Slashdot Mirror
France's Bold Drunk-Driving Legislation - Every Car To Carry a Breathalyzer
Zothecula writes "It is a great irony that alcohol should be legislated into becoming man's most commonly used recreational drug, as it's the only drug that causes more harm to others than to the user. This is most evident on our roads, where even in first world countries with low road tolls, alcohol still accounts for between a third and a half of road deaths. Now France is to attempt a novel solution — from July of this year, it will become law in France to have a working breathalyzer in every car on the road, with enforcement beginning November 1."
Meth has fueled an awful lot of violent crime.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
who will be paying for it to be installed in my car? (speaking as a theoretical Frenchwoman... haven't lived in France since 1997). Those things are expensive, and beyond the means of some people who own cars.
There is no stereotype about drunken frenchmen already...
120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
With the penalty for drunk driving being confiscation of the vehicle, so that non drinkers dont have to pay for this equipment
I can't think this is a good idea. At least in the US, where our BAC limits are 25% of what actually impairs driving. Don't get me wrong, I'm not for anyone driving drunk and injuring or killing someone else (what you do to yourself I do not care about) but the whole BAC thing is an estimate that is cut in half for "good measure" then cut in half again.
You can read more about the whole "Drunk Driving Exception" here
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
I would hardly call this a "novel" solution. It is as predictable as they come. "Got a safety problem? Add safety regulations or mandate safety devices!"
A truly novel solution (not that I'm suggesting this) would be something like "Kill someone while drunk driving? Spend the next 18 months cleaning puke off the toilets in bars."
Help find a cure for cancer. Join the [H]orde
Okay, for those who didn't bother to read the article...
All that's required is a $2 disposable breathalyzer. If you don't have one in your mandatory car safety kit, the fine will be $14.
Coming soon - many cheap and easy ways to defeat portable breathalyzers.
Using a breathalyzer to measure somebody's ability to drive a car is fraught with assumptions, which means, horrifyingly, what's now illegal is the indicators rather than the behavior.
The DUI Exception to the Constitution
I watch French TV and read French newspapers every day. I should know. The fact is that this is still under discussion, and then only for those drivers who have had several times a positive alcohol test. Further, there is a presidential election coming next spring. It is not the time to take such measures.
In short, this news report is BS.
France has a widely-deployed mass transit system. The simple solution would be to treat cases of particularly reckless driving, including drunk driving, very seriously with a revocation of the offender's driver's license for X years (a permanent revocation for repeat offenders). It gets the point across that driving is a privilege, and it sidesteps the expense of installing breathalyzers in every vehicle.
alcohol still accounts for between a third and a half of road deaths.
If a drunk pedestrian walks into the road and is killed by a car, is that included in this statistic? If so, how does a breathalyzer in the car help?
If a driver has one beer, and a different driver runs a red light and kills them both, is that included? If so, how does a breathalyzer in the car help?
Drunk driving is evil, but let's be clear about justifications for such intrusive laws.
The in-car breathalyzer is not there for the reason you are assuming...
In France you'll have a minimum BAC before they'll let you operate a car.
Also, it will detect if you have been drinking Italian wine and scold you.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If I'm not French, and I'm just visiting the country?
The thing about drunk driving is, it's based not on whether you can safely drive but an arbitrary blood alcohol level. Some people drive better with a quart of booze in them, some people are terrible drivers all by themselves. If you're a dangerous driver, you're a dangerous driver and it doesn't matter to me (or whoever you kill) if it's because you're drunk, tired, texting, or chinese.
In foreign countries, I have seen breathalyzers in bars -- put in a quarter, get your reading. It's right next to the condom machine. I've never seen one in the US, probably fear of lawsuits if it's wrong and people trying to see who can get the drunkest.
Anyhow, the story said the law mandates breathalyzers as part of a car safety kit that you're required to have (and should already have), so it's not just a drunk driving thing.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Not only is this a burden financially to those law abiding citizens, it will not work. Unless a breathalyzer is registered to a particular vehicle, there will be nothing to enforce a high breathalyzer test result. And for those who really want to avoid prosecution, drivers will get random breathalyzers completed with normal level. And if these units are electronic, and kept in your own car, don't think for a minute that people won't have found a way to tamper with them so that results clear the driver.
