Slashdot Mirror
Convicted NY Drunk Drivers Need Ignition Interlocks
pickens writes "Starting yesterday in New York state, anyone sentenced for felony or misdemeanor DWI, whether a first-time or repeat offender, will have to install an ignition interlock in any vehicle they own or operate. The interlock contains a breath-checking unit that keeps the car from starting if the offender's blood-alcohol level registers 0.025 or higher, a little less than one-third of the legal limit. 'The addition of ignition interlocks will save lives in New York state,' says State Probation Director Robert Maccarone, who led the team that wrote the regulation. 'It's been proven in other states. New Mexico realized a 37 percent reduction in DWI recidivism.' Whether that will be enough to persuade more people to take a cab or find a designated driver is unknown. 'It's one more thing to make people think, it may help — it may keep a few people from getting behind the wheel,' says Onondaga County Sheriff Kevin Walsh."
New York is just now getting these?
Wow, Alaska has had them for a while now.
Or is there something about this that I'm missing?
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
for some reason i bet the offender isnt whos paying for it...stupid NY
This is one area the government needs to interfere in.
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
is one thing that bothers me. $70-125 to install and another $70-110 per month isn't cheap, especially on top of the major bump in car insurance that they already ate. Given that drunk driving convictions skew to lower income, this has real potential to put even first-time offenders into bankruptcy.
The fact that it triggers on as little as 1/3 of the legal limit is also troubling. Maybe they should trigger at slightly below the legal limit, but 1/3? They couldn't get convicted of a DWI at that number, and yet you're going to shut off their car?
I'm just waiting for the day when the "reenact prohibition" assholes get enough power to try to make these things mandatory in all cars. After all, if it "saves lives", why not make everyone blow into the damn box to start the car, and at random times?
Insert obligatory "won't someone think of the children" bullcrap here too.
Ok... I'm fairly ambivalent to whether such ignition locks are a good idea or not, but this part strikes me as odd:
"The interlock contains a breath-checking unit that keeps the car from starting if the offender's blood-alcohol level registers 0.025 or higher, a little less than one-third of the legal limit."
Exactly why can't you drive a vehicle in situations when it would be entirely legal to operate it? If you have a dui, is the legal limit for driving lowered for some reason that I'm not aware of.
What's to stop someone from "blowing clean" by using a dust buster plugged into the cigarette lighter?
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
See subject.
If I blow a .04, I am still legally allowed to operate a vehicle. Even if I have had a prior DUI. Why am I now restricted from operating my vehicle in a legal manner? It's not like they are changing the law to say that everyone who has had a DUI now had a reduced BAC tolerance.
After you start the car??????
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
I drink and drive all the time. I also drink and shoot on the clay-pigeon range.
SOME of us still hold our liquor and are sane and responsive faster than anyone else. It's about your metabolism: if you do an hundred jumping-jacks after getting drunk, then you'll metabolise the effects out of your body as sweat. I don't trust anyone on the road that can't handle liquor; those are that people we should be worried about. Everyone should drink a beer before entering a car because it calms their nerves and prevents all the kinds of over-reaction driving that you see when big-rigs fishtail out of control and such.
The reason why there are so many laws against Alcoholic beverages is because it all carried-over for when the Irish arrived into America and the governments hated them so-much that they looked for every which-way to tax the most beneficial (when used in moderation) beverages. It's no different than how they're about to ruin the Marijuana industry by legalizing it and taxing it. They would prohibit paper-products if only it earned them more money, but then the French invented the ba'day to remove feces with water. It's constantly a game of taxes where governments look for ways to TAP into sources of money in all the ways of assuring their survival in a world that is lawful without the privileged gangmembers known as government. At-least recently from His-Story books, we can reveal that governments and similar privilege gangs of associated psychopaths are responsible for all the genocides and war.
The more you know...
Why not just install an ambo bag on the interlock and squeeze? 0.0 BAC every time, unless you put vodka in the bag.
What's the rationale behind not putting a blower on all cars? Seems like a good idea and not that unreasonable...
Within five minutes of starting the car, the interlock will order the driver to pull over and restart the car. For longer rides, drivers will be required at random times to stop the car and restart. Maccarone said this feature is intended to prevent drivers from drinking after they start the car.
That's not only inconvenient, but it also seems like it could cause more problems than it solves. This seems inefficient, is it absolutely necessary to take their precautionary measures this far?
A community-oriented lyrics site
Is there any data from states that have already implemented these to gauge their effectiveness? What's to stop potential drunk drivers from getting someone else to blow on it for them?
To address some questions ... I'm sad to say but I dated a girl who had one of these and it really did destroy the relationship because she could only drive to work and home from work. I would have to drive out and pick her up since she had a restricted license after getting a DUI.
... where do we draw the line?
So to address people's questions: you have to make a sound with your voice as you blow and you have to blow strong while making that sound. I think it's calibrated to your voice so if you try a dust buster (not going to make the force needed) or your child you're not going to get your voice. The kid might work if you have enough time for them to try different ranges but it has to be a long continuous breath of full air.
To address the questions about drinking after you start the car, the system will beep loudly indicating you must blow into it again while you're driving or your vehicle will shut off. This happens once every 20-40 minutes.
To answer the questions about why it's 1/3 the legal limit, my (now ex) girlfriend had also been ordered by her program to not drink for a year. If you blow anything recognizable, it locks out you out of your vehicle and reports it. If you don't believe me look at how they keep track of starts. This isn't something for you to wonder if it's okay for you to drive or to test your friends with. She was warned by other friends with DUIs (that's DUI) that they will get you the morning after if you still have alcohol on your breath.
