France's Bold Drunk-Driving Legislation - Every Car To Carry a Breathalyzer

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

France's Bold Drunk-Driving Legislation - Every Car To Carry a Breathalyzer

Posted by Soulskill on Monday February 27, 2012 @06:54AM from the now-you'll-get-people-trying-to-beat-their-high-score dept.

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."

52 of 706 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

the only drug? by Surt · 2012-02-27 06:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

Meth has fueled an awful lot of violent crime.

--
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
1. Re:the only drug? by aBaldrich · 2012-02-27 07:00 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Heresy! How you dare! Alcohol has to be the one and only bad drug, otherwise you can't legalize pot... ... ... ...
  
  --
  In soviet russia the government regulates the companies.
2. Re:the only drug? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-27 07:00 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Meth has fueled an awful lot of violent crime.
  Correction, prohibition has fueled on awful lot of violent crime.
3. Re:the only drug? by girlintraining · 2012-02-27 07:02 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Meth has fueled an awful lot of violent crime.
  Ever seen those Faces of Meth advertisements? It's quite harmful to the user as well as the bystander. Alcohol on the other hand encourages severe lapses in judgement and reaction when operating heavy machinery, which usually kills people nearby but leaves the drunk unaffected, if only because liquor makes their body a doughy mass to be thrown about while sober people tense up and break bones and crap.
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
4. Re:the only drug? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-27 07:09 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Correction, prohibition has fueled on awful lot of violent crime.
  This is the correct answer. Be it prohibition of alcohol, meth, pot, etc... the illegal status causes a great deal of the violence.
  We'd have a lot less garage explosions if methamphetamines could be produced in a professional lab somewhere, with QA and such.
5. Re:the only drug? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-27 07:09 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Alcohol on the other hand encourages severe lapses in judgment and reaction when operating heavy machinery, which usually kills people nearby but leaves the drunk unaffected
  Then the obvious solution is to get the sober drivers off the road.
6. Re:the only drug? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-27 07:29 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  But the price would be too high for addict to pay for, Hence why you would still have illegal meth.
  The price would be dirt cheap unless it were taxed to high heaven (pun intended). However, meth is still a terrible drug even if pure, very hard on the body and very addictive. Not recommended for sane people.
  
  I'm a cannabis smoker and I wouldn't pay more for less (and in the case of cannabis, the potency would be reduced a lot) even if it would decriminalize my usage.
  If cannabis were legalized in a sane (there's that word again) way, growing it yourself would be legal. Potency (and very other variable) would be up to you, as it should be. If 190 proof Everclear is legal, why shouldn't 20% THC marijuana be? It is in fact better for you, as less smoke in the lungs is required for a given level of effect.
7. Re:the only drug? by Brain-Fu · 2012-02-27 07:36 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  That is a common line of thinking among those who haven't thought things through.
  1) When you make a highly-desired commodity illegal, you create organized crime. Mafia bosses who have no qualms about sending your children home minus a few digits just to make a point wind up receiving tremendous economic power from people who want the item. This level of crime is far worse, and far harder for the police to protect against, than random muggings by petty junkies.
  2) You assume that once it becomes legal, demand will increase significantly. This is very fallacious. Most people who desire to use drugs already do so, whether it is legal or not. The only people who refrain from using drugs due to their legal status are precisely the sort of people who are responsible enough to keep their use under control. Furthermore, the current (illegal) users who are the type that would lose control and start mugging people to fuel the habit are already doing so. So, even if usage increases, crime does not increase.
  3) Once legal, it can be taxed to fund addiction clinics and other support services that users can now turn to without fear of legal punishment. So, that naturally helps to control the problem and further reduce crime.
8. Re:the only drug? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-27 07:40 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  When you make a highly-desired commodity illegal, you create organized crime.
  Organized crime? I disagree. I'm a druglord, and believe me. My office is a mess!
9. Re:the only drug? by cayenne8 · 2012-02-27 07:58 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Speaking of alcohol, and breaking of laws.
  I wonder what the penalty would be for hacking your OWN car that you own in France..to disable or spoof said breathalizer?
  I can forsee the new 'kits' to fix these new mandatory attachments released shortly after the law goes into effect.
  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).
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
10. Re:the only drug? by Eponymous+Coward · 2012-02-27 08:03 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I don't think self-driving cars will really take off until manufacturers are protected from lawsuits and municipalities find better ways to fund police departments (presumably self-driving cars wouldn't speed, run traffic lights, fail to signal turns, etc...).
  Say self driving cars were to suddenly become popular and also assume that road deaths plummet. Thousands of lives are saved every year. Say also that a new car comes out with a software bug that leads to hundreds of deaths. Even though the net benefit is thousands of lives saved, the glitch that kills a hundred will lead to crushing lawsuits. What manufacturer wants to take on that kind of liability?
11. Re:the only drug? by 19thNervousBreakdown · 2012-02-27 08:16 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Alcohol is far from the only drug that encourages severe lapses in judgement. Hell, I wouldn't even put it at #1 for that--go pop 10-20mg of Ambien and don't immediately get in bed. Have fun calling all your exes and fishing your keys out of the toilet in the morning. Don't step in the bowl of tomato soup with raw hamburger crumbled in it next to your bed.
  I've never tried it myself so I can't speak for the actual effects like I can for Ambien, but people suck dick for crack. I've wanted a lot of things really really bad, and I've never considered sucking a dick for it--tell me those people are making that decision without personality modification. I can tell you that when you do coke, you're not yourself, not by a longshot, and it's easy to make terrible decisions on that too. I've seen my share of fights started or exacerbated by it. Just about any drug seems to shut down inhibitions. Maybe it's a part of the brain that's just not as able to cope with slightly-off chemistry, I don't know, but I do know they all have an effect to some degree.
  Other drugs get lumped in with alcohol because when you're on other drugs, there's a good chance you're drunk too, and it's easy to test if you're currently drunk. The other tests only really tell if you're a user of those. I've also seen the cops show up when people were on stuff other than alcohol, and they had no clue, so chalk up at least a couple coke/other-induced incidents that aren't on the records.
  The fact is, every drug I know of changes your personality to some degree or another. Pot is a major outlier, in that it has a very small effect (in an experienced user) and although it may make someone's thought process "dopey", it doesn't significantly effect the higher, rational decisions like, "should I fight this fucker for not passing me the frisbee?" or "should I steal this car?" But just because pot is relatively (not totally, not by a long shot, and I love me some weed) benign, don't let that fool you into thinking alcohol is the only drug that needs to be carefully controlled.
  