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
Bold would be putting a cheap driver ID reader in place and not allowing the vehicle to start unless it matched, then adding some simple fingerprint hash to be stored on it as well... used together to make sure the driver doesn't just use a stolen ID. Then, when you're busted driving drunk, your license is taken away. You can't operate a vehicle now drunk or sober.
The problem here isn't liquor, it's the culture that allows drunks to run around mowing people down and then letting them get back in the car again after being prosecuted... like they somehow have a right to operate a motor vehicle. Adding expensive breathalizers that need constant recalibration and can fail rendering the vehicle completely inert to everyone who tries to use it is a poor substitute. People will figure out how to bypass them, and it'll become common knowledge. Use canned air, maybe, or have someone else blow in it, like a passenger, etc.
Take away their damn license and be done with it; use a simple card reader and decent finger print scanner... it'll work in any weather, and it won't break or need recalibration... and it'll be useful to apply to a broader range of legal enforcement... ALL motor violations that result in license revocation, not just one specific kind.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Obviously the poster has not lived in a family with alcoholics. I've lost two aunts in the past decade to alcoholism. It destroyed their minds and bodies, and effectively killed them years before they actually died. It's a terrible disease, and exacts an immense toll on the user. That being said, their drug of choice did not injure or kill anybody else. How can it be said that it affects others more than themselves? For that to be statistically possible, there would have to be more single injury or fatality accidents involving the injury/death of the sober party than there are deaths of addicts by non-auto related causes.
I know france isn't the US and they write their own laws, but isn't this basically "Guilty until proven innocent"?
They aren't. They're just single use breathalyzers. They aren't ignition control devices. It's more of a "am I too drunk too drive, lets find out" than a "I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that".
Okay, I'm ready for the berating. I have no issue with this type of regulation. It's something proactive that backs a current law, and helps with the enforcement of laws. While some may say it's intrusive, it's no more intrusive than some drunk getting behind the wheel and putting themselves on a road where other people will be at risk.
A different common sense regulation to me is a governor on motorized vehicles to prevent insane travel speeds. I always wondered why publicly sold vehicles are capable of doing 180Mph when we have a maximum speed limit of 70 on any road in the US.
As the old saying goes "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.". And while I have a hard time with some regulations that come out, this one is not so bad.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
This is like saying guns kill people. BS. People kill people.
With guns. I'm not disagreeing with you conceptually, but - as with Asimov's Three Laws, it ain't quite that simple
People choose to shoot someone. People choose to drink and drive.
Since you can't prevent people from choosing to be stupid, one theoretical solution is to remove the devices. Well, good luck with eliminating guns - and cars.
So, prevent the device of (yes I know it's awkward) drunkenness. It won't work, but it is an attempt.
(Apropos of nothing, a friend once said that it's not guns that kill people, and it's not people that kill people; it's the bullet entering the body at extremely high speed that tends to be the culprit....)
The law will prosecute you to the fullest extent if you're slightly over the legal alcohol limit, but could care less that a blind old lady shouldn't be driving on the roads. So alcohol is more dangerous than incompetent drivers? I've seen more accidents from people who don't pay attention to the road because they are too busy playing with the radio, eating a burger and fries, putting on makeup, etc. etc. I've driving intoxicated before, and I was very careful driving when I was, but you can't always avoid an idiot on the road. but because I had a few drinks, it's automatically my fault.
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
"Hey kids, wanna come for a ride with daddy?! We can stop by for icecream on the way home!"
Bow before me, for I am root.
Just left the bar, and that totally reminds me of what this dude was saying. If I wasn't so busy typing this out on my damn iPhone, rolling a doobie, and flipping off these idiotic drivers on the road, I wouldn't have forgotten what he said. But all I can say is some people other there are just idiots. Lots of them don't even know they're insanely stupid. All I know is that you can make laws all day long, but in the end you'll still never get them dumbasses to... ::tires screechin, loud smash, multiple explosions::
I'm pretty sure that this is just more police crap you can get screwed with... now will come breathalyzer inspections and gee who in gov't gets stock from them. they don't care about safety.. .its a power trip disguised as safety.
