Mandatory In Car Breathalyzers

[Zor]

Considering the thousands that that have died either Directly or Indirectly from Drunk Drivers. Would it be right to pass a law requiring the mandatory instillation of In Car-Breathalyzers in all automobiles?

Zor

[Caius]

I have no problem with this. Make it a major fine to not have them in working order as well.

As for the cost, well....

Make them mandatory on all new model cars effective say, Jan 1, 2009 (now it's the manufacturers responsibility).

Make them mandatory on all cars at time of sale Jan 1, 2011.

Make them mandatory, period, on all vechiles, Jan 1, 2013.

Price issues solved.

[Knife]

I say 'maybe' only due to that fact that for quite a long time people who will drive drunk will more than likely not buy a new car with the device. Then will probably take the chance of driving an what? Unregistered and un-breathilizered car rather than have the device.

I'm not against the idea per say, just think it would be rather difficult to implement against the population you want it to effect.

[General Zod]

Why not simply have it mandatory that any driver who's been convicted of a DUI must have one installed in their vehicle or lose their driving privileges, since the likeliness of revoking their licenses permanently for a first offense is effectively impossible due to the court system?

[CaptainZoidberg]

I agree with Zod. It should be installed on anyone's car who has had a drinking related offense.

[Knife]

Why not simply have it mandatory that any driver who's been convicted of a DUI must have one installed in their vehicle or lose their driving privileges, since the likeliness of revoking their licenses permanently for a first offense is effectively impossible due to the court system?

That would certainly be easier, yes.

[Darth Wong]

Why not simply have it mandatory that any driver who's been convicted of a DUI must have one installed in their vehicle or lose their driving privileges, since the likeliness of revoking their licenses permanently for a first offense is effectively impossible due to the court system?

Why not just put them all in Gitmo forever and waterboard them for worthless information? Americans seem fairly content with the idea of doing this to accused terrorists; it should be good enough for convicted drunk drivers. Especially since they kill more Americans every year than Al-Quaeda killed in its entire history.

[Lord of the Abyss]

How prone are the things to false positives ? It wouldn't be fair to force innocent people to have a device on their car that makes it unusable with any regularity. A higher percentage is acceptable for those convicted of DUI; if anything, letting them drive at all is lenient.

[General Zod]

Why not just put them all in Gitmo forever and waterboard them for worthless information? Americans seem fairly content with the idea of doing this to accused terrorists; it should be good enough for convicted drunk drivers. Especially since they kill more Americans every year than Al-Quaeda killed in its entire history.

I'd be happy with the idea if I thought it was remotely feasible. Unfortunately far too many right-wingers seem to enjoy drinking to excess, which pretty much means trying to pass it would be as successful as trying to bring back prohibition.

How prone are the things to false positives ? It wouldn't be fair to force innocent people to have a device on their car that makes it unusable with any regularity. A higher percentage is acceptable for those convicted of DUI; if anything, letting them drive at all is lenient.

Breathalyzers have adjustable sensitivity, so the chances of it picking up someone who just happened to have a swig of mouthwash with alcohol is very slim provided it's calibrated properly.

[Knife]

How prone are the things to false positives ? It wouldn't be fair to force innocent people to have a device on their car that makes it unusable with any regularity. A higher percentage is acceptable for those convicted of DUI; if anything, letting them drive at all is lenient.

I've actually known two people with this device, though I was hardly close to them or anything. If the machine does a false positive, I guess the term should be, then worse case senario is their car doesn't work.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

How can anyone possibly oppose these? They're the most obvious solution to the problem.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Yeah, I'm referring to a simple device which serves as an ignition lock if it detects alcohol on the breath, until it no longer does so. It would certainly be spoofable, but how many people would go out to a car, breath into the breathalyzer, and all for the sole purpose of letting the drunk person who is next to you and obviously drunk go drunk-driving? A few, but they deserve to burn in hell, so make the punishment for doing that very severe. Problem solved.

[General Zod]

How can anyone possibly oppose these? They're the most obvious solution to the problem.

The same way Republicans can oppose bike to work day. They'll take any possible downside they can find and exaggerate the fuck out of it.

[ArmorPierce]

wouldn't it be easy to just have someone else blow into it?

[General Zod]

wouldn't it be easy to just have someone else blow into it?

That's why you don't offer any second chances. If they're caught driving under the influence with one of these machines installed (under my scenario above) their license is revoked for good and they get jail time.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

wouldn't it be easy to just have someone else blow into it?

Blowing into it for someone else would be felony reckless endangerment, as you're endangering the life of the person you have enabled to drive by doing so.

