until that is proven failsafe then I am not so comfortable with this idea.

Re:laws - bullshit!

[Tucan]

Just in case someone might actually need some of the information read on Slashdot sometime, the general serving sizes for drinks are:

1 1/2 oz of 80 proof alcohol (40% EtOH by vol.)
5 oz of wine
12 oz of beer

Your 12oz glass of wine would be more than two drinks. There is also variability in the alcohol content of beer and wine to take into account. The above assumes 5% alcohol content by volume for beer and 8% for wine. Either can be considerably higher.

Re:Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is that to me, as a person who lives in the US, the government should be there to serve the people, not babysit their dumb asses.

My own experience dictates...

[BirksNCap]

Almost any step taken to reduce and penalize those who would choose to drive drunk or while intoxicated would be an improvement. Just over two years ago, I lost my newlywed wife of 110 days to a drunk driver who drove against traffic on a highway, at highway speeds himself. I'm not after pity or blood, but it'd be great to know that there's SOMETHING we can do to help stop drunks from getting behind the wheel and killing people and maiming them [ my leg was also broken fairly severely in the accident ]. I can't go into tons of detail for pending legal issues, but this involved a fairly unrepentant repeated drunken driver with multiple offenses in multiple states. This may not seem like a real problem to you, but I'm a fellow geek, 29, with my hopes and dreams of a long life with a great wife dashed by the careless, wreckless, wantonly disrespectful to life choices made by a person who should not have had a car after drinking and driving so repeatedly. Taking a license isn't enough, as it wasn't with him. Taking a car could possibly result in him taking another car. However, if cars were all equipped with anti-start technology as described and has been available for some time, accidents caused by people like that could be sometimes averted, because it would make it much harder to actually get in what amounts to a lethal weapon in the hands of those not mentally or physically able to handle it correctly. Keep in mind the same normal people who might have to pay marginally more for a car, or for a retrofit would also gain the societal benefit of fewer drunks on the road and potentially longer lives and fewer losses like mine. This is not pie in the sky ideas, but a very real proposition that could do real good with a minimal impact to population. That to me seems like a real societal good. I'm not advocating trading liberty for security, I'm trading a small payment for some sense of it.

Re:My own experience dictates...

[nukem1999]

Like many technological restrictions (see also:copy protection), this will only stop the casual offender. People who have no remorse over vehicular manslaughter are the people who would be least inconvenienced by this measure, because they'll go in to the garage and hack around it the day they get the car (see also:console modchips).

Still, I could *almost* see it in every car, and definately see it in every repeat offender's car, if it was just for starting. As the proposal stands, however, it would be quite optimistic to think that the blow while you roll or get an alarm isn't going to cause deaths on its own.

The real solution is to actually put repeat drunk drivers in jail, and not for some vacation on the order of months. "Oh no, you took my license even though I've already shown a blatent disrespect of the law" is neither a deterrent nor a punishment. The apparent majority (apparent = "my own eyes, could be wrong") of stories of true drunk driving tragedies come people who have already established a very public record of disregard for human life. Doing something about them will be much more effective than a hack that only stops those honest enough not to circumvent it.

alcohol content

[Tucan]

Figures. I get all smarty-pants about something and get it wrong. Go here instead. These people seem to know what they're talking about.

That is nice but:

[Strych9]

What stops someone else from blowing into the device instead ?

This hi-tech device could possibly be defeated by a very simple cheap lo-tech means. AKA Money down the toilet, where it could be spent more effectively elsewhere on the issue.

Re:A Better Idea

[Anonymous Coward]

That comment was so insanely stupid that even the moronic slashdot mods didn't waste points on you.

I bet you're just like that in person too.

Get Rich on this..

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if this passes, sink every dime into AdvancedAuto, Champion or NAPA stock as people will be doing everything they can keep those old junkers on the road.

Back in college I had a "Bar Coat" that I'd wear to the bar and didn't care if it smells like smoke, got stollen, spilled on whatever. Now I'm going to have to go out and get a "Bar Car"

Maybe not for EVERYONE, but punishment for offense

[dwaggie]

Eh. I could see this for repeat DUI offenders, but not for -everyone-. The best route seems to have the punishment for a second DUI (or maybe even first if they really want to do it) be the purchase or acquirement of this device, and the use thereafter for a probationary period.

The Wheel Warden

[bl8n8r]

That's what my friend used to call his. The state installed one of these things in his car after he got several DUIs. Nothing new. He'd be rolling down the hiway and the Wheel Warden would start beeping and he would have to blow into the tube or it would cut the engine. Some people circumvented this and simply held the tube out the window and gave it some fresh air. The state then came back with a revision where you had to "hum" while blowing to get around the "airbourne" tubes. I got a lot of enjoyment sitting in the passengers seat, completely pickled, watching this guy give his car a hummer every so often. Almost messed myself a couple times from laughing so hard... great entertainment.

Same state different stupid idea...

[tjgrant]

New Mexico is the same state where one of their legislators proposed that all motorcyclists who were killed in accidents and were not wearing helmets would automatically become organ donors. Fortunately this idea was shot down, and I hope the interlock idea is too.

Well, then

[Sycraft-fu]

You need to take the time to learn a little about financing. So the used car dealer wants to fuck you? Ok, fine. First, there is probably mroe than one car dealer in your town, or in a nearby town you can get to. Unless this dealer has a deal that is so amazing it is impossible to pass up, take your bussiness elsewhere.

The other thing is you don't have to get financing through your dealer. Car dealers are always happy to accept cash up front and they don't care where it came from. So what you can do is go talk to your bank. They will be more than happy to loan you money for the car, provided you put the car up as colleratal. You then pay the dealer with that.

This should be NO PROBLEM if you have deceant credit. Hell, a few years ago a roomate of mine went to buy a car and he had no credit, not even a credit card. He just talked to his bank and put a downpayment on it. They were quite happy to give him the loan.

So if your credit really is good, espcially with records of loans being paid off, you should be fine. Go to another dealership or a bank, unless there is some part of this story you told us that is not accurate.

are you a time-traveler from Earth's distant past?

[Anonymous Coward]

circa 1990?
nice use of 'NOT', I bet your kids think you're totally hip with the lingo.

"cool. do kids still use that word? cool?"

Re:laws - bullshit!

[Anonymous Coward]

Better idea - don't drive while fucking tanked! Ever. It's not that hard.

Re:laws - bullshit!

[Anonymous Coward]

How about just not driving when you're tanked, you retard? If you feel you have to drive wasted, at least be kind enough to kill just yourself when you roll your own car off the road. One less drunk driver will make roads safer for the rest of us.

What happens when....

[Anonymous Coward]

This interlock breaks as all things do and you can't start your car? It's just one more thing to go wrong in your car that will probably cost big dollars to get fixed as I am sure it's very sensitive electronics.

Is this one more thing that will fail my state inspection? How will that get tested? Is some guy going to put his lips on something in my car? What if I lend my car to a friend? I don't want someone slobbering all over my the inside of my car.

30 seconds is a long time to have to wait. Just as a test, for the next week, sit in your car and count to 30 before you start your car. That wait will get old real fast.

yeah right...

[itallushrt]

As a two time convicted drunk driver, a heavy drinker, and opposed to all this bullshit...this is really bullshit.

Drinking and driving or drunk driving?

[pjt33]

Am I the only person who's worried at the number of /.ers who seem to think that because they're under the legal blood alcohol limit they're safe to drive? I won't even cycle if I've had anything to drink.

Re:Drinking and driving or drunk driving?

[JJ22]

As many people point out, is that having a breathalyzer will encourage a number of people to try and get a higher score. Great, if someone else is driving.

Another issue is, the guy who is driving may test and come in at .07 or .09 (just under whatever the local limit is - .08 or .1 in most US states). So he has one more beer and drives everyone home. Gets stopped by the cops and says "Hey, I just tested at the bar, and I was fine." The bar (or whoever provided the test) can end up having some degree of liability for saying the person was "clean".

Also, alcohol isn't immediately recognized, so when the driver blows the .07, 30 minutes later without having another drink could blow a .08 or .95.

It is really just a bad idea. Good for personal use, for the occasional time when you might go out, have a couple of beers and wonder if you're at the limit (usually if you wonder you shouldn't drive), but most of the time you should just find a DD.

Re:laws - bullshit!

[cayenne8]

Well, you go to the French Quarter or something with friends...party, meet some people..etc. There is absolutely NO WAY I'd ever leave my car down there or most anywhere in New Orleans overnight....you wouldn't have much left to find the next day.

Over indulgence happens...and then, you gotta get home. Let's face it, some people drive better slightly intoxicated than many do stone cold sober. I know my limits...on the rare occasion I've had WAY too much to drive...I've bitten the bullet and left the car. But, that doesn't happen too often. And realisticly, about the only time I look at the speedometer to see how fast I'm going is after I've had a few drinks. I never look at it sober.

Re:laws - bullshit!

[shepd]

>When you receive a PA drivers license, you agree in advance to consent to a breath test if stopped and that you understand that failure to comply will result in 12 month suspension of the license regardless of its outcome.

Does PA law allow you to select where to have the test?

ie: Do you have to take the test on the road, or at the station?

IMHO, the equipment at the station is probably far more accurate than the handheld meters.

(And, as for calibration, like that's ever done! They never even keep the speed guns calibrated! [Makes a great defence in court, I'm told, if you can actually prove the gun wasn't calibrated in a reasonable period])

(Not that it matters to me)

Re: Devices

[jacem]

To go off on your tangent I have never liked laws that have stricter penalties for minors. I have always assumed that the reason for differentiating between minors and majors (I use this word for people who have reached the age of majority) is to acknowledge the fact that a minor has not yet reached the level of maturity or education to be aware of the significance of there actions. This whole idea seems to have somehow been inverted in recent year.

I guess what I am trying to say is that it just seems wrong to me that a 12 that manages to get drunk and wrap a car around a tree is facing much more severe penalties under law than a 37 year old who does the same thing. As far as I know every in the US at least a 12 year is not considered responsible enough to drink or drive but faces much greater prosecution for doing either.

So to disagree with you slightly since our laws say that a minor is not responsible enough to drink it seems improper to punish them for drinking. Unless drinking laws are not about responsibility but about making alcohal an age restrictive club.


JACEM

yet another reason why NM is pathetic

[Anonymous Coward]

Being a former resident of Albuquerque, i know first hand how bad the drunk drivng is there, so it doesnt surpise me that people want to put breathalizers in every car. There is good reason behind the NM's nickname of 'the land of uninsured drunk drivers'.
Due to the large number of peope in poverty, many people there can not afford insurance, and often those same people have either drug and or alchohol problems, AND those same people tend not to be able to moderate their drug or achohol intake. On top of that, albuquerque has some major urban sprawl going on with zero mass transit at night and the cabs cost a small forutune to use. This leaves people who go out at night with three choices, pass out on the sidewalk (which happens alot), drive home after drinking (which happens even more), or dont drink at all (which isnt all that fun).
I really think if the city of Albuquerque both did something to adderess the poverty levels and implimented a usable and affordable mass trasit system which ran at night, their DUI problems would come down dramatically. Actually that would help solve alot of problems Albuquerque has, but sadly the governement never seems to make the right decisions and think long tern like that. They always go for the cheap quick fix like forcing everyone to have a breathalizer in thier car or by giving the cops corvettes to catch the drunks when they run (yes the cops really have covervettes, and a few firebirds too).
Keep in mind this is the same government that paid an east coast design firm to come up with a 'Santa Fe' style design for their highway overpasses, and the end result looked just like a demented new yorker's version of the santa fe style. The colors were wrong and the designs were awful. However if they had just gotten a designer from sante fe in the first place, they could have gotten the designs right and not ended up with mustard yellow, baby puke green, and sh*t brown overpasses.
Its embarassing really, to admit that i grew up there. Personally, Im just glad i dont live in that drunken stink hole anymore. :)

It's been defeated...

[spirality]

...in the Senate.

Local talk radio was a huge factor in the defeat. Yippy for us.

this bill has no chance passing

[jay2003]

Thousands of bills of introduced into state legislatures every year which go no where. Any legislator can introduce a bill and there's no requirement that the bill have any support beyond the person introducing it.

Even if did have some support, auto dealers make a lot political contributions and have big political clout. Their lobbyists will make sure it dies. Ever wonder why you have to buy a new car through dealer rather direct from the manufacturer? Auto dealer's clout

I don't drink and now I'll never live in NM :)

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for pissing off everyone in YOUR
state. I'll thank you to keep your moronic
laws to yourself.

Now... if they'd only decriminalize Marijuana
Our F'n States wouldn't HAVE this HUGE alcohol
problem. Since that would cut heavily into
the tobacco and alcohol industry it will NEVER
happen. Nice F'n Country we live in, eh?

Interlock history repeating

[ManuelKelly]

Does anyone remember the ignition interlocks that were required nationwide in the late seventies? There was a seat belt buckled interlock that would not permit the vehicle to be started if the belts were not buckled.

The law was quickly repealed. The reason given was women were unable to start the vehicle and escape from a sexual assault. Of course a lot of people just kept the seat belts constantly buckled and just sat on them.

Re:laws - bullshit!

[Anonymous Coward]

You go Stallin! While your at it everyone should have the implicit right to a job, and a camera installed in their living room so we are sure they are not discussing how to fool/disable their breathalizer. What an idiot!

OMG RTFA K THX BYE

[lowmagnet]

I mean seriously, this is NEW MEXICO. And if anyone has a history of a DUI, it's our President. Get over yourself.

Re:OMG RTFA K THX BYE

[Anonymous Coward]

And if anyone has a history of a DUI, it's our President.

Three words: Mary Jo Kopechne

I think you mean 1940's

[Anonymous Coward]

Poland had guns, and they got shat on

Poland had the misfortune of being between two powerful countries at the wrong time (late 1930's). Apparently, they had just about as many tanks at that time as the U.S. did.

So did France and most of Eastern Europe. They even had tanks, air forces and aircraft carriers

What a revelation! An army won't always protect you! I didn't know that!

But seriously, what is your point here? That somebody else might be bigger and stronger than you, so why fight at all? Is that it?

Guns kill people. Less guns, less deaths.

Pop open a medieval history book and try to prove that less guns means less deaths. Especially as some of the massacres in history were done with swords and fire and starvation.

No government tanks are going to roll into your bathroom if you decide to not "pack heat" on the toilet.

Governments and all other social institiutions grow in power over time. It is an entropic pocess. Can you think of a better way to counteract this process?

By your logic, the rest of the civilised world is crawling with murder and opressive governments

It is. Or do you not know of the 1994 massacre in which nearly a million people were killed and mutilated in four months, mainly with machetes?

As for oppressive governments, how about North Korea, which the west is starving to death because of just about one man, Kim-Jong Il? That's government of the people, right there.

Or the so-called people's so-called republic of china, in which a man was recently put in prison without trial for criticizing the unelected control of 1.6 billion people? Do these fit the criteria of "oppressive"?

Take a look in the mirror, buddy - no-one's jealous of the US.

Yes- no one is jealous of the richest, largest consuming, biggest polluter, most pwerful, most arrogant, most inconsiderate nation on earth. No, not one single person is jealous. Nobody.

Do you even know what the UN does? If you think it's a global government, you need to stop watching so much Fox.

Pray tell, enlighten me as just what it is, if not a government. Keep in mind that a government is something that you pay money to and can kill you.

Now for the ad hominem.

You are the stupidest, ugliest, most-mentally-retarded, bush-loving, bullshit-consuming pinheaded eater of swill I have yet seen on slashdot- and I read at -1. It is my sincere hope that you die the instant you read this.

I wish for your death.

Proof and statistic please ?

[aepervius]

Around here the main cause of death (1000+ people per year) on road is 1) speed over limit 2) alcohol. All you cited above is a very minor cause. So please give us a statistic with official becauses I think USA driving habits aren't that far from ours (Europe).

Guilty until proven innocent?

[toonrmeusa]

This is a classic example of the above principle. It will never stand a challenge in court; it is diametrically opposed to centuries of Anglo-Saxon common law.

But what if

[Tsiangkun]

I was going to take a cab home, but decided to try to drive anyways . . .the device malfunctions and I drive drunk and put my car in the ditch . . . can I sue the manufacturer of the blo-tube ? What about the crew that did the install?
I would think that these devices should be responsible for the people it lets on the road.

Tsiangkun
--
And does it give a paper reciept

New Mexico: Where Rape is Easy!

[LuxFX]

In five years:
A young woman in New Mexico, attractive, in her mid-twenties, leaves her office building and makes her way across the parking garage to her brand new car. She's had to work late, and it is well past nightfall. Hers is the only car in the garage. As she nears her car she hears a noise and turns to see a man wearing a black ski mask approaching her. The young woman breaks into a sprint and makes it to her car. She fumbles with her keys, but finally unlocks the door and gets in her car. She locks the door and reaches for the...ignition interlock device. The man in the black ski mask casually walks the remaining distance to the car. He's not worried. He's got a least 30 seconds to find a way to get into the car.

Re:laws - bullshit!

[Yartrebo]

It effects everyone. 30 seconds each time your start a car comes out to a lot of lost time. If there are 100,000,000 regular drivers in the US who start their car 1,000 times a year would cost about a billion hours or $10B/year if you value time at $10/hour.

A hard to defeat breathalizer isn't going to come cheap. If they cost $200/unit for parts and labor, than installing them on the 16M new cars sold a year would cost about $3.2B/year.

Distracting the driver to take a re-test while navigating heavy traffic or driving on city streets is going to lead to more accidents. No idea on the cost, either in lives or dollars, that it would cause.

Most of these costs will be incurred by people who don't drive drunk. Laws against driving drunk are punitive enough as it is (In NYC, you get caught DWI and they seize the car), but at least they mostly only effect drunks.

Ok, honesty time.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a twice convicted DUI offender. Thats right, not once but twice. Never hurt a soul if that makes you feel better but whatever.

I've read though most of this thread and have a few obvservations.

1. Many people are calling for stricter laws. And I guess that is a normal response but exactly what do you mean? For me, right now, I'm waiting out a 5 year lisance suspension. That is in addition to the fines I had to pay (They were sizeable.), the jail time I had to do (Fun, let me tell you.), and the general humulation that I have had to endure over my own fuckup. I know the laws very by state but from where I'm standing I'm being punished every day by not having any real means of transportation. (The public transportation in my area is poor at best. Basicly if you don't have a car forget being able to find a real job.)