This is my sig.
Obviously, absent a method to fire said bullet a bullet is the wrong tool to use to kill someone. That doesn't mean that other tools are unsuitable, however. All of them, though, require some human intervention in order to make it murder or manslaughter. (As opposed to something like a rock slide killing some one, of course.)
A firearm is a tool designed for few purposes, including to kill. The issue arises when it is used against a person unlawfully, not when it is created. To willfully ignore that is to sidestep the debate in an attempt to declare victory based on assertion rather than actual discussion.
as it's the only drug that causes more harm to others than to the user.
Um. No.
Alcohol, by itself, will do no more damage to others than any other drug. Even if you drink every day for the rest of your life, if you choose not to drive or otherwise reckless acts, you will more than likely never hurt a single other human being (The liver damage incurred will kill you, but that's another story...)
It's an essential nutrient. :)
Wow, talk about a nanny state. The only thing that scares Europe more than its own people is its own shadow.
I8-D
If I spilled a bottle of isopropyl on my dash and my car wouldn't run for two weeks.
(Apropos of nothing, a friend once said that it's not guns that kill people, and it's not people that kill people; it's the bullet entering the body at extremely high speed that tends to be the culprit....)
Well, if you want to get super technical, it tends to be one of the following that does the job:
1. hypoxia of neurological tissue (low oxygen)
2. hypercapnia (excessive CO2)
3. direct neurological trauma (mechanical destruction of CNS)
Everything else is a means to an end :P
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
mod up, plz
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
One less drunk driver on the road could mean one or more people who get to continue living. And one or more people who get to keep their loved ones around.
Now if only they would implement this here in the US...
We'd have a lot less garage explosions if methamphetamines could be produced in a professional lab somewhere
They can. I don't know about France, but in Slashdot's home country the United States, both Ritalin (methylphenidate hydrochloride) and Desoxyn (methamphetamine hydrochloride) are CII and sold via prescription.
Yes. Fortunately, the gun acts of its own accord and fires a bullet at someone. A person had absolutely nothing to do with it.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
I'll miss you.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Unless you're Chuck Norris.
"It is a great irony that alcohol should be legislated into becoming man's most commonly used recreational drug, as it's the only drug that causes more harm to others than to the user."
I'm going to file this under opinion...
On the novelty meters out there, on which I've blown a 0.10, is absolutely too drunk to drive, so I am not satin 0.3 or anything close that. I should have known that in this geeky crowd people would actually do the math and figure 0.32. That's my fault.
However I remember a distinct campaign that said 0.02 was the legal threshold for getting into trouble. According to online calculators I am drunk after one drink. That much I know is ludicrous.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
The most sensible law I've heard was in the Czech Republic (probably other places, too) the legal limit is 0% BAC. When it's anything higher, there's a guessing game for the driver.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl4plPGRG8o
I don't like it. Apparently the OP does. I guess dems think fascism is good when they are in charge of it.
he only drug that causes more harm to others than to the user
Well, this sentence is true, but not because other drugs cause less harm to society.
Just live neart the French border where we have a megadancing/
Most French People in my neighbourhood driving on XTC
I fail to see the improvement in traffic security.
This means I have also buy such useless kit.
Since I have tresspass sometimes the border.
Funding French Fucking State.
Comment in Flemish (Dutch), untranslated due to unfriendly nature...
Mr. Sarkozy, ge kunt mijn zak opblazen
That won't be a mod vector, nooo.... no one will ever think of hacking/modifying the set-set, figuring it out, and selling kits to override the thing, noooooo....
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
with all of the computer err Stuff being put in cars what they need to do is create an AI with good enough brains to
1 navigate around the other cars on the road (maybe do some sort of RoadNet to help with that??)