[Adrian Laguna]

I'm reminded of [url-http://www.schlockmercenary.com/d/20020829.html]this comic[/url], specifically the note under it. I'm sure you all would approve, especially when you consider that in this futuristic society flying vehicles are commonplace, as are those capable of relativistic speeds.

[PeZook]

That's why you don't offer any second chances. If they're caught driving under the influence with one of these machines installed (under my scenario above) their license is revoked for good and they get jail time.

Except this doesn't work. Drivers with their licences revoked simply drive without a licence, hoping they will not get caught - of course, you could have the car's ignition system work by checking the licence, too, against a common database of convicted drunk drivers...

I guess i'll vote for "The devil is in the details".

[Solauren]

Making it difficult for people without a liscence to get a car is easy

- Make it illegal to sell or loan a vehicle to someone without a liscence. This would include private sales. And I mean illegal as in fines and jail time. In the case of loaning a vehicle, also make the owner / loaner (as they are not always the same person) legally as responsible for the driver.

Would YOU lend someone you know lost their liscence because of a drunk driving incident (or more), knowing if they get pulled over for anything, you could be facing 5 years in jail and a $10,000 fine?

[Broomstick]

wouldn't it be easy to just have someone else blow into it?

Blowing into it for someone else would be felony reckless endangerment, as you're endangering the life of the person you have enabled to drive by doing so.

Here's what Mr. Drunk would do:

1) Have the usual six-pack for breakfast.
2) Find 8 year old offspring
3) Say "Hey, kiddo - wanna help dad start the car?"
4) Take kid out to car
5) Instruct child to blow into appropriate orifice
6) Start car
7) Drive drunk

You gonna slam the 8 year old in jail for "felony reckless endangerment"? The kid probably has no idead what he did wrong.

Seriously, Marina, you come from an authoritative background - if your father had ordered you to do something like that when you were 7 or 8 would you have obeyed? Or refused and risked a severe beating?

[Broomstick]

Breathalyzers have adjustable sensitivity, so the chances of it picking up someone who just happened to have a swig of mouthwash with alcohol is very slim provided it's calibrated properly.

How about the concept that if you've been caught driving drunk you'll just have to switch to alcohol-free mouthwash, boo-fucking-hoo?

We used to bullshit like that from the opiate addicts at the clinic I used to work at - "Oh, I ate a poppy-seed hot dog bun yesterday!" Hey, fuckhead, if you know too many poppy-seeds can generate a false positive on your drug test why don't you just stop eating poppy-seed buns?

[General Zod]

How about the concept that if you've been caught driving drunk you'll just have to switch to alcohol-free mouthwash, boo-fucking-hoo?

We used to bullshit like that from the opiate addicts at the clinic I used to work at - "Oh, I ate a poppy-seed hot dog bun yesterday!" Hey, fuckhead, if you know too many poppy-seeds can generate a false positive on your drug test why don't you just stop eating poppy-seed buns?

What? It takes a lot more than just mouthwash that happens to have a bit of alcohol in it to set off a breathalyzer unless it's set to a very high sensitivity, so I'm not really sure what you're trying to blast here when I was simply pointing out that false positives would be almost impossible.

[Broomstick]

You just know that someone triggering a positive on a breathalyzer is going to claim "it was my mouthwash". I used to see people do that routinely. Any damn excuse to evade responsibility.

If you fuck up - and driving drunk IS a fuck up - you need to be extra-squeaky-clean for awhile and demonstrate by your behavior that you know it was a fuck up and won't be doing it again.

Mostly, I'm blasting asshats sailing down De Nile river rather than dealing with their problems. Not you personally. Yeah, I feel rather strongly about this stuff.

[General Zod]

You just know that someone triggering a positive on a breathalyzer is going to claim "it was my mouthwash". I used to see people do that routinely. Any damn excuse to evade responsibility.

Which is why it's almost impossible to happen. A properly calibrated breathalyzer isn't going to pick up alcohol beyond a certain amount, which will make it obvious when any fuckwit tries lying about it.

[Broomstick]

Then he'll claim it's not properly calibrated.

Oh, I agree with you - breathalyzers are a pretty good tool - but get some lawyers involved and it will be a mess.

Although I am tempted to take the Marina approach and say simply shoot the fuckers when caught driving drunk, my better side says that isn't the route I want to go down.

I have a problem with putting these on ALL vehicles due to expense and the fact it's one more thing to break. It also implies everyone is guilty and must prove their innocence before driving, which grates on my nerves. My biggest objection, though, is that they can be circumvented with just a little ingenuity or simple intimidation of a sober second party.