2. I've driven drunk before and have watched others drive drunk. Is it safe? That is not a simple yes no anwser, as much as everyone wants it to be. There were times I felt that what I/someone else was doing was pretty dangerious and in retrospect a very stupid thing to do not only for myself but for others. It does not comfort me to think that I'm not the only one who has done it either. However there were other times when I'm quite sure I was "over the legal limit" and was driving quite fine. (The limit is ridiculously low. If you have one drink your basicly there. Not much for any seasoned drinker, much less someone who might have a DUI.)

3. Even if this type of law would be enforced on people like me, what it would do is then punish me *again* for something I've allready paid my dues for. I'm not sure I relish the idea of having to pay again for something I've allready had to deal with. (Going back to point 1, try living without any means of real transportation in a rual area for 5 years.) This law is way down the slipperly slope that we seem to be heading in that unless you are so rich/powerful that you are beyond reproach you must prove your innocence to the powers that be every day. (Swear your loyalty to the party daily comrad.)

I'm an otherwise law abiding citizen who has had the bad judgement (and luck) to now have 2 DUI's on my record. The punishment for that has been/is pretty stiff and does not/will not end even after my lisance suspension is up. (Try to fill out an application for a job and then explain yourself when you put down that you even had one DUI. I had some HR woman tell me once that I was a felon since I had two. She of course was wrong but you see the mentality.)

Drunk driving is a spotlight issue. There are violent crimes that are much worse in comparison that don't get as much press simply because DUI's are viewed as "preventable". And since, as anyone who has the 1st clue about law will tell you, driving is not a right. But I'll tell you one thing, if you can't drive in most parts of this country you are pretty well screwed and shunned as a 2nd class citizen. Trust me, I know.

Re: Devices

[adamjaskie]

Uh, NOTHING is too strict, IMHO. I would put the limit at 0.03 or so. If you have been drinking, you have no business on the road. Don't try to justify it with "I only had one beer" or shit like that.

Re:laws - bullshit!

[Anonymous Coward]

The hand-held breathalyzers cops carry are too inaccurate to be admissible in court. You are required to take the more accurate breath test back at the station - that is all.

All the cop is doing by asking you to do field sobriety tests, including the hand-held breathalyzer, is building probable cause to force you to take the accurate alcohol test.

Refuse all field tests. Refuse even the station test if you think you're really drunk. Losing your license for 12 months is just a civil penalty, and still better than having a criminal record hounding you for the rest of your life. Besides, if you did no field sobriety tests and were not driving recklessly, you might be able to beat the suspension on the ground the cop had no cause to ask you to take any test in the first place.

I must have too much time...

[i'm not cool]

I am imagining all sorts of horrible things that could happen from taking the breath test. I can see the headlines now... "70 year old man crashes... authorities say he passed out taking a rolling breath test", "Asthma sufferer has episode trying to start car", OR "Woman is killed in bad neighborhood... waiting for car to start".

But I'm sure they've thought about that. I mean, of course they did. Right?

Who is to blame for this one?

[PyrotekNX]

Small laws like this one gradually but surely remove civil liberties one by one. At the government level, politicians would just assume that we were nothing but children that does not know what is best for us.

In general, the majority of Americans know what is best for them and generally making responsible decisions about their life.

People that consistantly cause problems are the minority compared to the rest of law abiding citizens.

Instead of tring to help people that have issues, they are punished by being sent to jail to live in a locked box like an animal or even worse being sent to a mental institution where they are put on so many drugs that it permanantly destroys their mind and body.

The thing to blame here is the education system. Right now all the special programs for troubled students are being shut down. Instead of putting those people in special programs and classes to try to reach them, more and more of them are being put in mainstream classes. Many people in this situation do not do well and end up dragging the entire class down. In this situation, these challenged people will get frustrated and act out. This may lead to other people's grades dropping because of the constant distraction.

Things like zero tolerance are stomping on civil liberties. Right now it's very easy to be treated like a criminal, actually it is getting much harder not to be. In the last few years schools have been fortifying their walls like a jail. If you skip a class, you can get sent away to a juvenile detention center. You can be expelled for having a butter knife or a pair of scissors in your car parked outside the school. You can also be expelled for having a bottle of asprin.

I can barely recognize my old highschool now, there are high fences surrounding the entire complex. Instead of allowing people to go outside to eat lunch, they are forced to eat in the cafeteria. How are these young people ever going to learn how to be responsible adults if they are locked in a cage 7 hours a day and are forced to go to classes that they shouldn't have to be in?

This all leads to people that are adult age but still having the minds of children. This means there will be a growing dependance on the government.

I guess it's just a coincidence that it is the government that controls how schools are funded and what curriculums they have and that if a school chooses not to follow a rule it has it's only source of funding taken away.

Coming back to the interlock, the masses are treated like children incapible of making their own decisions. If we allow the government, which is supposed to run under our consent to overstep it's bountries, then it will turn into a tyranny. This will no longer be a Republic, it will be a Fascist Dictatorship.

30 second test??!?!?!?

[zorcon]

This would pretty much change horror/thriller/action movies forever as running to a car for an escape would no longer be an option due to the 30 second wait.

Seriously though, sometimes you need to start your car and GO! This would pretty much screw you in such a situation. Would probably also lead to higher auto theft due to people leaving their cars running while swinging in to the bank or 7-11.

This'll keep those yutzes off their cell phones!

[Chas]

Sweet Christ! Just when I think that stupid people can't get any worse...yet again, I'm proven wrong.

Okay. It's already considered a Bad Thing <TM> for people to be driving around, yakking on cell phones.

NOW they want people distracted by driving around with a brethalyzer tube in their mouths? Or reaching all over the car to get it? Hello? Accidents R' Us?

Come ON people!

And, on that note, look at it from a hygienic aspect!

If most people had any inkling about the nasty stuff that's crawling around on their steering wheels alone, they'd never want to touch it again, let alone eat drive-thru in the car!

This is to say nothing of the other things in the car. Seriously people, take a moment and THINK about the stuff you've dropped, spilled, spewed, sneezed, etc into your car!

But you're going to put some sort of device that someone has to put IN THEIR MOUTH, in an environment this nasty? Not to mention the stuff that'd eventually build up (possibly screwing up the accuracy of the brethalyzer). Why do you think that they use a new mouthpiece for each and every brethalyzer test!

This would also KILL the rental agencies. Do you REALLY want to forced to use a device in the car that someone ELSE has already had in their mouth?

And people with respiratory ailments. Two words.

LUNG BUTTER (If you don't understand, think about your last really nasty chest cold.)

Okay, two more (less disgusting) words.

Asthma

Bronchitis

All these morons see is a single, highly subjective end. They don't, as usual, deign to see all the problems with the means used to acquire those ends.

Sometimes I wish that rampant stupidity had a death penalty.....

But then again, 99.9999~% of us probably wouldn't make it past puberty then.

Hmmmm ...

[ninewands]

I will admit that I haven't read every post in great detail, so someone MAY have said this already ...

<RANT>

Is NOBODY besides me bothered by the fact that this is facially unconstitutional under (most likely) BOTH the federal and the State Constitutions??

Ignition interlocks, at this time, are ordered by a court to be installed as part of a drunk driver's PUNISHMENT! The driver has already been found guilty of a crime and preventive action by the state is justified by the fact that DUI is a high-recidivism-rate offense.

Unfortunately, following that logic, New Mexico drivers will now have to pay more for a car than their neighbors in TX, CO and AZ pay for the same car without the interlock. This is a taking of property by the state without due process (Fifth Amendment). They are being subjected to unreasonable search (technically) without any probable cause (Fourth Amendment). If the law passes, they will have to prove they are NOT guilty of a crime before they can drive (Fifth Amendment). And, more than likely, disabling the interlock, or failing to maintain it in working order, will be made a crime too, more than likely a crime of the "strict liability" sort. Not only that but it smacks of "guilty until proven innocent" to me.

I will admit that drunk driving is a major problem, and that it seems to be a more severe problem in the western states, but this is a MASSIVE abrogation of constitutional rights and civil liberties all WITHOUT the protection of due process.

</RANT>

In short, I think this is a very bad idea proposed by PhDs (pin-headed dopes) in the legislature who should by, to put it mildly, turned out of office Real Soon Now<super>TM</super>.

Why are people sqabbling over a no-brainer?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just let everyone - drunk or not - drive. It will be survival of the fittest, evolution in action. Why are you interfering with GOD's own phenomenon? Let the dumb and unlucky DIE. Then we dont need to cry hoarse about increasing healthcare costs. people would die in accidents rather than suffer with cancer for 10 years, sapping away insurance money from others and ultimately dying like a miserable rotten vegitable. People are so retarded!

This is so unlike Mexico...

[Creepy]

In New Mexico, you would need a breathalizer to drive. In 'old' Mexico, you can have a beer in both hands as you drive (provided you're not drunk).

Talk about extremes :)

I doubt the breathalizer thing will work, anyhow - airline pilots used to suck oxygen for a couple of minutes after a 3 martini lunch and pass the breathalizer test at airports and I'm sure an unmonitored test like this could much more easily be tampered with (heck, just put a filter over the intake). Basically, they'd need an anti-tampering law, as well, or this legislation would get them nowhere.

Re:A Better Idea

[Anonymous Coward]

you forgot old english on the back window that no one can read.

Re:laws - bullshit!

[funk_doc]

Everyone thinks that you have to submit to the brethalizer and the road side tests if you're pulled over, and you're all wrong. You can refuse the road side tests, and the brethalizer, then at that point if a cop has probable cause for DUI, they will arrest you. If you refuse the brethalizer at the station, then you lose your license. The pigs use your stupidity to their advantage, know the law and your rights.

Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

>It seems to me that impinging upon the liberty of an entire state is a little bit too extreme.

How about speed limits, seatbelt laws, and just about every other civil law? All are created because the actions of a few, ruin it for everyone.

Once again, the idiots make life harder for the rest of us. If people didn't kill others with their cars, this wouldn't be necessary.

I often spout off about attorneys and our legal system. By doing this they are penalizing everyone for the actions of a few. There has never been such a law that was just.

A better solution:
I think dangerous drivers should simply have their license taken away permanently (or some long period of time, 10 years would be a good start) and their cars auctioned off by the state.

This would include, but not be limited to:
Speeders (3 strikes), aggressive drivers(one strike), dui (one strike), unrestrained children(2 strikes, maybe).

If you can't operate that 1-2 ton killing machine safely, you shouldn't own one.

The problem is the laws aren't tough enough.

Need to drive? Too bad, maybe you shouldn't drive like an idiot... you know what the penalty is, and you did it anyway. I would love to see those SUV's and Neons whose grills or windshields are constantly filling my rear window, at an auction.

l8,
AC

Re:Huh?

[pclminion]

The problem is the laws aren't tough enough.

No. The problem is that it is socially acceptable to perform these behaviors. Illegal, maybe, but still socially acceptable.

What we need are not new laws. Nobody respects the government. Getting caught doing something just makes a person into a rebel. They'll hate the government even more, when they get out of jail.

What we need is to bring back the good old Western Smackdown. Somebody is being socially asinine? Kick his ass. Make it clear that as a society we will not tolerate this shit. Make people feel shame. Make them feel like everybody around them is looking down on them, going "Tsk tsk tsk."

Why do people drive drunk? It's the same reason they are rude, obnoxious assholes, who cut in line, and yap on phones in restaurants, and bring little screaming babies to the movies. It's because there's no social consequence for it. Legal consequences are much less effective deterrents than social ones. More laws aren't going to change anything, when you've drunk 6 beers and are about to drive to 7-11, and all your friends say is "Hahah, don't get pulled over!"

Your friends should be saying "Bring me your keys or I'll break your arm and take them. Then I'll kick the shit out of you just for thinking about doing that."

I'll move there

[Anonymous Coward]

yep, I'm going to Monster right now. NM sounds better and better all the time. But why stop at ignition locks, let's just posion the booze supply at the source. The purveyors, manufacturers and distributors of booze have been getting a free ride on the societal costs of their product for a long time.

Two things

[Pragmatix]

1) Not too many years ago I learned in a criminology class a few things about the patterns of drunk driving offenses. The professor had taken part in a get tough effort by some jurisdiction who was hard core about setting up traffic stops over a long period of time. The volume of drunk drivers did not decrease. Yet at the same time there were very few repeat offenders. The kept stopping different people over the course of the study.

2) At first glance the punishment described in the article seems only appropriate for people already convicted of DUIs. But given the professor's study, such an application would not reduce the number of drunk drivers on the roads. If everyone had to have it it would.

3) Personally the social cost is way too high in my book. This kind of mass intrusion into your private life is something we need to avoid at all costs. It is a slippery slope

Not only that

[HangingChad]

but we are talking about the general public here. You expect them to be able to blow and hum at the same time? HAHAHAHA!

When legislatures start seriously considering this type of legislation, it's the lawmakers that need replacing, not your car.

I want government out of my house

I want government out of my car

And I really want government out of my data

A little extreme?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gosh, do you reall THINK so? It's ABOUT TIME Americans finally woke up and realized government is taking away our freedoms. My guess is this state congressperson is really a plant for the commies, the NWO. or both. Take away freedoms incrementally until we are all slaves. Maybe the way to go is to actually, arrest, jail,and fine drivers who drive drunk - or rather who injure someone while driving drunk. The standard should be harm done, not harm that MIGHT happen. And how about actually requiring some demonstration of driving skills before we hand out licenses in this country? Germans drive 200kph on the freeway and have one of the lowest auto fatality rates in the world. Perhaps, just perhaps it has something to do with DRIVER INTELLIGENCE?

Re:laws - bullshit!

[monique]

Sounds like you're talking about "freedom from" vs. "freedom to", a topic explored (sort of) in The Handmaid's Tale.

I don't think anyone should be driving when they've been drinking. Period.

But I also don't want to run to my car with a goon chasing me, jump in, try to start the car, and ... wait half a minute for the thing to let me start it?

Some cars are iffy on the whole starting thing, anyway. Do we really want to add additional hoops for those old cars to jump through?

Oh, and if I read the blurb right, this is talking about *New Mexico*, not Mexico. A bit closer to home.

I live in NM and don't drink

[gypsyx]

I live in New Mexico. I don't drink beverages that contain alcohol. If HB126 passes, I'll be punished for a crime I can't possibly commit.

• What if I have asthma?
• What if I can't to use it because I know that putting unwashed items in my mouth is harmful to my health?
• What if the device malfunctions alerting everyone on the road to call 911 on their cell phones to report a drunk driver? Can I sue the state for defamation of character? Can I sue the other drivers who crash into me because they're too busy calling 911 to pay attention to the other drivers around them?
• What if I have a medical emergency? Many parts of NM are too remote for ambulance service to respond quickly.
• What if I'm being persued? I was the target of a random gang-related shooting in the past and was glad I could get away.

I'm a big supporter of getting drunks off the road. The real solution is to charge them with the crime they really commit: Attempted murder. As long as New Mexico has 24-hour jail sentences for DUI offenses, we'll never make any progress. It's not uncommon for repeat offenders to have over 10 DUI's on their record and still drive. The solution to the problem should not punish all of New Mexico. Most of us, believe it or not, don't drink and drive.

Now that I think about it, I'm sure these devices are pretty easy to bypass. The hack^H^H^H^Hfix may be as easy as rewiring the ignition or attaching a hair dryer to the mouthpiece.

Re:laws - bullshit!

[Anonymous Coward]

In California, it's "Blood, Breath or Urine". You have to agree to the test ("Implied Consent" and all), but you get to pick which one to take.

How to protect your freedom

[Poligraf]

Become a member of National Motorist Association.

DIY

[Skyshadow]

You can buy a DOT certified breathalizer for about $100. A DUI in California costs about $10,000 by the time you're done with it. Hmmm. Going to have a drink now and then, don't rely on the govenrnment, do it yourself. You can also buy "go/no-go" strips for less than a dollar. Put one in your mouth and you're over/under depending on the color.

This is true.

I've actually done this -- I picked up a police-grade breathalizer, read the manual, etc. They thing I learned: These things are wildly inacurate. The margin of error seems to be about .03%, assuming that you've taken steps to ensure a good reading like rinsing your mouth out and waiting 15 minutes after your last drink.

That means that, to all available tests you could give yourself (weight/drink/time figuring, test strips, even a police breathalizer) you could be fine to drive, but the luck of the draw on the cop's equipment and you're in deep doo-doo.

Think about it: a .03% margin of error when the legal limit is .08% in most places. Imagine if radar guns could mess up the speed they clocked you at by more than a third... "Sir, I clocked you going 90 in that 65 zone".

But hey, drunk drivers are bad, so they don't deserve things like equal protection under the law or presumption of innocence.

(and no, I've never gotten a DUI or anything -- living close to BART is terrific in that way)

Re:DIY

[einTier]

I think what you meant to say is that the breathalizer is accurate to plus or minus .03% in the reading. Meaning that if you have a BAC of 0.06, it could read anywhere from 0.09 to 0.03.

0.03% isn't a huge margin of error, but plus or minus 0.03% is huge when you are dealing with readings in the first and second decimal place.

I have a friend who is a lawyer that handles DUI cases. He's told me to not concent to the breathalyzer, because it's so wildly inaccurate even under the best of conditions. Worse, a bad reading is accepted as gospel in a trial situation. Even worse, an "under the limit" reading won't nessessarily get you off, because you could have still been impared despite not being legally intoxicated.

I have a big problem with the fact that no one knows what 0.08 really feels like. I have an idea of when I'm ok to drive, but am over or under the 0.08 limit? I have no idea. Considering the incredible legal ramifications for even first time DUI offenders, I have just gone the safe route and I don't drive if I've had anything to drink in the past several hours.

Re:DIY

[ipjohnson]

Becareful what state you are in, VA. refusal gets you an automatic 1 yr. loss of liscence. If its your first and your lucky you can plead it down to a DUI with a restricted liscence. A friend of mine refused ...

Then again if you think you'll be over .20 its an automatic week in jail no questions asked.

Why I left NM

[BCW2]

NM has some tough laws on drunk driving and on insurance. The breakdown is in enforcement. The cops try and the judges are for sale. It has always been that way (40+ years).

NM's policy of guilty until proven innocent...

[CurbyKirby]

would be better if you could prove that you're innocent. For drivers under 25, you're just screwed

This is not the only time New Mexico has burdened the many with the crimes of a few. If you are under 25, you must pay for a "none for the road" program that attempts to educate young drivers about drunk driving as part of the requirements for a license. Not only that, people who already have a license from another state (like me) have to pay for the "education" even if they have been driving for eight years without an accident or ticket (like me).

