Mandatory In Car Breathalyzers

[Kamakazie Sith]

The entire process regarding DUIs need to be changed.

First of all. Make use of the FSTs optional.

The new method is quite simple.

1 - Officer observes driving pattern, or action consistent with intoxicated driving.

2 - Officer makes approach to vehicle and notices other indications such as smell, odd behavior, and impaired body/brain function.

3 - Officer has subject blow into a PBT (Preliminary Breath Tester) if alcohol content is show then the subject is placed under arrest and then made to submit to a chemical test (intoxilyzer, blood, or urine).

4 - If subject fails intoxilyzer then they are placed under arrest and booked into jail. Their vehicle becomes property of the city, county, or state. Mandatory jail time of 3 years, and one year of community service to be paid after release.

After the subject is released from jail they lose their license for a period of 5 years, and if they are caught driving on this suspended license they will face a min 5 years jail time, and 5 years community service.

[Kamakazie Sith]

A separate argument to consider: It would be like an additional tax on vehicle ownership, which is a good thing, as it would discourage people from buying cars in the first place.

In Utah there is already a tax on vehicle ownership. It's called vehicle registration.

[Sea Skimmer]

A separate argument to consider: It would be like an additional tax on vehicle ownership, which is a good thing, as it would discourage people from buying cars in the first place.

Requiring people to spend the money on a driver training program which must actually be passed to drive would be way better means of accomplishing that goal.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

A separate argument to consider: It would be like an additional tax on vehicle ownership, which is a good thing, as it would discourage people from buying cars in the first place.

In Utah there is already a tax on vehicle ownership. It's called vehicle registration.

The sarcasm is utterly unnecessary. This would increase it by a thousand dollars, you see.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

A separate argument to consider: It would be like an additional tax on vehicle ownership, which is a good thing, as it would discourage people from buying cars in the first place.

Requiring people to spend the money on a driver training program which must actually be passed to drive would be way better means of accomplishing that goal.

We could do both, though the combination is liable to disqualify half of the Americans currently on the road. OTOH, doing so might make it safe for us to eliminate speed limits on many stretches of freeways, raise them in other places, and would end a need to ever add more lanes to deal with congestion, while still giving us some of the lowest traffic accident rates in the world.

[Kitsune]

Most breathalyzers require you to blow into them for a certain length of time in order to work. Which I would assume means that a certain amount of pressure is required, making it so that artificial means wouldn't be so effective if not impossible to use. (I'm not aware of the exact mechanics, so if anyone has anything more accurate feel free).

Air tank or powered air pump....have one in my car in case I have a flat.

[Broomstick]

A separate argument to consider: It would be like an additional tax on vehicle ownership, which is a good thing, as it would discourage people from buying cars in the first place.

Requiring people to spend the money on a driver training program which must actually be passed to drive would be way better means of accomplishing that goal.

We could do both, though the combination is liable to disqualify half of the Americans currently on the road. OTOH, doing so might make it safe for us to eliminate speed limits on many stretches of freeways, raise them in other places, and would end a need to ever add more lanes to deal with congestion, while still giving us some of the lowest traffic accident rates in the world.

I'm not sure eliminating speed limits is entirely wise. Roads are often designed with an upper speed in mind, taking into account terrain, the capabilities of typical vehicles, and so forth so they are frequently a good suggestion. In addition, higher speeds mean less efficiency due to increasing air resistance and drag.

I would also propose that, in addition to actual training, testing, and competence being required for licensing, that periodic retesting be required to maintain one's license. Much like for airplane licenses.

This would also require reasonable alternatives to cars, of course, which would mean a major reworking of parts of the US. Since the coming Great Depression Mark II will leave millions unemployed, we could possibly utilize such labor for that purpose.

[Kamakazie Sith]

A separate argument to consider: It would be like an additional tax on vehicle ownership, which is a good thing, as it would discourage people from buying cars in the first place.

In Utah there is already a tax on vehicle ownership. It's called vehicle registration.

The sarcasm is utterly unnecessary. This would increase it by a thousand dollars, you see.

