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."

Comments

How about mandatory felony sentences instead?

[damn_registrars]

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.

Re:How about mandatory felony sentences instead?

[TWX]

I really don't think that'll help, mainly because those that are already intoxicated are already not of sound-mind and are not thinking about penalties. Adding penalties isn't going to solve the problem.

Unfortunately the only thing that I can think of that might make a dent would be to penalize establishments that serve patrons until they're legally drunk (as there are a lot of places with laws that should make establishments cut-off those that are drunk from continuing to be served) but given that drunks continuing to buy more drinks is what keeps the drinking establishments open, I don't think such penalties will ever be enacted.

Remember, it's those 10-20% of consumers of a product that consume it to excess that make the product profitable. Casual drinkers aren't where the profit is, binge or excessive drinkers are.

Re:How about mandatory felony sentences instead?

[beelsebob]

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.

Seriously, a felony conviction means you have a high chance of being fired from your job. Even if you're lucky enough to keep your income, a prison sentence longer than a week means you have a good chance of missing mortgage payments, and potentially losing a house. These punishments should not be taken (or used) lightly.

More so, "fear of real punishment" doesn't work - it's documented not to work. That's why America (despite it's huge prison population) still has a huge offending rate. Because stuffing people in prison isn't a good route to rehabilitation - it's a good route to indoctrination of criminal behaviour.

Re:How about mandatory felony sentences instead?

[beelsebob]

I have a problem with that because by ruining their lives, what we create is a bunch of criminals. That's much worse than a bunch of idiots.

Re: How about mandatory felony sentences instead?

[Anonymous Coward]

We already have laws like that on the books. Bar tenders aren't supposed to serve very intoxicated people, but they are aren't the police. What's your next step punish the drunk's friends for letting him drink and drive. Anything but hold the drunk responsible?! Right?!

Re:How about mandatory felony sentences instead?

[beelsebob]

Why do you think that me not wanting to change idiots into criminals mean that I don't care about the victims of idiots?

Does turning idiots into criminals somehow benefit the victims?

Re:How about mandatory felony sentences instead?

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

Then we need to start arresting people as they leave the McDonald's drive-thru. At least people driving drunk KNOW they're drunk and are just praying to get home without incident; people with hot French Fries aren't paying attention and don't give a fuck what's going on around them. And don't EVEN start with me about high-school-age girls with cell phones...

Re:How about mandatory felony sentences instead?

[EzInKy]

Those who drive impaired demonstrate that they have no regard for the safety of others. Their punishment should include whatever pain it causes them to escape that envelope.

Re:How about mandatory felony sentences instead?

[beelsebob]

Ah, but drunks aren't the only ones who murder innocents. In fact, being human is also a condition that leads to murdering innocents in some cases. Surely then, by your logic, we should lock up every single person, and throw away the key, because we're all potential murderers!

I don't want to ensure the freedom to drive impaired, I just want to make the punishment proportional to the crime.

Murder someone - go away for life.
Drive while drunk - lets just start with something a little less extreme, like, I don't know, how about stopping them from driving while drunk ;)

Re:How about mandatory felony sentences instead?

[beelsebob]

Except that these are the current punishments (up until the third time, where I believe the punishment is rather harsher) in most places. They really don't work very well.

The drink drivers simply ignore the bans.

Personally, I'd be fully in favour of "you're never allowed to drive without taking a breathalyser test for the rest of your life - you clearly can't be trusted to make that decision yourself". I can see your argument that the fees are somewhat government gold digging, but I don't see any reasonable way to do this, and cover the costs of hardware, and checking that it works, without charging the people who commit the crime a fee.

Re:How about mandatory felony sentences instead?

[tlhIngan]

Actually, in a brave experiment, we've actually decriminalized DUIs - because finding DUI requires getting a felony conviction including all the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt rules and all that. It's a complex enough conviction that DUI convictions are low.

Instead, what happens is there's a system of fines which are civil in nature, and beyond the first you get your car impounded instantly for a day, then a week, and a month. And all you have to do is blow 0.05.

Far lower requirements to lock someone up for a day and it apparently has an effect. Getting a criminal conviction takes time and courts, giving people fines and raising their insurance and impounding their cars is more of a bylaw style offense and can be instantly implemented.

DO it enough times and the insurance company mandates interlocks, which for some is a death sentence because their license is marked as having to drive an interlocked vehicle. Which means they are no longer able to drive a company vehicle (because no company wants to pay for an interlock installation), be it a car, truck, bus, whatever.

And we're not talking about cheap fines - $400 is cheap, but impound, towing and other fees bring that up to $1000 or so.