A month before she blew this, she was in the lowest range and then she blew right on the edge of this range that demanded this. I know there's a lot of people out there that have been negatively affected by drunk drivers but in most states the punishment really can be life destroying. I avoid it by using public transportation in DC when I drink but not everyone has that option.
I'm not against these things being used in serious cases. But your first offense with a DUI
My work here is dung.
Ted Kennedy is already dead, you insensitive clod!
What the thing really needs to make it popular is a facebook and twitter integration. I can just imagine the status updates now.
Who feels that is their right these days? I've never heard someone say "it's my right to drink and drive".
.08 to .05 soon. Just try arguing against that. If you do, you're immediately regarded as an advocate for drinking and driving, rather than an advocate for moderation. Even if the subject is brought up among my friends, all of whom enjoy their beer, there's little to no indignation on their part, or a feeling that their rights are being taken away. The consensus is "well, guess we shouldn't be drinking and driving anyways." Never mind that the new limit will only punish moderates rather than the truly incapacitated that were already targeted under the previous limit.
Actually, the opposite is usually true. Here in BC the legal limit will be dropping from
In the end, I don't really care either - I'm just a little miffed MADD continues to push the laws towards their prohibitionist ideals and there's nothing you can do about it without looking like a drunk.
I have no problem with this. To be caught for drunk driving one must not only make a choice to drink, but either be foolish enough to drive through a checkpoint, most of which are announced in advance, or drive erratically enough to be caught by the law. Look at the number of people leaving a bar drunk, and compare to the number who gets stopped. For the most part the cops seems to be stopping those who pose some danger and lack reasonable self control. Such a device may help these people maintain their driving privileges.
I would hope that first time offenders might be able to 'graduate' from the device after an amount of time, and that the number of licenses revoked due to abuse of the privilege would not be reduced.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
I mean, how hard is it to hack these interlocks. If not with having a kid (with no choice in the matter) to "blow for Daddy", how hard is it to have an air pump blow into one of these things? Does the thing measure for breath temperature and humidity? How hard is it to fake that?
I am not suggesting that people violate the law and circumvent these devices. It is just that the concept is so lame, it invites circumvention by the remaining 63 percent of the users of these things.
1. Leave car runnng outside bar.
2. Defeated unit.
3. Profit.
My friend leaves his car running outside bars for HOURS. GOOD FOR THE EARTH- short sighted politicians.
TFA states that "within five minutes of starting the car, the interlock will order the driver to pull over and restart the car. For longer rides, drivers will be required at random times to stop the car and restart."
What if the driver fails to comply? Will the interlock kill the engine? Or will it just keep "ordering the driver to pull over and restart the car"? I can picture a disembodied electronic voice repeating, "STOP! OR I SHALL TELL YOU TO STOP AGAIN!"
The former is probably just as dangerous as someone driving drunk. (No engine = no power steering, no ABS, &c.) The latter is irritating, but comically ineffective, unless it notifies the police as it's doing so.
10 years ago I typed somewhere on the net, and I could probably find it if I tried really hard, that the way things were going, pretty soon someone would require a breathalizer wired into the ignition of a car to make it start after have a DWI. Lots of folks told me I was full of sh*t and it would never happen. Our culture has changed so much in the last decade that now having an interlock seems like a good thing to do to lots of people. Hardly anyone can remember that only 10 years ago almost no one at all would have supported this.
Now my new prediction. In 10 years ALL cars will require breath testing before it will start. I'll try to remember that I put it on slashdot... but will I still be able to search for anonymous postings then? Probably not. I guess that's my second prediction for the next 10 years.
MADD is a quintessential example of an organization that has completed all of its original goals, but continues to exist simply for its own sake.
Inevitable on /. for a complex ethical issues.
Oh wait.
.sig withheld by request
Your comments prove that the reason why un-moderated Alcohol consumption equates to catastrophic driving skills.
People like me can do stupid things (in another's opinion) all day long and still not hurt or offend anyone.
In Statutory law, this is known as "corpus delecti" meaning that every supposed or alleged crime must have *actual* damages, whereas consumption of a food (that's right, food) should be done at a rate which the liable helmsman or captain of the vessel isn't impuned. That is like saying, that the only lawful speed-limit of a road are environment conditions and the abilitiy of whomever is giving direction to the locomotion of that vessel.
You however are the reason why Cable Modems are governed: because you just can't handle the rate, maybe because you were born from a mother that couldn't hold her liquor or such that she passed-on her infirmaties to you in-vitro.
"Get in the car, son! Daddy's gonna get some beer."
"Here's some treats, Lassy. Now get in car."
Hobo's sign: "Will breath will for food"
What's BC?
I suspect we'll see a lot more cars idling driver-less in bar parking lots now.
If you're a convicted criminal with special interlock system in your car then maybe you can drive in the right hand lane like the truckers do.
