Should Interlock/Breathalyzers Be Mandatory

[UglyGreed]

on new car sales? IMO it would be the biggest weapon to reduce drunk driving.

[Duckhunter935]

1. no

they will be bypassed

[UglyGreed]

2. Sure they could

but we could make stricter punishments for those who do so. Just like seatbelts, it could save many lives.

[AngryAmish]

3. No. I prefer my vehicles not purposely broken.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

4. No.

And even the suggestion reminds me of the South Park episode where Randy Marsh gets irritated with all of the crap he has to go through to fly, and builds a new form of transportation that requires you to use some rather, ah, 'intrusive' controls.

I don't want to have to 'blow' my car every time I want to drive anywhere.

[UglyGreed]

6. Is it really that hard?

It would become just like turn the ignition key.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

9. What about it must be 'hard' before I can't not want to do it?

Heck, for all I know, I might enjoy having some sort of analyzer shoved in my rear, too, but that doesn't mean I want to encourage car companies to come up with one.

Make you a deal, though. Get all guns manufactured with 'smart' technology, so that only the owner can fire them, and I won't fight against 'breathalyzer' cars. I assume you're worried about drunk drivers killing folks, and a quick google shows that drunk drivers kill fewer than half as many people as gun owners each year.

[UglyGreed]

15. I'm all for smart guns

more so than blowing to start your car. The point of my post is that if we really wanted to curb drunk driving we have the means to do so.

[LeftyMom]

11. A friend who has one says it goes off every few minutes while she's driving.

And that she's scared shitless she's going to wreck her car trying to blow into the thing and drive while on the freeway.

Now she's a serial DUI offender which is how she got the thing, so maybe the distraction is a worthwhile tradeoff in her case, but for people who aren't? Not so much.

Not to mention that they cost a fuckton of money.

[UglyGreed]

19. Well that is my

point it comes down to money and DWI is a big cash cow, at least around my parts it is.

[blueamy66]

20. 15 minutes after starting your car

and then every 30 minutes after...

Serves a purpose for offenders, but not for everybody.

[VScott]

42. The Entity/IT

[IMG][/IMG]

[evlbstrd]

5. No.

It presumes guilt. I also hate preemployment drug screening.

[UglyGreed]

7. IMO it just promotes

safety.

[evlbstrd]

12. Then I guess you'd be OK with random warrantless searches.

Cuz safety.

[UglyGreed]

21. Lets stick to the topic

and not muddy the waters.

[evlbstrd]

26. I think they're equivalent.

Having to pass a breathalizer before I drive is essentially a warrentless search.

[UglyGreed]

30. I was not trying to be

rude and completely understand your view. But imo if TPTB really wanted to stop DWI that is weapon they would of used long ago.

[NutmegYankee]

51. That is the topic.

[Niceguy1]

33. employment

Randim drug screens work..as they are more likely to injure themselves or others.

[evlbstrd]

44. It's a presumption of guilt.

A warrantless search.

[meow2u3]

8. Only if a judge orders a CONVICTED drunk driver to have them installed

Other than that, interlock/breathalyzers don't belong in innocent people's cars.

[Logical]

10. Fuck No! Jesus, how about a small drop of blood also to detect pot? n-t

[Iggo]

13. Cute.

[Throd]

14. no they should not.

[hifiguy]

17. Not only no but HELL NO.

That is like sawing off your foot to cure an ingrown toenail.

Way too totalitarian for this cowboy.

[blueamy66]

18. No.

Where do you live?

[UglyGreed]

22. Long Island nt

[Duckhunter935]

28. so you do not even need a car

Do you even have one or is it just for us that require one

[UglyGreed]

29. LOL

I have a car, but if you think Long Island is pedestrian friendly you have missed your mark.

[Duckhunter935]

34. you have good subways?

we do not

[ProdigalJunkMail]

39. Manhattan, yes...

Long Island... not much past Queens and Brooklyn...

sP

[UglyGreed]

40. in the part I live

in we have no subways at all, a scaled down bus system and the long island railroad. Long Island is really geared towards cars. Queens you could live without a car, but any place east of there it's tough.