That may be the way to do it - then add get your license suspended enough times and you lose it. Go through Driver's Ed and take the tests all over again. (We have graduated licensing, so that's another year of having to be supervised followed by a couple of years of solo but under heavy restrictions including zero tolerance for impaired driving and only a single passenger, etc).

Getting convictions is hard, cycling through people is a lot easier. And having to get to work without a car gets the message across. And having your insurance rates go up because they're told of the incident to which they can apply their own actuarial tables and jack up your rates. That also means a checkpoint can easily detain 10+ people in one night with little to no paperwork since no formal charges will be laid.

Re:How about mandatory felony sentences instead?

[Trax3001BBS]

How about involuntary DUIer's?

I took the sleeping aid Lunesta (Ambien(eszopiclone)), I remember just about to hit the pillow and "came to" in a police station for DUI. Not only that, but I sideswiped one parked car and destroyed another within 500 feet of my place, with no memory of it.

The report claimed my pants unzipped, belt unbuckled and generally unkeep, hell I was lucky to of been dressed at all. I blew a 0 three times on a breathalyser which takes 45 minutes to recalibrate after each test (I have to take their word for any of that); it was the blood test that took me down, apparently I Ok'd it; a breathalyser is all I'm required by law and I knew that.

I had an ignition interlock installed that I had to blow into before the car would start, it was nothing but problems, from it's aluminum wire interface to the copper of the cars main power line to getting the blow down, I've sat many times trying to get the interlock to accept the "blow".

When I had it removed (a year later) they acted like it was the first time one was ever removed, it took my new drivers license as proof and even then they weren't that sure. As soon as I drove home I checked the splice and sure enough a 28 gauge wire was used to join a 10 gauge wire, and by it's connections I figure this persons first electrical experience.

$100 a month it cost to drive down and have the interlock read. Now they've gone to "ankle bracelets" that monitor a person 24/7 at $100 a week to be read.

I post this in my attempt to warn others of the side effect of "sleep walking" when taking Ambien/Lunesta or the like, If I hadn't driven (and where to?) I might of never known. I'll never take it again and do advise others to avoid them.

Re:How about mandatory felony sentences instead?

[AK Marc]

Driving during that period is a felony.

Except that these are the current punishments (up until the third time, where I believe the punishment is rather harsher) in most places.

I know of no place that treats driving on a drink driving ban any more harshly than every other ban. If you can't name a place that does, then you are making up things to prove your (wrong) opinion factual. Why?

I don't see any reasonable way to do this, and cover the costs of hardware, and checking that it works, without charging the people who commit the crime a fee.

And why do you object to fees for dangerous drivers? You want more of them on the roads?

All you are doing is supporting low punishment for drink driving. Why? Do you drive drunk occasionally?

Re:How about mandatory felony sentences instead?

[mjwx]

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.

Re:How about mandatory felony sentences instead?

[William Baric]

I agree a felony conviction shouldn't be taken lightly, but getting drunk shouldn't be taken lightly either. If you CHOOSE to get drunk, you should suffer the consequences of your action. So for me a felony conviction is appropriate.

Re:How about mandatory felony sentences instead?

[Mr. Freeman]

You eliminated the requirement to prove someone guilty and your conviction rates went up? Well no fucking shit, of course they did. Removing things like "due process" and "rights" *always* results in more people being punished.

Re:How about mandatory felony sentences instead?

[YrWrstNtmr]

but I don't see any reasonable way to do this, and cover the costs of hardware, and checking that it works, without charging the people who commit the crime a fee.

In Virginia, it is exactly that. The offender covers the cost of the equipment, installation, and monthly monitoring.

Re: How about mandatory felony sentences instead?

[flyneye]

I was gonna say, there's laws like that here too. California just catching on? I guess that explains a few things.
I work with an asshole driving with an interlock. They don't work well in anyones case, from reports I've heard over the years.
That means, when they randomly shut the car off in traffic, to check to see if you had a drink, they may not start back up for several minutes...or at all.
Guess no one cares to work the bugs out of these poor tech contraptions, but, that makes it even funnier to point out to the drunk when he complains, that if he weren't out there endangering everyone, he wouldn't have to drive with an interlock and how funny it is that he is just another fucked drunk. If he continues, I just talk about the old Denver sport of lighting drunks on fire in alleys and how no one misses them anyway. That gets them back to their work and out of my face....
They drive drunk endangering ME and MINE and suddenly I'm the insensitive one, LOL!!

Re:How about mandatory felony sentences instead?

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:How about mandatory felony sentences instead?

[kelemvor4]

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.

No, but they help line the politicians pockets. Which, of course, is what being a politician in America is all about. Why would you even question it?

Re:How about mandatory felony sentences instead?

