this would be an appropriate place for the O RLY owl, but im too lazy to find it.

11/21/2006 3:05:12 PM

Quote :

"someone could potentially die every time someone gets behind the wheel. Alcohol along with a wide number of other things causes this risk to raise. I dont see the point in removing a persons right to drive after a few beers just as I dont see the point in removing a persons right to drive if they are super sleepy."

Quote :

"we should also hook up a reaction time test for seniors so they will be disallowed operation of their car incase they "lose a step" between liscense renewals. to be honest, I am almost as afraid of senile elderly drivers as I am drunk ones."

Hey! Lots of things that are hard to control make driving unsafe! This means we shouldn't take sensible measures to prevent the easy stuff!

Let's see... so far in this thread, people have compared drunk driving to:

- Speeding 1 mph over the limit
- 100% income tax
- Not wearing your seatbelt

[Edited on November 21, 2006 at 3:23 PM. Reason : .]

11/21/2006 3:20:51 PM

How much do these devices cost?

11/21/2006 3:22:45 PM

Quote :

"it's called a fucking DD, you fucking wait till you are sober, or you exercise some FUCKING SELF CONTROL and don't drink so much."

Yes, you're right. An emergency shoud wait till I sober up...

What I'm saying is, if it is an EMERGENCY and you must make it to a hospital faster than you can wait for an ambulance, why would you having just pounded several beers change that situation?

I've never driven drunk and I never will. But if you can't see that this is stepping towards A Clockwork Orange, then you're kidding yourself.

Why don't we first install them on ALL drivers that get DUIs? Sure, some people may die as a consequence of 1st offender DUIs, but people die more often from habitual speeders than they DUIs.

11/21/2006 3:28:07 PM

Quote :

"people die more often from habitual speeders than they DUIs."

do they really? link?

but even if they do, does that matter? again, theres no reason to not try to stop one problem just because another problem exists.





[Edited on November 21, 2006 at 3:34 PM. Reason : df]

11/21/2006 3:30:41 PM

checking all driver's BAC levels automatically is much more of a step towards a police state than merely imposing a severe sentence on someone who gets busted for drunk driving.

I support draconian punishments for 0.0+ BAC levels but I oppose checking the BAC of non-offenders

11/21/2006 3:32:06 PM

Can anyone enlighten me on the potential costs of this potential implementation?

11/21/2006 3:36:30 PM

Quote :

"What I'm saying is, if it is an EMERGENCY and you must make it to a hospital faster than you can wait for an ambulance, why would you having just pounded several beers change that situation?"

Not that I'm too keen on this idea but can you give me one reasonable situation where you would be in an emergency that can not wait for EMTs where you would also be drunk and the only person able to drive to said hospital?

11/21/2006 3:43:29 PM

Quote :

"Can anyone enlighten me on the potential costs of this potential implementation?"

the supporters like to ignore the fact that this would be astronomically expensive, which would be passed down to.....you guessed it, us as the ultimate consumer.

[Edited on November 21, 2006 at 3:47 PM. Reason : .]

11/21/2006 3:46:57 PM

can you really put a price on a life?

11/21/2006 3:53:25 PM

I have heard that people convicted of whatever applicable DWIs require one of these have to pay for the device, as well as pay a monthly service fee to make sure its working. If you can get out of a speeding ticket sometimes for a radar gun that hasn't been calibrated in a certain period of time, I would imagine a similar loophole would exist for these. Let alone the issue of all the existing vehicles that would need these installed.

11/21/2006 3:55:24 PM

the problem Mcdanger is having is that he is taking narrow examples such as speeding 1 mph over the speed limit and then comparing it to drinking and then driving as a whole.

so does one beer equal one mile over the speed limit? Because it thats the case I think i can get by with about 7 or 8 beers before i start wheelin.

11/21/2006 4:28:42 PM

it's a nice idea in theory, but then again, so is Communism.

11/21/2006 4:45:19 PM

Quote :

"the problem Mcdanger is having is that he is taking narrow examples such as speeding 1 mph over the speed limit and then comparing it to drinking and then driving as a whole. so does one beer equal one mile over the speed limit? Because it thats the case I think i can get by with about 7 or 8 beers before i start wheelin."

Excuse me? What the fuck?

I'm not the person making the ridiculous comparisons here. It's completely sensible to include this equipment on a car. It's not sensible to expect people to never speed minorly, ever.

This is something that's really easy to do something about, but people oppose it for .... some... reason. Liberty, yadda yadda and something else or other. I don't see how this impacts anybody's liberty. It seems like a sensible unobstrusive (unless you're trying to drive drunk) measure.

11/21/2006 5:16:27 PM

The law is just fine the way it is. Most people are fully able to drive if they blow below a .08, some are fully able to drive it they blow above a .08.

Even if these devices do get installed into every car, there will always be away to get around it.
It could be the sober person at the party has people pay them to blow so they drive, hell that would make some people good money. I'm sure however there would also be a punishment for sober people who did blow for a drunk person.

However, wanting a zero tolerance is stupid. What if a married couple is sitting at home, the wife is 9 months pregnant and the husband is drinking a beer while watching the game. She goes into labor and has to get to the hospital. This man is fully capable of driving a car with no problems what so ever, however he gets into the car, blows a .01 and the car won't start. Now they have to call an ambulance because they cannot get ahold of anyone who can drive them to the hospital. A train comes through town the exact moment the ambulance tries to go over the tracks and has to wait. The labor is very quick and the man passes out from the scene. The wife is there alone having to deliver her own baby, and the baby dies from lack of oxygen. All because the man couldn't drive his car because he drank one beer. Zero tolerance is stupid.

Granted that probably won't happen much, but hey it's a possiblity.

Just leave the law alone.