Ok so it's only $15 and you can complete the program at home, but it requires a VCR that I don't have (the only magnetic media I use are hard disks), implies that all drivers under 25 need this (including LICENSED out of state drivers), and is more likely a way for a politician to say "We're trying! Just look!" than an effective means to solve the problem.

Sanitation . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Better yet, how is this sanitary for shared cars? How do you clean this permanant fixture, swab it with alcohol?
What if your relative drove to the hospital with TB? Who on earth would want to drive that car back home if you've got to breathe into a tube that's covered with TB?

Re:laws - bullshit!

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Too bad it seems the drunk driver is never the one that gets killed or maimed, it is always the innocent who are the victims.

Same for Nevada

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't drink, I don't like alcohol, I don't like
being drunk (though I used to black out a few times
a month from drinking in the past) and I don't like
being around drunks.

A HUGE majority of the folks I know that drink,
WOULDN'T if marijuana wasn't against the law.
Just recently they've made posession of less
than an ounce a non-felony. It's a good start.
Now.... decriminalize it completely and you'll
see a major decline in the number of DUI's and
drunk driver related accidents.

Nothing worse than seeing an intelligent happy
stoner become a pissy, mean drunk because their
'Job' requires random drug tests and considers
marijuana a drug.

Re:Same for Nevada

[3terrabyte]

That is the dumbest thing I've ever read.

That's like saying I wouldn't beat the shit out of my wife every night if only raping the neigbor kid was legal.

I'm actually not against the legalization of marijuana. But what you said is just stupid.

Re:Same for Nevada

[Anonymous Coward]

What's stupid about what he said?

He said that his friends would PREFERABLY use a recreational drug that had much more pleasant side effects (Marihuana), but instead are settling for using a recreational drug with unpleasant side effects (Alchohol), because the first recreational drug is illegal while the second is legal.

What about that sentence was so hard to understand?

Re:Same for Nevada

[takshaka]

That's like saying I wouldn't beat the shit out of my wife every night if only raping the neigbor kid was legal.

No, it's more like saying, "I wouldn't fuck my wife if prostitution was legal."

OT: ACLU

[monkeydo]

I'm confused by your sig. You make reference to the 2nd Ammendment, and then you have a link to a supposed civil rights organization which has shunned the 2nd Ammendment, and indeed other civil rights for anyone who owns guns. Where you trying to be ironic, or are you just confused?

Re:OT: ACLU

[rizzo420]

what's wrong with gun control? people should have background checks and a proper gun permit before being able to purchase a gun. if you haven't committed a violent crime, you shoudln't have anything to worry about. but if you have, then yes, i'd say there's a good reason not to sell the gun to you. how bad is that? you tell me.

Re:OT: ACLU

[macdaddy]

The ACLU doesn't atually "shun" the 2nd Amendment. The ACLU takes a neutral stance on the 2nd Amendment and has argued 2nd Amendment cases many times. The ACLU spends the majority of its time protecting my "other" rights. I'm alright with that. I look towards the National Rifle Association and the Kansas Sportsmen's Alliance to protect my 2nd Amendment interests. In fact I was doing exactly this on this very day. Today the Kansas House of Representatives had a proponent's hearing on HB 2798. Kansas is one of 6 states (5 once Missouri's Supreme Court upholds their new CCW law) that does not issue licenses for the concealed carrying of weapons. 6 of 50. You can track the progress of the bill on the Kansas Legislature's website. I spent last night and this morning expressing my support for this proposed bill to my district's house representative and state senator. In short I'm only confused on days that end in "y" but not about the ACLU and the protection of my rights. :-)

Re:OT: ACLU

[macdaddy]

I had to explain my position on gun control very recently because my state House recently introduced a bill to allow CCW licenses to be issued (Kansas is one of 6 states that doesn't allow it). I also responded to the parent to you reply, although I won't rewrite it all again here. You can read my comment here if you want. My stance on gun control is that I don't think we need to go overboard with laws restricting guns. I certainly don't mind requiring that people prove their abilities in a certified class though. Does that make sense? I don't think convicted felons should have guns (depending on their crime and how long it's been since they were released, ever in some cases of course). I do think that law abiding citizens shouldn't be prevented from carrying one if they can show they are capable of handling it safely. I think most of the what Clinton passed was worthless and was just a ploy to improve his poll standings. I mean how much less dangerous is a handgun that carries 10 rounds instead of 13? Clinton's law was a good example of bad law. What we need is good gun control laws. I don't mind proving that I can use a firearm safely to get a license to carry one. I have to prove I can drive a car (although what the DMV requires if woefully inadequate IMHO). Does all this make sense? I don't take the stance of the NRA which says that all laws the restrict guns (even if they are allowed but with restrictions) are bad laws. I'm not that extreme. I'm sensible enough to recognize that some people are incapable of handling a firearm safely, just like how they are incapable of handling a motor vehicle. To mitigate this risk I vote for weapons training and safety certification for all those that want CCW licenses.

All this rambling is my hurried opinion. I can write it out better if needed. My opinion is pretty simple though. Make the gun control laws useful and eliminate the bad, worthless laws.

Re:OT: ACLU

[monkeydo]

The ACLU takes a position on the 2nd Ammendment that is inconsistant with all modern Constitutional scholarship and ignorant of the contemporary writings of the authors. While inherently flawed their position isn't unexpected. They certainly don't want to alienate their core constituency by being really meaningful. The ACLU stopped being Liberal a long time ago and now settles for just being liberal. They can read in the Constitution a right to gay marriage and abortion, but not a right to own guns. As you say, "What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?"

Even if you can reconcile their 2nd Ammendment stance, if you own guns, the ACLU isn't interested in protecting your other rights either. Where was the ACLU when Congress was demanding that Ashcroft turn over NICS records of law abiding gun owners, in violation of federal law and the 4th and 5th Ammendments? What is the ACLU's position on mandatory balistic fingerprinting which violates not only the 2nd, but the 4th, 5th, and 6th Ammendments?

Even if you support "resonable" gun laws (whatever the hell that means) why won't the ACLU stand up for residents in places like DC and Chicago where ownership of firearms is completly prohibited even in one's own home?

FWIW, I'd be a card carrying member of the ACLU if they would get their spine back. Remember Skokie? One of their finest hours. I can't imagine today's ACLU defending Nazi's unless they were gay illegal aliens.

Re:OT: ACLU

[monkeydo]

I almost forgot:

Unless the Constitution protects the individual's right to own all kinds of arms, there is no principled way to oppose reasonable restrictions on handguns, Uzis or semi-automatic rifles.

If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms. Moreover, it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such arms. Yet few, if any, would argue that the Second Amendment gives individuals the unlimited right to own any weapons they please. But as soon as we allow governmental regulation of any weapons, we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict arms, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction.

The 1939 case U.S. v. Miller is the only modern case in which the Supreme Court has addressed this issue. A unanimous Court ruled that the Second Amendment must be interpreted as intending to guarantee the states' rights to maintain and train a militia. "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument," the Court said.

Makes perfect sense. They conclude that the governement MUST be able to prohibit access to certain weapons, therefore the Constitution must be interpreted in such a way to allow this. The ACLU's whole position on the 2nd Ammendment is a circular argument.

Not only that, but they seem to have lifted their interpretation of Miller straight from HCI's website. Of course if you're familiar with the actual decision you know that their interpretation is totally off base. No one even argued for the defense in Miller because he was already dead when the case got to SCOTUS. That's why there was no, "Evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun.... has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia." Note they did not say no such evidence existed (in fact such arms are used extensively in the military) but none was submitted at the trial, because no one was there to present any.

The decision is actually strongly in favor of a Constitutionally protected individual right to possess weapons which are of the type used by a militia. Of course the ACLU doesn't want to hear this, because what it actually means is that I might not have a right to own a sawed off shotgun, but I do have the right to own M-16's and hand grenades. The court's decision in this case also destroys the argument that the militia refered to in the 2nd Ammendment is the National Guard or any type of organized units:

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

That anyone would use Miller to defend a pro gun-control position is laughable to anyone who's actually read the decision. That the ACLU uses it exposes their agenda. You really should read the decision for yourself and see if you still think it really supports the ACLU's "neutral" position.

Re:OT: ACLU

[macdaddy]

Well they aren'te perfect. Then again can you think of any other organizations that stands up for our rights, all our rights? I can't. It would be nice if there were more ACLU-like organizations out there but I sure can't think of any. Even though they don't have the cojones that they used to, they are at least doing something. It would be nice if they did more though; that's for sure.

Re:OT: ACLU

[monkeydo]

Oh, it's not the fact that they won't stand up for my RKBA that I have a problem with. The Texas State Rifle Association doesn't stand up for my free speech rights, and I have no problem with that. But the TSRA doesn't have an official position on the First Ammendment that is totally incompatible with my own. If the ACLU declared themsselves staunch defenders of 9 of the 10 Ammendments in the BOR I'd have no problem with it. I have a problem with them declaring themselves "neutral" on RKBA when they are really just parroting anti-gun rhetoric.

If the ACLU focused on free-speech and defendant's rights issues like they used to, they could sign me up tommorrow. Too bad they're so busy defending gay marriage[1] and trying to ban the Pledge of Allegiance to focus on things that really are "civil liberties".

[1] What use does a Civil Libertarian have for state recognition of any marriage?

Re:OT: ACLU

[macdaddy]

I think the ACLU is trying to appeal more to the sensible majority that 1) want to support to the 2nd Amendment, but 2) recognize that it was written at a time when powerful weapons like RPGs, patriot missiles, and WMD didn't exist. They are trying to play a balancing act between the extremist view of 'any regulation on what's written in the 2nd infringes on my rights' and the sensible view of 'weapons should be allowed but to the the ultimate extent of anyone having a nuke in their garage.' The former will never succeed. The latter will appease the majority. Which would you expect them to support?

Now I whole-heartedly believe the ACLU should support gay rights including the right to have a marriage between a homosexual couple be recognized by the state. Why is it that we as a 1st-world nation still feel the need to discriminate against race, religion, and sexual preference? Why aren't we above that by now? If two homosexual individuals want to get married why the hell should we stop them? What does it really matter to us? Does it really hurt us or infringe on our rights somehow? I can't possibly see how it could. They aren't trying to convince you to become gay. They aren't trying to sell your children on the notion of growing up to be gay. I live in the rural Midwest where for some odd reason many people are against homosexual marriages. I liken the viewpoints of these individuals to that of the racist self-serving southerners from the 60s. The only thing we're lacking this time around is riots. I mean that literally.

I also support the ACLU on correcting the Pledge of Allegiance. I whole-heartedly support that action. "Why?" you might ask? Because it's current form infringes on my 1st Amendment right of Freedom of Religion. My beef with the POA can be summed up in two words: Under God. That's it. Many people upon hearing you say that will jumped at the chance to call you unpatriotic (hell nowadays they might just call you a terrorist) for wanting to change their sacred document. However there's nothing unpatriotic about asserting your Freedom of Religion rights. Hell that's actually quite "American." We are the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, aren't we? Didn't our forefathers come to this land to escape religious persecution? I could have sworn I read that once. Here in the "Bible Belt" you'd most likely be assaulted if you publicly stated that the words "under God" were not part of the original POA but were added after political pressure. You would probably be stoned if you described how the Knights of Columbus campaigned to add the words "under God" to the POA in 1954. Why would others not like you stating the truth about the POA? Perhaps they feel it threatens their religious views. Perhaps they simply fear change, that is after all human nature. I sympathize with those fearful people but I can not deny that the words "under God" cross the line in the separation of church and state. Does someone else's religious beliefs negate my own?

It's been fun chatting (no, really. I enjoy these discussions!) but I need to get back to work. I mentioned earlier that I hadn't heard of any other groups that defend out rights. I stumbled across one tonight. It's the Cato Institute. I noticed that they'd submitted an Amicus Brief for the Hiibel case that SCOTUS agreed to hear. Their website is pretty good. I haven't done any other research on them yet but they *seem* to be a decent group. YMMV. Have a good one.

They can't expect this to pass

[Control-Z]

This must be an example of a politician showing that he's trying to address a problem with an extreme reaction.

Maybe after the furor over this stupid idea dies down, they'll get a less evil idea though more easily.

Fabulous Idea!!! :) That'll kill their enthusiasm

[Anonymous Coward]

ROTFLMAO!!

Poetic justice it would be!

Of course, as soon as you put that into practice
they're going to legalize Marijuana and we'll see
them driving around NM smoking big ole fat Stogies
of Bud!
Hrmmmm that wouldn't be too bad at all, would cut
down on their desire to F**k with everyone else's rights!! LOL

Seat Belt Interlock

[quonsar]

It will never work. Does anyone here remember the short-lived and ill-fated seat belt ignition interlock? People raised so much hell, rejected it so completely, they had to change it - all it does these days is buzz annoyingly at you for 10 seconds. Consumers will neither pay the extra cost nor put up with the inconvenience. People will disable it. When will politicians learn that technology makes a shitty social engineering tool?

a different solution with more benefits

[Polo]

I think a better idea, which would serve more people (and be cool) would be to require cars to be able to drive themselves home.

How far off are we from self-driving cars anyway? With just a little infrastructure (some sort of sensors in the road maybe?) it could be possible.
(I don't think GPS alone would be trustworthy)

This would serve more of the population and have lots of unintended benefits. Alcohol tax could pay for the small sensors in the road that each car would follow.

Or maybe sensors would be in the main roads. When you got to your neighborhood, you might have to follow a predetermined path. Maybe when you first get the car -- and are sober -- you can "teach the car" the way to your house from the main road.

And you can have very stiff fines for not using it when you're drunk.

Tougher Laws

[justzisguy]

Higher fines have not seemed to reduce the drinking and driving problem. People still drink a little too much, sometimes way too much and drive.

About 6 months ago, I was out at a local restaurant and had a few drinks. Because I wasn't going to drive while intoxicated, I passed my keys to a buddy of mine who hadn't had a thing. As we are heading home while stopped at a red light, a drunk plows into my new car, totaling it. Here I had "done the right thing" and refused to drive drunk myself, only to still end up in an alcohol-related accident. Luckily no one was seriously hurt, but my car was totaled and the guy was uninsured (only had $1500 in uninsured motorist coverage, my mistake). Oh well, on with my idea:

Get caught driving drunk? Crush the car! I think a portable car crusher would work marvelously. What? You are borrowing your friend's car? That'll be a tough one for you to explain to him.

Get caught driving drunk again? Crush the car again, only this time you don't get to climb out before the crushing! No more repeat offenders...

If the car is stolen, I suppose we can't crush it, so let the offender rot in jail instead. Of course there are technical reasons why you can't just crush it on the spot (oil, battery acid, radiator fluid leakage, etc.) but the idea of it still is fun.

Just pass for punishment....

[Pitawg]

Let the convicted individuals wear a neck brace or helmet that is detected by vehicles (and any watchers-by) to force use of the device. Or maybe air detection in the car with a high sensitivity to detect alcohol in the air, then force use.

why drink alcohol?

[looie]

the one thing i don't seem to be seeing is the question, "why drink alcohol?"

as a "reformed" drinker -- i haven't used alcohol or any other "mind-altering" drugs since 1992 -- my stance on this issue is fairly simple: don't drink. period. if you "have to have" caffeine to get going in the morning and/or booze to unwind at night, there's something wrong with the way you're living. instead of getting a fix of your "needed" drug, fix your life.

you'll find that you can celebrate the good times and get through the bad times, and even pull an all-nighter to finish that project, without resort to chemicals boosters. you'll feel better, work better, be more clearheaded and, yes, even enjoy yourself more. and isn't that what it's all about?

of course, i'm sure i'll get flamed for airing these heretical views. ;-)

mp

Re:why drink alcohol?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm with you looie, I'm better off for not drinking. We'd be better off if more people didn't drink. I say posion the booze, or at least put something in it to make the consumers of it sterile - then we'll eventually breed the dise out of the species

30 Seconds Too Long...

[unics]

For most of us in Baltimore, you have to go downtown to the bars. At 2 a.m., you don't want to be waiting 30 seconds for some device to determine whether or not you are capable of operating a vehicle especially in a place where people rob you for just 47 cents.

I am in support for such a device as I work in a Hospital. I see what happens to people and their families. It is horrible! They should really be able to come up with some newer types of technologies that do not require a 30 second wait.

For example, you could:

1. Breathe into a machine. A passive detector could immediately give some type of real-time reading. Which would allow the car to start.

2. Then some type of active analysis could begin. If it detects you are exceeding the limitation, it would shut the vehicle off.

After all, if you are intoxicated, most likely you won't even have the car in reverse after 30 seconds.

Is this a safety improvement?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are enough problems with people driving and talking on their cell phones, eating or whatever, now we're going to have people taking breath tests while they're driving 70+ down the freeway too? I can just see it now, some guy driving down the freeway cellphone in one hand, coffee in the other and the breathalizer equipment hanging out of his mouth. Yeah, I'm feeling safer now!

Re:laws - bullshit!

[Anonymous Coward]

They can't force you to give blood

often they can
and chances are pretty good that if you are tanked when they pull you over, it won't be the first time

PayBack

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't wait to see who the first politican to get caught drunk, pants down around his ankles next to a hooker will be.

Seat belt interlock

[sulli]

The big problem with seat belt interlock was that it didn't work. I remember my mom & dad getting mighty pissed at our otherwise excellent 1974 Dodge Dart because the thing kept interlocking even when all belts were buckled. They got a mechanic to disable it very soon after that started to happen.

Wow.

[sigsegv_11]

California must be lagging behind. Normally we're the first state to pass stupid bills.

Re:laws - bullshit!

[Nurseman]

f you were in Pennsylvania when this happened, let me be the first to congratulate you on losing your license for 12 months.
IANAL (But I do read Groklaw
As far as I know, refusing a field test is not the same as refusing to be tested. I know people who have refused field tests, on the basis that they are unreliable, and have blood tests come back negative. Again, I would rather face the civil penalty of loss of licence, than the criminal penalty of DWI.

Defeats the purpose of a law.

[SlamboS]

As far as I know, a law is meant to help out a society, not hurt it. Ok, if this happened we'd have less drunk drivers on the road. But not significantly less! Reminds me of copy protection on CDs. If someone wants enough to download a song, they'll find it whether or not there's any sort of protection on it. It's one of those laws that are voted for so politicians can say they were "tough on drunk drivers."