[UglyGreed]

23. Here are some arrests in my

area, could a interlock system help slow this down, I don't know.

August 19-Suffolk Arrest Report

A look at some recent arrests in the area.


By Ryan Bonner (Patch National Staff)Updated August 19, 2014 at 4:53 pm  0 

August 19-Suffolk Arrest Report


All of the following information was supplied by the Suffolk County Police Department. A criminal charge is only an accusation and does not indicate a conviction.
•Simon Shierant, 41, of West Islip, was arrested in Babylon on Aug. 17 on a charge of first degree criminal contempt.
•48, of Massapequa Park, was arrested in Farmingdale on Aug. 17 on a charge of fifth degree possession of a controlled substance: cocaine.

• 41, of Huntington, was arrested in Babylon on Aug. 17 on a charge of DWI-1st offense.
• 27, of Bay Shore, was arrested in Deer Park on Aug. 16 on a charge of first degree criminal contempt.
•38, of East Meadow, was arrested in East Farmingdale on Aug. 14 on a charge of DWI-1st offense.
• 28, of Dix Hills, was arrested in Huntington Station on Aug. 17 on a charge of DWI-1st offense.
• 34, of Deer Park, was arrested in West Hills on Aug. 16 on a charge of DWI-1st offense.
•, 43 of Huntington, was arrested in Huntington on Aug. 16 on a charge of driving while ability impaired by drugs/alcohol: 1 prior conviction in past 10 years.
•35, of Kings Park, was arrested in East Northport on Aug. 16 on a charge of DWI-1st offense.
• 35, of East Northport, was arrested in Huntington on Aug. 16 on a charge of DWI-1st offense.

•64,, of Oyster Bay, was arrested in Huntington on Aug. 15 on a charge of driving while ability impaired: combined drugs/alcohol.
• 18, of Huntington Station, was arrested in Huntington Station on Aug. 15 on a charge of DWI-1st offense.
•34, of Huntington, was arrested in Huntington on Aug. 11 on a charge of fourth degree grand larceny.
• 45, of Medford, was arrested in Brentwood on Aug. 17 on a charge of aggravated DWI: with child-1st offense.
• 19, of Port Jefferson Station, was arrested in Central Islip on Aug. 12 on a charge of first degree criminal contempt.
• 31, of Hauppauge, was arrested in Central Islip on Aug. 11 on a charge of third degree burglary.
• 39, of Stony Brook, was arrested in Smithtown on Aug. 17 on a charge of DWI-1st offense.
• 18, of Commack, was arrested in Commack on Aug. 17 on a charge of second degree robbery.

•18, of Commack, was arrested in Commack on Aug. 17 on a charge of second degree robbery.
• 37, of Commack, was arrested in Commack on Aug. 15 on a charge of DWI-1st offense.
• 37, of Lindenhurst, was arrested in Hauppauge on Aug 15 on a charge of fourth degree welfare fraud.
•25, of Commack, was arrested in Commack on Aug. 15 on a charge of second degree robbery. Story: Police: Commack Man With Gun Robs Dunkin’ Donuts
•25, of Medford, was arrested in Medford on Aug. 15 on a charge of second degree burglary.
•24, of Smithtown, was arrested in Nesconset on Aug. 14 on a charge of DWI-1st offense.
•36, of Lake Grove, was arrested in Lake Grove on Aug. 12 on a charge of first degree criminal contempt.
• undomiciled, was arrested in Patchogue on Aug 17 on two counts of grand larceny and five counts of petty larceny. Story: Police: Homeless Man Broke Into Dozens of Cars
•26, of Mastic Beach, was arrested in Patchogue on Aug. 16 on a charge of DWI-1st offense.
• 21, of East Patchogue, was arrested in Patchogue on Aug. 16 on a charge of DWI-1st offense.
• 21, of Massapequa, was arrested in Sayville on Aug. 15 on a charge of DWI-1st offense.
• 40, of Patchogue, was arrested in Patchogue on Aug. 13 on a charge of DWI-1st offense.
• 45, of West Islip, was arrested in Patchogue on Aug. 12 on a charge of driving while ability impaired: combined drugs/alcohol.
•27, of Mt. Sinai, was arrested in Mt. Sinai on Aug. 16 on a charge of DWI-1st offense.
•21, of Rocky Point, was arrested in Port Jefferson Station on Aug. 16 on a charge of DWI-1st offense.

