Slashdot Mirror
Drunk Drivers in California May Get Mandated Interlock Devices
Convicted drunk drivers all over California may soon be required to install and pay for the use of ignition interlock devices, at a cost of $50-100 per month, plus installation. Says the article: "State Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, wants to expand a program already in place in four California counties, including Alameda, and 24 other states. Under the proposed state law Hill will introduce Monday, anyone convicted of driving under the influence would be required to install an ignition interlock device in their car for six months on a first offense and a year on a second conviction." Though interlock devices could be fitted to check for other conditions as well, the usual case (as described on this Wikipedia page) is that they base the ability to operate a car on blood alcohol content. Already in California, interlock devices are mandatory for those re-arrested for DUI while "driving on a suspended license due to a DUI conviction."
These various silly "extras" that we add on to DUI sentences don't seem to do much to reduce the DUI rates in this country. I think it is time we join the rest of the industrialized world and start treating DUI as a felony-level offense. Put some fear of real punishment into the hearts of the people who can't control their drinking and they might be less inclined to try their luck.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I'm curious as to how this is a nerd-news subject. Ignition Interlock devices are nothing new or novel, and if anything, the only nerd stuff would be talking about how to bypass or otherwise fake results, which isn't a direction that I want to head in either.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
I use to installs these in a prior job. The ones we installed (from what I was told from customers it was the cheapest of the 3 options they had and one of the only in my area) were fairly simple.. where some would require you to hum while you blow, the ones we installed did not. Install was really simple, taking typically around 30 minutes while the bi-monthly or whatever it as swap outs took 3 minutes tops at a cost of something like $15 or $30 (for labor, not sure what the new hand held part cost them).
They typically worked okay, but the times when a customer would get a defective unit, they were basically SoL until the new one came and they had to pay the swap out price for the hand held. So while they seemed to work overall, there were times where when it did fail, you were completely screwed.
Sort of like if you sprayed anything with an alcohol base or used a mouth wash/breath freshener and had to blow into the unit.. it would trip the unit and would be marked as a "lock out".
A couple of days ago, someone posted on a reddit thread about the horrible pitfalls of having one of these and dealing with all the problems they bring. I understand DUI is a very serious issue, but if the claims this guy makes are true then the way interlock service companies are run are also outrageous:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskRe...
She had no issues with the unit, and as of today (a little over 2 years since the incident) she hasn't driven buzzed or drunk. The whole ordeal helped her change for the better.
Another debtors' prison and one that will enrich some state contractor no doubt.
...then you deserve whatever punishment those who lives you put at risk decide. So tired of seeing people die or otherwise have their lives ruined due to inebriated thought processes. I don't hate drunks, I hate drunks who maim and kill.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
why is this "news for nerds"? its not even news. This is normal.
Like all traffic penalties, this only hurts low income people. $150 a month will push someone right back into the bottle, it won't even register to a rich kid. But we're a democracy, so we only have ourselves to blame.
State Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo just invested in an interlock company.
and not for safety. Don't doubt that for a second.
...but call a freakin' cab!
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
I don't support these scumbags either, get a car plugin bicycle pump if you get one of the, never used it personally but told it works.
Their freedom to drive will never outweigh the lives of the innocents they might take by their inebrieted lack of concern for others lives. I'll defend your right to free speech, I'll defend your right to protest, but I will not defend your right to kill another human being.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
How about mandating neon signs reading "Warning: Drunk Driver" be attached to their car as well? These people put the lives of others at risk because they're too cheap or too stubborn to take a cab home. Let them be shamed in public for it. For months. Everywhere they go.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
This is where penalties and awareness of penalties actually CAN make a difference. You don't typically get drunk by accident, and unless you're in seriously bad shape and are essentially committing suicide (slowly) you aren't always drunk. As such, knowing that being caught is likely to have serious consequences might help entice you to have a plan for safe transportation beforehand (assuming you are at least marginally sane and even slightly intelligent; if you're not, well, those are the breaks and if this didn't "ruin" your life something else would soon anyway. The world isn't very kind to the particularly stupid who don't have someone smarter to keep a close watch on them).