  --
  <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
12. Re:the only drug? by BasilBrush · 2012-02-27 08:23 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I'm a cannabis smoker and I wouldn't pay more for less (and in the case of cannabis, the potency would be reduced a lot) even if it would decriminalize my usage.
  I would. A choice of predictable products. Ability to go to a local shop rather than cross town and deal with scary looking criminals. Certain knowledge that weed hasn't had glass added, and resin hasn't had excrement added.
  Most other people would too. Remember it's perfectly possible and legal to brew your own beers and wines. And if there was an appetite for such home made beverages there'd be a market for them, and also moonshine. But most people buy commercial brands.
  The homemade drug solutions only thrive during prohibition.
13. Re:the only drug? by Nidi62 · 2012-02-27 08:33 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Correction, prohibition has fueled on awful lot of violent crime.
  This is the correct answer. Be it prohibition of alcohol, meth, pot, etc... the illegal status causes a great deal of the violence.
  Yes, all of those addicts that break into peoples houses (empty at the time or not) or rob people on the streets only do it because the drugs are illegal. Remember, drugs-legal or not-fuel all kinds of crime besides just what is involved in the creation and distribution of the drugs.
  
  --
  The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
14. Re:the only drug? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-27 08:36 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  2) You assume that once it becomes legal, demand will increase significantly. This is very fallacious. Most people who desire to use drugs already do so, whether it is legal or not. The only people who refrain from using drugs due to their legal status are precisely the sort of people who are responsible enough to keep their use under control.
  Legalization might not change the behavior of adults, who are likely to retain the stigmatization of use, but will change behavior of the maturing generation. A substantial amount of alcohol use among slightly underage and newly legal drinkers is binge drinking, especially in places where alcohol is freely and readily available. Marijuana and other drugs may also be "available," but there is a great difference between having to know the right people or places to score, and having a tray of joints laid out at the fraternity door. There are certainly people who don't enjoy the taste of alcohol, but still drink to be more at ease socially, or to mimic the behavior of people around them. Some of those people will switch from legal alcohol to legal marijuana. Some of the people who have 'a couple shots' at home before going out to the bars or clubs, will also switch.
  Finally, I would suggest that a lot of people over the age of 25 refrain from drug use because of the legal consequences, and disagree with your claim that most of the people who would use marijuana already do. The reason you doubt this is the reason they used to call marijuana a 'gateway drug.' The behavior has become normalized, at least within your social group. Once you normalize a criminal behavior, it supposedly becomes easier to break more serious laws. To migrate from schedule 8 to schedule 7 or schedule 3.
15. Re:the only drug? by aardvarkjoe · 2012-02-27 08:43 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I wonder what the penalty would be for hacking your OWN car that you own in France..to disable or spoof said breathalizer?
  Obviously, you didn't RTFA. The requirement is to simply carry a breathalyzer in the car with you so you can check your own blood alcohol level before you drive. The requirement isn't for the type of device that prevents you from starting your car without passing the test first.
  
