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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Guilty of what? Being required to have a breathanalyser in the car is no different than being required to have e.g. seatbelts.
Dilbert RSS feed
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.
It's an essential nutrient. :)
No, it *is* different. No amount of caution can stop you from being in an auto accident, and having seatbelts in the car can save your life if you are.
It is very, very easy to not drive drunk. Why should the majority of us who manage to live our lives in such a way that we run no risk of driving drunk pay for breathalyzers?
This. $2 is still $2. Why should I spend my $2 on something I am never going to use, just because the nanny state wants to nanny some other group of folks?
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.
In 1981 my 17 year old cousin was brutally killed by someone just like you. DWI is a serious crime and deserves severe penalties- much much more severe than the penalties we have now. Drinking and driving is NEVER a good idea and no matter how "careful" you are. If you're out on the road, driving while intoxicated you absolutely deserve to be punished. If you injure or kill someone while out on the road, you should spend the rest of your life behind bars. DWI is a totally preventable crime and one that only idiots commit.
Why not put a camera in the car, so they can make sure you’re not drink, eating, sleeping, talking/texting on the phone, putting on makeup, playing with the radio, yelling at the kids in back, or looking at girls in bikinis.
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
Because other people often end up paying when people like yourself end up flying out of their windshield.
... Ritalin (methylphenidate hydrochloride) and Desoxyn (methamphetamine hydrochloride) ...
The French don't meth up their children.
They give them fine wine.
Châteaux Silence le Enfant
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
a problem occurs if you dont think that you are drunk, but in fact you are over the limit. A device like this could help.
I learned a good lesson long ago to solve the "maybe" issue... If you arent sure if you are too drunk to drive home, order a shot. Now you are certain.
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.
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 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.
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.
Using the breathalyzer as a "can I drive" magic 8 ball is absolutely not what you should be doing.
Which is why this law is if anything going to cause an increase in accidents. Right now responsible people will err on the side of caution, and on the whole people tend to be responsible.
Instead of "I've had a drink so I wont drive" it'll be as you say, "I'm under the limit so I can drive", irrespective of whether they're safe to drive or not.
Me, I've played racing games after half a litre of vodka. I know I can drive while drunk, as long as the car bounces off things and corners remain optional.