2 use the GPS system to navigate the road (Mr Wasted is going "Home" then set the destination marker to Home Mr Wasted is really wasted set the marker to the nearest ER)
I would of course have a few precautions like have the car slow blink the "hazard" lights and be very conservative with the set speed (say 85% of "posted" speed) and have the AutoDrive convert to an AutoPark if a LEO flips his lights on behind the car (aka the Pull Over Command).
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
DUI is a big problem in the US in no small part due to the fact that our punishments for it are a total fucking joke. The US is the only industrialized country where the first DUI is a misdemeanor. If we joined the rest of the industrialized world and made the first DUI a mandatory felony, people would start taking it seriously.
Sure, the French drink a lot of wine, nobody would argue against that. But they are also responsible with their driving to a greater degree than Americans.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Does this not bug anyone else? Third and a half? Well... if I do some simple math... a third and a half... is.... a half
1/3 = 2/6
1/2 of 2/6 = 1/6
1/6 + 2/6 = 3/6
3/6 = 1/2
... to the French of all people. It's just not honest. Next thing you know they will tackle the original sin by putting a confessional box next to every bed.
What, the rent-seeking corporations that sell ignition interlocks aren't making enough money off of DUIs, so they need to expand their racket to every single motorist?
Liberty in your lifetime
How can it be said that it affects others more than themselves?
I'd bet even money that line came from or is supported someone who is on the drug legalization bandwagon here. I further expect that someone from the same camp will respond by moderating my post down or calling me a fascist.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
China or Poland will soon have "functional" replacement breathalyzers becoming ready.
Some folks just don't get it - the more pressure and control is put on, the more resistance and counter measures happen.
Shows on global and micro scale - even bacterias go by that number - fight them and they come back stronger.
Seems to be a very basic principle of survival.
BREATHALYZE *ALL* THE DRIVERS!
Is legislation by internet meme really such a good thing?
People kill people.
And so do monkeys. (If they have a gun.)
So who was the rocket scientist who decided to sell alcohol products where people buy fuel for their cars?
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
A firearm is a tool designed for few purposes, including to kill.
That's wishful thinking, not history. From the first firearms in China, through pretty much every technological advance, guns have been designed as efficient ways to kill people.
The uses in hunting and target sports are secondary uses, and relatively recent given the expense. Bows and arrows, traps and snares are much cheaper ways of hunting.
... blow starting a car.
Now I wonder how many people will loiter outside bars, etc. rendering services to people who want to drive themselves hone.
I wonder who these people who can afford French petrol and diesel prices, but can't afford $4 are.
Probably same as the Americans who can afford American gas prices, but can't afford a mandatory $500/month insurance policy on top of it.
The "mythbusters" went over how it's impossible to fool a breathalyzer by using mouthwash shortly beforehand. They didn't say mouthwash doesn't contain alcohol (most of them do, except for the ones labeled "alcohol free".) I suspect it doesn't work because the alcohol in the mouthwash doesn't persist very long, therefore arguing that the mouthwash produced a false positive isn't every effective.
FYI, mouthwashes contain alcohol because the essential oils that give them their scent and taste (or, in Listerine's case, it's antiseptic properties) do not dissolve in water, but they do dissolve in Ethanol, and the alcohol/oil solution in turn dissolves in water. Non-alcohol mouthwashes generally use something other than oils to do their job like Cetyl Pyrindium Chloride.
Dude, if you think US BAC limits are low you need to get out more.
Why would anyone want to "get out more" if it means being exposed to countries which are EVEN MORE despotic than our own?
Lies. There's plenty of research to support that any alcohol in a person's system has a deletrious effect on driving ability.
True, but let's be realistic: if the viewpoint were popular enough and anyone cared to conduct it, there would be just as many studies claiming just the opposite.
0.08 seems like a reasonable limit to be set, if we have to use a single absolute number as absolute proof.
We don't. We could just empower the officer to use his brain and write someone a ticket if they are obviously intoxicated. If a person is not obviously intoxicated and/or driving erratically, police officers have no business minding his business.
All that said, it's not drunk driving that is really at issue, but irresponsible and/or inattentive driving.