  --
  
  How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
16. Re:the only drug? by king+neckbeard · 2012-02-27 08:48 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Being contraband means the prices are higher. Also, said higher prices mean that the profitability of said markets is higher, which means that the profits are more often high enough to encourage organized violent crime. Furthermore, those drugs being criminalized makes seeking treatment more difficult.
  
  --
  This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
17. Re:the only drug? by brit74 · 2012-02-27 08:49 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Your line of thinking is common among those who haven't thought things through.
  
  1) When you make a highly-desired commodity illegal, you create organized crime. Mafia bosses who have no qualms about sending your children home minus a few digits just to make a point wind up receiving tremendous economic power from people who want the item. This level of crime is far worse, and far harder for the police to protect against, than random muggings by petty junkies.
  The fact of the matter is that junkies still need their drug and they probably aren't making enough money to pay for all their life's needs (including drugs, food, shelter, etc). Even if the drug is legal, it still puts junkies in a position to commit crimes - either because they decided to rob people for money or because the drug dealer pushes them into it.
  
  2) You assume that once it becomes legal, demand will increase significantly. This is very fallacious. Most people who desire to use drugs already do so, whether it is legal or not. The only people who refrain from using drugs due to their legal status are precisely the sort of people who are responsible enough to keep their use under control. Furthermore, the current (illegal) users who are the type that would lose control and start mugging people to fuel the habit are already doing so. So, even if usage increases, crime does not increase.
  Did you intentionally write "demand will increase significantly" instead of "demand will increase" because it would be easier for you to argue your point? Sorry, but it is well established that making stuff illegal does drive down consumption. It obviously doesn't drive it down to zero, but to say that legalization won't lead to increased use is fallacious. Saying, as you did, that legalization won't cause demand to "increase significantly" is debatable since you haven't established what "significantly" means, which could potentially give you some weasel room to claim you're right even if demand does increase.
  
  It's also worth pointing out that humans are cultural creatures. You might say things like "Most people who desire to use drugs already do so, whether it is legal or not.", but people do what other people around them are doing. Funny, just yesterday, I was talking to a friend about how human behavior is quirky. One point he raised was a study involving a hotel that wanted hotel customers to reuse towels instead of getting new towels each day in their rooms. They tried different signs to encourage patrons to reuse towels. They figured out that if people assumed other people were getting new towels each day, that they would also get new towels. But, when they told people that most people reused their bathroom towels, then most of the patrons did the same. If something is illegal, most people are going to follow the law, but that can be overridden if people around you are doing the illegal thing (example: underage drinking or smoking pot). Having been in a variety of schools while growing up, I can absolutely tell you that the things that your friends are doing in school affect what you will do as well. It's fallacious to simply say people are doing what they'd do regardless of the situation.
  
  The only people who refrain from using drugs due to their legal status are precisely the sort of people who are responsible enough to keep their use under control.
  What nonsense. Drugs can change a person. There absolutely are people now who aren't doing drugs right now who, if they tried crack, could easily spiral into crime.
  
  3) Once legal, it can be taxed to fund addiction clinics and other support services that users can now turn to without fear of legal punishment. So, that naturally helps to control the problem and further reduce crime.
  So, you're saying that if we legalize it, then we can tax it, which will drive up the price of the drugs, which will make junkies more desperate to get money, which increases the incentive for them to commit crimes? That's a terrible strategy.
18. Re:the only drug? by Algae_94 · 2012-02-27 08:49 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I seriously doubt legalization would lower costs to the point where $20 buys a 6 month supply for a heavy addict.
  