There was no sarcasm. Some states don't really have vehicle registration tax, or if they do it's tiny. Also, I'm against making vehicle ownership out of reach for the common public at least until public transportation is much better than it currently is.

While you might be able to live just fine in major cities in Utah you wouldn't make it very far without your own vehicle.

[Darth Wong]

Roads are often designed with an upper speed in mind, taking into account terrain, the capabilities of typical vehicles, and so forth so they are frequently a good suggestion. In addition, higher speeds mean less efficiency due to increasing air resistance and drag.

Another key issue with speed limits is that they typically take the location of residential driveways into effect, which is a safety issue that a driver using it as a thoroughfare won't give a damn about.

I would also propose that, in addition to actual training, testing, and competence being required for licensing, that periodic retesting be required to maintain one's license. Much like for airplane licenses.

I would love to see people being re-tested. Unfortunately, democracy makes this concept totally infeasible.

[Kitsune]

The simple cost of retesting on an annual basis every driver in a state or province would be prohibitive in all likelihood.

A better idea might be to statistically see if a minority of individuals are responsible for a majority of accidents. Those could then be retested more often.

[Yogi]

I don't think having a Breathalyzer in the car would work, it's too easy to disable or work around, and no matter how many consequences you put in people will be stupid enough to ignore them. You can't threaten drunk drivers with consequences, if they cared about the consequences of their actions they wouldn't drive drunk.

Jail time is really the only solution, that or fit them with a difficult to remove implant that constantly releases Disulfiram over the next 30 years.

[Darth Wong]

I don't think having a Breathalyzer in the car would work, it's too easy to disable or work around, and no matter how many consequences you put in people will be stupid enough to ignore them.

If it's illegal for mechanics to modify the cars, then it means you have to DIY. And while many people assume that almost anyone can DIY, that's really not true. In fact, it's amazing how many people out there are totally clueless about even the most basic elements of automobile maintenance.

[Singular Intellect]

I'd be fully in support of this system, so long as the it works well and doesn't cost too much extra.

[Sea Skimmer]

If it's illegal for mechanics to modify the cars, then it means you have to DIY. And while many people assume that almost anyone can DIY, that's really not true. In fact, it's amazing how many people out there are totally clueless about even the most basic elements of automobile maintenance.

Endless numbers of things are illegal for mechanics to do; you think that stops them? I mean really, even for inspections fraud is rampant, despite the fact that enforcing standards only makes more money. The existence of chop shops which can break apart a thousand stolen cars of years is proof enough of the scale of illegal activity you can engage in when you have your own garage.

Who after all is going to be required to check that the Breathalyzer works? Why your friendly local mechanic at inspection of course, probably the same guy that changed the wiring to start with, assuming you even live in an area even mandates regular inspections.

[Napoleon the Clown]

In Utah there is already a tax on vehicle ownership. It's called vehicle registration.

The sarcasm is utterly unnecessary. This would increase it by a thousand dollars, you see.

There was no sarcasm. Some states don't really have vehicle registration tax, or if they do it's tiny. Also, I'm against making vehicle ownership out of reach for the common public at least until public transportation is much better than it currently is.

While you might be able to live just fine in major cities in Utah you wouldn't make it very far without your own vehicle.

Eh, that really depends on where, exactly, you live. I know an apartment complex that's close enough to Trax and a number of shopping centers that you could go without a car of your own. Bike down to the store when needed, bike down to Trax. But for most of the state, you're quite right. The mass transit sucks ass.

As to the OP: If it can be implemented in an affordable manner it's certainly a good idea. Anything is better than nothing when it comes to reducing the number of drunk drivers on the road. And, as far as mouth wash in concerned, I believe Mythbusters once showed that it will trigger a breathalyzer. But I doubt it would last too horribly long. Just use your mouthwash half an hour before driving and it'd probably be fine.

[Broomstick]

The simple cost of retesting on an annual basis every driver in a state or province would be prohibitive in all likelihood.

I have to be retested every two years to keep my flying privileges. I pay for the airplane and the tester's time out of my own pocket.

Why wouldn't automobile drivers have to pay for their own retesting?