Here in Alaska we have laws for repeat DUI offenders. You forfeit the car you are driving. If you borrowed a car from a friend,
too bad for him. The judges sometimes have leniency on rental cars. Pretty soon, DUI, losing the car while making payments
does not look too attractive anymore.
I think placing a red background on your Driver License picture meaning at least one DUI within 5 years, would help. So if you
want to borrow Joe's car, he can look at the license and say "not a good idea, Sam."
I would be 100% behind license revocation for 1 year, mandatory in-person group class/counseling which you pay for out of pocket unless you prove your income is so low you honestly can't afford it, AND forfeiting the car for the duration of license suspension. That would be on a first offense. Get used to alternative transportation, it's often good for your health and the environment and might even be good for your pocketbook if you live in an area with decent public transit.
Second offense, you forfeit the car permanently, 2 year and mandatory jail time; say 30 days actual time must be served. You've been caught once already and have just proven you're too stupid to drive so you lose your right to do so any time soon.
Try it again, forfeit this car permanently too, then mandatory felony conviction, plus extensive counseling and rehabilitation, and with no possibility of ever having a driver's license again until or unless two separate counselors determine you are rehabilitated but never less than 2 years. If you still haven't learned by now, chances are we are all better off with you never behind the wheel again.
Now:
"But it's my brother's car!" Too effin bad for him, he should have been more careful who he loaned his car too, and he will be next time. You could have just as easily totaled it and died and killed some other folks while you were at it and he wouldn't have his car then either.
"But I still owe money on the car loan!" To bad, so sad, you owe the bank money, that's not our problem. We'll hand over the car to the bank if you stop making payments just as we should.
"You cant take the car, I stole it!" The owner filed a police report, right? And you want to be charged with car theft too? OK, fine with us. We'll give it back to the registered owner who filed the police report about the stolen vehicle and you'll get a stiffer sentence.
IIDs for first offenders have been mandatory in LA County for several years already -- a pilot program for statewide legislation. Currently they have to be used for at least 5 months. And while you still have the IID restriction, you can't drive at all without one, so no borrowing cars or renting.
As the article says, people caught for drunk driving have likely done it ~80 times -- a habit that needs to be rehabilitated. IIDs are pretty effective for this, and will probably be built into all new cars in the near future.
Current units cost around $300 to have installed. They have to be recalibrated every few weeks. which costs money too. So the total cost is around $800, plus the extra time and inconvenience. You have to blow into it to start the car, then every 30 minutes while driving. They're not completely reliable, and cost extra time and money to get fixed. Everyone seems to get stuck at least once (and has to explain to everyone why, from the tow truck driver to their boss).
Car impound must be longer. A day is essentially no deterrent. Start with a month and we might be able to talk. By the third offence, the car should be permanently taken away, and if the offender still owes on it, it goes back to the bank minus expenses (which they will still be liable for). Driver's license should be revoked for a full year (and cancelled) by at least the second offence and mandatory face-to-face counseling paid for out of pocket (none of this stupid online crap). They'll learn the bus/train routes and/or get a bicycle pretty quick. Net positive for all involved (possibly even including the offender).
Patient counseling info for such drugs almost without exception specifically and explicitly mention the possibility of this very side effect, and the doctor or pharmacist, or both, tells you to NEVER combine it with alcohol, and suggests having someone hide your car keys and/or keep close watch on you, especially when you first start the medication (though it can still happen during future doses the risk is generally lower, unless combined with alcohol). If you weren't strongly warned of such possibilities someone was negligent. They knew about it before the drug was even FDA approved.
It's still a valid warning that bears repeating. Sedative-hypnotic CNS depressants are kind of scary stuff and also tend to be more of a band-aid that doesn't really address the underlying cause of the sleep problem anyway. Certainly no reason to change penalties for drunk driving though.