  Unfortunately meth causes crime not just for the purposes of getting cash to pay for it. The drug itself causes some amount of psychosis and paranoia that can lead to violent crime.
19. Re:the only drug? by ArhcAngel · 2012-02-27 08:51 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If you can't find some reputable people to deal with, you probably shouldn't be buying anything from them.
  Where does one find reputable criminals these days?
  
  --
  "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
20. Re:the only drug? by Vancorps · 2012-02-27 09:04 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Yeah, look at all those people breaking into home (empty at the time or not) to steal alcohol or money for alcohol or jewelery to pawn for alcohol.
  It's legal status I'm sorry is very much the reason for the violence.
21. Re:the only drug? by Nadaka · 2012-02-27 09:05 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Congress and Wall Street.
22. Re:the only drug? by swb · 2012-02-27 09:26 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I think a lot of reason that "people suck dick for crack" is that among the demographic who wants to smoke crack but can't afford to, "sucking dick" is just generally considered an easy way to make money.
  It's really not that crack is so desirable, it's just that sucking dick is the skillset and occupation they can most easily engage in to make money quickly.
23. Re:the only drug? by mcgrew · 2012-02-27 09:31 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I never heard of the "glass in the weed" thing before, but hearing about it now it seems clear where it started -- in the ghetto, and is certainly false. Dealers often call high quality dope "glass" these days. Easy to see how this might confuse some into thinking somebody would put glass in weed.
  However, back in the '70s people would often take shitweet (not weed with shit in it, weed that wouldn't get you high) and add PCP to make it give you a high. I don't know if this is still done, but I suspect it probably is. Also, there are often other contaminants from carelssness, such as jimson weed*, spider webs, insects, etc, especially in low grade smoke.
  However, these days you can tell good weed from the smell of the baggie.
  *Jimson weed is a nasty high and will ruin your dope
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
24. Re:the only drug? by steelfood · 2012-02-27 09:39 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  3) Once legal, it can be taxed to fund addiction clinics and other support services that users can now turn to without fear of legal punishment. So, that naturally helps to control the problem and further reduce crime.
  While true, this is not very realistic. The taxes would probably go to funding road maintenance or (inclusive) into some politician's pocket.
  
  --
  "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
who's paying for it? by realityimpaired · 2012-02-27 06:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
1. Re:who's paying for it? by Krokant · 2012-02-27 07:02 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The French automotive society is selling breathalyzer tests for single use for 1 euro (say: 1 US dollar) per piece. It suffices to carry two of those in the car.
2. Re:who's paying for it? by TheRaven64 · 2012-02-27 07:04 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  TFA said:
  
  As far as the breathalyzer required by French authorities, a US$2.00 disposable item will be acceptable, but already everyone is being encouraged to buy such items in pairs so that one can be used to test, or for a friend to use, and still to have the required one to drive home with.
  To which you replied:
  
  Those things are expensive, and beyond the means of some people who own cars.
  I wonder who these people who can afford French petrol and diesel prices, but can't afford $4 are.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
3. Re:who's paying for it? by danomac · 2012-02-27 07:22 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Not pointless for those who make/manufacture the tests. Basically guaranteed income.
4. Re:who's paying for it? by Cinder6 · 2012-02-27 07:24 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Most people seem to be thinking it's an interlock device, rather than a standalone breathalyzer. In that case, assuming $1 per car trip, driving every day and a minimum of two trips (one to destination, one back home), it would be ~$730/year or more.
  But since that isn't the case, then the point is moot. It's a couple bucks a year at minimum, more if you get pulled over and are forced to use them a lot.
  My problem is efficiency. If it's not an interlock, how is it in any way improving public safety? What's the point? Why not just have the police carry around breathalyzers? That way, there's no chance the driver won't be able to take the test, and you won't have millions of people wasting money on these portable--
  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.
  
  --
  If you can't convince them, convict them.
5. Re:who's paying for it? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2012-02-27 07:26 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Going out drinking 5-6 times a week? Dude, if the GP is doing that, then guess what- they have an alcohol problem.
  
  --
  SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
6. Re:who's paying for it? by DeathFromSomewhere · 2012-02-27 07:27 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The point is so that people have the tools to test themselves before driving home instead of guessing how drunk they are. No crazy conspiracy theory needed.
  