And why yearly testing? I never said that - I would expect such retesting to occur at license renewal, like every 5-10 years.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You know, an easy way to get instant and extensive bus service would be to just commandeer school buses, and operate them on commuter service to major towns/cities/factories in the area in the morning, then go get the kids with a second round of routes for a late-starting school, then bring people home from work, then bring the kids home from school. So you could have the buses running commuter routes from, say, 4 AM to 9:30 AM, and picking up school-children from 9:30 -- 11:00 AM, and then stop for servicing and so on, and then commence operations at 2 PM or so taking people home from work, which operates until 7 PM, and then take kids the home from school from 8 PM to 9 PM-ish. That would accommodate normal work days and have the school day as being from 11 AM -- 8 PM four days a week, so the kids get a three-day weekend. Additional bus service could thus be provided on fridays and weekends.

This would be an acceptable temporary measure, I'd argue, in the upcoming energy crunch, until enough new commuter buses can be built to render it unnecessary, and would provide enough buses for extremely extensive coverage of the entire nation.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Eh, that really depends on where, exactly, you live. I know an apartment complex that's close enough to Trax and a number of shopping centers that you could go without a car of your own. Bike down to the store when needed, bike down to Trax. But for most of the state, you're quite right. The mass transit sucks ass.

True

As to the OP: If it can be implemented in an affordable manner it's certainly a good idea. Anything is better than nothing when it comes to reducing the number of drunk drivers on the road. And, as far as mouth wash in concerned, I believe Mythbusters once showed that it will trigger a breathalyzer. But I doubt it would last too horribly long. Just use your mouthwash half an hour before driving and it'd probably be fine.

Ddi they take Baker into consideration? In other words did they wait 15 minutes prior to giving the test?

[Napoleon the Clown]

Ddi they take Baker into consideration? In other words did they wait 15 minutes prior to giving the test?

I don't remember for sure, but I'm inclined to say "No." The episode was testing ways to beat the breathalyzer, and both Jamie and Adam had consumed alcohol already, but the mouthwash resulted in the reading being much higher than it was for any of the other tested methods. This is all off memory, though.

[SVPD]

Why do people keep saying that Breathalyzers have different sensitivity settings? I've never seen or heard of one that does, and I'm a Senior Operator for the BAC Datamaster, one of three models which gives admissible results in Ohio.

There's no point in different sensitivity settings anyhow. Breathalyzers, even the portable hand-held ones, measure the quanitity of alcohol in the bloodstream, not just its presence. Changing the sensitivity would mean it was giving a reading higher or lower than the actual amount.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Ddi they take Baker into consideration? In other words did they wait 15 minutes prior to giving the test?

I don't remember for sure, but I'm inclined to say "No." The episode was testing ways to beat the breathalyzer, and both Jamie and Adam had consumed alcohol already, but the mouthwash resulted in the reading being much higher than it was for any of the other tested methods. This is all off memory, though.

Then it's a bad test. Before any breathalyzer or intoxilyzer test is given you need to wait 15 minutes so mouth alcohol can dissipate.

[Broomstick]

I think the point might have been to demonstrate WHY you wait 15 minutes.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Ddi they take Baker into consideration? In other words did they wait 15 minutes prior to giving the test?

I don't remember for sure, but I'm inclined to say "No." The episode was testing ways to beat the breathalyzer, and both Jamie and Adam had consumed alcohol already, but the mouthwash resulted in the reading being much higher than it was for any of the other tested methods. This is all off memory, though.

Then it's a bad test. Before any breathalyzer or intoxilyzer test is given you need to wait 15 minutes so mouth alcohol can dissipate.

The point wasn't "Will mouth was set off the breathalyzer?". It was to see if using mouthwash before blowing into it would prevent a positive reading. You know, testing a stupid myth?

[Wyrm]

There's no point in different sensitivity settings anyhow. Breathalyzers, even the portable hand-held ones, measure the quanitity of alcohol in the bloodstream, not just its presence. Changing the sensitivity would mean it was giving a reading higher or lower than the actual amount.

I would guess they mean "drunk/sober threshold".

[Napoleon the Clown]

Why not just go with .08? That's the legal limit in a lot of states.