Agreed.
But the argument can be made that (from a statistical standpoint) people who are caught violating motor vehicle laws and are legally drunk (as it is presently defined) are responsible for the lion's share of vehicle accidents resulting in death or serious injury. It would be very pragmatic to simply remove those people from public roadways, and leave the arguments over why that particular subset of people are over-represented for another day.
It might be "pragmatic", but it would be utterly ineffective and just cause more problems than it solves. You can't "just remove" people from the roadway, when we live in a nation where a large percentage of the population REQUIRES a vehicle just to survive. The end result of trying to do the impossible is just heartache and misery.
Police will begin issuing fines in France from the beginning of November, and it's interesting that the required "kit" includes not just a working breathalyzer, but a range of accessories that we should, as good citizens, always carry on board a car anyway: a first aid kit, fire extinguisher and and spare bulbs for both headlights and blinkers.
Also compulsory fare will be a warning triangle and a fluorescent safety vest carried inside the car for every vehicle occupant. Failure to comply will cost another EUR90."
Not a bad idea, but pretty crazy for them to mandate. Also, are they allowed to search your trunk to see if you have these items??
And here they state their intentions about the breathalyzer:
With drink driving penalties being so much more costly than the "no breathalyzer" fine, the idea is that drivers will inevitably self-test before driving, even if they then risk a fine for no breathalyzer at a spot check - at least they'll be under the limit.
They are making some bold assumptions about drunks.
"Drivers penalized for drunk driving can be subject to mandatory killswitch breathlayzers equipment."
http://lci.tf1.fr/france/societe/alcool-au-volant-pour-demarrer-il-faudra-d-abord-souffler-6678392.html
Some company just carved off a slide of the French GDP.
DUI is a big problem in the US in no small part due to the fact that our punishments for it are a total fucking joke.
The only joke I see is the idea of "just make the laws tougher" and that will solve all our problems. Sorry, laws don't solve social problems, and throwing people in prison is not going to solve anything. The United States, one country with 3% of the world population, already holds 25% of the entire world's prisoners. What makes you believe imprisoning more people is going to help a goddamn thing?
Napoleon planted trees on both sides of most roads so that his army can march in the shade. About ten years ago the governments started cutting the trees down because drunk-drivers were leaving the road and hitting them. Too many head injuries.
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
I wonder what the penalty would be for hacking your OWN car that you own in France..to disable or spoof said breathalizer?
Why bother - as far as I can tell from the factual details (hidden amongst the highly biased propaganda and dubious science in the article) the law will only require people to carry a breathalyser. There is no mention that you will be required to use it or that it is hooked up to the car's ignition. It is just there in case you want to check whether you are over the limit. While the article waxes on and on about how people will have to buy new ones every time they go for a drink or buy two so they can test a friend etc. as far as I can tell the only effect will be that french cars will have a new object shoved into their first aid kits.
I know this is an AC troll but: You know you can fire a bullet without a gun. Vice-grips, tape, pin and a hammer will work well too. But again, the bullet won't do anything on its own without outside intervention.
I don't think self-driving cars will really take off until manufacturers are protected from lawsuits
Correction, self-driving cars will really take off when manufacturers do not need protection from lawsuits. If they need to be protected from lawsuits then their system is not good enough.
Until the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, amphetamines were sold in little rolls of thin white pills (similar to, but smaller in size of rolls of Tums or Rolaids) and cost a mere dime ($0.10) per roll, and were sold over the counter in many states until they were made a controlled substance nationwide in 1970. Some states had made amphetamine prescription-only as early as 1965, but truck drivers across the nation would stock up whenever driving thru states where "Dime rolls of white crosses" were still sold OTC.
Also, many OTC nasal inhaler decongestent liquid spray bottles contained amphetamine, or methamphetamine (labeled as "desoxyephedrine") until the CSA of 1970 banned those too.
That's one of the cases for Underrated.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
You are incorrectly inferring that they are talking about an interlock system.
Otherwise, how would you ever get a taxi in Paris?