  --
  -1 overrated isn't the same thing as "I disagree".
7. Re:who's paying for it? by Dan667 · 2012-02-27 07:44 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  like drunk people are suddenly going to start making good decisions? Money grab by a well connected breathalyzer manufacture is more likely.
In a country that drinks wine like water? by scorp1us · 2012-02-27 06:58 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.
1. Re:In a country that drinks wine like water? by afidel · 2012-02-27 07:08 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Dude, if you think US BAC limits are low you need to get out more. The limit in France is .05% just like most of the EU.
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
2. Re:In a country that drinks wine like water? by uvajed_ekil · 2012-02-27 07:16 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
  
  What are you talking about? While I do drink and think .08% BAC is a little low, it is true that driving performance begins to deteriorate after as little 1 or 2 drinks. If you really think the legal limit should be .32, and that anyone below that level is okay to drive, you are absolutely nuts. By .20 you are obviously and inarguably drunk.
  The Frecnh drink a lot of wine, true, but I don't think most people in France condone drinking 3 bottles of wine before going for a drive.
  
  --
  This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
3. Re:In a country that drinks wine like water? by YrWrstNtmr · 2012-02-27 07:40 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Are you reading the same wiki as everyone else?
  
  " Listerine mouthwash, for example, contains 27% alcohol."
  "Seven individuals were tested at a police station, with readings of 0.00%. Each then rinsed his mouth with 20 milliliters of Listerine mouthwash for 30 seconds in accordance with directions on the label. All seven were then tested on the machine at intervals of one, three, five and ten minutes. The results indicated an average reading of 0.43 blood-alcohol concentration, indicating a level that, if accurate, approaches lethal proportions. After three minutes, the average level was still 0.020, despite the absence of any alcohol in the system. Even after five minutes, the average level was 0.011."
4. Re:In a country that drinks wine like water? by giorgist · 2012-02-27 09:45 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Police know that. Once tested positive, you are asked to wait and retested. You then are taken to the police station and tested again. Listerine will not get you a conviction. Road side breath testing is just the beginning of the process.
"Novel solution"? by LehiNephi · 2012-02-27 07:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

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
1. Re:"Novel solution"? by h4rr4r · 2012-02-27 07:09 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Oh noes teh $2 breathalyzer! Such an infringement of your rights. Next they will demand you have a working horn and maybe even some road flares.
2. Re:"Novel solution"? by Sir_Sri · 2012-02-27 07:18 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  They don't have the TSA, they actually have healthcare.
  If you look hard enough you can find good ideas everywhere. Europe has a couple of glaring examples of good ideas the US should be copying, and a lot of bad ideas it shouldn't. A 2 dollar breathalyser that you must have in your vehicle that costs thousands, with fuel that costs about that much per litre isn't exactly an onerous requirement. It's more of a "am I too drunk to drive? Oh... I guess I am" device, which, for 2 dollars is about a reasonable tradeoff. It's a weaker (and cheaper) requirement than needing to have working headlights, which seems fairly reasonable.
What's required is a $2 disposable breathalyzer by hernick · 2012-02-27 07:00 · Score: 4, Informative

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.
Unfounded story by patrickv · 2012-02-27 07:04 · Score: 5, Informative

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.
Yes, but in France... by SuperKendall · 2012-02-27 07:06 · Score: 5, Funny

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
More harm to others? Really? by twotacocombo · 2012-02-27 07:08 · Score: 4, Informative

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.
Re:Desoxyn by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2012-02-27 08:01 · Score: 4, Funny

... 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!
Re:good thing they don't have laws in france by berashith · 2012-02-27 08:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Why bother? by Roger+W+Moore · 2012-02-27 08:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
Not quite... by Roger+W+Moore · 2012-02-27 08:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Not quite... by Kjella · 2012-02-27 09:49 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Try randomly running out into the road from the sidewalk, alternatively from behind street corners, large parked cars and other cover at high speed and see how long it takes until you end up dead or in the hospital. I can guarantee you those unmanned cars are going to end up running some people over, just like manned cars do. They are going to run into freak oil spills or blow a tire in 130 km/h on the Autobahn and other surprise conditions. And even medical equipment sometimes fails spectacularly. That's even assuming you can guarantee optimal behavior in every case - which you can't - and that there's no bugs which I think is near impossible in a system with so many fuzzy variables. People will sue over all sorts of sensor input that maybe, possibly the car could have reacted to. I don't think you'll get anywhere until you have a law to not judge computer drivers harsher than human drivers. Like, would you have convicted a human of driving recklessly under the circumstances? If no, then case dismissed.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
So, a hypothetical... by Gavin+Scott · 2012-02-27 09:40 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.
Re:good thing they don't have laws in france by Cederic · 2012-02-27 12:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.