For the DRUNK drivers, this would:
1)Stop some of them from being on the road
2)Be bypassed using some easy trick figured out within a week of them coming out.
3)If someone else does take the test for him and a rolling retest comes up, it's going to make the driver even more dangerous to people on the road (like talking on a cell phone and drunk driving at the same time)

For the NON-DRUNK driver:
1)Make New-Mexican cars practically unsellable in other states (provided stupidity isn't contagious across state lines). And if a New Mexican wants to sell their car, they're going to have to pay for removal themselves (which might be illegal) in order to even be competitive in a larger market.
2)Adds social drinking to the list of anxieties someone might have. Some people can have one drink and be near the limit (although not very impaired). Now those people won't have even a single drink at a restaurant. This is looking like an economically terrible bill.
3)Make it impossible for people with disabilities (lung problems) to drive someone else's car - and makes it a hastle for them to have something rigged in their own car.
4)Ever had your music on too loud and didn't notice your turn signal? What if something like that happened for your rolling retest?
5)Driver distraction - could make up for some of the traffic deaths in itself - but this time on completely innocent people and not drunk drivers.
6)Another movable part - well kind of. Imagine if you got in a fender bender and this thing disconnected. Or imagine if you spilled something on it. Or imagine if it just plain broke. Fuck driving to the auto shop, it's time to call a tow-truck.
7)Will look ugly and cluttery.
8)Will have to be paid for and installed by people moving into the state.
9)Could get out of calibration leaving people stranded - OR late for important classes/meetings, etc. OR could possibly scare the shit out of someone driving on a really busy dangerous road - when it screws up then close your eyes and hope against a 12-car pileup.
10)Will look stupid and non-animated and represent a move back in time for ease of driving.
11)You have to sit in your car for 30 seconds while it's cold and it won't have a chance to warm up.
12)Goodbye to auto-starters.
13)Slows down emergencies (My wife's having a baby and I had a beer 20 minutes ago. Oh well, let's just hope I can deliver!)

I could go on with even more stuff but the idea's clear here. This wouldn't stop all drunk driving, and most likely a way around this will be found very quickly (like finding vulnerabilities in the latest Microsoft OS). The roads would be a little safer, but it probably wouldn't be all THAT significant. It would work FOR the drunk drivers (not letting some of them drive, stopping them from getting in trouble with the law, saving some of their lives) but against many innocent citizens (problems with the machine, all the other reasons i listed above). I'm from Ohio originally, and I saw a very good idea - Special colored licence plates for previous drunk drivers. Now THAT'S a useful and safe and non-annoying and non-damaging deterrent. Tougher penalties on people dumb enough to drink and drive. Putting a burdon on sober people who ride with people who are knowingly drunk. Hiring more police for late night rounds.

There are SO many ways to help this problem, and the one New Mexico seems to be choosing won't do much but hurt the average, law abiding citizen. It's not much different than saying "People have AIDS. So now, everyone must always wear a condom during sex. New condoms will hav

This is an easy one...

[bobej1977]

Make the system mandatory for people convicted of convicted drunk drivers.

Re:This is an easy one...

[nmjon]

I live in New Mexico. And it already is!

True and false

[Anonymous Coward]

With public programs and tax money, you get your dollars going to several areas. I'm Canadian so things might not be exactly the same, but in similar principle here are a few examples:

a) Public education: Johnny poor can go to a public school the same as Joey average. Whilst it is arguable that schooling in poorer areas is not the same as in the richer, the concept is there.

b) Disability, EI, etc: When Bob Broke loses his job as a programmer due to outsourcing, he can apply or unemployment insurance so that he can still manage to eat, pay rent, and feed his family.

c) Medical: This can be more a Canadian thing, but when Johnny Poor gets hit by a truck he can still get life-saving surgery the same as Roland Rich. With gov't medicare, he won't spend the next 10yr of his life paying off the fact that he didn't die.

Sounds good, right? But then we have these counterarguements:

a) Sally Silly doesn't like school. She's not stupid, but when she's in class she picks fights with the teacher, other students, and generally distracts from everyone else's learning. Meanwhile, other children, whose parents have also paid to learn, are being bullied or having their teacher's time distracted by Sally

b) Bob Broke was on EI but was able to go out and find a new job. Meanwhile, Larry Lax is claiming injury, or "personal distress." Larry goes out to the bars at night, shags his girlfriend regularly, but he doesn't look for more work (or attend his current job). And for the record, I've met a person who was on "disability" for quite awhile because he has some form of "stress/emotional" issue. He went to the bars regularly, laughed, joked, etc... but was too "unstable" to handle a McDonalds job.

c) You could throw (b) in with this for the disability thing, but how about people whom are knowingly damaging or endangering themselves? The drunk who falls down the stairs, the 20-year-smoker who gets cancer. Yes, it's terrible that they face injury or illness... but to a certain extent they bring it upon themselves. Should my taxpayer dollars pay for that?

The system is a good idea... but the fact is that it can, and is, often abused. This causes the gov't to suspect us all of cheating on our taxes/medical/EI/etc... and everybody loses out.

D.A.M.M.

[Andy_w715]

How about some device that gives you a driving test that you have to pass before driving? There's more idiots out there that can't drive sober then those that are drunk. Silly kool-aid drinking liberals.....

Parent has point! At least 2 are redundant

[Anonymous Coward]

the 1st 3 can be combined into 1.
It is marketing. plain and simple.

If I did such a thing, the editor would have me revise it.

Now, if you go further, and slightly change the message, you can break it down to 2 or 3. The golden rule covers most all of them except the 1-3 combo. So the 10 could be reduced at least by 1 or 2 and by as much as 8 and still convey the same message.

You could expand them out further to 50 and people would still abuse/ignore/etc them. So the argument that 10 is "perfect" is stupid.

Impossible to circumvent!

[El]

Of course, nobody in New Mexico is smart enough to think of say... buying their car and registering their car in Nevada! Let's see now... if I buy my car in New Mexico, I have to pay an extra $200 for equipment that doesn't benefit me at all (since I don't drink). But if I drive a few miles, and use my friend's address, I can save that $200... hmmm... what should I do?

I've got a better idea. Why not implement a system that allows the other cars around you to vote (via wireless technology) whether or not you drive like an asshole? Get X more "asshole" than "non-asshole" votes, and your car automatically shuts off! This would not only take the worst drunk drivers off the road, it would elimate people with other impairments as well! Plus, it would be based on actual driving impairment, so it wouldn't penalize those that can drive just fine even after somebody spilled a beer on them!

Re:Impossible to circumvent!

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course everone has thought of that idea.
I live in New Mexico and have family in Colorado,
so I would do it. There will be problem with insurance and registration but I think just doing everything from Colorado would work fine.
By the way the device is $1200.00 not $200.00

Re:Impossible to circumvent!

[El]

Exactly. Washington already has a problem with lots of people that register their cars in Oregon to get out of a few bucks in registration fees. I can imagine what people would do to not only save $1200, but spare themselves from a royal pain-in-the-ass every time they start their car!

Good Idea

[SlamboS]

If I was a moderator, I'd mod you up.

Re:laws - bullshit!

[ryanwright]

If I get pulled over...and am tanked...

Wouldn't it be easier to just, oh, I don't know, not drive when you're drunk?!!

Speaking of hacks...

[Penguinisto]

...what's to stop someone from blowing up a balloon when they park at the bar, then deflating it into the breathylizer tube before starting the car on their way out?

Using technology to solve a problem only spawns more technology to defeat it.

/P

Re: Devices

[blahtree]

Although I agree with most of your points, there is a reason there are stricter laws for minors. I was reading an article the other day that said that alcohol affects inexperienced drivers *much* more than experienced drivers. Even mild intoxication and inexperience can be a dangerous combination.

It's difficult to force people to do things.

[charlie763]

It's difficult to force people to do things. The government has no direct control over who drives drunk and who doesn't. It's just one of those prices we have to pay for living in a society. However, if there were some sort of incentative for poeple to not drive drunk, we could let market forces do the foot work for us. For instance, if we had better public transportation and stiffer driving regualtions and fines for those who break them, we could persuade people from driving drunk while not stomping on the rights of other people.

May that particular example isn't the best one, but I think something along those lines is better than epuipping vehicles with a device that is going to be circumvented anyway.

Re:MADD is mad (we need YRC: "your rights in a car

[chicogeek]

Excellent post! You've obviously done your homework. My personal belief is that MADD is out of control and we need an organization that provides some rational input on this debate.

/.ed

[rocket97]

I am really hoping that New Mexico can become the first state to be /.ed. Then maybe we can have something to brag about... come on guys!

"I Drove in the water"

[danknight]

but of course with all those years of "public service" by Mr GinBlossom has made up for it.

Don't refuse in Canada, either.

[Anonymous Coward]

In Canada, refusing to give breath in a roadside test (and, later, refusing to give breath or blood at the station) carries the same criminal penalties as being convicted of drunk driving. This means, on a first conviction:

- driving prohibition for one year
- a fine, amounting $600 - $1200
- the possibility of 7 - 14 days jail

Criminal law in Canada is administered by the federal government, not by the provinces. So, whatever charges you're tried and convicted under federally are in addition to whatever the province does to you under provincial law.

In Ontario, you also get a driver's license suspension. In fact, you get one automatically -- no trial, no attorneys, no exceptions -- for 90 days if you refuse to give breath at the roadside, or if you blow over. This automatic suspension, I might add, is valid even if you're subsequently proven to be under the limit in an actual BAC test at the police station.

In order to get a license reinstanted, you have to a) get an ignition interlock at your expense and have it inspected regularly, b) take remedial education on alcohol &c., c) pay another fine.

Finally, you will be ineligible for auto insurance from just about every private insurer licensed in the province. Since auto insurance is mandatory in Ontario, they can bar you completely, but, they try. You'll be forced to insure through "Facility Association" which is an insurance pool that all the private insurers join so as to mitigate the risk of insuring you, the drunk. Suffice to say, facility associations rates are exorbitant -- and on top of being more than twice the regular rate, they're doubled again in the case of DUI.

In any case, what I've just described will happen if you refuse a test just as surely as if you failed a test. It's better to fail and make an affirmative defense (and there are several--there are strict time and equipment requirements, including that the test be conducted using authorized equipment by specifically trained personnel, on videotape, at a station within an hour of being detained).

Get rid of New Mexico

[Anonymous Coward]

We need to attack this level of stupidity at the source. The United States should sell the entire state of New Mexico back to Mexico. Frankly it would simply be an acknowlegement of Mexico's slow motion invasion of the Southwestern states anyway.

We don't need New Mexico. They're obviously insane there, so cut 'em loose. Give it back to Mexico for one shiny peso. Or a rusty peso if President Fox is short on change that day.

Re:Get rid of New Mexico

[Anonymous Coward]

You gotta love stupid Texans...

Circumventing the system?

[MachDelta]

Two quick things.

-Most of the newer Interlocks require you to hum for a few seconds while you blow, to prove that you're human (and not an air compressor)

-Even if you started your car with an air compressor, you'd have to get to wherever you were going and back before the machine asked for a resample, or you're screwwed.

Yes, people are creative and can find ways around the technology... but the technology is constantly evolving too. Its a race, really. And having worked with the devices, I know which side my money is on. :)

Re:Circumventing the system?

[Anonymous Coward]

Humming wouldn't be that hard to simulate; besides, if we're creating a portable compressor for the express purpose of circumventing the tester, we could build in systems to defeat countermeasures.

Maybe something like Breath-in-a-Can, where it makes a humming noise as you spray it into the little tube.

Re:Circumventing the system?

[Zerth]

>-Most of the newer Interlocks require you to hum
> for a few seconds while you blow, to prove that
> you're human (and not an air compressor)

Just put a vibrating reed in it. Heck, replace the mouthpiece with the one off of a sax or a clarine, a kazoo even.

What about safety???

[pablo_max]

Whats going to happen the first time some woman is rapped or killed or car jacked because they it took a freaken minute to get their car going?
It would be easy picking for preditor in a parking lot.
Just wait for any woman to get in her car. You know its going to take a while. you know she is going to be distracted blowing into some tube.

and what about blowing in some tube while driving?
what the fuck is that? Ya...im driving down the high way and the fucking car stops....thats real safe.
Better yet i take a road trip to New York and im going through the tunnel and my car stops...that should work out..
im crossing the rail road tracks and my car stops and my friends and I all die from the approaching train.
this guy is an ASSSSSS!!

Re:What about safety???

[Anonymous Coward]

I live and work in New Mexico. Right across the street from the capitol building. These very thoughts are running through every ones mind.
Also, who is going to pay to fix the device when it breaks. I work for state govt. and they installed a bunch of these on state vehicles. They are notoriusly unreliable. Ken Martinez's (who introduced the bill) daughter works as a lobbyist for the company that makes the Breathilyzer device.
There is no provision for any competeing devices to be installed.
You figure it out!!!

Re: Devices

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Zero tolerance penalties (at least in NV) are lower than the normal DUI penalties (which a minor will get at 0.08 or higher).

Re:laws - bullshit!

[Anonymous Coward]

Over indulgence happens...and then, you gotta get home

With any luck, you will rationalize yourself into prison before you do any serious damage.

Re:That wouregulations shld BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[Dragon218]

I assume that you're making reference to the "Three Strikes" law that has become so popular? I'm going to go off on a tangent that probably doesn't support the argument, but oh well. I bet the reason this law was so popular was because people heard "Three Strikes" and thought: "YES! This is like Baseball! In fact, all laws and cruel, no matter how you slice it in my book.

I wansn't really making an attack against you or inferring that you watch those kind of shows. I was mearly giving example to how the media is justifying this new "eXtreme Law N-Forcement"

Try enforcing a law in NM

[Anonymous Coward]

Trained in NM. All a lot of people have to do is get back to the Rez and they can't be touched. Laws don't get enforced there very well.

Breathalyzers in cars are a great idea if you keep it in the abstract. All you have to do to get around it, is blow some air into the tube with anything that doesn't have alcohol in it and the engine will start. They work with cops because the cop is there to make sure that your breath is what is being analysed.

Your own desire for revenge is more like it

[Anonymous Coward]

What happend to you sounds like a horrable tradigy and I'm sure you will strike the sympathy chord with many here it does not automaticly follow that EVERYONES liberty must be impugned upon.

You state that your not after pity or blood, but SOMETHING? Your right, your after liberty.

I feel for your situation and the others in similar situations like yours. However when you step back and look at the forest and not the trees you might see that while putting nets around all of them so that no birds might ever fall to their deaths on the ground will save their lives they might also one day become caught in them only then to slowly die as well.

Re:laws - bullshit!

[westlake]

no, his argument only limits access to the highways to drivers who are demonstrably sober. locomotive engineers have lived with similiar restrictions on their "rights" for the better part of two centuries.

DWI/DUI

[ManeeshBrash]

What does DWI mean anyways. DUI I understand but DWI??

Re:DWI/DUI

[kcb93x]

Driving While Intoxicated

Re:DWI/DUI

[tres3]

In Colorado its DWAI or Driving While Ability Impaired.

WTF?

[cbmeeks]

DWI means "Driving While Influenced" or something like that. I think this is a stupid idea. 30 seconds to start your car? What is an axe murderor is after me? Also, if I've had 4 beers and I successfully start this car then I should be immune from DUI tests. lol cb

Welcome to THE FUTURE!(TM)

[GMFTatsujin]

Have you ever been unable to start your car because of an asthma attack?

Ever had your car refuse to start because your breath was Listerine fresh?

Ever debated borrowing a friend's car because they had the flu/herpes/cold sores?

You will -- and the New Mexico legislature will bring it to you.

This REALLY sucks for non-drinkers

[Anonymous Coward]

I never drink, so of course, I never drive drunk. This sounds like it's suggesting that I need to blow my car to get it going every morning. That just makes no sense!

Why not require it in cars of convicted drunk drivers? Now THAT makes sense. It won't do much to help those that kill their first time out, but would help the rest of the shmoes.

Re: Devices, corrected.

[MachDelta]

Easily circumvented. Anyone with a pair of wire cutters and access to a Radio Shack can bypass this.

Yup. Its easy. I could bypass one in about 5 minutes. Problem? You can't hide it. The fastest way - just stripping wires and bypassing the box - is blatantly obvious, because even if you tape it back up, it won't have tamper seals on it (a requirement where I worked). And even when people get creative and just jump to the starter directly, the box logs it as an engine running fault. Too many of those and you're busted. And I know what you're thinking: "just disconnect the box". Doesn't work. You either end up with Power On/Off signals every time you disconnect and reconnect the box, or you get a very suspicious report with almost no 'blows' despite your milage having increased (yes, your milage is tracked, though not electronically).
Mechanically circumventing the box IS possible, but its very difficult and time consuming. Not something a drunk is easilly capable of doing ;). (And no, I won't tell anyone how.)

Will cause accidents. If you think cell phones were bad imagine hyperventilating sober drivers passing out at the wheel.

A potential hazard, yes. Luckilly you are given, IIRC, about 3 minutes to provide a sample. So you can easilly wait until you're stopped at a light or otherwise unoccupied. Of course, that relies on the users intelligence, which isn't a great thing to be counting on.

Easily circumvented. Even if you don't like wire cutters, you can fill up a balloon with air to blow for you. ( or another low tech solution devized by the same people who can make a bong out of *anything*

Like I posted earlier above, most newer devices (well the ones I worked with anyways) require you to hum for a few seconds as you provide a sample. This makes mechanical blowing devices a bit more challanging to devise (although, admittedly, still possible). But as the technology evolves, it gets harder and harder to fool it, to the point of being impractical (especially if you have nothing to hide, save your "privacy").

You can buy booze at 7-11

[SenorFluffyPants]

This is the only place I have ever lived where you can buy booze everywhere. They give liquor licenses to drug stores, convenience stores, grocery stores, I know other places only allow hard liquor to be sold in certain places.

This is an idiotic solution to a serious problem. Why not interlock devices on each bottle of beer?

Sober Enough?

[bottlerocket]

"Perhaps tougher penalties and larger fines for people who actually drive drunk would be a better idea."

As a former college student who was recently caught driving drunk, I can atest to the fact that people who drive drunk do not think about the consequences. That's one of the side effects of being drunk: you tend not to weigh the pros and cons of a situation very well before you go out and do something. Plus, you've got that feeling of invulnerability. The phrase most commonly said before someone gets behind the wheel and gets a DUI is, "I'm sober enough to drive!"

