General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDrunk drivers: Congress gets behind breath-test ignition devices
An effort to get more states to require convicted drunk drivers to test their breath for alcohol before they can start their cars is gaining support in Congress.
A House transportation bill unveiled Tuesday would offer additional highway funds to states that require ignition interlock devices for DUI offenders. A similar measure is expected to come before the Senate.
Fifteen states require all convicted drunk drivers, including first-time offenders, to use the devices, according to Mothers Against Drunk Driving, which has promoted use of the devices. The ignition interlock prevents a driver from starting the engine if his or her blood-alcohol content exceeds a preset limit.
In a pilot project that runs through 2016, DUI offenders in Los Angeles County and three other California counties were required to install the devices in their cars beginning in 2010.
full: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2012/01/bill-to-target-drunk-drivers-gains-support-but-other-battles-lay-ahead-over-next-roads-measure-.html
Before you cry out "NANNY STATE!" (even some on the left would do so) realise: we have human lives at stake!
Tunkamerica
(4,444 posts)to central command about the subject's activities. How could that be abused?
In truth, I knew one of the first 100 or so to get the interlock devices on their car in NC in the early 2000's. It was ridiculously dangerous for her because of having to stop the car on deserted stretches of highway (between Raleigh and Western NC), perform a complex routine of on punches and off punches between three separate buttons punctuated with long breaths, and if she failed three times she was stranded wherever she was, safe or not until she could get a tow truck to tow her somewhere where the interlock device could be reset. That didn't even take into account the false positives she had to pay hundreds of dollars for or the fact that vinegar on a subway sandwich or mouthwash would set the thing off.
It seemed a punishment in excess of the crime (in which no one was hurt, no property was damaged, and she was barely 21) that she had to pay for in dollars, safety, and humiliation (not to mention job opportunities) for years and years.
Drunk driving is wrong and I don't do it, but seeing what she had to go through turned me against these devices early on.
Morning Dew
(6,539 posts)these are increasingly giveaways to private contractors.
States shouldn't be in the business of creating private profits for public safety issues. It allows private business to prey on citizens.
If the state is interested enough to enforce its laws and penalize lawbreaking citizens, it should be interested enough to protect those citizens from for-profit vultures.
HopeHoops
(47,675 posts)You'll fail a breath test if you take one shot or gargle with any mouthwash and get in your car. Your BAC will not be above .08 at any time, but unless you flush your mouth with water you'll have enough residue in your mouth to create the vapors that will register above .08. A blood test will show otherwise. It's one thing to be inconvenienced to have to go to the hospital for a blood test to prove you are within range and quite another to have your car say "FUCK YOU!" and refuse to start - like when you just gargled and have to leave for work.
This isn't about DUI offenders. It's the foot in the door for a federal mandate to install it on ALL cars. Somebody's going to make a shitload of money out of this and we'll end up paying the bill in the long run. Besides, it won't be on the market long before someone starts making simple air balloon devices that defeat the system and then Congress will spend all of its time arguing over a bill to ban those and not get anything done. Okay, so that last part might be a good thing.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)system triggered by breath works for anyone except the solitary drunk - otherwise, it's "hey Buddy, go start my car for me - I'm hammered".