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
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!
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...
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?
Because there are other things it also checks for to ensure the gas its analyzing is from a breathing person.
These things have been in use for a while, they kinda know the tricks of the trade and how to detect anything short of someone else blowing in it for you ... and that they deal with by retesting after so long of driving.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
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.
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.
As for "someone else blowing in it for you", if you're a sober passenger in a car with a convicted drunk driver, and you'd rather help them fake out the analyzer rather than taking the wheel yourself, you deserve to die in a car crash, and you deserve a manslaughter conviction if someone else dies.
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.
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
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
its interesting how so many US folks are happy to have this, to mitigate the danger for cars, but are simply unable to comprehend that allowing the average idiot to own a gun is a bad thing.
As far as I am concerned driving is a right, and I would copntinue to do so regarless of what the legal system says licence or not.
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
I used to install ignition interlocks, so i'll try to answer your questions:
'Hacking' an interlock isn't very practical as they usually require unique hardware that would be a pain to duplicate.
Bypassing them is not at all difficult. I could easily do it in 20-30 seconds with a pair of scissors or side cutters. However the unit will know that you're driving without having taken a test, which is a huge black mark on your report.
Bypassing them and not getting caught on report day is orders of magnitude more difficult, because if your mileage doesn't match the expected test-rate you'll be flagged for inspection. And, at least when/where I installed them, we put tamper seals on pretty much every connection between car and interlock. Cut into anything, and we would know.
As for the test itself, it's not nearly as simple as "blow and drive". You have to take a full breath, seal your lips around the mouthpiece, hum, and exhale an entire breath quite rapidly. Air pumps (balloons, tires, etc) just won't cut it. It's something most people need to practice in order to perform reliably, and I witnessed many, many cases where people just could not get the hang of using the devices even months after install. Suffice to say it is not something a child would be able to perform regularly. A young teenager might be able to pull it off with some practice, if you're lucky enough to own, er, have one.
Also, temperature and humidity are not (as far as I know) measured as a part of the test. The devices I worked with actually had a small heating element inside the head unit in order to maintain a standard test temperature (which sucks in a cold winter). As for humidity, it was usually a bad thing (especially in colder climates) because it would interfere with the very small microphone inside. Air pressure and sound were the two most critical aspects of a successful test. Like Goldilocks, it had to be not too hard and not too soft, and the hum not too quiet and not too loud. Something most people can reproduce fairly often, but very very difficult to simultaneously recreate both elements mechanically.
So the TLDR version is this: The devices were not designed to be infallible, just secure enough to make cheating your way around them a bigger pain in the ass than calling a friend or a taxi. Circumventing them isn't really worth it, especially considering the penalty for getting caught was almost always taking a pair of scissors to your provisional drivers license, a monetary fine, and boot out the door. YMMV.
What's a "convicted criminal"?
This includes first-time MISDEMEANOR DUIs. In other words, a "convicted criminal" in the same sense as a first-time conviction for shoplifting candy bars.
In my honest opinion, this law is the real crime.
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.
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.
What's a "convicted criminal"? This includes first-time MISDEMEANOR DUIs. In other words, a "convicted criminal" in the same sense as a first-time conviction for shoplifting candy bars. In my honest opinion, this law is the real crime.
That's a pretty big leap. Stealing a candy bar isn't quite the same as risking the lives of everyone you encounter on the road. And then there's the argument "he wasn't THAT drunk." Come on. You don't need to drink. You don't need to drive after you drink. It's not that hard to just be responsible, and if you can't handle the responsibility, you don't get to drive without the lock.
People who use guns too irresponsibly don't get to keep guns. People who treat children too irresponsibly don't get to keep children. People who drive too irresponsibly don't get to drive. An interlock system is a way to allow people that need to drive the ability to do so while decreasing the likelihood of them killing someone.