[flyneye]

Like I said to you above, don't ruin their lives, take their lives. That is the safest, cheapest, best solution to this problem.
The mercy could be; if you didn't kill anyone driving drunk, you only get your license pulled for the rest of your life. Tough shit.
Better to have a few would-be drunk drivers who never enjoy the benefit of driving again and adapt to their new poor lifestyle, than to continue with this catch and release cycle with the vain fantasy that recidivism doesn't exist.
Nope, time to make an end and an ACTUAL solution that works for EVERYBODY; this!

Re:How about mandatory felony sentences instead?

[flyneye]

Playing GTA5 only puts the choice before you.
Alcohol shouldn't be illegal either, driving drunk should remove your license to drive forever, and drunk driving that kills should end the drunks life forever as well.
We CAN improve society by eliminating those who kill by drunk .
There is no given, that not being able to drive causes crime. If you choose not to adapt to your new , low station in life and commit a crime, then pay for your crime. If there is an undue burden on the state to process a vast bulk of prisoners, then, ACLU be damned, the road gangs need be started back up to make sure the prisoners have enough funds to eat while in prison, have heat, guards, light and all the expenses that they incur because we LET THEM LIVE preserved ,away from societies murderous hate for them. Yup, forced labor is better than bread and water in an unheated cell.
Road crews, farm crews, scrap crews, there are all kinds of jobs for a prisoner with a shotgun on head and a chain on his ankle. We should do this regardless of the outcome of drunk laws.

Re:How about mandatory felony sentences instead?

[Anonymous Coward]

I really don't think that'll help, mainly because those that are already intoxicated are already not of sound-mind and are not thinking about penalties

Um, people aren't drunk 24/7. All intoxicated individuals were, at one point, sober individuals who were of sound-mind and should have been thinking about the consequences of their actions. That they chose not to consider the consequences of their actions is no reason to let drunks get a free pass to do whatever, as you appear to be implying.

Re:How about mandatory felony sentences instead?

[Richard_at_work]

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.

Re:How about mandatory felony sentences instead?

[CanHasDIY]

For the same reason we don't hold automotible makers and sellers responsible - in short, because blaming people other than the perpetrator for a crime is fucking idiotic fascism.

Re:How about mandatory felony sentences instead?

[CanHasDIY]

Statistically speaking, a douchebag on a cellphone is just as dangerous, if not more so, than a drunk. Methinks you're just excusing the bad behaviours you yourself choose to engage in.

Re:How about mandatory felony sentences instead?

[CanHasDIY]

Even hands-free setups have been proven unsafe, as it's not holding the phone that's dangerous, it's the fact that the driver is paying attention to something other than driving.

The fact that you claim texting and driving is safe at any speed indicates that I was correct in my originally assertion - you're trying to excuse dangerous behaviour because you, personally, choose to engage in it.

Not cool. You nor anyone else is so important to society that you get a pass on dangerous behavior.

Re:How about mandatory felony sentences instead?

[Wrath0fb0b]

Unfortunately the only thing that I can think of that might make a dent would be to penalize establishments that serve patrons until they're legally drunk

Penalizing those of us that walk/cab/transit home from a night out (after leaving the car at home like a responsible human being) is really the best you can think of?

News for Nerds?

[TWX]

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.

Re: News for Nerds?

[DigitAl56K]

Lots of people view common laws restricting freedoms/imposing on your privacy, law enforcement technology and it's operation/flaws to be "news for nerds". A while back, someone finally managed to get the source code for a breathalyzer, for example, and when dissected numerous flaws were found which would call into question many arrests.

I read a horrific post about this on Reddit

[DigitAl56K]

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...

Re:I read a horrific post about this on Reddit

[AK Marc]

I've seen those complaints before. Nearly always they are lies told by people angry at having to use it, not that it failed as they describe. They are testable and provable. If they were that bad, why isn't there YouTube footage of someone causing a failure by eating a slice of pizza? Because they work. Not all the time, and not perfectly, but certainly much better than the haters claim. I suffered through 3 of the Reddit linked videos. Not a single failure was documented. Just people interviewed who talked about things. Zero proof is given that they do what's claimed.

DUI - lose the car

[argee]

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."

Re:Poor tax?

[Bite The Pillow]

Do you really think that a drunk driver actually thinks about killing people? Does someone at a bar say "It may put some schmuck in the grave but pour me another, barkeep"?

And when the news gets a hold of the exclusive interview, does the convicted driver say "Fuck it, I'd do it again"?

Solving a problem is about understanding it, and you don't seem to understand it.

Absolutely not, but driving drunk IS a choice. If you are impaired before you get behind the wheel, don't get behind the wheel.