"Butcher thee the imbibers of the devil's brew, for they shall not inherit My kingdom. One strike and thou are out. Kill, kill, kill." -- Galatians 6:12
I agree with the principles of EzInKy. Anybody even suspected of drinking alcohol should be driven by force to the nearest church and flat-out killed. And frankly it might make sense to kill their families as well just to make it more of deterrent. Libs like to complain about how many people we have in jail. Okay fine, when it comes to drinkers we'll just flat-out kill them immediately and they won't spend a day in jail. Happy now?
The day is coming when the principles of Christ will be put on trial and you will not want to be on the wrong side. If EzInKy and I are the only ones that realize this, I don't care. Right is right and we should kill. We're too politically correct and our leaders are pulseless.
If, as you say, drunks have gotten away with driving 80 times before getting caught, the I'm In the punishment should be 80 times harder. I'm against the death penalty based on the possibly innocent factor, but the roads must be kept safe for everyone at all hours.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
but how bout using that money to build public transportation services, like in my city, the busses only service the ghetto and go as far as the Burlington coat factory, then they wonder why someone would take the risk of driving 30 min outside of town to the burbs instead of paying 10 dollars a second in a taxi who is probally drunker than you are
You know the ones, they tend to advertise a lot and they are complete and utter scum of the earth pieces of garbage with no regard for either justice or fairness, not to mention the rule of law. Their entire business model is to help their clients avoid the consequences of their actions by any possible means as long as they're willing and able to pay enough. That's the only reason I'd ever want to be a judge, just to make those idiots squirm when they realize I can see through their cloud of BS right to their client's obvious guilt...
I think you have too many things elevated from misdemeanor to felony already. It's far too easy to simply say "well, the punisment doesn't seem to work so obviously we must punish more". That has been done too often. It's too convenient,too, for should it happen to not work, why, apply same remedy again!
OTOH, I also think alcohol interlock devices are a fancy fad: They don't seem to work nearly as well as advertised. They appear to be mostly a punitive tax on the driver, payable to some gadget company. Both approaches suffer from the same pattern of non-solution: Pull solution out of ass, apply, repeat until fixed or foreverity, whichever comes first. Actually learning what works and what doesn't? Why, these are all the worst kind of criminals, madam, would't want to soil our good name to even look at them! Even if it's a DUI.
One thing that appears to've worked here is a "deliberately (designated) sober driver" campaign: The message is that either you're sober, or you don't drive, and you work out with your friends beforehand who gets to drink and who gets to drive.
an interlock is a great thing to have, a dui should not be the end of the world, people that drink and drive have done it hundreds of times before they ever got caught what an interlock does is re-train you on how to drive without drinking, "think before you drink" what is to stop someone from driving and possibly getting another dui while on "probation" from the first one, they still have their car keys, you think not having a license in your pocket ever stopped someone from drunk driving? an interlock can. if it becomes a problem with not being able to drive a company vehicle, too fucking bad, you should be lucky you are alive, let alone have a job to go to
People can die, end up in Intensive care or just plain psychotic as a result of a prescription mix-up. Pharmacists are the last line of defense against that happening. When a pharmacist is forced to fill prescriptions on very tight time limits, they stop being a line of defense against such problems and really end up being a potential source of problems on their own. Pharmacists are a profession for a reason -- turning them into pill-counters is a recipe for death and disaster.
OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
Although I have generic sympathy for people being dicked around by an uncaring corporation, we're talking drunk drivers here. According to MADD, each year, Drunk drivers kill just over 10,000 Americans. In other words, Drunk drivers killed more innocent Americans in the last 4 months, than Al Quaida and the Taliban killed in the last decade (yeah, you can throw ISIS into that mix as well).