No sig today...
my sympathy is with those who get killed by drunk drivers
your first offense is all you need to kill someone. so you draw the line there: you drink once, you get punished. getting drunk and putting your keys in an ignition is already way way over a line of responsible behavior
i'm sure your ex is a nice person, but she committed a crime, and deserves to be punished in this way. consider her lucky that the experience was so wrenching, before she actually killed anyone, including herself
in situations like this leniency doesn't pay. people who abuse drugs to the point where they are putting their lives and the lives of others in danger are behaving in such a way that any leniency is simply seen as license to continue abusive behavior. kindness is mistaken for weakness by a drug abuser: they aren't in control anymore, the drugs are
you can't lightly like a butterfly bring yourself out of drug abuse. it is a wrenching experience no matter what. there's no sugar coating the sobering (no pun) realization of where you have wound up and life and the difficult painful path back to where you need to be before you. the sooner the better you get a harsh wakeup call, the better. any leniency simply means a deeper hole she needs to dig herself out of. consider it tough love
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Offenders caught driving without an interlock -- by driving a buddy's car or renting a vehicle, for example, could land in jail for up to a year. Those who try to help an offender by blowing into an interlock are subject to the same penalty. Most models will be equipped with a camera.
Emphasis mine. And yes, I must be new here.
There are some areas where the needing to at random times to stop the car and restart. Is not that safe or easy to do.
Also what about valet parking? Need to kill it and restart the car or the valet can go to jail for starting the car?
And why are the monthly fees + install why can you just buy this? What about the day when car comes with this build in?
example: if we let gay people wed, next people will be wedding animals and cadavers
example: if we make marijuana legal, next we will make heroin and methamphetamine legal
the point is, the slippery slope is a rhetorical piece of propaganda used by demagogues to scare people away from logic and reason. the slippery slope only works in a world where no one has any cognitivie faculties and can't tell the difference between gay marriage and bestiality, or marijuana and methamphetamine
people CAN tell the difference, and DO tell the difference, and thus the slippery slope is fearmongering bullshit
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
You really imagine they didn't think of that one two seconds into the meeting? Maybe they should hire super-geniuses like you as consultants.
No sig today...
and they will do anything to get it. the real question is what right do they have to tell you to install something that is not installed by the mfg or force you into your vehicle. since it has a title, it is property, since when can the govt control your property..... i cant wait for the law suits that the accidents this causes or the damage that will be done to cars during this installation. bottom line they should be removing peoples licenses. but if they cant drive, they cant get tickets less revenue.
and then react to their bullshit, AFTER they propose that
but when you posit your worst fear before it happens, and then react to it like it already happened, you are losing your grip on rational thought. you are instead engaged in hysterical thinking, which is what religious demagogues depend on as a motivating psychological factor in those who follow their words
so congratulations: you think like the people you dislike
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
All the more reason to *not* take a breath test. Just politely refuse, then suffer the implied consent penalty. I've noticed that when a cop gets pulled over they never blow cuz they know what they don't like to tell the rest of us i.e. don't cooperate with law enforcement. Everything one does when pulled over only leads to a DUI conviction. Best bet is to be polite, provide the requested documents (divers license, registration, proof of insurance) and little else. Do not take a "field sobriety" test of any type. Insist on being arrested, or let go. Don't help the police at all, it's not like there's ever one around when *you* need one anyways.
I guess if you can't figure out a way to fool it, then you probably shouldn't be driving. Actually, that's a pretty good reason to fit them to every car.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
While the offender may be responsible for the cost of the device, each county has to set up & pay for the monitoring, including staffing for it. The state mandates it, but is not paying for it.
To those in this thread who are complaining about this: sorry but get with the program. I've lost a good friend and a family member to separate DWI incidents (caused by others), along with some asshole illegal alien on his 4th DWI plowing into my car at a red light. Do these things blow? Yes (figuratively and literally), but that's the bloody point. Keep these assholes who are liable to drink again (or in some cases deliberately "game" the system) off the road. Is it intrusive on civil rights? No - because you have no fscking right to drive (show me that in the Constitution)...it's a privilege, which you forfeit if you get drunk and stupid and then go driving. Do mistakes happen and people screw up? Yes. Will the screw up again? Some will...this is the purpose of this annoying thing you have to blow in. Yes, I drink. Drinking 18 yo single malt as I type this...but not going for a drive later. If I need to go somewhere, use a friend or a cab!
but in all cars likey will cut out the month costs maybe even the need to pull over part can be changed to blow in running with no stop needed.
look at toll you used to need to stop and now can go past them at full speed!
http://www.revenue.wi.gov/faqs/ise/atundrg.html
Can children be in a bar with their parents?
Yes. Persons under age 21 may be on licensed premises, and can be sold and allowed to drink alcohol beverages, if they are with their parents, guardians, or spouses, as long as those persons are of legal drinking age; but this is at the discretion of the licensee.
It is completely correct. When you start coming with the attitude of "People need to be at 100% behind the wheel," you discover that you are talking bullshit. Many things impair driving ability including age, reaction time, and certainly inexperience.
People's abilities vary per person, per day, per year and so on. Nobody is "100%" all the time.
This is also part of the problem I have with the drunk driving hysteria. Yes, when people are wasted they have a much higher chance of causing a severe accident. Also there isn't a good reason for driving in that condition. However this crusade that any and all alcohol is such a danger is bullshit. Does a couple drinks impair your ability? Sure. So do a lot of other things. We need to be reasonable about it.
To get some perspective, go look up the number of traffic crashes (or severe or fatal crashes if you like) and then compare the subset that had alcohol as a factor. You'll notice a whole lot of accidents happen where alcohol isn't involved. This is a larger contrast when you look in to it and realize that the statistics are padded in that any time someone admitted to having a drink alcohol is listed as a factor, regardless of if it was a real cause or not.
Some sanity is called for in this. Driving will not ever be perfectly safe and we have to acknowledge that.
