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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

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.

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?

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 ....

[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.

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.

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.

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

[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: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: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.

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.

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.

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...

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?

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: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.

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: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: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: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: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.

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: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!

[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: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.

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...

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.

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: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....

[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.

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.

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: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?

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: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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.