In all honesty, the biggest problem I have with the way that these companies (this company?) dicks people around is that they don't advertise it as a feature. Part of the reason why these machines are so finicky is that they have to be to keep people from gaming the system. The rest, I'll just put down to karma.
Seriously: You don't want to be dicked around by this system?
You have a death wish, then play russian roulette -- but don't bring innocent women and children into the game. ; You don't care about putting innocent lives at risk? Don't expect me to get all teary-eyed when it's your life that gets messed with -- at least its' not an innocent life being affected.
Sorry to be such a dick about this, but sometimes it takes people being a dick to shock drunk drivers out of their petty little world, and into thinking about the effects of their actions.
OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
Will the interlock be required on all cars the offender owns (but is not the primary driver for)? Timmy is just starting to drive at 16, but since Mom drove drunk, Timmy get the social ostracization of looking like a drunkard in his brand new 16th birthday gift (not a hand-me-down car, but still owned by mommy-dearest).
And what if it's all cars the offender has access to (owned by members of the household)? "Roommate wanted: $300/year, great view of city, 1100 sq ft for your portion of apartment, must be willing to install and use interlock device in car."
I suspect that if I could drink alcohol, I might do so on occasion. However, even small amounts make me feel awful. As a result, I'll never get a DUI (unless it's a false positive or someone spiked my drink, but in the latter case, I probably would be unable to stay awake). Does that make me fortunate or not?
When I was in my 20's and would go bar-hopping with my friends, they'd smoke and drink alcohol. I'd smoke and drink espresso.
For everybody. Why not? Or just install them on all new cars from the factory.
If this is the one you have to blow into to start the car. I've seen a few people use what looks like a 12v hair dryer to trick the device into starting the car.
Force manufacturers to install these kits on ALL cars. Tax liquor produces to cover the costs. Done.
- In Soviet Korea, only old people loose all their bases to Natalie Portman's petrified hot grits overlords.
Drunk driving is a curse to the public. But how many people have considered that a person might be legally sober with a blood alcohol content that would pass the test but they also smoked some pot a few hours before they had the booze. And even if we had a legal standard for measuring the degree of pot in the blood stream we have no facts about combinations of intoxicants and the effects upon drivers. Or how about a person who has worked a very long shift and is sleep deprived with a legal blood alcohol content yet is barely able to speak from the combined effects? You can bet that wealthy people will defend against such charges and tend to win in court while people with less money will be found guilty every time.
BACtrack S80 Pro Breathalyzer Portable Breath Alcohol Tester. -- $120 on Amazon
It's not going to solve the problem for people with terrible judgement, but it can help. I have one I carry in my laptop bag, which I have to have with me just about at all times for work. If I'm at a party and somebody shouldn't be driving I'll offer it up. And really it's hard for them to say no. Really? No? You're "good"? Come on man, it's fun. And it is fun (in a nerdy way). So far it's saved one friend, you know sort has had a little too much, but boy.. had a lot to eat and it's been hours since his last beer, but it's pretty late, but he did just drink a few coffees. one of those situations where you know he shouldn't drive, and he sort of knows, but his wife is going to kill him if he stays over....
So he blew over and that was it. Right there, over the limit. No question, no "I'm OK, it's not far" or "I'm just tired I'll be fine." Nope, we all just saw that, you are over, nobody is letting you leave. This is the smart thing to do.
Anyways sort of a tangent but this thing is money well spent. Hope it helps somebody else.
Modest doubt is called the beacon of the wise - William Shakespeare
I know this is anecdotal and I am replying to borderline flamebait, but the worst case of drunk driving that remotely affected me was when a beautiful young woman I knew from Church who was about to be married was brutally murdered by an illegal, intoxicated Mexican with no driver's license as he drove his car head on into hers while he was driving the wrong way down the highway.
Yes. Murder. Premeditated murder. You get drunk and get behind the wheel and you know the chances of killing someone goes up by a factor of 10. Pre...meditated...murder.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
If you're a drunk driver, good riddance, Alaska does not want you, and if that keeps you out of the state all the better!