And before the MADD types jump down my throat, I don't drink at all, so this has nothing to do with self interest.
What will happen when you have one drink, get popped, and you discover that the limits are now so low that YOU are the one having to install one of these? Will you be so high and mighty then? Why not just set the limits to zero and be done with it? Drinking and driving is bad mmkay? But at some point we're going to hit bottom in this little political race to outdo one another and realize that it's a bit insane.
How about this, lets just install them in ALL cars? That will stop this problem cold won't it? See how that flies at the local bar and grill or winery why don't you. If the device detects any alcohol in your system it won't start. You okay with that? Family will be safe right? If you say no then are you advocating drinking and driving?
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
This is being applied to people who are on probation. It is a part of their requirements to not be in jail any more. As part of that, they normally aren't allowed to drink at all.
So you're whining that this is some curtailment of the driver's rights, correct? Is it a larger or a smaller curtailment than being in jail? This is the other option, after all. The driver can choose not to accept probation under these terms and can spend time in the hoosegow.
Oh, wait, I forgot an option. The convicted felon can also decide not to use a car. Free and at home, not in jail, but lacking a car. And if you consider that to be too strict a requirement, I will remind you that the person whom you are defending was convicted for using a car while so intoxicated that he was likely to KILL OTHER PEOPLE.
Sincerely,
Someone Who Read The Fine Article.
and make sure you tell that to the officer on scene when you blow that stop sign and take out that SUV
oh right, that will never happen to you: you hold your alcohol well
you know i'm certain there are people who can drive 90 mph all day every day and never get in an accident (yet). but we don't craft the driving limits to supermen, we craft the law to the average joe. so if you have an extra copy of alcohol dehydrogenase in your liver and can burn that alcohol up quickly, you're just going to have bear this awful, awful burden of being a supermen amongst mediocrity. you poor, poor man. truly i am filled with such feeling for your plight
you will not get special treatment, instead you will simply not drive if you happened to have drank recently. you are not special. the law is the law. i don't care how well you handle your beer. this inconveniences you? well, dead people in car wrecks inconveniences society, so you're just going to have to accept this awful, awful cramp in your dining lifestyle. i'm filled with such sympathy and empathy for your terrible plight and how this ruins your social calendar, really i am, cross my heart
if you drink, you don't drive. that's it. it's really simple. deal with it
continue thinking what you wrote above, and therefore be an asshole. your choice
but to me, all i see in your words is someone missing the word "responsibility" in their vocabulary
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
as soon as you prove to me that making a rational argument (gay marriage will not hurt society) will somehow magically make people vulnerable to irrational arguments (necrophilia is the same thing as gay marriage), then you have proven that the slippery slope is real
but making a rational decision does not make you somehow vulnerable to irrational decisions. if you make a decision that changes the status quo (allowing gay marriage), you are not introducing some sort of strange runaway unstoppable acceleration of social change that will just speed up and go off a cliff into harems, legal pedophilia, and men marrying their horses. no, this is complete fearmongering bullshit
repeat: rational change does not mean you accelerate into irrational change. it simply doesn't work that way
the idea that change will accelerate off a slippery slope into fantastical realms of complete amorality or severe fascism or radical religious fundamentalism or whatever bogeyman scares you at night is just the strange attraction fear holds over your otherwise rational mind
and don't get me wrong: appeals to emotion are just as powerful as appeals to reason, in history, in reality. but i'm not saying appeals to emotion don't exist, i'm not arguing against their existence. i'm saying what doesn't exist is this idea that a sober, reasonable, small, incremental, rational change... will somehow lead to a runaway chain reaction into irrational change. it's this linking of rational change with irrational change that i am saying is complete fearmongering bullshit, and why the slippery slope does not exist
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I've been told there's already some talk of that in scandanavian countries. More talk than here in the US anyway.
I despise drunkenness. But that doesn't give me the right to fuck over people who I think drink too much. Unfortunately, I think most people view drunk drivers the way they view smokers, or some classes of foreign hethen: their behavior is bad, therefore we are justified in however we want to treat them.
I think there's good arguments on both sides for this kind of thing for convicted drunk drivers. But I agree it's headed in a bad direction.
is it Moore's Law?: 5 years. max.
I'll rest comforably knowing that even though it's coming, the likelihood of retroactive enforcement will work just as well as the seatbelts in my 1948 Dodge truck (that don't exist) or my 1970 Plymouth Barracuda's emissions standards.
My point only being that with how many millions of cars on the road, it's only going to stop those that are willing to be stopped.
of a small tiny irrational change rolling unstoppably into complete immorality or complete anarchy or suffocating fascism or extreme religious fundamentalism or whatever fringe you want
you can't
because it doesn't exist. because it assumes that human beings aren't capable of thinking rationally. but they are. so you can't give a society a tiny push, and it slides inexorably into the far reaches of dystopia or medievalism or whatever
meanwhile, i can give you plenty examples of demagogues whipping the impressionable into hysteria and frenzy because a small prudent rational change (gay marriage, legalized marijuana) will "inevitably" lead to gross immorality and irresponsibility. that's the slippery slope, and it doesn't exist. its simply propaganda and emotional rhetoric
but you're right, i didn't qualify my statement correctly: i said a small rational change will not lead to unstoppable irrational change
so i will properly rule out your assertion by making my qualification more limiting: no small change, rational or irrational, will uncontrollably slide into the far reaches of radical social change. it simply doesn't happen
the slipperly slope argument is not reality, it is a fearmongering tool and no more, and you need to stop positing as if it is somehow real. the slippery slope is bullshit
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Dust remover... canned air. Problem solved (hiCCup!)
