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."
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!
One thing I am learning over and over from anyone who seriously rides motorcycles is that even one drink is enough to lower reaction time and impair your thought processes. Why shouldn't this also be something that is applied to ANY motor vehicle is beyond me. But - I can also understand being out and about and having a drink. Say at a sporting event or even just a good wine with dinner. The key here is make sure you know how much you're consuming and WAIT enough time for your body to get rid of it before you start up any machine that could kill you or others.
I see plenty of things while riding that make me cringe - yea, you're good, wearing a helmet and all - but you aren't wearing anything else but sneakers, shorts and a wife beater. Yea, your head will be fine.....
Karnal
This is done to prevent someone sober from starting the car and then having someone drunk drive the car away. If you get someone else to start your car who is sober, and then halfway through your ride, while you are drunk, your car stops and forces you to prove you are sober, you cannot proceed from that point because you are drunk. 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.
Yeah, I had to drive a friend's car around with one of these as a favor (getting the breathalyzer rechecked monthly or something while they were on vacation - pretty strict). While I didn't mind it at start-up, it was downright dangerous while driving. The intervals didn't seem random at all, it was always 5 minutes apart, and it gave you like 10 second window to start the test or it would report a failure to the authorities. So the whole pull-over and test is bullshit, whenever it beeped, whether it was on a curve or straight-away or heavy traffic, I had to sit there and breath as hard into it as possible while still paying attention to it. Imo, whatever the brand name of the device was, it was a terroristic little thing not suited for safe-driving at all.
BTW, I think the idea is good in theory, just the particular implementation I had was stupid, at least 2 minute should be given to pull over, and it should beep and light up like Vegas just because of 10 seconds coming and going.
Of course, I wasn't used to this car, it was a manual on top of that, something I don't drive often, which may have made it harder than it seemed.
Let's not pretend that the increasingly rigid and unthinking drunk-driving regulations are about the endangerment of others. We're looking at puritanical prohibition masked by reasonless application of rigid standards, leveraging inaccurate measurement devices.
I'm not suggesting that people should drive drunk (and I definitely don't drive after having anything more than a glass of wine with dinner, as cabs are comparatively cheap), but we need to take a step back any time there is a mandatory penalty and look at how this limits the latitude of the judiciary to impose fair and just punishments. Make tools available to judges. Don't make them mandatory.
MADD won years ago. They should change their name to Mothers Against Drinking to more accurately reflect their policy recommendations.
When I was in school someone distributed DAMM stickers. That's Drunks Against Mad Mothers. I laughed but apparently the faculty found it a hanging offense or somesuch.
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
In rural America the only way to get around is by personal vehicle. Granted, that doesn't excuse a drunk driver, but there aren't always buses or trains or even taxi cabs out in the middle of nowhere. You must find a sober driver to get you home. A few years ago (and still may be true in some areas) it wasn't unheard of for a police officer to give drunks a ride home.
There are no standards and no safety compliance labs that examine those devices. As far as I'm concerned, those devices are safety critical and should undergo testing similar to safety critical medical devices.
The way it is, it's pretty much a free-for-all. The peddlers, um, vendors of those devices are in the same league as school textbook publishers. They do absolutely shittiest job that'll pass the scrutiny of a bunch of incompetents. And no, increasing the number of incompetents so as to get more ratings to average from doesn't increase the quality of the average. It's still shitty.
I'm all for such devices, but what you claim is par for the course, and unless there is strict regulation, and obligatory regulatory compliance, things won't change. Same applies to breathalyzers and their crapload of code. Oh, and voting machines too.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
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.
Interestingly, though, I'll point out the statistics that say that young males up to ~25 are the MOST likely to die in a car accident, despite their "reflexes" - why? Because they drive more aggressively, and are more prone to risk-taking. By that measure, the 50+ people who have 30 years of driving experience are demonstrably safer, despite your claims that their reflexes are worse.
It's not always about reflexes. Sometimes it's about having the experience to know how to respond to a situation (e.g., turning into a skid), and older drivers are more likely to have that wisdom.
But for the record, I would support mandatory license re-testing in order to renew a license, as well - you must pass a basic skills test every few years to maintain your license, regardless of your age.