Re:Sober Enough?

[tres3]

That reminds me of the undercover operation tht the US government funded to study automobile accidents. They secretly placed black box devices in cars all over the country. The last thing said by most of the drivers about to wreck was something along the lines of "Oh, Shit" with the exception of Texas. The most common thing heard while playing back the cockpit recordings from the vehicles in TX was: "Hold my beer and watch this!"

For the few that haven't figured it out ... this was sarcasm.

Re: Devices

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the major draw backs to installing breathalizers into every car is that it is "Easily circumvented. Anyone with a pair of wire cutters and access to a Radio Shack can bypass this.." You don't even have to be good with cars to pull it off either. Within the first week of the law being passed, someone will post an easy "how to..." on the internet. Enough of us out there would probably try to take it out not because we want to drive drunk, but because we think it is a stupid law that violates the very priciples which we supposedly live by.

Genius!

[cyclist1200]

This is a great idea! Drunk driving accidents plummet.

Meanwhile we'll have drivers trying to dial their cellphone, navigate with the GPS, fast-forward the DVD, eat their burger, drink their soda, and read the newspaper, all while taking a rolling breathalyzer test.

Genius. That lawmaker must work for the Eastern Standard Tribe.

Re:laws - bullshit!

[3terrabyte]

There is hardly any difference in fines, tickets or license restrictions between giving them evidence and refusing to take the test. Refusing to take the test is just as bad.

Your last sentence is also true for convicted DWI's. You're allowed to get a temp driving permit to go to work.

If you thought traffic over the bridge was bad now

[Texas Rose on Lava L]

So let's say I'm driving to work, and on the way I have to go over a bridge. We'll also assume I have an old unreliable car. Traffic is stop and go, and my car stalls on the bridge. Normally not a big problem; I start the car again and go. But let's say I get a false positive and the car won't start. Since I'm on the bridge, there's no shoulder to push the car onto. Traffic over the bridge just got a lot worse than it was in the first place.

Then again, New Mexico probably doesn't have traffic problems, so nobody there is too worried about this. Imagine the chaos if this law were to spread to California...

UGH

[BHearsum]

This would be terrible for me. I deliver pizza. I turn my car on and off 10-50 times a day. 30 seconds * 50 == 25 minutes. TWENTY FIVE MINUTES. This would seriously hinder my income.

Is this even sanitary?

[Anonymous Coward]

This new law Suck, I mean blow, what do you think will happen on first dates and women drivers?

Seriously, how am I going to get laid now? If I do all the blowing? and is this sanitry? lending my car now will be a big NO NO.

I have to blow in to a device in my car every time I park? This SUCKS

Re:laws - bullshit!

[3terrabyte]

That sounds like every idiot that was in my drunk driving class.

It's only a question of 'when', not 'if' you get caught. And when you do, you'll probably be singing a different tunes once you're done. Zero tolerance is the only way to go.

bullshit

[BoneFlower]

Rolling retest? Ok, thats just fucked up. How are they going to pull that off in a way that lets you control the car? Or will it say "Pull over for retest please"?

Having the thing dangling from the ceiling could cause a visibility issue, or at least be distracting even if it doesn't block vision. That can cause an accident even when not doing it.

Having it on the steering wheel or dash would solve that problem, but would require the driver to contort into a position that would make it difficult to control the car.

And regardless of where its placed, while doing a rolling retest, you cannot pay as much attention to driving. Given it could take up to 30 seconds, you'd travel anywhere from a quarter mile to half a mile during the test with impaired driving ability. And thats without speeding. That long a distance without being able to watch the road and/or control your vehicle is incredibly dangerous.

Then of course there is innocent till proven guilty.

Go like Connecticut does. Repeat offenders need to get them installed before they can get their license back, and none of this rolling retest bullshit which would probably be almost as dangerous as drunk driving itself is. Solves the innocent till proven guilty(and the one time mistake) issues and doesn't introduce new dangers of its own.

Re:bullshit

[tres3]

I posted a comment a few minutes ago addressing some of these issues. You have to fail a few times (at least twice) before it takes action. It does not hang from the ceiling; it is mounted under the dash so you have to bend over and put your head under the dash to blow; I would call that a visibility issue though as you can't see anything from sown there. Imagine picking something up off of the floor of your car; can you see the road from down there? You only have to blow for 5 seconds; the other 25 are for the device to analyze the breath.

Re:bullshit

[BoneFlower]

STill, for the rolling retests, thats a horrible place to put it. unless you have something that straps on to your head allowing full movement and view, the rolling retests are a serious traffic hazard. 5 seconds can easily cause a crash. One of my near misses, idiot cuts me off as I'm passing him. If I had been doing a rolling retest at the time, there would have been a crash no questions asked. At least one of us would have taken out other cars(traffic was heavy enough to make that a virtual certainty). There is no way rolling retests are reasonable. At least with cell phones, lighting a cigarette, etc you know when you are going to do it so you can watch traffic and determine the safest(or least dangerous) time to do so. Random rolling retests, you can't plan it- its random.

Re:bullshit

[tres3]

I know I had one shut the car off on me. Read my comment

Another alternate solution

[Mad_Rain]

I think a better solution might be to go and purchase a car in Arizona or another state that borders New Mexico. Pull a massive boycott of the automobiles sold in New Mexico, watch the car dealerships' profits plummet, and then the automobile industry (which I imagine has a serious pull with the legislature) will get the law changed.

America???

[starnix]

What ever happened to the notion that you are innocent until proven guilty? Isn't this law unconstitutional?

Suddenly...

[Coppit]

Doing car inspections is a lot more fun.

Bob: Looks like we have 15 cars to inspect today.
Ed: It's my turn. Pass the fifth of scotch.

Just wait for the next version...

[Retired Replicant]

The next version will require you to pee into a urine-testing device before your car will start. Make sure you drink lots of water while driving so you can pass all of the "rolling retests." The upside is that you will no longer need to stop to at rest areas on long trips :)

Re:laws - bullshit!

[enrayged]

I'm not saying I support this. That is a whole different issue. It sounds more expensive cars and ignition systems that are even more of a bitch to work on. If Mexico wants to give it a try, maybe we can watch and learn and decide whether or not it's effective and should be used elsewhere

Thats NEW MEXICO you insensitive clod... which is a state of the USA. We are not Mexico, Mexico is a totally different country. Yes we share a border with Mexico, but that dosent Make us Mexico, even tho we are New Mexico and it does sound the same, and is the same except we are newer. So remember... New Mexico is one of the 50 states of the union.

Yeah, I have lived here all my life and it really iritates me when others dont realize we are part of the United States, esp when you get mail held up in Washington DC for not having international postage paid...(yes that has really happened to me once)

Ray

Re:laws - bullshit!

[UnknownSoldier]

I know, I know, don't feed the trolls...

> The first time you (or a loved one) get hit by a drunk driver, you'll realize that this limits the freedoms of a drunk driver, but increases the freedom of innocent people like you and I.

WHAT are you smoking!?!

You think MORE laws will help people be responsible?!?! Responsible people DON"T NEED laws to tell them how to behave. Irresponsible people IGNORE the law in the FIRST place. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

Get a clue stick, and wake up to reality.

> With so many drunk driving accidents, you really have no business being on the roads at 2:30am on the weekends (holidays, etc).

YES, it is MY business. Who are hell are you to tell me when I can visit my friends?

Poor Quality Devices to soon get everyone's atten

[tres3]

My Brother had one of these things installed in his car as the result of a DUI. It was either get the device or not drive. But I recently had the misfortune of borrowing his car while mine was being repaired. Not only did my brother feel the need to give me a thirty minute lecture on the device but I'm glad that he did. I never drink and drive but I failed this device on more than one occasion. If you have a dry mouth - from jogging, taking allergy medication, not drinking anything in the last hour - the device will fail. It assumes that you are using some other source for air besides a person (like a balloon). It asks you to blow in the device while you are driving down the road and his particular model shuts the car off. It does give you warning that the car is going to shut off but it will do it while you are driving down the highway! Do you have any idea how difficult it is to bring a car to a stop from seventy miles an hour after the power steering and power brakes fail? It is a seriously dangerous device. It will not be that long before it either causes an accident by shutting the ignition off while the car is moving or fails to allow a non-intoxicated driver to start their car. It keeps track of every attempt (success or failure) and reports it back to the installer. Which my brother then has to take to the court as part of his probation. He then has to explain why to a skeptical judge. Although it is obvious that the device failed when he passes a few minutes later - after getting a drink of water - but it is generally a pain in the ass.

The company that makes this device would be foolish to allow this legislation to pass without carving out some sort of loophole for themselves that will protect them against lawsuits. Having lived in Colorado for years, I know that the possibility that you get a car stuck and have to spend the night on the side of the road with the car running to provide heat is real. It happens every year to someone and happened to me about eight years ago. If this device shuts the car off while the stranded occupant is sleeping and allows that person to freeze to death there will be some serious liability to the company. It is one thing for the company to say that the occupant was obviously drunk; just look at their record of DUI's. It is quite another matter for them to make that claim against an elderly person who has never had a drink in their life; you have to blow HARD or the device fails. Can you say millions in liability?

What about the person that gets stranded in a bad part of town by a failed device only to be mugged. You can bet that at least one of these people will have the resources to persue the company in court. My point is that when a judge orders the device installed in a person's car as the result of a DUI the company can make some argument about the lessor of two evils. When it is installed in everybody's car and it harms that person that doesn't drink the company is going to get sued unless there is a legal protection clause (indemnification). If there is some indemnification clause then is it right to allow some company to escape legal recourse for the malfunction of their device when it causes a death or injury?

My final point is the cost. My brother had to pay $2000 to have the device installed in his $500 car. It isn't that unfair since he did drive drunk but should we charge everyone that much money for the mistakes of a few? I predict that these people from NM will start to buy and sell their cars in neighboring states and that car dealerships in NM will have their business seriously curtailed. They won't sell as many new cars; new cars will have their warrantis voided because these devices will have to be installed after market; and it is a serious invasion of privacy to have your own car keep track of when you use it and for how long. Will it also become law that to have your license renewed that you have to provide the data from the device to the Department of Motor Vehicles.

This law may pass but it will soon be repealed and some politicians will probably loose their jobs for undertaking such Stalinist tactics. The citizens of New Mexico will become politically active and want some lynchings at the capital.

Breathalyzer=Contest

[Anonymous Coward]

A former boss was saying that him and his buddies used to have a contest to see how high they could blow the Breathalyzer that was installed in a bar. It was a game to them. The little test strips are available darn near free in bars these days. I don't see how either device would help in bars.

Assisted Blowing

[Cytop1asm]

Drunken Man: Honey... sit closer to the wheel and blow me... I mean blow for me!

Aren't you a developer? You read slashdot...

[Ayanami Rei]

We call it "eating your own dog food".

I believe you misunderstood their results...

[raygundan]

They found that nothing you could do would affect the validity of a breath test *if you were drunk*. As in, "there's nothing you can do to make it show 0.0 when you're 0.1"

What the grandparent post was saying (and they confirmed on mythbusters) was that there are things that will make it look like you're drunk, *if you are sober*, or make you appear drunker than you are. Mouthwash, for example, caused them to blow a .48 when they had been much lower than that only minutes before.

Pay attention. Mythbusters said there's no way to beat a breath test. They did not say there's no way to accidentally look drunk when you're not, and in fact showed otherwise.

Oh I see it now...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nick [...]
Password [...] [ ] Public Terminal
Name: Anonymous Coward
Subject [...]
Crack Test
Comment

--Coder

Here we go again

[BloodSpite]

Heres an intresting thought. I live in Benton County, Arkansas. It is a dry county. No alcohol is sold in the grocery stores, gas stations or otherwise. A smattering of restraunts sell it, but then only with a membership (by law anyway) I've been here quite a while. In that time I have been asked for a membership card exactly once in a year. I go out almost every Friday night and Saturday in the local Bentonville/Rogers are. On May 28, 2002 we had 128 DUI's. This in a "dry" county. I Having no problem with getting my hands on enough alcohol to turn me green at age 16 I think a 18 yr old drinking age is fine. Having served with the Army for 7 years I firmly stand by that statement. Alcholism is a disease like anything else, but laws are made to set people who use any form of recreation, up for failure. I had a Lt who was arrested for PUI while standing outside of a bar waiting on a taxi while I was stationed in Seattle. The laws these days should be greatly thought through thuroughly, as opposed to merely writing something for votes. Maybe even a group to "edit" laws. The renowned Lincoln/Douglas debate comes in to play here. The idea that law is written to protect someone explicitly, versus the reason why the law was written. A good example would have been the officers could merely have confirmed my Lt was waiting ona taxi and no wrong would have occured or drummed him out of service for his violation. Such lack of ability to see past the nose of the writing in the law books is what causes the slow paranoia that is over taking people to think that , instead of the way we were raised, police are now the bad guy, instead of the good guy.

Re:Here we go again

[m1066ad]

I'm from Springdale, in Washington County, AR. Years ago, I was convicted of public intox in Johnson, when I was stone cold sober. More laws, more cops, there's Paradise a-waitin', just outlaw everything that anyone could possibly object to. Hey, misprescribed prescription drugs kill 400,000 people a year in the U.S., let's outlaw them, and doctors, too, while we're at it.
I talk to a Russian gal, even they know that 'The Land of the Free', isn't anymore. To anyone who still thinks so, let me clue you in: Freedom means the ability to DO something, not being protected FROM being exposed to something that you don't like.
Drunk driving shouldn't even be illegal, per se. Having an accident, and damaging someone else's property, or hurting someone, should be what's illegal. Put meaningful penalties on that. Think about it.

I am so tired...

[Bun]

...of people who want to solve their problems by creating a whole new set of problems for others.

False positives... true

[MachDelta]

Corporate propaganda. False positives were/are common. Damn near anything you put in your mouth could be a problem. Chemicals like mouthwash and toothpaste are obvious problems, but many foods, and almost any sort of fruit you recently ate would cause problems (the fructose turns to alcohol). Not large problems mind you, but they would show up on a test.
Luckilly, theres an easy way around these events known simply as "Wash your damned mouth out with water before you sample", but most people I worked with didn't catch onto that concept very quickly ;).

Oh, and one other thing... while I worked with these devices, I never saw any problems with smoke. Almost all of my coworkers smoked, and they never ever had problems with the machines, even if they'd just taken a puff. Of course, the smoke wasn't exactly good for the machine... but it didn't set it off. Maybe it depends on the brand? Oh well.

18 year olds cannot drink on post.

[AndyChrist]

You can drink at 18 with a military ID.

On-base perhaps -- not in normal establishments. And that's not the point. How nice of them to allow me to drink after they draft me.


No, you cannot.

Some bars may allow you to, but I don't know of any state where that's actually legal, and I KNOW you cannot drink underage on a military post. (I am at a military post, surrounded by underage people, with a sign out in front of my unit's HQ stating how long it's been since the last DUI or Underage Drinking incident). The military comes down hard on people for drinking underage.

I suspect the only thing that could change that WOULD be reinstating the draft.

Re:18 year olds cannot drink on post.

[Shakrai]

No, you cannot.

That makes my point all the more relevant I think. Come to think of it I have two friends who went to USAFA. From what I've heard it was a worse crime there to drink (read: instant expulsion in some cases) then it was to sexually assault someone...

I suspect the only thing that could change that WOULD be reinstating the draft.

But selective service already exists. You can't tell me that I am required to register but I can't drink. That's just a blatant double standard.

Re:18 year olds cannot drink on post.

[gcaseye6677]

According to my friends who have security clearances, you are much more likely to be denied a clearance for drug related offences than for violent offences like sexual assault. Yes folks, that is where our country's priorities are.

Re:18 year olds cannot drink on post.

[AndyChrist]

People who ADMIT to drug use can still get clearances. (well, certain levels of drug use) I'm betting that "drug related offenses" here would be either committed under the influence of drugs (rather than mere drug use) or stuff that they found out about even though you didn't say anything.

The guy who tests it

[Imperator]

How is the guy who tests if the interlock is working going to drive home?

Who cares? I want that job!

What if you dont drink?

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

This is so dumb. What about folks like me who dont drink alchohol. If i lived in that state, would i have to constantly blow into my dam car to start it?

This is just another example of how lawmakers punish the innocent for the sake of all.

This is such a common problem in America. Its the same as making TV "child safe"

If we live our lives by the chance that a child will hear or see something that some pandering law maker, or parent disagrees with... we're gonna have one screwed up world. What about the adults right to enjoy life? Or must we all be forced to watch Barney because well someones child may be looking over your shoulder. Its already happening.

As is evident in this case. All drivers in that state will have be considered criminal for the greater good.

Well that sure dont look like freedom to me folks.

Remote starting?

[HD Webdev]

Will remote breathalyzers be an option?

I guess it could be a feature.

I can see it now. A group of people in the parking lot arguing over who is sober enough to drive and then passing around the remote testing unit until the car starts.

Re: Devices, corrected.

[A55M0NKEY]

I see your point about ripping the thing out with dykes being difficult to hide, but I wouldn't bother trying to hide it except from cursory inspection by the guy that gives you a sticker - once a year with a solder gun before getting a sticker and it's back where it's 'supposed to' be. And while people who have been ordered to install one of these things by a court may be required to submit reports to some parole-officer-figure, the general public won't be submitting anything to anyone.

As for mechanical blowers requiring one to hum, you could get around that with a charcoal breath filter that would still transmit the hum but not the alcohol on one's breath. Blowing isn't hard. Neither is humming. Someone will come up with a low tech jerry-rigged breathalyzer-defeating bong.
And I agree with you that those with nothing to hide except their privacy will largely find defeating this device impractical, but determined drunk drivers know who they are and will find a way around it.

Re:laws - bullshit!

[cayenne8]

Yup, but, with one MAJOR difference. You don't get a DWI on your record...so, insurance doesn't skyrocket...and doesn't show up as a black mark on your record to be used against you for jobs, clearances, etc.

Re:That wouregulations shld BLOW (pardon the pun.)

[Anonymous Coward]

"eXtreme Law N-Forcement"

Oooh ooh!! Is that a new boy band?!

I'm gonna have ya nekkit, by the end o'this song!!! YEAH!

Re: Devices

[A55M0NKEY]

Then perhaps the stricter limits should apply to adults who have recently gotten their licenses as well.