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
DUI is a big problem in the US in no small part due to the fact that our punishments for it are a total fucking joke.
The only joke I see is the idea of "just make the laws tougher" and that will solve all our problems. Sorry, laws don't solve social problems, and throwing people in prison is not going to solve anything. The United States, one country with 3% of the world population, already holds 25% of the entire world's prisoners. What makes you believe imprisoning more people is going to help a goddamn thing?
I'm not advocating for new crimes to be recognized as worthy of jail sentence. Rather I am pointing out that there is a crime that is not punished nearly enough. Being as the rest of the fucking industrialized world recognizes DUI as a mandatory felony (and has a lower per-capita DUI rate than the US), it is perfectly reasonable to increase the penalty for DUI. Considering how many people are running around with over a half-dozen DUIs on their record, it is clear that we are not doing what we need to do in order to prevent repeat offenders. Increasing the penalty will both keep the drunks off the road and also increase the stigma of DUI.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I might prefer to risk my life, why should I have to pay for (and be forced to use) seatbelts?
Simple - as a tax payer I do not want to pay for your hospital care, treatment, disability benefit etc. So, provided you have no dependents, if you make the law such that people without seat belts must pay for their own healthcare, receive no disability benefits etc. then by all means go out and kill yourself. However if you want support from society you should expect that society will require reasonable steps to lessen the risks.
....and if you are in the US the same applies to allowing private insurance to exclude coverage for injuries from such accidents because why should others pay higher premiums to support your needless risk taking?
Scroll down when you get there: www.uncoverthebest.com
I'm baffled at times by the conservative view point that, on one hand, advocates less government in our lives, less regulation and oversight, and still attempts to pass laws that do the opposite and attempt to control our behavior. Were this to be presented in the US I could imagine conservative politicians on their soapbox, proclaiming the goodness of this type of law and in the same paragraph extoll the evils of the current controlling body reaching into our personal lives and telling us what to do.
This would be a straw man law, given minimal respect (bought but tossed in the back) while overall ignored. We are a driving society while in Europe it is easier to move about on mass transit or on foot from bar to home if needed. I read many other posts and the sense I get is that we cannot expect to change the behavior of a society over night with a weak law. People will still drink and drive just as many smoke, knowing full well the short and long term effects of the act. If we truly want to "save" people from the drunk driver, then set up a better transit system, establish businesses that assist people getting home from bars so that they wake up with their car in the driveway; something other then this type of banality.
Government of the People, by the People, for the People....meh.
Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
Jacques get in his car, decides to use his $2 breathalyzer which says he is under the legal limit.
He drives off and ends up killing a family of four in a crosswalk.
Which of these is going to be the case:
A) The fact that he used the breathalyzer and it indicated he was not over the limit is a sufficient defense against a charge of drunk driving.
B) The fact that he used the breathalyzer indicates he felt there was a chance he was over the limit, and is thus sufficient proof that he was impaired.
G.
As long as you drive your OWN car on your OWN roads, and not roads owned by the public, you won't be punished.
*scroll* *scroll* *scroll* *scroll*....
sitll talking about meth
*scroll* *scroll* *scroll* *scroll*....
sitll talking about meth
*scroll* *scroll* *scroll* *scroll*....
sitll talking about meth
*scroll* *scroll* *scroll* *scroll*....
sitll talking about meth
*scroll* *scroll* *scroll* *scroll*....
I thought this article was about breathalysers in France...
yvan eht nioj
Hey, if they don't want us out drinking and driving, why do they not just BAN establishments outside the home from serving alcohol?
A bit of hypocrisy to allow establishments, who serve NOTHING but alcohol (the common bar) with large parking lots which allow people to drive there, and park their cars and go inside and partake of the product the bar is serving....and then get pissed off when those people get back in their cars to drive home or to another bar (or somewhere to get laid).
Of course, then people will just get trashed before they go to the dance clubs (where they don't serve alcohol)...