Never underestimate the ingenuity of the true alcoholic.
I'd tell you to die in a fire, but you probably will anyway. http://www.edhardy-sale.net/
Having lost more than one family member to the actions of people who drink and drive, the amount of sympathy I would have for how they might feel at permanently losing their license is... oh... something somewhat less than zero.
Really, doesn't a permanent revocation make a whole lot more sense? Seems like a whole lot less administration hassles than what this proposal offers.
And maybe if people had to face a penalty like that, they'd think a lot harder before trying it. If people can't get to work because of it, again... I have no sympathy. IMO, they should think through the potential consequences of their actions before they try something that could all too easily end somebody's life when it's wholly and very easily avoidable. Don't drink and drive. Period.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
He drove while I blew into the device.
a better example might have been john brown's raid on harper's ferry leading to the civil war. or the killing of archduke franz ferdinand leading to wwi. or 9/11 leading us to our current world bullshit
of course small groups of people can make history. none of which has anything to do with the slippery slope! not my 3 examples, not stalin, nor hitler, nor martin luther
completely unrelated subject matter. to explain why its unrelated subject matter would be beneath intellectual charity. you don't win an argument by completely changing the subject
give me an example of tiny law being passed, and then suddenly there is this cascade of increasingly irrational laws into complete insanity completely beyond anyone's ability to control, completely against the wishes of the population. doesn't happen
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
What they really want to do is, install an ignition lock, where you have to swipe your credit card...
Our state is broke, and they're spending money on this shit?
Our blind governor needs to get the fuck out of office. The courts should put a lock on his pens that make him read an eye chart before hes allowed to sign any law.
Maybe so but don't worry, 10 years after THAT it won't matter any more, no-one will be allowed to manually drive a car anyway, they'll all be robotically controlled.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
If the statistics say that this will reduce accidents by some percentage, then why wouldn't it be required on all new cars, or for that matter, make it a requirement on old cars as well, no blow-hole, no plates.
Then, in a few years, since this program has proven so rewarding, require a few drops of blood to start the car, we need to make certain that you aren't on any drugs - prescription or otherwise.
(look up the stats for prescription drug related accidents, they're available but amazingly hard to find, like somebody doesn't want anyone to see how high those numbers are.)
Once we get the blood test for drugs instituted, we should have the DNA scanners small enough to fit in the hole where your radio used to be (we took that out in 2013, statistics said it distracted the drivers), and now we can scan for genetic probability of IQ. Then we can limit the top speed of your vehicle to your IQ minus 30 KPH - yes, America finally converted to Ks in 2018.
"You'd need someone sober in the car at that point to restart the car, and if someone is sober in the car, the odds are likely that that person will be the driver. It actually makes perfect sense." - by VinylRecords (1292374) on Monday August 16, @08:03PM (#33270068)
Per my subject-line above, it won't matter in that country (Onondaga) & city (Syracuse) if you're the mayor's brother, because the former mayors' brother (Mayor Tom Young) did something quite along the lines of:
---
1.) Hit a woman with his vehicle
2.) Hit a cop's car with his vehicle
3.) Smashed his vehicle etc. and was drunk while doing so to all of the above.
---
Oh, no - wait, & keep reading, because it gets better:
Guess what? That's right - Not a DAMN THING happened to him either (politically connected & all that).
Yes, I am a resident there, and that is pretty much the situation there in a nutshell (may vary some, but not by much on the enumerated details above).
So, in reality, this "ignition lock measure" won't apply to those who are "connected", as-per-usual. It's also not going to stop those who just have someone else blow into this mechanism for the intoxicated driver to be able to start their vehicle as others here have mentioned/noted already, as does the person whom I am quoting above (amongst many others who have undoubtedly "channelled their 'inner criminal'" to come up with that assumption/solution to this 'problem' - because hey: It's that, or get politically powerful family/relatives/friends instead as the former Mayor's family in Syracuse evidences)).
I myself got a DUI three years ago. First time offense, I had my license taken away for a year and if I wanted it back that second year I would have had to go with an interlock device. I decided to forgo driving another year to bother with the costs of the device and by that second year I had already adjusted my lifestyle to accommodate not driving.
I don't begrudge anyone but myself, I even thanked the officer who stopped me (two blocks from my house going to the gas station late at night to pick up some snacks, stopped due to headlight out). I'm glad I got stopped because as everyone already knows that was the first time I got caught, not the first time I had risked going to the store after some drinks like that.
I had to pay a large fine, I had to attend education classes, a victims panel and I had to meet with a diversion officer once a month for a year. It changed my life. I was lucky to afford the large costs, I know it would've completely broken a lot of other people.
I also believe that people who text and talk on phones while driving should be held to the same standard as DUI. People who are morally outraged about DUIs do not bother me, but the ones who are morally outraged and then don't bat an eye when they reveal to me they text all the time while driving make me stabby.
Activate interlock! Dynotherms connected! Infracells up! Mega thrusters are go! Let's go Voltron Force!
How, exactly, is preventing someone who is over the legal BAC limit "fucking them over"? You're doing them a favor - preventing them from doing something which could land them in jail, or dead. I'd rather they said thank you, and went on their way.
Their behavior is not just "bad" - it is illegal, and demonstrably dangerous.