People who fly drones irresponsibly create a serious hazard to others, so improper drone operation should be a felony too, right? Or people who use their 3D printer to make weapons, ooh, that can be dangerous too, so lets make them felons as well.
Hell, if making a crime a felony is a deterrant, why not go for broke and make all crimes felonies?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Not a bad idea - over time, the devices would get cheaper, more reliable, and possibly even self-calibrating.
I think it is time we join the rest of the industrialized world and start treating DUI as a felony-level offense. Put some fear of real punishment into the hearts of the people who can't control their drinking and they might be less inclined to try their luck.
Lol, that is so American... Let's just punish more - instead of trying to help :)
:)
Adding to your already over-populated prisons isn't going to do anything.
Instead try with awareness campaigns, interlock devices and/or put people on antabus
If you must punish for no reason go with community service (cheaper and less invasive than prison).
Drunk driving is mostly a crime of stupidity, locking people up won't help them or society... It's much cheaper and effective to use less invasive punishments; ideally something that helps people too: ie. allows them to keep their job and remain contributing members of society.
Btw, no where in the "rest of the industrialized world" employs prison sentencing like the US. You're better at locking people up than Stalin; maybe you should rethink your approach.
Yeah, no.
He didn't take alcohol with it, he blew a 0.00 at the station. He was convicted for the presence of the Lunesta in his bloodstream.
The point is, there are multiple cases of people taking these sleep aids, then their next conscious thought is being in a police lock-up, and hearing that all kinds of mayhem occurred, with no knowledge on their own of any of it.
I have a friend that experienced a similar story personally. I would not take one of these medicines for any reason, voluntarily.
Interlocks? This is too funny!
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
If it were up to me, everyone that turns 21 and starts going to the bars should voluntarily install an interlock device for a year. Give them a year to know what it's like to be stuck somewhere because they can't blow into the device to start car. Teach the young ones how to NOT get a DUI in the first place.
Mark
You're REALLY stretching here.
Firstly, "sometimes" means what it says. Second, when you rent a car you sign a legally binding agreement stating that you will do and not do certain things with it. You would be violating the agreement. That's presumably how they (sometimes) avoid losing ownership of the vehicle, genius. Not because they are some kind of "above the law rich corporations."
If your friend Bob has you sign such an agreement there might even be a grounds to make an exception for him as well, however, it would likely need to involve a lawyer and/or a notary, not to prove that Bob is rich and powerful, but simply to make sure it really is legally binding. You can't just say "I won't drive it drunk, honest" to Bob verbally and have him not lose the car when you do. Otherwise, all the "Bob's" would just say that happened, and the dunk would likely even go along with it and corroborate the statement. That's simply insufficient.
Captcha: "rectums" (not even joking).
This is normal here in Australia.
We lost our rights to pretty much anything years ago.
And Sen. Jerry Hill receives financial support from which device manufacturer?
The statistics speak out your ass. I won't even bother pointing out the extreme stupidity of that argument in detail, but your "conclusion" is so made-up that it's not even worth responding to. Unfortunately, it seems a couple of morons apparently modded it up, without even the requisite Troll or Funny, so I reply only for their benefit and this will be my only reply. Ignore it, or say what you will, I don't care and won't waste my time reading it anyway. Looking at diverse statistics and supporting data, considering the actually-relevant factors, and then making VALID conclusions is quite obviously a skill you do not possess.
I read here that the performance of this device is similar as breath analyzer! Also there are repeated offenders who are convicted for the same purpose! Other than penalizing the driver, Alternate way should be found...
Because where i live if you are drunk and decide to sleep it out in your car you still could get some trouble
"Yeah but you still sat in the front seat how can we know..."