In my teens (when I was 18, so was the drinking age), knew plenty of people who used to do that all the time. To avoid the high cost of alcohol in the bars, for some heavy drinkers in the group it was often "one to get ready, two for the road". As the drinking age was slowly raised to 21, almost all the teeny bopper bars were segmented part dance club (18-up), part bar (drinking age and up), but that didn't stop the 18yo-ers from getting sloshed at home before going out. Although when I went out we always had plenty of designated drivers (most of the girls in my group of friends didn't drink), I imagine other groups (or people going out by themselves), didn't.
You did however touch on the real problem: money. Sporting events, Restaurants, and Clubs all serve because it makes a tidy profit. Bars just distill this down to the highest margin product. FWIW, Kansas tried that whole dry-thing you seem to be proposing until the mid '80s (only could be served liquor by-the-drink in private clubs, although you could literally drive a truck through that loophole). Didn't take long for the money train to overturn that... You can read about that whole Kansas thing here... I find it hard to believe that anyone is suggesting going back in that direction (even in sarcasm/jest)...
Of course, you could just BAN 20-somethings from driving after dark on the weekends. I'm pretty sure that would reduce the amount of people driving "high"... In big cities, people tend to take cabs and trains anyhow and bars that cater towards older crowds (dive bars), tend to have older regulars who know each other and barkeeps that know the clientele and are less likely to let folks drive home inebriated. The trend for the future is anti-car anyhow. Might as well get started w/ the 20-somethings today...
A friend of mine who was convicted of drunk driving had to have an ignition interlock/breathalyzer installed in his car. It was the most unreliable piece of techno-trash I've ever seen. I constantly had to come collect him from one place or another when it decided he'd been drinking. On one occasion when I was with him continuously on a long trip, he blew clean twice. On the third occasion, the device registered a false positive and left us stranded in the curb lane of a major city street during rush hour.
My friend also discovered that he couldn't eat pepperoni if he was planning to drive. No idea why, but the device apparently thought pepperoni had alcohol in it.
One thing's certain: unless France has something more dependable than the unreliable, dangerous device my friend had installed, there's going to be more problems on French roads than were ever caused by drunks>
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
They generally involved in accidents....
With prolific obstacles come a proliferation of solutions. The availability of breathalyzer hacks will skyrocket.
Helps all the drunks start their cars.
Good point. But I'd like to raise the issue of a breathalyzer test having two degrees of separation from the hypothesis that the breathalyzer is testing. Using vapor concentrations in expelled air has not been shown to be a reliable measure of Blood Alcohol Concentration. Blood Alcohol Concentration has not been shown to be a reliable measure of deviation from an individual's normal judgment and reaction time. Deviation from an individual's normal judgment and reaction time is not reliable without a baseline.
I don't know how the laws became so specific and low tolerance for BAC measurements.
...as it's the only drug that causes more harm to others than to the user.
This may be the most asinine thing I have ever read in a /, summary...
My post wasn't against seatbelts, it was showing that requiring the presence of a breathanalyser is not fundamentally different.
Actually there is one very important difference. Most seatbelt laws require the installation and USE of seatbelts. The French breathalyser law requires that a breathalyser is present in the car but does not require that it is used - it is not connected to the ignition. In fact if you DID use it, found yourself to be under the limit and then drove you would be breaking the law because you no longer have a working breathalyser! As such I see no way that the french law will have any effect at all other than temporarily boosting the sales of single use breathalysers in France.
Oh. There it is. It's just a way to get money for the breathalyzer manufacturers, as well as for the government to pat themselves on the back for a job well done in "improving public safety" with this do-nothing legislation.
Exactly. It's just like the moronic Real ID act we have here in the US that makes a ton of money for VitalChek because they pretty much have a government granted monopoly in the business of ordering certified copy birth certificates from out-of-state. The government gets to do some hand waving about how they're fighting terrorism and everyone renewing their driver's license has to cough up some extra dough in order to produce their "papers, please."
This whole concept of requiring everyone to carry a breathalyzer in their car seems to be along the same line of thought that making every kid in high school carry a condom will eliminate teenage pregnancy and STDs. Oh, and I bet if every car had some sort of device to indicate how fast you were going, people wouldn't break the speed limit, either!