So what happens if you have a vehicle; like an old car or truck or what have you, can they hook this thing up to the vehicle? What if its a specialty vehicle like a old bus thats an RV? Does your employer have to shoulder the cost of installing this apparatus in a work vehicle you can drive (if they dont outright fire you)
by then we may have some auto drive roads but not all cars / roads. maybe 2050 with flying cars?
I am half tempted to get a DUI so I can hack one of these bad boys.
That's the problem with this, right there. When you introduce legislation as "Precious Little Snowflake's Law", you get a free pass on the whole unpleasantness of having to appeal to people's rationale. Instead, you get unfettered access to their "OH MY GOD MY BABY!!!!" instinct. It's a fail-safe strategy (how many "Whosit's Law" measures have failed to be ratified?). Simply brilliant.
This is a HUGE problem with our legal system across the board. What should be important when we pass a law is the statistical validity of cause and effect -- not the one-off tragedy that one family experienced, no matter how great.
Whether this particular drunk-driving law is prudent or not is hardly even relevant. The real issue is that it should be illegal to include any victim's (or other person's) name in the title, text, summary or advertising of a proposed bill. The "Brady Bill", "Megan's Law", "Leandra's Law", etc., etc., etc. should be required to pass muster on their merits (which they may possess, and that's fine as long as there's rational analysis and critical reasoning involved) instead of getting rubber-stamped on an emotional tear jerk.
My dad had to have one of these put on his car many years ago. One day it broke. After an hour or so on the phone, they finally told him that there's an exposed connector, and if you pull that connector off and short two wires together, the car will start just fine.
So easy, a drunk could do it!
Seriously, if you've ever "modified" a standard PC power supply so it'll turn on without a motherboard, you know how simple it is. It's exactly the same thing. And as far as I can tell, there's no way you can even tell it's been done, because the entire unit seems to be outside - in the part that's being disconnected.
Badly needs a 'lindsaylohan' tag
Who is Cliff Haven?
I'm just seeing who is willing to debate tonight. Don't get too attached, because some of the accusations to properties of my character are not insults when I flaunt them to everyone's advantage.
People which get hurt by drunk driver get also a very very expensive bill. Sometime a final one. whether low or high income the solution is easy : don't drink and drive. Take a cab or public transport or don't get drunk. The people which get this interlock Proved they ARE NOT responsible enough on their own and endanger other people..IMHO reckless endangering other people life should get a stiff prison sentence. You get one possessing marijuana and not hurting anybody, but get mostly scoff free when endangering people (drunk driving).
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
check out the no agenda podcast with Adam Curry and John C. Dvorak. they've been warning about interlock for MONTHS.
http://noagenda.mevio.com/
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
I promise that even with my username, I am not one of those insane drinkers and drivers. :)
Ah am not a crook! (\(-__-)/)
If we have robots driving our cars, we'll still need breathalizers. Just look at what happens to Bender when he goes without alcohol, if he is too low on the breathalizer, no one else on the road is safe.
God spoke to me.
Why let people drive at all after a DUI?
is it me, or is this a stupid idea considering anyone with a plastic bag and a fitting can defeat this thing.
Liberty.
It's high time they introduced this. Anyone who lost someone close only because some idiot decided he could drive anyway will understand and appreciate that. It's a small price to pay for a saved life, really.
http://www.bestfreesoftware.eu
Florida's had them for a while also. My neighbor had to get one. They also made him wear an anklet for 6 months. The guy used to drink a bottle of rum every day for 5 years. He never goes anywhere anymore and he's quit drinking. Having seen this first hand it's not as controversial as you might think. People that get these things are habitual repeat offenders or those who have caused an accident due to being drunk. My neighbor hit another car by blowing through a red light. He also took out a light pole that smashed into a restaurant. People that get this installed in their cars are on their last chance. Next stop is permanent license revocation. Oh yeah and one day I was going to help him unload some mulch from his truck. He backed his truck up into the front of his house and took out a porch column... I was standing on the porch.
Drink driving not something you do only on your own or in the privacy of your own home. Other people have a right to drive without drunks on the road.
Personally it would be better just to take the license for extended periods of time. Even permanently. Thats what happens to pilots that don't follow the rules. No first offense BS (at least in the countries I have flown)
The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
Greetings and Salutations...
It seems to me that the interlock is a bandaid on a hemorrhage. Perhaps instead of simply giving a persistent DUI offender a stiff prison sentence, and/or outfitting their care with some spiffy and expensive technology that SOMEONE is going to make a lot of money off of, it would be wiser to remember that alcoholism is a disease, not a choice. Instead of making it a profit center for some one, why do we not include the option of continuing therapy to get at the roots of the problem, and FIX it? Beyond that, there is a drug (Anti-buse, I think it is called) that makes one violently ill when quantities of alcohol are ingested. While not pretty, aversion therapy does work.
Of course, I suspect that these solutions probably would not be nearly as profitable as the technology answer....
pleasant dreams
dave mundt
YAB - http://blog.beemandave.com/
Some people seem to think this is too draconian - an infringement of rights etc. Thing is, the way I see it, once you get caught drunk driving once you've demonstrated that you are not competent enough to be trusted with a motor vehicle. There's nobody who needs to drive drunk and there's no excuse to do it. Basically, fuck 'em. They're lucky they're allowed a car at all any more.
"Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
Drunk driving deaths (11,773) accounted for 32% of the total amount of United States car accident deaths (37,261) in 2008.
That means the other 68% of car accidents were caused by people who were perfectly sober. Think about that for a second.
