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.
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.
...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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
In 2012 there were 30,800 fatal motor vehicle crashes.
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/...
In 2012, 10,322 involved alcohol. (31%)
In 2012 there were 112 million self reported episodes of alcohol-impaired driving.
http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehicl...
The population of the US is 316 million.
I think the statistics speak for themselves, drunk driving does not significantly increase the chance for a fatal accident. We just happen to be a nation of drunks.
---------- Open Source is capitalism applied to IP.
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.
That's why I'm going to get out of the alcohol, pork, and shellfish businesses, and get into the slave trade. It's biblically approved!
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
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.
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
Personally, I think the whole notion of "legally sober" is absurd, and should be abandoned.... it would simplify things tremendously if they just moved to zero-tolerance system, so the issue of trying to judge how impaired one might be wouldn't arise in the first place.
Life becomes a whole lot simpler where if you drink, you don't drive.
Period.
I dunno... maybe it's because I've lost 3 family members to vehicle accidents where alcohol was determined to have been a contributing factor (one of the drivers, the one who killed my niece, and the incident with which I had the greatest level of direct personal involvement, had evidently only had one glass of wine that evening, only further exemplifying the notion that no truly objective standard exists for one to decide if they should be okay to drive or not anyways, so if they moved to a zero tolerance system, nobody should ever be confused on whether it is safe or not for them to drive).
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
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.
Do you know an alcoholic? Rarely are the drunk checkpoints set up in the morning. A "good" alcoholic drives to work drunk. I'd say (based on the alcoholics I know) that 80 times is a under-estimate. If you hide your drinking well (don't go out to bars to drink until they throw you out, then drive home), it's more like 2-times a day for years before you are caught.
Or maybe that's just the rich (the ones that can afford to drink) and mostly functional alcoholics, and is well outside the average. But those are the alcoholics I know. When I was in college, a floormate would go home most weekends. He would drink 12 beers on his drive back Sunday nights. Depending on how pre-loaded he was, he'd crawl up the stairs when he got in, unable to walk. But drove 150 miles. You don't need balance or much of any motor skills left to drive. Never got a DUI in the 5 years I knew him.
Learn to love Alaska
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
Rather than make yourself sound like you simply have nothing better to do than call someone names that you don't agree with, do you want to elaborate on exactly how you think that my points are so invalid as to be devoid of illustrating an ability to reason, as you allege?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I'm against the death penalty based on the possibly innocent factor, but the roads must be kept safe for everyone at all hours.
Then they should be converted to rails, because alcohol is a factor in less than a third of accidents. There's just too many reasons why a car can crash. If your goal is safety, then you should ban the car.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
one of the drivers, the one who killed my niece, and the incident with which I had the greatest level of direct personal involvement, had evidently only had one glass of wine that evening, only further exemplifying the notion that no truly objective standard exists for one to decide if they should be okay to drive or not anyways, so if they moved to a zero tolerance system,
...nobody would ever be allowed to drive, period, because your brain chemistry is variable even without the influence of substances which are acknowledged as drugs. And that does make some sense; if what you want is public safety, then we should eliminate all cars entirely and move to rail-based PRT, which would utterly eliminate most classes of transportation accident.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
They'll learn the bus/train routes and/or get a bicycle pretty quick.
I always find this particular argument horribly ironic on Slashdot, a site just fucking chock-full of commuters. I'll bet a good portion of the portion of the readership of this site which still has a job is driving more than an hour to reach it, and the biggest portion of those people live where there is no public transportation option which covers their entire route, even given a reasonable bicycle ride at the start.
I am all in favor of solving the public transportation problem in this country, but it's one which was deliberately created by the auto companies. We're not about to force them to fix it, and they couldn't afford to if they tried. We're going to have to pay for it.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I'm sorry for your loss. However, the truth is, there is no 'safe' level to drive. The majority of fatal accidents (70%) involve no alcohol at all. 65% of alcohol-related fatal accidents are solo efforts (and 75% of those are due to lack of seat belt use), so of the 30% of fatal accidents involving alcohol (which includes, by the way, either driver, any passengers, or any pedestrians, having non-zero BAC), only 10% involve another vehicle. You are a probabilistic anomaly - there will be many others out there who have lost family members to accidents. Most of them will have to find something other than alcohol to blame.
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...
A sober driver would probably not have been driving as fast on a dirt and gravel road to have caused the car to flip as it came to a corner in the first place. It was determined that even though he had only had claimed to have had one glass of wine that night, a claim which was evidently substantiated by other people in the car, alcohol had still likely affected both his judgement and reaction time sufficiently that there was reason to conclude that it was a factor that contributed to the accident. The other contributing factor to the fatality was that my niece had not been wearing a seatbelt, while everyone else in the car had been. Others were only sore after the car flip, and were able to get out of the wrecked car, while my niece had been thrown right out of the vehicle.
Entirely possible... everyone in the car was very young.. my niece had only just turned 18 at the time, and she and her friends had apparently been out celebrating her recent acceptance into the university she had been intending to attend. I know only that it was never refuted that he had only one glass of wine, but I also know that it was nonetheless concluded to have been a contributing factor.
The driver had to both pay a fine, and received a lifetime suspension of his driver's license (because in my jurisdiction, there *is* a zero tolerance policy on alcohol for drivers with less than 5 years of driving experience).