It's definitely not a choice. Being intoxicated means poor decision making, and frequently decisions are made without registering that there is a choice. It is poor planning. Your argument would read a lot better as "if you fail to plan transportation in advance, then you should hand your keys to someone sober" or something like that. Choosing to proceed despite a plan is the choice, but no one would consciously ask "do I drive drunk?" and answer yes.

Simple, make what cellphone users do when driving as illegal as driving drunk.

Drink driving laws and texting laws do not seem to be solving the problem. Yet you say "simple", as if something proven only slightly effective will help. Hopefully you see the problem here.

I won't quote everything, but the whole thread around post #48682969 is arguing that if you drive while intoxicated, you should be punished more severely than "Wanton Endangerment" in most US states. Even following your own logic, a typical definition may use "indifference to human life" or "extreme indifference". That may be 5 years in jail, not a lifetime. If your username suggests your location, check KRS Â 508.060 and ÂÂ 532.020, 532.060.

That just means the penalties are too low. Perhaps forfeiting 100% of your assests would be the best punishment?

This is vengeance. It does not prevent people from making bad decisions or failing to plan. You are not going to fix the problem or prevent anything this way. You obviously have a personal stake in this in some fashion.

...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.

There's the personal stake. But notice that your last sentence specifies the ones who maim and kill. Right now, there are lots of people who are legally too drunk to drive, but will make it home without incident. A very small percentage will be caught, and a smaller percentage will cause an accident, and it is more likely that they will injure themselves.

If we take the opportunity to try turning a drink driver into a productive member of society who has learned the difficulty of making good decisions while intoxicated, those personal experiences will live on in the stories they tell. "I was in jail for a week so don't take a chance" is a more sobering argument than "You don't seem okay." Having real people with real stories, the "scared straight" school, is the most effective way to get the point across that it could happen to you. Having these real, walking stories willing to personally, and physically, intervene before someone gets behind the wheel sounds like something you would support, and that's just one of a great deal of options you have when you have the chance to catch someone in the act, before they cause problems, and correct the behavior.

You can't totally prevent someone from doing it again, but you can get most of them. And, more importantly, you can't stop someone who has never had any problems with the law from thinking it couldn't happen to them. Would you rather focus on first time offenders or repeat offenders? The answer is of course both. But jacking up the punishment only fixes repeat offenders, which are statistically a smaller part of the

Bzzt, thanks for playing

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Bzzt, thanks for playing

[nbauman]

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

My doctor prescribed Ambien to me. I tried it for a month and it didn't work. Nobody warned me about the "sleep walking" or any of the other exotic side effects.

A friend of mine was taking gabapentin (Neurontin). A co-worker at work started a fight, he fought back, and they both got fired (from their non-union job). It was in the depths of the recession and he couldn't get another job; he wound up in bad shape. I called the FDA to find out if this could be due to the gabapentin, and a doctor looked it up their database and said yes, they had a few reports of gabapentin associated with aggression. I don't think it was in the patient information then, but it (sometimes) is now. The warning isn't prominent http://www.drugs.com/cons/gaba... http://www.fda.gov/downloads/D... and they emphasize the effect in children, not adults.

It's not possible for a patient to be aware of these things in a country where doctors' appointments are 15 minutes or less, they don't get paid for phone advice, and primary care practitioners are prescribing these drugs.

Re:Get your drunk on...

[anagama]

Two things, compared to the cost of a DUI, a cab fare is a total bargain.

Secondly, if cabs are generally perceived as too expensive, then there is a market for some kind of private van service that makes runs from the area with the bars. Load 10 drunks into a passenger van, get their addresses, let a computer pick the most efficient route, and charge each of them half the cab fare. If the usual cab fare was $30, that would be $150 and if you can make the round trip in an hour, and do a couple trips per Fri/Sat. night, it could be a decent sort of mid-low-income job. Better than McDs at least. There are plenty of people for whom $6-800/wk would be a good income.

Anyway, part of the problem with DUI in America, is that (aside from some very few exceptions) there is no other way to get home except by private vehicle. Even towns with busses usually shut those down before the bars let out.

Re:Get your drunk on...

[anagama]

Lame self-reply, but here's an example of a company in San Diego doing a similar thing:

http://thedrunkdriver.com/

Great name, and the rates look fine. Again, way cheaper than a DUI.

Let's put this in perspective, shall we?

[Black Copter Control]

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?

DON'T FUCKING DRINK AND DRIVE!!!

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.

Re:I agree: Kill them in the name of Christ

[drinkypoo]

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!

Simple solution.

[o_ferguson]

Force manufacturers to install these kits on ALL cars. Tax liquor produces to cover the costs. Done.

If you are going to drink buy a real breathalyzer

[djhertz]

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.