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
In all cases, it's the heart stopping, whether that's because the head is severed from the body or a bullet in the brain doesn't matter. Less than one in a million deaths couldn't accurately be called death by cardiac arrest. But then, if you believe in the brain-life theory, then it is hypoxia. Whether the hypoxia is caused by lack of blood because the body was removed, or because the blood can't reach the brain because the brain was forcibly removed by an airplane falling on your head, in both cases, it could be correctly stated that hypoxia was the cause of death.
Learn to love Alaska
It's not so simple as a beating heart. What about those who have no beating heart? Artificial hearts, people mid-transplant, on life support machines etc.
It's brain death that determines death - and that usually occurs via #1 in my post, or #3. I think #2 interferes with oxygenation and so really is #1 in disguise.
So, as far as trauma (such as aforementioned cranial-aircraft collisions) - I'd say that the whole system (including oxygenation) is a support system for the brain. If the brain is gone then there's no point in considering the rest of the system.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
This is France we are talking about. Who would be left?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
It would be good for us all if people on both sides of the drugs debate would be less religious in their attitudes. What we need is a set of regulations based on scientific evidence, designed to give people some freedom of choice, but also limit the damages caused by use of recreational drugs.
All drugs can be harmful, especially when used to excess and without proper understanding of what you are doing. Instead of criminalising them, it would be better to legalise, tax and educate.
Article says they require $2 self test kit in every car. Well, here in Finland, they are actually thinking of installing device to car that would not allow car engine to run unless you regulary (15 min -> few hours) test your alcohol level. This device needs to be installed in EVERY car, new and old.
Yes because the majority of car on the road now are electric and have LED lights.
The requirement to carry a first aid kit, fire extinguisher and warning triangle is quite old in my country. A few years ago they added the vest requirement. There is no requirement to have spare bulbs, but I have them anyway. After all, the bulb will most likely burn out just when I need to drive at night.
Also, if I had an electric car I would probably buy an extinguisher that can put the fire out, instead of the standard one that is only suitable for cars with internal combustion engines. I have an old gasoline/LPG car instead, so I carry the standard extinguisher.
Seriously; that could be the last insurmountable obsticle to cannabis legalization. Cancer from someone else's cigarettes is terrible, but getting an unwanted contact high resulting in a DUI would be some harsh bud indeed.
Self-testing (which is all this is) is absolutely useless. There's nothing more irresponsible than a drunk .. except that drunken driver subset. They're the LAST ones in the world to be interested in self-testing.
I thought the French were showing some balls, actually requiring a breathalyzer that would be hard-wired into the car's system, so the drunk could NOT drive. But nooo ...
Stupid, political, hand-waving .. and useless.
Zothecula writes "It is a great irony that alcohol should be legislated into becoming man's most commonly used recreational drug, as it's the only drug that causes more harm to others than to the user."
Zothecula is showing his ignorance. Or he's using the verb 'causes' without adequate explanation. Nicotine causes more harm, more suffering, more illness, and more deaths than all of the other drugs put together because of its delivery method, the cigarette. In fact, even if you factor together deaths from the other drugs, from road accidents, and from wars, they still won't add up to the number of deaths from the use of nicotine. Tens of thousands of non-smokers are killed by nicotine addicts every year here in the UK, and the numbers of people who are not yet dead but seriously ill far outweighs that number. And worldwide the figure runs into the millions.
So what do the governments do about it? Well, the UK government taxes tobacco but rather than pump those taxes into the NHS to fund addiction treatment and treatment of the victims, it's currently in the process of trying to wreck the NHS. Until there is adequate treatment in the form of drug addiction withdrawal treatment and psychotherapy for the underlying mental health problems, millions of victims of nicotine addiction - both the addicts and those made victims by the addicts - will continue to die.
It's the world's worst drug addiction problem. And it won't be stopped until people stop lying about it.
Garry Knight
>Carry a flask of liquor, and if stopped, pretend to take a drink before the cop reaches the door.
Is it legal to have an open container of an alcoholic liquid in the drivers' compartment?
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.