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."
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...
So what you're suggesting is get a DUI, and we'll ruin your life. I mean, I hate people drink driving, but ruining their life is not a good way of turning them into a functioning member of society, it's a good way of turning them into an alcoholic criminal.
The thought is that if they knew getting caught would ruin their lives, they might stop. Today, there's no reason to not drive drunk. The expected cost of driving drunk is less than the cost of a cab. So it's rational to drive drunk. So long as the cheapest/easiest option is driving drunk, people will still do it.
And what some people are going to hate is, this approach works in the UK and Australia.
DUI in Australia carries a mandatory license suspension in most cases. The only way you get away with just a fine is if you're just over the limit and it's your first drink driving infraction in 3 years...
The UK is nowhere near as lenient, so much as 0.00001 over and you're off the road for a month or more.
Drink driving incidents have decreased significantly.
We also use Alcohol Interlock Devices here in Oz, but this is only for people who have recorded multiple DUI convictions.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Getting convictions is hard, cycling through people is a lot easier. And having to get to work without a car gets the message across,
This is a side effect of our nation being built around the car. In most U.S. cities, let alone in the suburbs, trying to exist without an automobile is at best isolating and will often lead to loss of opportunity. Potential employers judge you in part by your car, and if you don't have one they may well decide that they can't expect you to get to work reliably.
Since you reasonably need a car to participate in our society, driving should be a right and the focus should be on helping people defeat alcoholism. That, however, would require that someone act like they care about that person, and by and large we don't actually give one fuck about one another. We just don't want people inconveniencing us on our way home from work.
Or, and here's a novel idea, we could restore our public transportation systems to the track they were on when the auto companies destroyed them. Then our society could easily absorb the cost of taking driving privileges away from people, since they could still reasonably function in their daily lives, and the debate over whether it's right to terminate people's driving rights would be a much simpler one because it wouldn't interfere with their human rights.
TL;DR: We intentionally rebuilt our society around the car, you can't just take away people's driving privileges because without treating them as rights our society doesn't work.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Actually in the UK you don't get prosecuted until you are 10% over the legal limit - just slightly over will get you chastised by the police, but they won't do anything. Basically you have to be over enough so that the roadside breath tests can be backed up by the more accurate station breath test 30 minutes later, and then by a blood test if needed an hour after that. So you have to be reasonably over otherwise its potentially a waste of time.