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The incident with my niece did not involve any other vehicle. He had simply been driving too fast for that road, which was dirt and gravel, and when he tried to negotiate a bend in the road, he flipped the car. My niece, who had not been wearing a seatbelt, was thrown right out of the car. Everyone else in the car was wearing a seatbelt, and was sore afterwards, but otherwise unhurt. Indeed, if the car had not been overcrowded in the first place, and she had been wearing a seatbelt, she would almost certainly have not been killed. So I'll admit that there were laws being broken that had nothing to do with impaired driving here, and contributed heavily to the way things turned out. Even with those extenuating circumstances, however, it was nonetheless determined that alcohol had been a factor in the accident as well, affecting both the driver's judgement and reaction time sufficiently to have caused the accident in the first place.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
My argument is that if they had zero tolerance in the first place, then trying to subjectively decide if one was safe to drive or not would not be an issue. This aspect probably wouldn't have saved my niece's life, since the driver, who was still within his first 5 years of driving experience, was not supposed to have had any alcohol at all before driving in the first place, but it still could save lives in the future.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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
Young man trying to impress? Who knows? We weren't there. Was sex a factor in the incident? There are many studies that show that, all other things being equal, low levels of intoxication (and a single drink certainly qualifies) are associated with reduced risk of accident. There are many studies that show that being a young male driver is associated with significantly enhanced risk of accident, regardless of alcohol. Being a young male driver, with no experience of drink, and an instinct to impress, perhaps was fatal in this case. I don't know. It is a tragedy, as all deaths are, to someone. Being uncaringly blunt, on the other hand, I am not convinced that alcohol was the true 'kicker' in this scenario, and focusing on that will do no one any good.
All I can say, is that, with any death, many lives are ruined or broken. Genuinely sorry for you.
Um yes, but your conception of humanity is different to mine. Young people like to take risks. Why? Because if you don't, then you are unlikely to attract the person you want as a sexual partner. There is no 'supposed to' or 'right' or 'wrong'. Trying to impose draconian rules on youngsters will only result in more atrocious rebellion. Trust me, I have six children, four of which are now in their teenage years. People make mistakes, for all sorts of reasons. And shit happens. There is no truly safe place.
And incidentally, I reckon the guy that crashed the car had been drinking more than one drink. Why is everyone else protecting him? Just because he was the poor sucker in that joyful situation that ended up driving the car.
It may not have been the "kicker"... If the car had not been overcrowded, my niece probably would have had a seatbelt on that would have probably saved her life too (she had been sitting on someone's lap in the front passenger seat)... certainly there were multiple factors at play that contributed to her untimely death. In the end, it was still determined that alcohol contributed to the accident, however.
So I would strongly advocate a zero-tolerance policy on alcohol for all drivers, and then, to at the very least, the matter of ever having to subjectively decide whether or not someone is going to be safe to drive wouldn't be an issue... since that incident only served to enforce in my mind that there is no really "safe" level.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Attempting to control people will only lead to rebellion, particularly with young people. I lost two young friends to a head-on accident. Sober. Young as in 20-odd. 25 years ago. There is no safe level to drive, emotionally, psychologically, whatever. Most fatal accidents are 'caused' by sober drivers. Young folk will do what they need to. It is up to us to keep them as safe as we can. And legislation will not achieve that.
Don't be a pussy. I agreed to stop drinking for my wife, then it turned out some of my kids weren't mine after all. Make you own peace, but don't buckle down unless you have to. Reality, dude. Like you, I am a serial teetotaler, high functioning IT person. Always drove drunk. Always will, unless I think I can get caught. Never crashed. Never hurt anyone. Been driving drunk 28 years now, with sober interludes. So fuck them.
Fact is, from http://www.dunlapandassociates...: regular heavy drinkers (5+ drinks per 'setting') have a significantly lower crash risk than the general population - see table on page 48, discussion on top of page 49, and re-assessment on page 53. Our society is driven by religious bigots.
That's not what those contracts are for. It's basically so that if the renter does something that they agreed not to do in the contract, the rental company has a clear case for going after the renter for it. Like for example they'll forbid you from going offroading, so if you rent an SUV and go offroading in it, they can hold you accountable for the additional wear and tear on the vehicle. Without that kind of clause, they would have a weaker case because you could argue that going offroad would be an expected use of such a vehicle.
My guess is that the real reason they won't confiscate vehicles from rental companies is because rental companies have money and can fight it. They certainly know that the laws that allow them to take property like that without due process are on shaky grounds to begin with, so they aren't going to take a vehicle from someone who might challenge it and cause the law to be overturned.
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.
My point is that if the law had a zero-tolerance policy on alcohol and driving, then at the very least, the matter of people trying to subjectively decide if they have had too much to drink before driving would never come up. It wouldn't stop people from breaking the law intent upon doing so and hoping they can get away with it without incident, but it *WOULD* stop at least some people who may sincerely believe they should be okay to drive after having some number of drinks, only to discover too late that they weren't. And since most people who might have had too much to drink do not generally deliberately get into a car intent upon driving in full awareness that they may not be capable of driving safely, a zero-tolerance policy would, at the very least, leave such people without any excuse for driving in the first place, because regardless of how safe *THEY* might think they are okay to drive, they would still know that the law had a zero tolerance policy, and that should hopefully be enough to dissuade them from engaging in the practice. If it isn't enough for any one person, then it isn't... but at that point, they would be actively intent upon breaking the law, and hoping they will get away with it anyways. Some people might do that, but probably not all.
And while it might seem that people who do not drink irresponsibly before driving (and I don't refute that they exist and even that most people who do drink probably fit into that category) would be unfairly discriminated against by such a law, consider first of all that driving itself is not a right, but a privilege, and that different amounts of alcohol can affect people differently, and a person who has had *ANY* alcohol before driving, even if they were below the legal limit, can still be charged with impaired driving if they were seen to be driving unsafely, or if they were involved in an accident. In accidents where the issue of fault is slightly ambiguous, the issue of alcohol, even if below the legal limit, can tip the scales of determining fault in an accident enough that a person can still be considered legally impaired.
In that context, therefore, I sincerely think that having a zero tolerance policy on alcohol for drivers would still be a good thing.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'