Re:laws - bullshit!

[Jardine]

With so many drunk driving accidents, you really have no business being on the roads at 2:30am on the weekends (holidays, etc).

This makes it sound like you're saying that if I drive somewhere at 2:30am, there's going to be nothing but me and a bunch of drunks weaving all over the road.

The most common type of car I see late at night in the nearby city is cop cars. Outside the city it's mostly truckers. Yes there are drunk drivers out on the road, but they're not as common as you make it sound.

Psst...

[Skwirl]

There is no mention in the Constitution of a right to drive a car on publicly owned streets. This is a laissez faire issue, certainly, but not some civil liberty violation as people seem to be implying.

State Mandates

[tgraupmann]

Whenever the government runs into the problem of who should pay for a certain bill that has obvious benefits like this issue, they should make it a mandate. Government is not responsible paying for the install, just the enforcement of this law.

How long will this take to actually matter?

[archaic0]

I mean, think about it... we all watch Cops now and then. How many drunk drivers are out driving brand new cars? Honestly, I don't think I've seen too many of them driving anything newer than 10 years even.

Unless you're going to require all drivers to get new cars, this isn't even a 'quick fix' except in some politicians convoluted mind.

Re:laws - bullshit!

[yerfatma]

Uh-huh. And it's a trade they made by signing up for the job. You'll note they also get paid for giving up the right to operate large mechanical vehicles whilst high on opiates.

Re:laws - bullshit!

[Anonymous Coward]

Better yet, why not jump out of the car and run away so the cops can shoot you dead and remove one more MORON from the fucking gene pool?

Alternative

[MBraynard]

Why not just require these on cars of people with DUI convictions?

Sounds like the liberal paradise.

[Anonymous Coward]

We the people are no longer smart enough to live without the government telling us how to be responsable. Next we'll all have to have a camera strapped to our heads and be "monitored" so the government can "protect " us from ourselfs.

Re:MADD is mad (we need YRC: "your rights in a car

[RIDL_Prez]

We HAVE "an organization that provides some rational input on this debate". Responsibility In DUI Laws, Inc. Come join us. We were listed in the post. http://www.ridl.us

Re:MADD is mad (we need YRC: "your rights in a car

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, crowd! Lis'en up!

Have you ever read your Driver's License? Or thought for a moment about what it means that it is a license?

Operating a motor vehicle is defined by law in every State in the Union as a privelege, not a right. As such, it is revocable not merely upon cause, but for any reason the state legislatures see fit.

Live with it: you may own a motor vehicle. But you may not legally operate it even on your own lands without the permission, or, more specifically, privelege license grant of a State or other authority recognized by a State as authorized to grant such license.

Make driving safer for everyone.

[rice_burners_suck]

I think this is a splendid idea! But here's an even better one: The "rolling retest" feature should only activate when the driver is trying to concentrate on changing lanes, or making an emergency maneuver to avoid an accident, or some other situation in which a retest would be really dangerous. Upon activation of the rolling retest, the steering wheel would suddenly veer in some random direction while the throttle is opened all the way and the pedals and shifter are disabled and do not function. Also, explosives mounted under the car, as used in filming automotive stunts, would cause the car to flip over, especially if the driver was NOT drunk and had never, ever driven drunk. Yeah. That would make driving safer for everyone.

Re:Gun laws

[beakburke]

Most of that is besides the point. In the UK there are normally less then 100 fatalities due to guns per year. Please compare that to the 30,000 fatalities per year in the US.

So what you are saying is that banning guns didn't make the UK any more safe than before. If you are going to impose government power, even if you don't believe that gun ownership is an irrevocable right, then shouldn't you at least be able to demonstrate some sort of benefit to imposing said restrictions? (In legalese, where is the "compelling state interest")

It's stupid from an efficiency point of view, not just a constitutional one. Face it, it's not the guns that make the US violent, the problem is social and cultural. There is very little correlation between gun ownership and crime. Other factors are much more convincing.

For all the New Mexicans out there...

[n()_cHIEFz]

...the bill was dropped from the DUI package that the Senate passed so it's not going to be law anyway, not now at least. I'd suggest writing your reps and senators right now to make sure legislation like this gets shut down in the future.

Not that it matters much if it does pass, I'd just drive over to Texas to buy my cars. Also, there's no way I'm going to be living in this god forsaken state after I finish my graduate study, its stupid fucking laws like this that get passed here in New Mexico that are so unfriendly to business that I won't be finding a decent job here anyway.

This bill was a great example of really strange liberal thinking.

Envy

[Anonymous Coward]

This is so stupid that legislators in California are wondering why they didn't think of it first!

Death Penalty for Drunk Driving

[Cobblepop]

Several countries (Saudi-Arabia, Malaysia, Turkey, Thailand) have the death penalty for drunk driving. Most second offense, some first. If you want to cut down on a particular crime the solution is not to write additional laws, but to stiffen the law in place.

* In South Africa, the penalty is a ten-year prison sentence and the equivalent of $10,000 fine, or both.

* In Russia, the license is revoked for life.

* In Malaysia, the driver is jailed. If he is married, his wife is jailed, too.

(From http://fp.uni.edu/studyabroad/guide/alcoholdrugs.a sp)

Re:A Better Idea

[SphericalCrusher]

Meh.

I think a better idea would be for them to only allow that to people who have been convicted of a DUI before. I'm sure insurance can cover the cost of the installation.

Re: Forced to give evidence against yourself

[A55M0NKEY]

You can be forced to give evidence against yourself in the US, just not testimony. Destroying such evidence is considered obstruction of justice. Of course giving evidence against one's self is really ( as opposed to legally ) tantamount to giving testimony, but that's only one level of BS that allows this to go on.

The other BS argument that allows this is that 'driving is a privalege, not a right'. If freedom of travel is a right ( which it is ), then in this society of roads and sprawl, so is having license ( freedom ) to travel by piloting an automobile. The whole 'driving is a privilege' nonsence idea strikes me of being formulated way back when the majority of people got around their tiny towns on horse and buggy. The precidents that baleywick has set over the years allows driving to continue to be considered a privilege by the courts nowadays rather than the right it is even though the world is much different.

This takes the cake

[AS400 Hacker]

I've heard a lot of stupid fucking ideas in my life. But I have to say this is the stupidest one yet.

Draconan laws and their resulting misuse

[yoshi_mon]

Have you ever heard of police corruption? Or when an offical abuses their power? I sure hope you have because unless you are 100% sure that the justice system is 100% honest any one of those measures could be used against you if you were to upset the wrong person.

The wrong person could be as simple as some jilted lover who's dad/mom is a cop. An elected offical who didn't like it when you pointed out that a bill they wish to pass will directly pay their company the taxpayers money. Or even just some scumbag you looked at the wrong way one day who happens to know a dirty cop that will have no qualms about framing you.

Think about it.

Re:Draconan laws and their resulting misuse

[Cobblepop]

Every machine has frictional losses.

Weak Age.

[A55M0NKEY]

Arguments about young people getting out to vote or not aside, let me offer a hypothesis as to why this is now the case.

While nobody wants themselves to be resticted from any activity ( such as drinking ) nobody would argue that alcohol doesn't cause problems with some people that the rest of the world has to deal with such as drunk driving.

In fact, if, for instance, a thirty year old knew they had a disease and would die before they turned 50, they might favor banning over-50s from drinking so as to spare the costs to society of dealing with elderly drunks and remove the fraction of drunk drivers who are also elderly from the roads.

But that case is rare. Most people expect to be elderly one day, and would not vote for that kind of thing.

If you look at every age bracket eligable to vote ( greater than or equal to 18 ), each age is surrounded above and below by some other age that can vote except the youngest age bracket ( 18-20 year olds ). For instance, 30 year olds have 29 year olds that are about to turn 30 and 31 year olds who were recently 30 to help defend them in the polls against those who would 'gang up on' 30 year olds. The same is true for 21 year olds. They have the 18-20 crowd to assist them in defending their rights. That crowd would hate to see the drinking age raised to 22 before they turn 21.

But the 15-17 year olds have no say. They can not assist the 18-20 year olds to defend their rights. So whatever the age of sufferage, there will tend to be less rights for a time afterwards. It would be fairer to make the age of sufferage lower than the age of responsibility for this reason, say make the age of voting = 15, but the age of selective service registration/etc 18. Then the rights and responsibilities would accrue at the same time ( with the exception of the vote which would be granted before majority )

Re: Devices

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot one: Car jacker heaven.

I will bet...

[Anonymous Coward]

that Osama Bin Laden is lauging his ass off as he watches America slowly self destruct in a tsunami of paranoia and fear.

new business opportunity

[scharkalvin]

for people who disable the g.d. thing 5 minutes after you purchase the car.

Big Brother at its worst.

[Anonymous Coward]

Suppose you happen to be drunk and NEED to drive your car. For example, a husband and wife go to a party and he is the designated driver and remains sober while she gets drunk. On the way home from the party, he has a heart attack, but she CAN'T drive him to a hospital because of the interlok device.

Or imagine this scenario with a sober driver. A woman stops to get a soda from a machine by a store late at night. Suddenly, she is attacked by a knife weilding maniac. She manages to free herself and make it to her car and lock the doors, but because of the 30 second delay in starting the car while it checks to make sure she is sober, the attacker smashes her window and drags her out of the car and kills her.

If you want to cut down drunk driving, just start sending drunk drivers to jail. Give them longer jail terms for each additonal offense. This interlok scheme is a terrible idea.

Well fuck them!

[FatSean]

Wow...That is lame. You are responsible enough to carry a weapon, operate million dollar equipment, yet cannot have a drink.

That makes lots of sense. Thank your god I'm too old to be drafted!

No it doesn't

[notsoclever]

New Mexico has periodic (annual, IIRC) vehicle safety inspections. If your interlock were disabled, you wouldn't get your inspection sticker and couldn't legally drive your car.

Bernalillo county has annual emissions inspections, but no safety inspections. The rest of the state has nothing of the sort.

I've lived in NM basically all my life. The drinking problem would probably be solved if the cops would actually pull over people who were driving erratically, rather than spending all their time dealing with people who are driving 2MPH over the speed limit.

MADD is on the same level as PETA

[FatSean]

Neither is above lying to reach their goals. Every time I see a car with a MADD sticker I give it a nice dent.

Re: Forced to give evidence against yourself

[Shakrai]

You can be forced to give evidence against yourself in the US, just not testimony. Destroying such evidence is considered obstruction of justice. Of course giving evidence against one's self is really ( as opposed to legally ) tantamount to giving testimony, but that's only one level of BS that allows this to go on.

You can only be forced to give this evidence after being charged with a crime or based on a warrant signed by a judge. I have no problem with the cops going to a judge after they've arrested me and saying "This guy was all over the road and I smelled booze on him. We need a court order to mandate a blood test".

The problem with that is what happens if they arrest you and the court ordered blood test shows that you were at 0.05 at the time of arrest? What probable cause did they have to arrest you? They'd probably get away with it if they had video of you swerving all over the road -- but if they pulled you over for a totally non-related reason (load muffler, broken license plate light, etc) they are going to be in a World of trouble.

You can't be forced to let the cops into your home without a warrant or to give physical evidence against your will without a warrant.

In my case if I had refused the BAC I automatically lose my license. It doesn't matter that I wasn't guilty of any crime to begin with. These laws only exist so that the cops can gather evidence against you to build a case. In every other scenario they are required to at least show probable cause before they can get a warrant that compels you to give evidence against yourself. Not with this one -- they can pull you over for a broken tail light and demand a BAC even if you haven't had a drink in weeks. You have no realistic method to refuse -- it's simply not possible to survive in most of the United States without a drivers license.

Re:MADD is mad (we need YRC: "your rights in a car

[RIDL_Prez]

I disagree with this. The whole concept of "privilege" is one created by the state in order to get us to voluntarily give up our God-given rights. Those rights are guaranteed to us by the Constitution of the United States. They include the right to travel and move freely across the country. Driving is defined as something one does for commercial purposes. But when we sign our licenses we agree to give up our right to travel freely. There is a solution. You can sign your license "Without Prejudice" above your name. If you do that, then you are saying that you do not give up your constitutional rights to travel freely. There is no law that says you MUST given up your constitutional rights in order to drive a car. They just want you to THINK that there is.

Presumption of guilt?

[payndz]

Isn't this device, in effect, something that presumes guilt until proven innocent? And isn't that unconstitutional?

Re: Devices

[A55M0NKEY]

Where I live, they aren't. My brother lost his license ( a few years ago ) at age 20 for 6 months ( would have been a year without the class ) for a first DUI offense. He was busted with a 0.04 BAL.

WARNING: Radical Idea Inside!

[mwalleisa]

I've repeated this so often that I almost make ME sick . . . ENFORCE THE LAWS THAT CURRENTLY EXIST! There is no reason to heap additional costs upon the vast majority of car owners and drivers that do not drive while impaired (intoxicated, medicated, or other). Especially since existing breathalyzer technology only screens for alcohol content and not drugs (legal or illegal). I have no desire to start ranting like a lunatic, but this makes as little sense as creating new laws covering (for example) "hate crimes." Assaulting, maiming, torturing, or killing people should be and is illegal regardless of the religious, racial, or ethnic relationship between the perpetrator and the victim. Additional "hate crime" laws only serve to glamorize these crimes for your local Fox news station and makes a legal system that is already overly complex and incomprehensible to the average American even worse.

Re:MADD is mad (we need YRC: "your rights in a car

[Anonymous Coward]

While I agree with your arguments as a whole, that MADD is going overboard, you engage in similarly poor tactics to further your point.

For instance you claim they "make up" drunk drivers without them being tested. But if only 63% of drivers are tested, it's natural to scale the results based on the people who were actually tested. Otherwise you would be saying 37% weren't drinking, when in reality they may have been, and just weren't tested. In this case they SHOULD be including that "% of drivers tested" caveat. I can see how they might only test drivers who act drunk or have beer in the car. In that case there's a really good chance most of the other 37% of drivers were sober.

Also, you say "under .10 is no more dangerous than driving on a cell phone!", as if this is reason to make it legal to drive for all BAC levels under .10. I see it as just the opposite though - talking on the phone while driving should be considered a dangerous distraction and made illegal, and so should BAC leves under .10 that are equally dangerous.

As for saying the lowered BAC hasn't made a difference, that is to be expected in the short term. What you should be checking is how many people were arrested based on the lower limits. After a number of years repeat offenders will have more marks on their record because the lower BAC gets them more convictions, and eventually the repeat offenders should be losing their licenses. But that's obviously not going to produce a noticable effect in a year and a half. "evidence does not exist yet" is not the same as "proven wrong".

So for all your ranting, all you really said is "the NHTSA might have invalid statistics depending on when drivers' BAC is tested". You're also right that the statistics at the bottom should be scaled based on population (car population that is). However this one is quite insignificant considering how little difference there is between the two statistics. One goes up by about .001%, the other goes down by .001%. There point that drunk driving incidents aren't going down is still valid.

So yeah. You have some valid points, but your post comes off as bad as MADD because you engage in the same exaggerations, half-truths, and statistical falsehoods that they engage in.

Circumvention

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, we call all circumvent this device with a balloon and then be sued under the DMCA...

justification for drunk driving limits

[David Jao]

I'd like to chime in a bit here with a little perspective. I'm normally extremely opposed to government intervention in individual rights -- read any of my past posts if you don't believe me. I think government policy on terrorists, drugs, music downloading, and DVD restrictions are just plain wrong.

But if there ever is a situation where strong government regulation is justified, it would have to be drunk driving. Automobile accidents, even the fraction involving alcohol, are far and away the leading cause of death for Americans in my age group (18-30). Every year, in the US alone, car crashes kill ten times more people than died in 9-11. Drunk driving is not an illusory threat with no real impact on innocent people. It is a very real threat and most of its impact falls on innocent people.

Yes, you read that last sentence right -- innocent parties are more likely to die in drunk driving accidents than the drunk driver, because a limp body survives accidents better than a braced body (even without mentioning that the innocent party is not always in a car). That's why so many drunk drivers are repeat offenders: they survive their accidents. It's also why jailing drunk drivers has just about the largest payoff-to-cost ratios of almost any type of incarceration.

Now I am not saying I necessarily support New Mexico's proposed action (I need to think about it more), but the fact that I need to think about it is saying a lot, for someone with my views.

Re:justification for drunk driving limits

[conradp]

This is a bunch of baloney. In New Mexico, there are plenty of people who kill innocent bystanders while drunk driving who have TEN PREVIOUS DUI CONVICTIONS!!!. What the heck is a person with 10 DUI convictions doing out on the streets, let alone driving?

The problem is that the courts and the legislature are too wimpy to punish the guilty by throwing them in jail, so instead the legislature is trying to punish the innocent by making them all pay an extra couple of hundred dollars for their car, wait an extra 30 seconds every time they drive, and make them all guilty-until-proven-innocent.

-- Conrad

Re:justification for drunk driving limits

[guacamolefoo]

In New Mexico, there are plenty of people who kill innocent bystanders while drunk driving who have TEN PREVIOUS DUI CONVICTIONS!!!.

I call bullshit. Name one case in the last ten years where there was a reported fatality under teh circumstances you describe. Surely New Mexico's MADD would have a link. Also, please let us not count DUI's that were 20 years ago when everyone's DUI laws were bullshit. Let's see a recent case. Otherwise, I think you're full of shit.

GF.

Re:justification for drunk driving limits

[guacamolefoo]

I'm normally extremely opposed to government intervention in individual rights -- read any of my past posts if you don't believe me.

and

But if there ever is a situation where strong government regulation is justified, it would have to be drunk driving.

The problem is that everyone has an issue like yours. A society of total civil libertarians, each with a "bitch" issue will result in an oppressive, regulatory, Calvinist state 99 times out of a 100. Go pick up James Q. Wilson's book on public choice theory sometime. Log rolling will bury us all.

GF.

Re:justification for drunk driving limits

[conradp]

You're right, I must plead mea culpa, it turns out that, in the January 2002 case that I was thinking of when I wrote the above message ( here and here), the guy who killed four people while driving drunk the wrong way on I-40 had only 9 drunk driving arrests, not 10. I guess that makes me full of shit.

This guy should have been locked up for years long before he killed four people, not after. It's a clear sign that, despite all the talk, the criminal justice system still doesn't take drunk driving seriously in New Mexico. Their solution is to punish the innocent because they don't have the balls to punish the guilty.

I think my point still stands.