A breathlyzer has has been part of the process to drive when you get your license back in Michigan for years. It is installed on a car only you can drive. The ignition is disabled until you pass the test. You have to pay to have it installed. If it FUBARS you have to tow it to a authorized repair shop. Of course you have to get a lawyer to get you the far, more than once. When you finally get a unresricterd license you have to pay to have it removed. No you cannot elect to keep it.
Drunk Drivers are a big problem but it's a bigger problem that we have people who are Distracted by X where X is Cell Phone calls, Texting, kids in the car or something else or people driving impaired by lack of rest. I don't see how this legislation will solve those problems which are more prevalent and just as deadly.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
eom
"So he blew over and that was it. Right there, over the limit. No question, no "I'm OK, it's not far" or "I'm just tired I'll be fine." Nope, we all just saw that, you are over, nobody is letting you leave. This is the smart thing to do."
Wrong. You can be charged with a DUI blowing 0.00. The cop can claim you're under the influence, and you're fucked.
The sheer vehemence and holier-than-thou attitudes displayed here shouldn't surprise me, but they do.
I have two DUIs in the great state of Colorado. Yes, totally my bad. I'll own it. After my 2nd one in 5 years, I spent 10 days in jail, and was told by my wife to quit drinking altogether or face a divorce. I rather love her, so ... no more drinking for me.
My first DUI, I got tagged for 95mph in a 75mph, and blew .014. Yep, pretty drunk. Except I was a high-functioning alcoholic, and you'd never know it by talking to me that I was "that drunk". License suspended for 9 months in Colorado; however, I lived in Texas at the time, so I just didn't drive in Colorado for that time. $800 fine, $5K in lawyer's fees, a year's probation, and 40 hours community service. 12 hours of education/therapy.
Honestly, it was a PITA, but a joke. No real impact. I grew up in the country, where drinking and driving was laughed at; we West Texas boys just did that, and didn't worry about it much.
Moved to Colorado; was hanging with a buddy. I was smashed, and don't even remember the drive home. Cops knocked on the door, wife answers, has me come to the door. Some Good Citizen called in since I was weaving erratically, and I was arrested and taken to the jail.
Released the next morning to my wife, and then another $10K in fines, 10 long and not fun days in jail, burning vacation time on it, and a 2 year mandatory interlock. Yep, it's a pain in the ass. It's slow as hell and inconvenient. But I'll own it - I fucked up. I shouldn't have driven.
But - I didn't kill anyone, thank God. You can say I should be dead, too bad I didn't die, whatever - go fuck yourself. Point is, I drank and drove probably HUNDREDS of times, knowing that realistically, odds were on my side. I rolled the dice and lost. And Colorado does NOT fuck around with DUI.
So - other my drinking problem, I have no other legal issues. I'm a well paid IT analyst, a good husband, a good friend, a good son. I provide for my family, and contribute to my community. Should I be in prison? That's what some of you are advocating. I get it - 3rd strike, you're fucked.
Here's the thing .... we have a VERY accepting attitude towards drinking and driving in this country, and a dearth of public transportation outside the major (think East Coast/West Coast) population centers.
Yes, a hotel room would have been cheaper than my DUI. YES, a cab would have been cheaper. Thing is, when you're hammered, that shit doesn't enter in. You holier-than-thous may not realize it, but many of us have been there. You just figure, "ah, fuck, I'm good; I've only had a few, it's 10 minutes home."
And 99% of the time, you're right.
I'm not advocating or supporting drunk driving. I'll never do it again, because A.) I fucked up, B.) I quit drinking, and C.) prison scares the fuck out of me. Jail sucked bad enough.
Maybe harsh first time penalties need to exist. But if you're seriously advocating ruining the rest of somebody's life over a fuckup ... you should have your head examined. I hope you NEVER make a mistake you regret. I was lucky, and I served my time and will pay my penalties, and not bitch about it (much).
Be fair, and you might get somewhere. Emotion and knee-jerk won't get it done.
No, it trains everone to drive without thinking.
Like sobriety will let you avoid all accidents.