Even if we made the drunk driving limit a strict 0.0 blood alcohol level, we'd only remove a third of fatalities.
Perhaps we need to tighten up on the number of idiots who patently cannot drive properly, even when sober.
Unlike being tired, or having low blood sugar, having an alcoholic drink is 100% avoidable and voluntary in *every single case*.
WTF are you drinking?
Getting behind the wheel while tired is 100% avoidable and voluntary in *every single case*. People always know whether they got 8 hours sleep last night or have been awake for more than 16 hours since the last time they slept. There are clear, objective and generally-accepted standards that can be used to be sure that you are not tired when you get behind the wheel to drive and if you choose to violate them then you are voluntarily choosing to drive while impaired when you could have avoided it.
Getting behind the wheel with low blood sugar is 100% avoidable and voluntary in *every single case*. You can buy freaking blood sugar level testers at the grocery store that will tell you whether your glucose level is below 70 mg/dL. There are clear and medically-defined objective standards that can be used to be sure that you are not tired when you get behind the wheel to drive and if you choose to violate them then you are voluntarily choosing to drive while impaired when you could have avoided it.
So tell me again why diabetics shouldn't be required to install glucose meter interlocks on their car to change their antisocial behavior?
Here in Massachusetts this has been around for a long time, although you don't get one until your 2nd DWI offense (last I checked). And it's more than just being a pain in the ass for the initial blow:
They cost a good $3K including installation, payable by you.
They make you re-test every X minutes (20 minutes I think?) even if you're currently driving. You have to pull over, turn off the car, and test again. Think about that on your 1hr commute...
If you don't pull over when the alarm goes off, you have about 5 minutes (I believe) until you start losing power and have to either pull over or come to a dead stop wherever you are. GLWT on the highway.
I'm glad NYC is finally catching up... but I do wonder about the 1st offense and 0.025 limit... that seems a bit harsh. But I guess on the flip side... it only takes one crash to kill someone.
ad astra per alia porci
A friend on mine got a DUI (first time, blew a .083, or .003 over the limit, argh) and has an interlock as a condition of his probation (6 months) here's how HIS works:
At random intervals while driving (every 5 to 15 minutes), the device will beep. He has to pick it up and blow into it within a certain amount of time after it beeps (like 15 seconds or something). I think you can "miss" this once and it'll beep again within the next minute. If you ignore it, or have been drinking and fail the test, the car will begin to **honk its horn and flash its head and tail lights**, at which point you need to pull over, take another test or 2 to prove you're OK to drive, and then it resets itself. I have no idea what kind of reporting/black mark it makes when this happens.
But the point is this: It absolutely DOES NOT shut off the car, and during "normal" operation it does not require you to pull over, ever.
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Unlike being tired...having an alcoholic drink is 100% avoidable
Being tired before driving is 100% avoidable. There should be automatic interlocks that prevent you from driving tired. In fact, it should prevent you from starting the car if you are even 1/3 tired.
"There. Now THAT ought to do it."
You had me until that point. How do you define "significantly affected" is the crucial detail here.
I know for myself because I have done tests at home with a driving simulator. Running a track that I do regularly at 3:10 minutes, give or take a few seconds, I can still do it in the same 3:10 without crashing having drunk three cans in one hour, which would be about .05 BAC.
OTOH, what about the wife who drives her husband's SUV, which she isn't used to, at night, because the husband had two beers at dinner? Wouldn't she be a significant risk? An impaired driver shouldn't drive at all, it doesn't matter if the impairment is caused by drink or by a general clumsiness in dealing with a car.
I call BS on that "significantly affected" figure of .04, the theory that those extremely low limits are designed to let governments rake in cash is the most plausible to me.
Do they really want to save lives? Then every driver should be required to do a test driving an SUV on a wet road at night at the highest legal driving speed, demonstrating that he or she can do evasive maneuvers and emergency stops safely under those conditions.
As a citizen I do not drink and drive, but I disagree with the tactics in play. Therefore I simply won't play the game. I do drive late at night some times but I never see anyone who might be driving drunk.
Blar.
And worst of all are inexperienced drivers. No one should be allowed behind the wheel until they've logged at least 100 hours behind the wheel.
I especially hate the inexperienced drivers. Always seem to be running them over on the sidewalk because they are going so slow.
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
Having low blood sugar is easily avoidable, bring a candy bar with you everywhere you go. Done.
Being to tired? Have some fucking responsibility and leave work before you get tired, or spend the night where you are.
See? Just as easy as not drinking. People who drive tired or with low blood sugar have no excuse. Neither do those distracted by their children.
Your attitude is why I decided to just not play the DUI game. I never see nothing.
Blar.
New Mexico's people are constantly attacked by a government who wants to do things (e.g. seize and auction off the car) based on DWI arrests. Cop doesn't like your bumpersticker? Say goodbye to your car. Thank Zeus for the ACLU.
You don't need a designated driver. Just get some kid to breath in the box for you.
I have a friend with two misdemeanor DUIs--both of which are plead downs from DWIs. The second time he hit a parked car totaling his own vehicle. If he had one of these installed, it probably wouldn't have happened. Yes it sucks to have to pay for them after the first offense but for every person who blew a 0.1, there were probably several severely intoxicated drivers with good lawyers.
Why is it that whenever someone thinks of a DUI or DWI they automatically think "drunk driver?" DUI means Driving Under the Influence of alcohol OR drugs. A former friend of mine had gotten a DUI for driving after being sedated for some dental work. He was stupid and said that he was fine to drive. To get his license back, he was told that he needed an ignition interlock, even though his DUI wasn't alcohol-related.