Re:justification for drunk driving limits

[David Jao]

The problem is that everyone has an issue like yours.

It's not my issue. I don't actually care that deeply about drunk driving laws. If anything my number one legal concern in this country is the (overreaching) state of intellectual property and digital copyright laws, which has far fewer lives at stake but happens to affect my life, career, hobbies, and livelihood directly.

The only point I am trying to make about drunk driving is that, by any conceivable rational analysis, drunk driving deserves to be one of the top areas of legal regulation, if not the top area. I am not arguing that everybody's top issue should be independently honored or debated. In fact I am saying quite the opposite: even if you already have another pet issue (as I do), you have to be in denial if you think yours is much more important than drunk driving.

I have already mentioned that auto accidents are the leading cause of death for people my age. If that alone is not enough justification to make driving regulations a top issue, I don't know what is.

Drunk driving laws should not be a "bitch" issue with deep support from a small minority of special interest voters. Heck, I don't even support them that deeply. It should instead be a universal issue with broad support, because it affects all our lives more than any other single regulatable issue.

Re:justification for drunk driving limits

[guacamolefoo]

It should instead be a universal issue with broad support, because it affects all our lives more than any other single regulatable issue.

Of course. Everyone should care about it. Game, set, match.

GF

Re:MADD is mad (we need YRC: "your rights in a car

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you know that if you, while 100% sober, hit a drunk pedestrian, it counts as an alcohol-related accident?

This makes sense. If the pedestrian was sober, then he/she would get out of the way.

Re:laws - bullshit!

[guacamolefoo]

cayenne8 obviously doesn't live in Pennsylvania:

If I get pulled over...and am tanked...I'm just refusing any tests! I'll just have them cuff me and take me in. If you take the field tests...all that does is give them evidence. They can't force you to give blood.

Yes, they can, but mostly they don't bother, because if you refuse, you are in violation of the DUI law. See 75 Pa.C.S.A. Section 1547.

So, yes, you'll lose your license for a year in most cases

It's automatic if you refuse to submit to blood or breath tests (in PA). Essentially, it is the same punishment as the DUI itself. Again, see the statute cited above. ...possibly get 'wreckless driving'

I don't know if you were trying to be funny, but it is "reckless driving". "Wreckless" driving would be admirable, not punishable. Although I must mention that "wreckless" and "reckless" driving are not mutually exclusive under PA law. See annotations to 75 Pa.C.S.A. section 3736.

, BUT it is still better than getting a DWI.

Refusing to be tested is not better than a DUI.

And in most cases, especially with first offense...you can get a temp driving permit to allow you to go to work, grocery store..etc.

PA law specifically prohibits the issuance of "bread and butter" licenses when a person has lost his license as a result of a DUI or refusal to submit to testing. See 75 Pa.C.S.A. Section 1553(d)(6 through 8). FWIW, these are officially known as "occupational limited licenses".

GF.

Auto sales patterns

[funkify]

Auto sales will change the most. Instead of having the desired effect, these laws will just increase the business of auto dealers whose businesses are close to the borders of neighboring states.

Re: Devices

[RESPAWN]

...but applying the much harsher penalties meant to deter irresponsible drunk drivers from killing people to responsible minors who drink illegally and happen to be driving home with a safe BAL that is above zero is stupid and cruel.

As are many other laws, unfortunately. How about curfew laws? Or even worse, daytime curfew laws which state that you can be pulled over and arrested if not at school and without a note? All that does is punish the responsible kids, like I myself was, while the irresponsible ones were just breaking one more law that probably mattered less to them than the other laws they are supposedly breaking. Honestly, it should be the parents who determine what time a kid should be home on a school night, not the local politicians. And those are just two out of many laws imposed upon minors that are both stupid and cruel. They are no deterrent, and instead act as a means for police to harass those who had no ill intentions in the first place.

The fact of the matter is, kids don't vote, so they don't count. Any law that gets passed "for the kids" is in fact passed in order to please the parents. And it may in fact be beneficial for the kids, but nobody cares if they like it or not. Kids have no say in these matters, and perhaps they shouldn't, but it's always bothered me how certain right seem to be sometimes taken away from kids "for their safety."

But this is offtopic and a rant for another time.

(Posting without karma bonus due to the rant's offtopicness.)

Since when did this become a unit of measure?

[jvonk]

"...ten times more people than died in 9-11..."

Approximately 2,000? Interesting. We could change everything to be based on this new metric! Avogadro's number now becomes 3.011*10^20 9-11s! Your salary, taxes, and insurance rates could be quoted in terms of units of 9-11s! Kick fucking ass!

BTW, dude: 20,000 deaths a year is only about 0.0067% of the population. You really need to understand that in a US population of ~150,000 9-11s, ten 9-11s deaths isn't that much.

Re:laws - bullshit!

[guacamolefoo]

Does PA law allow you to select where to have the test?

Sure. You can choose to have it done, or you can refuse the test. That's a choice. A crappy one, but it's a choice.

ie: Do you have to take the test on the road, or at the station?

Generally, they field test you and then haul you back to the station for a better test if you flunk.

IMHO, the equipment at the station is probably far more accurate than the handheld meters.

No argument there.

(And, as for calibration, like that's ever done! They never even keep the speed guns calibrated!

Part of the prima facie case at every DJ's office in PA where a DUI case is brought is to bring in the calibration papers for the Intoxilyzer-5000. They do calibrate them regularly and they have the documentation to prove it. Cops may be jackbooted fascist thugs, but when it comes to DUI, they generally aren't stupid.

Listen, people: There is no "magic bullet" DUI defense. You need a good lawyer, and /. message boards are not the place to get ideas for beating a DUI, but I'll give you my thoughts anyway.

Be polite. Don't volunteer anything (including telling the officer you've had "a couple of beers" -- every .20 BAC in the world had "a couple of beers"). If you think you're screwed or close to it, silence is your friend. You won't talk your way out of it and the cop has no discretion to "go easy on you".

Say as little as possible (name, rank, and social security number, essentially). Don't tell them where you've been or where you're going. Don't admit to drinking (simply state that "I want a lawyer, and I'm not answering any questions"). Give them your license and registration + insurance information (it helps if you have it ready before the cop gets to your window so that he can't use your fumbling in the glove box as a reaason for thinking you're intoxicated). Comply with the field sobriety tests, and get your lawyer to challenge the stop.

GF.

Action Films

[Jim_Hawkins]

Wow. This could really change car chase scenes. Matrix Reloaded would have sucked even worse if Trinity jumped on the bike and then had to blow into some breathalyzer device.

And the entire Fast/Furious movies would be completely shot.

And Gone in 60 Seconds would have to be renamed to "Gone in 90 Seconds"

Damn politicians.

They have a new version of this device

[El]

If you've had 1 to 4 drinks, it prevents your car from starting. But if you're really drunk, it automatically drives your car to your ex's house!

Northern winters

[Fireal]

So I guess I wouldn't be able to use my remote starter to warm my car when it's -30F and even colder wind chills, should this thing catch on all over the US?

Humm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the increased number of rapes, violent assults and muggings because peopel can't drive away worth it for a few less people drunk on the roads....

Car engine cuts out at a intersection.... piss off other drivers for 30 seconds while your car re-starts....

And naturally I can see it now.... 5 yearold child killed as OAP trys to breathe into breath-tester and not concentrating on the road.

Maybe this is a good idea!

[El]

Anybody who can't figure out how to circumvent this device is obviously too stupid to drive!

Re:laws - bullshit!

[gcaseye6677]

I'm just waiting for the day when your car gets seized just for driving 15 MPH over the limit. You know that law will be passed somewhere within the next 20 years.

Re:MADD is mad (we need YRC: "your rights in a car

[handslikesnakes]

Please don't use the term "God-given rights" unless you have evidence that they were actually given by a god.

New prohibition

[Anonymous Coward]

This just signals the return of prohibition or neo / New prohibition. These device that are currently being used for convicted drunk drivers routeenly malfunction. Now they want to place them on all cars. The cost to maintain these things is going to be astronomical.

For more info go to ..
http://www.ridl.us/ - Responsibility In DUI Laws
http://www.getmadd.com/
http://www.alcoholf acts.org/

comparisons with terrorism

[David Jao]

The only reason I brought up terrorism deaths is that a lot of people in slashdot are comparing DUI regulations with anti-terrorism regulations. They argue that since the latter is bad the former must be bad too.

My point which you seem to have missed is that I think DUI regulations are far more justified than anti-terrorism regulations. I am against the PATRIOT act, I am against TIA, I am against our new ineffective airline security measures, but I am supportive of limited government intervention against drunk driving, because drunk driving kills far more people than terrorism.

You also seem to have missed the sentence where I pointed out that auto accidents are by far the leading cause of death in my age group. Even if it "isn't that much", the fact that it is #1 already means that it deserves more attention than any other cause.

Smartcards and retinal scanners not far behind

[Anonymous Coward]

There are other "real" solutions to the DWI problem. Putting a breathalizer in the car will not be the thing that stops people from driving drunk (if anything can). It will be the penalties for having an accident while drunk with the breathalizer disconnected. You must know that people that drink and drive will disconnect the gizmoe. So it will be the penalty, not the gizmoe that has an effect. So, why not cut to the chase and increase the penalties? What are the secondary or hidden gains to be had by imposing on the vast majority of people who don't drink and drive? I don't think the gain will be purely monentary. I think it will be the next thing somebody will want to put in our cars. Mabe face recognition or a retinal scan. Oh, and you will need to have a smart card drivers license in a slot in the dash to tie it all together. If we allow any of it, that is.

Plus, it's just something else to go wrong with your car. Something that will keep your car from starting if it screws up.

Expect this throughout the Mexican Southwest

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the number of Mexican drunkards in auto accidents, you can expect this law to spread to all of the Mexican states.

My question is...

[Cyno01]

How do they know that? :p

Re:My question is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever hear of the Tuskeegee Experiments? :)

I live in New Mexico and I support the law

[Anonymous Coward]

Drunk driving in this state is just out of control. Hell the last thing I want is any more laws, but sometimes it gets to a point where drastic measures need to be taken. Education hasn't worked. Tougher drunk driving laws haven't work. So if I have to blow into a tube to drive, so be it. At least I know that law should keep more drunks off the road, since nothing else has worked so far.

Bad. Bad. Bad.

[Unregistered]

Breathalyzer: irritating
Takes 30 seconds: very irritating.
Rolling resets: dangerous and ungodly irritating
Requiring this in USED cars: insane

They could just kick all the indians out and that would solve their porblem, too.
(It's a joke, laugh)

Running from Ax murderers

[kidaxess]

Imagine, the lunatic is only meters away, stalking with that slow step of all maniacal zombies, you dash to your car, fumble with the key; finally you manage to find the ignition, turn the key, BUT THE CAR WON'T START! Quick, the breathalyzer, THE BREATHALYZER!

We Get It. Youre Responsible. That's not the point

[Ieshan]

The reason why the government should do it for you is because you're not the one who's going to be drunk driving.

We get it. You're responsible. Congradulations. But there's nothing that makes Joe responsible, and Joe is driving on the same road as your wife/daughter/son.

If I were you, I'd *want* legislation in place that made sure Joe was responsible, because if you're already responsible, it doesn't change the way *you* act. It's hardly infringing on *your* rights to make sure Joe isn't an idiot on the road and doesn't put the lives of your children at risk.

Re:laws - bullshit!

[shepd]

>Part of the prima facie case at every DJ's office in PA where a DUI case is brought is to bring in the calibration papers for the Intoxilyzer-5000. They do calibrate them regularly and they have the documentation to prove it. Cops may be jackbooted fascist thugs, but when it comes to DUI, they generally aren't stupid.

Good to hear -- no, I don't agree, though, most cops aren't fascist. A few corrupt ones, maybe, but the rest just do the job they're forced too (example: They're forced to hand out tickets when they go to accident scenes if they can, even if they don't want to. I'm pretty sure that's why most all of them are screwed up -- the cops do it on purpose, IMHO, because many times they just don't think a ticket is the right medicine.)

>Listen, people: There is no "magic bullet" DUI defense.

Very true. And for those not believing it, watch MythBusters! They did a part episode on this, and nothing works, except one thing (which actually works against you): Mouthwash. The high alcohol concentration will cause the meter to give a totally insane reading (in their case the person blowing should have been dead). That just means they'll test you at the station, and it just gives them more proof you're a crappy liar. :-)

>Say as little as possible (name, rank, and social security number, essentially). Don't tell them where you've been or where you're going.

Good advice. And on the lawyer thing, good luck. The cost of getting it contested (pointlessly) is probably not worth it. If you really haven't been drinking, you might win, but if you have, the best a lawyer will do for you is get the sentence busted down a bit. Maybe.

And yeah, I hate drunk drivers just as much as anyone.

Re:laws - bullshit!

[Banjonardo]

If you are driving.... and are tanked.... you deserve whatever the hell you get.

Re: Forced to give evidence against yourself

[A55M0NKEY]

I stand corrected. There does have to be a warrant before you can be forced to give up evidence ( at least from your home, or your person unless there is probable cause, your car gets less protection ). There should be some sort of warrant required to require a Blood Alcohol Test. However, a Judge is going to take a cops word for it that a car was swerving and issue the warrant 100% of the time. Judges take cops word for it when it is their word against yours that you ran a red light for instance, this will be no different. So why pay a judges salary so they can rubber stamp BAL test warrant for the cops on Friday nights? Because it means that a cop can not test you unless they are pretty damn sure you are drunk. One that brings in every other dude they pull over to the station to wait till the judge rubber stamps their warrant for a BAL test will get tons of complaints from people and quickly lose their job.

Battery's dead....

[Anonymous Coward]

Oops, no way to jump start now!

Re:We Get It. Youre Responsible. That's not the po

[Skynyrd]

The reason why the government should do it for you is because you're not the one who's going to be drunk driving.

Then they should get in bed with you and make sure you use a condom every time. They should drive with you, to make sure you don't fall asleep. Where does it stop?

Re: Daytime Curfew

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, I had my high school diploma, and was a softmore in college at age 15. This was over a decade ago, but I would have needed a note to mess around on a day I had only one class on... Stupid.

what you're all missing: the liquor industry

[brre]

Having a discussion about drunk driving, and how to be effective in reducing the carnage from drunk driving, and never mentioning the liquor industry, is like having a discussion about malaria, and how to reduce the toll from malaria, and never mentioning the fly that spreads malaria.

Here's an example Here's another example And here's how it's done (scroll or search to The Wheel Behind Drunk Driving). How the liquor industry uses money and PR talent to derail or weaken measures that would reduce drunk driving.

Don't get me wrong: I love devices, I love discussion of devices, I love discussion of devices that would reduce drunk driving. I'll even sit still for discussion of whether certain devices overly impinge on individuals. But to have a discussion on drunk driving, and not even mention the major force against effective measures to drunk driving, well that's a discussion that's seriously missing the point.

RE: the vote

[A55M0NKEY]

Every citizen should get the vote in whatever country. The only requirement should be the ability to indicate a choice. Parents should be barred from accompanying their over 5 year old children into the voting booth. Under 5's should be able to be assisted by their parents even though that means their parents get 2 votes. Their parents should be allowed to speak for their infants.

Some say children should not be trusted with the vote because they are not intelligent/worldly enough to make a good decision. I say the vote is not about intelligence or wisdom, it is about power - the power to demand not to be mistreated or oppressed.

Those that claim children are not qualified to make good decisions, and would hurt good government by their 'bad' voting should note that random votes tend to cancel each other out. Children, if stupid, will cancel each other's votes out. If they are not stupid, if their voice has a coherent message, then it will be heard.

Re:Gun laws

[matfud]

I was not trying to say the ban was good or bad. I was just trying to point out that the oft quoted "UK guncrime has increased massively since the ban" is not true.

Looking at a different set of statistics shows that from 1993 to 1995 3 police officers were shot dead in the UK. 1995-2003 0 police officiers were shot dead. Again the meaning is not obvious as this is not a statisitcally valid sample (also I believe that bullet proof vests were introduced for armed response officers (who are most likely to be around weapons).

Another interesting stat is that gun crime figures include use of air guns and tear gas. Usage of air guns has quintupled in the past ten years with 98% of the reports being related to vandalism and destruction of property.

I'm trying to say "do not believe the often quoted
figures. Look a little deeper and you will find a wealth of information"

matfud

I got a better idea

[bagsc]

Make drunk driving a felony.

Jail time will make people think harder about it. Fines only force so much compliance.

Easiest way

[rikkards]

Confiscate the car the first offense at any point above the minimum legal limit. Hell if they can confiscate your vehicle, boat, etc for over fishing why not confiscate the car?

Re:laws - bullshit!

[Anonymous Coward]

With any luck, you will rationalize yourself into prison before you do any serious damage.

As opposed to you with the damn cell phone pasted to your ear. At least the grandparent said he was more vigilant when he had a couple of drinks.
You on the other hand seem to say that yes I can drive "cell phone enabled" (which should be made a CRIME by anyones standard). The problem with drunk driving is .... PUBLICITY for every "drunk driver" accident there are probably 3 "cell-phone/changing radio stations/adjusting climate control" kinds of accidents that don't get reported.

In the good ole days "God looked after stupid people and drunks.... what has happened?"

A 0.1 BAL limit is appropriate???

[spoco2]

"A 0.1 BAL limit is appropriate. Sorry, 0.08 is too strict."

Sorry, don't think so. Here in Australia the allowable BAC (Blood Alcohol Content) is 0.05, and that is by no means too strict...

Once, at a nightclub university (college) gathering, there was a competition to see who could blow the closest to 0.01, and I got the closest with .012 or something... I felt quite tipsy really, and hated to think what 5 times that felt like while trying to drive... let alone 10! times.

Why do you feel the need to drink and drive at all really? A drink or two, yes... over a reasonable time... ok... but that's going to get you nowhere near 0.05, let alone .1. Geeze, you're going to be pretty darn smashed at that level and no WAY should you be on the road.

Just think about why you think it's more appropriate to have a higher BAC level.

Re:A 0.1 BAL limit is appropriate???

[Anonymous Coward]

You felt tipsy at .01? Doubt it. You get to 0.01 from swishing scope around in your mouth. I would say you are off by an order of magnitude, but that would mean austrailia had a .5 limit for driving which doesn't make sence since that is the limit at which you die of alcohol poisoning. One medium sip of beer, like 1/5 of a can, would probably put you at 0.01. If that makes you tipsy, maybe you are allergic to alcohol or something.