Silly kids. All of you.
Hi, first time poster and after reading through all these comments I think it's important to share my story. I'm well aware of the flak I'll receive with this post, but I think most people don't know what actually happens to people who get DUI's.
3 years ago I spoke at a conference in a city about 8 hours away. Most people in my department flew, but I didn't have the funds so I drove. I parked my car where I thought it would be safe to leave overnight. After my talk people were buying me drinks and congratulating on how well I did. One of my colleagues mentioned that I needed to move my car to the next block as they were snow plowing that night at the block I was parked on and it would be towed (you can see where this is going). Just as I was about to pull into a spot I was pulled over for canceling my turn signal while looking for a parking spot. I was completely honest with the cop and told him I had been drinking. Here's a tip for any morons who want to drink and drive, when you step out of the car after being pulled over everything that you have on you at that time is all you will have access to for possibly the next week or forever. I was arrested and when I asked if I could grab my wallet the cop told me no. Here I am stranded in an unfamiliar city in winter with only a pair of pants, running shoes, t shirt and my ID, nothing else.
Now starts the fun part of the DUI experience. In order to get access to your car you have to wait 3 days and pay the towing company 200$ for an access fee. They send a request to the court who then approves the request. This can take up to several weeks. Now with access to my bank I was able to hire a lawyer, file the paperwork with the city to get my car out of impound and pay the 500$ impound fee (luckily I didn't lose my car, however my laptop battery froze and burst).
For the next stage of my DUI journey to continue to court, there's all sorts of side trips you have to take along the way. The first trip you take is a 250$ meeting with a substance abuse evaluator (The place I was assigned to reminded me of those crisis pregnancy centers that do nothing to help women). You're interviewed about how you're arrested and take a "survey" about how you feel in life and what substances you use. This "survey" is actually a scantron (you can see several examples if you search alcohol assesment dui) filled with things like "do you like yourself?" and "Does it take more alcohol to get you drunk than it did when you first drank alcohol?" Like any of these kinds of surveys I just put all fives or ones (and I was interested to see the results). After the machine printed out the results (which I was not allowed to see at the time), I chatted a bit more with the director who admitted that he himself has gotten two DUI's. I was one of the lucky ones, he admitted that I just did something stupid and didn't need to belong in his 20,000$ rehab program. A couple weeks later I requested the results from my "survey". The results were quite enlightening, in summary the survey said I was lying. For many people this trip actually becomes a separate (and very expensive) journey, but these folks typically use this in court to lessen their sentences.
Another side trip I took was to the mandatory MADD meeting at church. Once a month, everyone who's been arrested for DUI during that time frame meets up (another tip for future DUI'ers, you want to sit in the front of the class on this one). The opening starts with a prayer (I'm atheist) and you hear stories about people who've been killed by drunk drivers in your local town from the families of victims of drunk driving (and people who've been maimed by drunk drivers). They can tell their story however they want and it was actually good to hear about some that I missed in the news. Some also instruct you to pray for their deceased loved ones and even as an atheist I had no choice but to comply or give the impression that I didn't feel for these people's losses. A father passed around his daughters ashes and instructed us all to look at what
Move to the 3rd world. Totalitarianism is entirely absent. Corruption is rife. Take your pick :)
And seriously, civil disobedience is called for in your case. You're a drunken driver - you might as well prove it somehow. Hell, you may as well be black.
No dude, beauty and church are irrelevant, although nicely (in the old sense) emotive.
'Illegal', 'Mexican' are obviously how you deliberately don't see yourself, which, according to many preachings, is precisely how you see yourself.
Now to the heart of it. Driving the wrong way down a highway is suicidal. Failure to recognise a vehicle driving the wrong way down a highway towards you is suicidal.
Alcohol? Sure, it helps some people do stupid things.
Murder? Hardly. I have driven a motorbike for close on 30 years now, and I could accuse most of society of murderous intent, by the same standards.