These interlocks won't do squat for people who drive while they're on drugs.
But if it gets drunk drivers off the road, then I say go for it.
This is just punishment not prevention. The real sad thing is DUI is like becoming a sex offender, it can happen to anyone for any reason. If the gestapo are in a bad mood or want to harass you more on some unconstitutional fishing expedition all they have to do is say "I smelled alcohol on his breath" They'll hammer you with DUI, and many folks will plead guilty to misdemeanor DUI over wahtever other trumped up possibly criminal charges they throw at you. They saw, "Listen, plead it down to a first time DUI and you can still drive, just pay a fine get a couple points and in a few years you're back to normal", meanwhile you hadn't had a drink since that barbeque three weeks ago.
Just like being labeled a sex offender, gotta piss real bad and no rest rooms around, step off into the woods and go while covered by a tree of bush... Some liberal yuppie walks past and bam, you're labeled a sex offender for life. This is about punishment and revenue collection, nothing more, nothing less. Guilt or innocence has no play here. Welcome to liberal hell.
Besides, even drunk I could hotwire a car no problem. It's not rocket science.
Many of the 50+ people are the ones driving 50 in the fast lane when the limit is 65, who sit behind the white line and don't advance in the intersection to prepare for a left turn, therefore blocking another car behind them who could make that turn, who slow down in anticipation of light turning YELLOW, who change lanes reaaallly slowly so they don't have to turn and look but rely on others honking to tell them it's someone there, etc etc.
Yes we should all be mountains of patience while driving, but human nature being what it is, you cannot ignore the fact that these drivers, at a rate of a few per mile, indirectly cause a lot of accidents in the other group, which for all their reflexes cannot control their temper and therefore their judgment as easily.
For those who are not familiar, Antibuse is a perscription medication that gives you a horrible reaction to ANY alcohol in your system, upon consuming, you will get violently ill. Almost like a serious and immediate hangover from barely a sip of wine. They also give it to folks in rehab, and it can be requested to be perscribed from a doctor if you would like assistance to stop drinking. Coincidentally, I got to read up on it because I had a serious infection in my gum due to an infected root. Before getting the root canal, I had to take an antibiotic that had the exact same reaction to alcohol as Antibuse, albeit as a side effect. My dentist wanted to be damn sure I knew that before going out on the town and getting sick as a dog from drinking anything.
I agree that taking away licenses would be better in some regards than the alcohol interlock system. The problem with the latter is its profitable to the people administering it. When the state profits from law enforcement, it corrupts the process, and the eventually punishments tend not to get administered justly.
Many alcohol interlock systems include surveillance cameras. Should we also have surveillance cameras to enforce 'hands free' laws? I don't like the way people are growing comfortable with being monitored all the time, and feel that to be more of a danger to my long term safety than drunk driving. I think its not a matter of if the surveillance state we're building gets misused, but when. Even though I also agree that alcohol misuse is at least as serious of a problem.
I spot an inconsistency in your logic somewhere.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Hey Johnny... Lets go for a drive.. Blow in that tube for me..
It absolutely is. Let me throw this out there, though:
It's common practice -- and supported by the United States Government -- for medical students and residents to work 30 hours (realistically, up more since that's just WORK time) at a stretch. This is to support our lovely public health system. (If you doubt this, consider the fact that most academic institutions are predominately uninsured and Medicaid.)
There have been numerous studies that show that the impairment from this level of sleep deprivation is at least, if not worse, than 0.08 BAC. One showed 0.1 BAC equivalent.
Should we require a mental aptitude and coordination test before allowing someone to drive?
Either way, the government should pull its head out of its ass and regulate that. I worked with a doctor who twenty years ago left a 36 hour shift, went to pick up her kids, and veered off the road, killing her kids and seriously injuring herself.
And before someone says that it's these peoples' choice to work that long, here's a clue: It isn't. It's mandatory from the academic institutions, and encouraged by the government by virtue of regulatory agencies.
I agree - and as somebody who is actively investigating a career change into a medical field, this is something I've read a fair amount about in the past year or so.
Impaired doctors shouldn't be allowed to practice, and there does seem to be a growing awareness that the practice of marathon shifts for doctors is actively causing harm to the doctors and to their patients. We don't let them operate drunk (or we discipline them and even de-license them if they do), we absolutely should not expect (or ask) them to do their job when they're exhausted in a normal civilian/peacetime/non-crisis environment.
Having spent some time with the military, I can attest to what sleep deprivation can do to you - I've done the 48+-hours-awake thing, and I wouldn't feel comfortable doing anything requiring clear thought and steady hands at the end of that, or even 30 hours into it. You get to the point where you're pretty much a zombie.
So yes, I definitely agree - there should be some regulation of the hours that doctors are expected to work in a "normal" workday. Exceptions for crisis situations and massive emergencies, obviously, but exhaustion should not be the standard operating mode for our medical personnel.
I don't think you have to be as mentally "with it" as a doctor needs to be with his patients to drive a car safely, so no, I don't think a mental aptitude & coordination test is required every time you get behind the wheel - that's what licensing is for, you've proven that you can handle a vehicle safely; I would, however, support periodic retesting (say every 3-5 years?) for license renewals, with police being able to flag you for a retest at their discretion if you are ticketed or in an accident and there is no good explanation for why you drove off the road, or rear-ended the guy in front of you.