No wonder this state went for Gore!

[Anonymous Coward]

Government always knows best...

Business Idea!

[Anonymous Coward]

Compressed breath in a can - I'll make millions! :)

Re:laws - bullshit!

[guacamolefoo]

And yeah, I hate drunk drivers just as much as anyone.

I don't see any need to even discuss this. I don't think anyone is arguing for the right of people to drive drunk. The thing that is frightening is that a majority of the legislature is willing to impose on everyone in New Mexico a punishment that only convicted offenders (or ARD cases) get everywhere else in the Union. Next thing, they'll want to put ankle bracelets on everyone a la house arrest: "Hey -- why complain about it? Got something to hide?"

Nobody likes drunk drivers. No shit. The fact that I am interested in a presumption of innocence on the part of the most vile people imaginable doesn't mean I support the conduct of which they are accused. The fact that unaccused, innocent people are being treated like convicted criminals bothers me? Hell yes. It should bother everyone. Everyone that voted for this idiotic measure in New Mexico should be fired by their consituents in the next election.

And, no, shepd, this comment wasn't directed at you. I just read this thread and saw soooo much "well...just don't drive drunk!" crap that it made me want to puke. Evidently, there is a significant percentage of even the tending-left, relatively educated /. crowd that will trade security for freedom.

Obviously, those people deserve what they get. I'm afraid, however, that they may bring down on me as well the things that they deserve.

GF.

Re:We Get It. Youre Responsible. That's not the po

[Ieshan]

God damn! Read my post! You're not the one who's going to be drunk driving! The *OTHER* guy is!

Why are you against legislation that enforces the responsible behavior that *you're* exhibiting?

Re:We Get It. Youre Responsible. That's not the po

[Skynyrd]

God damn! Read my post! You're not the one who's going to be spreading AIDS! The *OTHER* guy is!

Why are you against legislation that enforces the responsible behavior that *you're* exhibiting?

Why this law is bad

[einhverfr]

Deaths due to drunk driving down 50%. However mortality rates increase due to distracted drivers getting in head-on collisions while trying to take this test....

The problem is that at any given time only a small percentage of people on the road are drunk, so the danger of having every citizen take these tests *while driving* is, I think, likely to increase rather than decrease the mortality on the roads.

Laws should exist in order to create a framework of social good. This one would fail miserably in doing that. Besides, maybe one can just buy a car in another state. Wait, should that be illegal too?

Proof positive

[ChrisCampbell47]

14 hours after the story is posted, I get a chance to wander over to Slashdot, and this is what I see on this article:

( Read More... | 91 of 1581 comments )

I have my threshold set at +5. 91 comments modded up to +5?! What the hell do I do if I just want to see the 5-15 highest rated comments -- including perhaps one that demonstrates what a pile of crap the original article is, that is, how the poster summarized it incorrectly? Bad stories get posted to Slashdot all the time, which is fine because the guy who posts the comment proving that it's bullshit gets modded way up and everyone else gets modded down. So we find out quickly "nothing to see here, move along" and we're on to the next story.

If this isn't conclusive evidence of the need for finer granularity in comment rating, or a better mod system, then I don't know what is. Please, Slashdot powers, fix this. You're driving away your most valuable readers and posters.

Deaths in the thousands

[texas neuron]

It seems to me that the majority of posters are upset with the concept that their civil liberty is infringed by either having to 1) pay for a breathalyzer in their car or 2) have to use a breathalyzer in their care. How many deaths per year is your civil liberty worth? I do not see anyone complaining that their car has a bumper which they may not need if they do not have a car accident? How about the cost of seat belts? Personally if the drunks only killed themselvers, it would not be a public health problem. But being a doc who has worked in the public hospital ERs, I have seen too many families destroyed by the drunk drivers hitting those cars full of people who were not drinking but only in the wrong place at the wrong time. Personally, I would prefer an impairment test prior to starting your car so if your reaction time was deemed to slow to drive, you could not start your car whether it was from alcohol, prescription drugs, lack of sleep, etc.

Actually ...

[Poligraf]

There is pretty strong Republican Liberty Caucus ( http://www.rlc.org/ ) in the Republican Party. Democrats and liberty are much less compatible.

Re:Actually ...

[kilfarsnar]

The parent post had to do with Democrats coming up with half baked ideas to solve problems, and bemoaned a liberal congress. I merely pointed out that Republicans can also come up with dumb ideas and that the Congress is currently controlled by the Republicans. So I don't know where the "liberal" charge comes from.

Libertarian issues were not part of the original post, so I didn't address them. But judging from the website you posted, the RLC might be pissed these days too.

Re:laws - bullshit!

[Anonymous Coward]

You may lose your licence, but you will not be convicted of dwi...

Why are family guity for another's crime?

[Anonymous Coward]

The guy with the DUI loses his license. So how does he get around -- to his job, to the court, to his manditory counseling -- by family / friends.

Why is it that the DUI laws penalize the family or friends and not the person? Shoot, put the guy in jail and leave the family and friends alone. . . we didn't do anything wrong.

Re:laws - bullshit!

[bryan1945]

Ah, no.

Just because you refuse to take a BAL test doesn't mean they can't prosecute for a DWI/DUI. You can fight it, but you've already lost your license and any money you may save from not getting DWI/DUI fines will be sucked up by lawyer fees.

Re:laws - bullshit!

[bryan1945]

And driving a car is not a right. You give up certain rights for the right to drive. Now we can all quibble as to how many of those rights are justifiable.

+10, Flamebait --awarded to-- Anonymous Coward

[zedmelon]

*sigh* I should have known.

Well, Mister Coward, I guess I owe you an apology. I used the phrase "intelligent discretion," which distributes SEVEN syllables between only two words. Clearly the title "stupid bitch" can also apply to someone claiming to be capable of analytical reading, yet is not.

To clarify: I wait until I'm in the open, so you'll never see me dial my phone, because the proximity would mean you're too close for me to consider dialing; once the numbers have been dialed, the call is no more a distraction than chatting with a passenger, which you will never convince me that you're above doing. I used this story as an example to an entirely different argument, and I openly admitted that the old brick phone was a distraction--and that I had been stupid --but apparently I wasn't obvious enough about relating how I have learned from my experience and am now a better driver as a result.

Everyone eventually discovers--as I did, thirteen years ago--that driving is little more than a series of decisions, some of which must be made in a fraction of a second. One learns to "read" the environment better as one's driving skills develop, and the frequency of those last-minute decisions decreases. Everyone is a bad, inexperienced driver at first; I was just someone fortunate enough to learn this particular lesson without a collision.

As you become more experienced, you learn to recognize the times when a momentary distraction is an acceptable and responsible thing to do. Because you will never take a trip where you are not even once required to take your eyes off the road:

• There are traffic signs to read.
• You have to check your blind spots.
• You have your mirrors (my driver's ed. book recommended checking the rear-view once every seven seconds).
• Other drivers swerve into your lane because they aren't looking at you.

These are just examples required by driving, but there are countless other things to distract drivers. The trick is learning to recognize the situation where it's okay to allow yourself to become momentarily distracted.

If you're so lacking in confidence and/or coordination that you can't grab your phone from your belt, put it against your head, and press the "talk" button all without taking your eyes off the road (or...what's that, a hands-free kit?), then please do us all a favor and get rid of that pesky car stereo. Because if you're entering a school zone right when the DJ suddenly announces that he just found out he's getting fired at the end of his shift so fsck it, he's going to play a 30-minute block of Michael Bolton, all will be lost. Honestly, if you can't answer a telephone without looking at it first, then I question your ability to use a turn signal or the windshield wipers. Heaven forbid you try to drive a vehicle with a manual transmission.

I as so sick of assholes like you, all "oh, it's a distraction, but I'm good enough with it, and I can control it" and then trying to plow your car into me

And I'm sick of stupid loudmouths who can target what they consider a flaw as if they're incapable of making mistakes and yet have nearly identical flaws that they seem to think are above consideration. While I've been in five traffic accidents, I've caused only ONE; I fell asleep on the way home from work at 3 a.m. and trashed some lady's bushes. Three of the rest were the result of someone else running a stop sign into me, but I was also in an accident caused by a kid who was changing his stereo, so he didn't see that I was slowing down for a traffic light.

Somehow I doubt anyone will follow this post with a "hear hear!" because too many people let the radio distract them.

When the shoe is on the other foot, why doesn't the criticism follow? I am a very courteous and responsible driver, and I am 100% positive that I am distracted by my phone no more than anyone else is distracted by:

Oh yeah...

[Anonymous Coward]

That response makes sence.

Re: Forced to give evidence against yourself

[k31bang]

Destroying such evidence is considered obstruction of justice.

So if your body filters the alcohol that could be considered obstruction of justice? ;)

And better yet...

[Anonymous Coward]

How about a discussion about how the DUI statitics are so blaently spun such that they make the shrub's lies about WMD look like schoolyard fibs. Oh, but it's ok. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!$^@%&!!

Re:laws (OT)

[Cederic]

>> The people that were being detained, terrorist or not, do not fit that definition. To grant them that legal status would be to dilute its meaning. POW is a very specific legal term and I do not see anything wrong with this administration refusing to use it.

I totally agree. In which case they are civilians, and should be treated as such. They shot at US soldiers? Ok, prosecute them for attempted murder. They plotted to perpetrate various terrorist attacks? Ok, prosecute them for conspiracy.

There are a myriad of laws that would already deal with these people. Use those laws. Give them a fair and open trial, with untainted judges, lawyers and a jury.

Do not lock them up indefinitely just because they refuse to talk to you, because you can't actually prove any wrongdoing, because you just don't like them.

That is what is out of order.

>> Blaming the government for taking more power is rediculous, the government only has the power that we give to them.

Now you're just being naive. The Government passes the laws detailing how much power it is. In the US they are occasionally constrained by the constitution; in other countries not even by that. It's a rare and unusual step for any Government to intentionally reduce its power - such reductions invariably come through mass civil disobedience (violent or otherwise) and not through the standard democratic process.

~Cederic

You have proven my point

[SmallFurryCreature]

People who loan money because the intrest is lower then what they get on their own money don't need loans. These are the kinda loaners banks like, people with money. The real cash strapped those who have no choice (in america you need a car to work) but to take out a loan those are the ones the banks hate. They have special goverment backed city banks here to give out loans to those the bank refuses. You know loans to buy a washing machine. Essential stuff but a bad risk for banks.

From reading the original post it is pretty clear the guy ain't rich and the advice I give is standard advice given out by all consumer groups. Car financing is expensive. If it is at all possible save some money and instead go for a real bank loan for the rest. Non-financing loans have lower interest and are not tied to your car so they can't just reposses meaning you loose the car even though you paid half. With a normal bank loan the car is yours fully paid. You now just got a debt with the bank but at least you own the car. Save as much you can every 100 bucks not borrowed is money you don't have to pay intrest over. Of course I know that saving anything when poor is hard but this guy sounds like an adult.

Offering advice isn't condenscending. Consumer programs constantly tell people this because those offering finance deals never tell the truth but are really good at selling. But I suppose they should mind their own business too.

Re:laws (OT)

[QuantumFTL]

>> Blaming the government for taking more power is rediculous, the government only has the power that we give to them.

Now you're just being naive. The Government passes the laws detailing how much power it is. In the US they are occasionally constrained by the constitution; in other countries not even by that. It's a rare and unusual step for any Government to intentionally reduce its power - such reductions invariably come through mass civil disobedience (violent or otherwise) and not through the standard democratic process.

So you are saying that, if, say in the next elections 75% of the candidates that won were, say, libertarian or independent of some kind that were commmitted to reducing the government, that there would be a massive conspiracy to keep them out of government? If the majority of election winners were refused seating, *THAT* would start a revolution. The only thing I can think of is the "secret" government organizations not going away so easily. Do you *REALLY* think that if the totality of the population agreed the government was out of hand, and voted appropriately, that the leaders in power would be so bold as to deny the results?

Yes it's a stretch to think that many people could agree on anything, but it's quite possible if someone in the government majorly stepped over the acceptability line in a public way they could be drawn to replace our current government.

I realize this rarely happens (democracies rarely get so out of hand that drastic measures are necessary, in part because it is not a stable thing for democracies to do).

Cheers,
Justin

What will the auto insurance companies do?

[JimC93SW2]

IF this passes, and IF these devices reduce drunk driving (which often costs YOUR insurance company even when the OTHER driver is the drunk) will the insurance premiums go down in the state?

Crashes (they are usually NOT "accidents") cost everyone US$ Billions and tens of thousands of deaths and injuries each year. If automobile crashes was a disease it would be an issue on the top of the agenda, but it is almost invisible. Plus, every single time anyone tries to do something about it, whether airbags, blackbox recorders, mandatory helmet laws, or this proposal, there is always a small but very vocal minority to rise up and protest that the government is taking away their rights (although I haven't quite found which Article of the Constitution guarantees your right to drive drunk, or without using safety equipment proven to keep your brain in its container, or travel on the public roads at NASCAR speeds?). Please, don't get me wrong; I love cars and I love technology. The latter has made the former SO much better in the past couple decades, but the Luddites living among us think their "rights" to act aggressively stupid superceed the rights of everyone else to preserve their own life and liberty.

Re: Devices, corrected.

[Reziac]

"A potential hazard, yes. Luckilly you are given, IIRC, about 3 minutes to provide a sample. So you can easilly wait until you're stopped at a light or otherwise unoccupied."

You've never driven in major metro rush hour traffic, right? Okay, so New Mexico doesn't really have any rush hours to speak of (or at least Albuquerque didn't, last time I was there). Let's take a trip to Los Angeles. (Remember, that interlock gadget isn't going to turn off when you cross the NM state line.) Depending on when and where it catches you, it could be a long time before you can safely take your attention off the road. And remember, in L.A. we think it's normal to drive bumper-to-bumper at 70mph, so you damnwell BETTER not take your attention off the road.

So... this isn't just an anti-drunk-driving device. It's a device designed to ensure that New Mexico residents can't visit the big city using their own car. Ah, the joy of unintended consequences!!

If I was the king of the world

[Anonymous Coward]

... I'd throw away the cars and the bars and the wars...

A cheaper, better solution would be to allow the citizenry to use lethal force to protect themselves from drunk drivers, when you see the guy in the next lane sippin' a Bud - pop a cap in 'im.

Seriously, these people ARE endangering our lives DURING the commission of a CRIME, why isn't lethal force justified in stopping them? Posioning the booze at the source would be less labor intensive, of course then we run the risk of accidently harming the small minority of drunks that don't drive - but that doesn't seem to be a big loss.

Ok, so ride a bike

[Anonymous Coward]

...which should be a lot safer w/o all those drunken motorist on the road

Ohmmmm.....

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Ok, some of my word choices were obviously way over the line, and I apologize. I was a bit irate having come, literally, within inches of death not half an hour before I read your post as someone made a right turn in front of me (on my bicycle) because they were chatting on their phone.
2) Yes, there are other things that distract you (road signs, mirrors, etc.) from driving, shouldn't you be trying to find ways to *reduce* the list, not add to it?
3)Don't get me wrong, it's not just the cell phone users that irk me. The people screaming at their girlfriend, eating McMuffins, checking out the hottie next to them, etc, are just dangerous. No vendetta against cell phones.
4)It's not that I don't trust myself to answer the phone while driving,it's that I have no faith in those around me not to do something stupid while I am doing so.
5) And for the record (since you found it neccisary to tout yours), 18 years driving, almost all stick, two accidents (both rear ended sitting at a red light). Oh, and posting AC because I feel no need for an account. (ohhh, karma! sign me up!)

Re:Ohmmmm.....

[zedmelon]

1. Me too... sorry.

2. Yes, you're right. That's why I got a headset. I can answer by pressing any button on the keypad. From there, the conversation is unobtrusive to my driving. I rarely dial unless I'm sitting at a light. If not, I'm extremely cautious. Even if my conscience and sense of community responsibility were to vanish tomorrow, I've still got a sixteen-month-old reason to be sure I live a long time.

2b. The headset is also great for getting stuff done while I'm on hold with the phone company--without killing my neck.

4. Good point. For reassurance, the headset helps there too.

5. I only mentioned my record because the near-miss I first posted was the closest I've been to causing someone else bodily harm, and cellphone-driving criticisms are generally followed up by questioning the driving record of the offending phone user.

5b. Heheheheh. VERY good point. Karma isn't nearly as important to me as it was when I first signed up, but having my account makes certain things much more convenient. I hit my home page, and I saw that my post had a reply. I probably wouldn't have checked, since it's close to 24 hours old now.

Also, I track other users who have said interesting things. I can tell I'd follow your posts as well, if you had an account. Differing opinion, sure, but the ability to apologize--On Slashdot? Blasphemy! --coherently present your argument, and make thought-provoking points? That's read-worthy to me. If you change your mind and create one, let me know.

1b (should be 1a). Glad he missed you.

Re: Devices

[adamjaskie]

Good. Serves him right for drinking and driving. Irresponsible idiot.

Re:Increased punishment does not reduce crime

[DoctorNathaniel]

Your argument may hold in the specific but not in the general. A glance at the stats on the MADD website show that drunk driving is very common: the best stat I found was that in 1999 ~1 out of every 120 drivers was arrested for drunk driving. That's arrested.. not just people who had too much to drink.

This means that the majority of accidents are NOT caused by repeat offenders: there are so many of these guys out there that the case you state is likely to be the exception, not the rule. If you have some data on recitivism, then maybe you can make the case. Yes, locking THAT guy up would have saved a life. But it wouldn't have helped all the OTHER drunk driving victims that year.

Your second paragraph: wouldn't it be more fair just to remove their licenses? You don't need to lock someone up to keep them from driving. You're making the commmon mistake of confusing punishment and prevention: make up your mind which you are arguing for.

Your third statment is pretty stupid compared to the previous one. You're willing to remove ALL of a person's rights for 5 years to save a life, but you won't take away a tiny little insignificant right (i.e. the right not to have a breath machine in your bar) to save a life? That's pretty wierd. After all, bars also need to comply with a lot of rules already: they have to have bathrooms, hygiene standards, fire saftey standards, pay minimum wage, pay taxes, close at certain hours, etc. Seems a pretty small thing to ask to "save that little girl's life".

Re:We Get It. Youre Responsible. That's not the po

[Anonymous Coward]

So getting hit by a drunk driver is like having unsafe sex with a stranger? Idiot.