11/21/2006 5:58:47 PM

Quote :

"__Off topic anecdote that I will spin into a topical post__ A friend of mine, who drove drunk because he was a douchebag, got a DUI 6 days before his 21st birthday. Because of that, even though he didn't get through with court until he was nearly 22, they gave him a sensor in his car. Becuase he was under 21 when he received the DUI, they set it at 0.00 for 1 year. That thing was so sensitive it wouldn't have let me drive after a swig of wine at mass, even if I rinsed my mouth. Once he drank with me and some friends until about midnight and then we went to sleep. When he woke up the next morning he still blew a 0.03 and couldn't crank his car to drive to work. We had to call a sober friend to come blow in his car at 7:00 am so it would crank. He worked a 6 hour shift and then got in his car and couldn't crank the fucker because he blew a 0.01. Thus, he had to get someone to blow in his car so he could go home. __end anecdote__ "

That sounds like a case of don't do the crime, if you can't do the time. I don't have sympathy for your friend.

It's completely ridiculous though to put the breath sensors in every car. I don't drink, and I sure as hell am not going to blow in to something just to start my car because a bunch of idiot people don't have any responsibility.

A better solution would be a zero-tolerance policy, or to require first offenders to have one, also with a zero-tolerance policy.

11/21/2006 6:01:46 PM

Quote :

"I support draconian punishments for 0.0+ BAC levels but I oppose checking the BAC of non-offenders"

Because you're nuts?

Quote :

"Agreed. I would say hang the bastards for their first offense, but that won't happen. Five years in prison probably could, though."

Because you've never made a mistake or used bad judgement? Five years is a bit too extreme for someone eating dinner with two or three glasses of wine- gets pulled and blows a .09.

Quote :

"Over fifty percent of DUI charges in North Carolina result in nothing--no programs, no convictions, no nothing. Every year, they say they're going to get stricter and whatnot, but they don't."

BSPK is correct. This is the problem. The current problem lies in loopholes in the legal system allowing people to "get out" of the current punishments. And repeat offenses are met with the same bullshit.

For example, I can drive fast as shit in Miami-Dade County, with no worries. Why? Because I know if I get a ticket, I can just pay a stupid 60 dollar lawyer fee from 1-800-CITATION and its dropped. Its a bullshit system versus foregoing the entire punishment and getting points on my license. Its really ridiculous and its like that in many cities in the US.

I have a huge problem with the fact that I keep hearing about repeat offenders because they go through bullshit programs and get lawyers to weasel out of punishments and repeat offenses are met with little or no punishment. Repeat. And in some cases, someone loses a life. When I see a fatality on the news its almost always some retarded high school kid or its some alcoholic asshole who has a long list of DUI that he managed to get out of.

The maximum current punishment for a first-time DUI is a fair one- if carried out. You lose your license for some time, may be forced to have a breathalizer installed, and you pay a shitload of fees. Any sensible person won't ever do it again. Its a pain in the ass. I've never had a DUI, but I know from other people that its no picnic. I recall a few friends who have gotten a DUI (all of them blew from 0.09 to 0.11) and it deterred other friends from drinking at all before driving. I sure as hell don't want to get arrested because I had that third beer that made me blow a 0.09- even if my motor skills were sufficient. So I don't drink before driving or I only have what I KNOW without a doubt will keep me under the legal limit.

Punishment for repeat offenders needs to be harsher and current punishments need to be carried out without allowing people to weasel out through loopholes. The same 1-800-CITATION in Miami-Dade and other major cities charges a $200-$500 (depending on the BAC) fee and a 100% gaurantee that the DUI will be dropped. Thats insane.

[Edited on November 22, 2006 at 3:42 AM. Reason : :]

11/22/2006 3:38:25 AM

Quote :

" Because you've never made a mistake or used bad judgement? Five years is a bit too extreme for someone eating dinner with two or three glasses of wine- gets pulled and blows a .09."

But he does have a point -- he's just exposing the underlying hypocrisy of existing DUI law.

Basically the DMV handbooks in most states beat into you the idea that DUI is murderous behavior. In effect you are a rogue driver, unable and unaware, about to run down anyone in your path.

Well -- if it's so damned bad, why isn't simply driving drunk treated with due seriousness? The "first offense" doesn't carry such weighty punishment, after all. It's no picnic, as you say, but it's not the gallows either. Mostly the punishment is money and time sans license -- are either of those really exchangeable for the possibility of eminent death and danger on the roadways?

To me, the way DUI is described in the law and the press, it's more like attempted Involuntary Manslaughter. It's not just some moving infraction. You were about to kill someone, yes sir, if only they had been in your uncontrolled path!

But the truth of the matter is -- noone in the legislatures actually believes DUI is as bad as MADD and the interest groups claim it is. They just can't come out and say that. So instead, they neuter the laws and then propagandize about the evils of DUI through DMV handbooks, classroom seminars, etc. etc.

It's like abortion -- as long as it's a problem, the politicians have something to crack down on. It's a never-ending crusade, a carrot with an ever-enlongating stick.

DUI is indeed unacceptable individual behavior. But society needs to learn that if we're going to allow inebriating, potent drugs like alcohol, it's going to happen. It is the social cost of alcohol -- unless, of course, we have the stomach to literally throw the book at each and every DUI offender.

So, personally, I think putting the breathalyzer in cars is nonsense. It's self-contradictory policy.

If DUI is really as bad as we think it is, then why are we willing to inconvienence everyone rather than treating the crime for what it is? And if DUI isn't as bad as we think it is, why install breathalyzers? After all, we've already settled on the idea that license revocation and fines are enough.

Being in the technology industry, I've definitely learned this much -- technology enhances life only when the underlying problems it solves are well-understood and coherently thought out. This is no such case.

11/22/2006 4:22:07 AM