•27, of Miller Place, was arrested in Miller Place on Aug. 15 on a charge of DWI-1st offense.
•28, of Rocky Point, was arrested in Sound Beach on Aug. 11 on a charge of second degree burglary.

[wandy]

24. Oh bad idea. The thing is supposed to keep the car from moving if your tipsy..........

So...... Tooling down the highway at 70 mph it decides your drunk as a skunk and shuts the car down. No more power steering, no more power brakes and WHAMO instant mashed humans.
Is not GM in a whole peck of trouble because of something like that?

Ya I know but the ignition switch ain't to supposed to slip into off when your driving either.
Just one more thing to go wrong.

[Cleita]

27. It should only prevent the driver from starting the engine or putting it

in gear before actually going on the road. I don't think stopping a car already in motion would be cool either.

[blueamy66]

41. Bad idea, but it doesn't shut down your car.

nt

[Cleita]

25. I agree. As a former bartender I got tired of trying to guess if

a patron was too drunk to drive in order to demand his keys from him. Technology like that would be very welcome.

[UglyGreed]

32. Pretty big burden

placed on bartenders, thanks for the reply.

[Niceguy1]

31. no, they cost $$$

To maintain and the serious dui ers who kill people would bypass it anyways.

[MH1]

35. I'd much prefer an interlock to prevent texting while driving.

I'm sure that's technically feasible and it would be transparent to an innocent driver.

Breathalyzer interlocks should be used for those with a DUI conviction but not the rest of us.

[Mariana]

57. As long as it only prevented the driver from texting

and no one else. Passengers in a car should be able to text as much as they want to.

[IowaGuy]

36. These things are really not that accurate.....

they get a lot of false positives. You can't eat bread or any other yeasty product within a half hour of trying to start your car. Forget about swishin' some mouthwash around in your mouth and jumping into the car and going to work. You'd better count on waiting 45 minutes to an hour before you even try. Low battery voltage will completely screws up their operation. Yeah, that never happens in cold climates. Excess heat can screw up their calibration also. It will cause a lot of problems for people that have no need for them. This is a lot more complex than just requiring safety belts in a car, which was a real cultural shift when that came around as a government requirement.

[4b5f940728b232b034e4]

37. But isn't a few cars that won't start...

worth saving the lives of children? That's what you're proposing. Dead people.

[linuxman]

45. Yep.

He's basically Hitler.

There is no reason to not want one of these in your car, unless you're a raging alcoholic.

[IowaGuy]

46. Oh, wow.....I don't even drink (by choice....not alcoholism).

I have witnessed personally though, the issues people have to deal with that have them. I don't really feel sorry for them, because they put themselves in that place, but I surely wouldn't want to deal with that crap when I've done nothing wrong myself. It's not unusual for these things to f up every few weeks. It then takes hours of your time, even days to get a resolution from the vendor just so you can get going in your car again. Yeah, it's a major inconvenience....an inconvenience that should only be visited on those whose actions and personal choices put themselves in that place.

[IowaGuy]

49. BTW...it's a free country...

you are free to purchase one and install it in your vehicle any time....of course, being the highly moral anti-Hitler you are, you've already done that, right?

[IowaGuy]

48. Yeah right....take a chill pill, dude. (just don't get behind the wheel of a car)

[NutmegYankee]

53. A car that won't start in extreme cold can kill you.

Bad fucking idea. Just bad!

[VScott]

38. Go right ahead

If I had the technical ability and $$$, I'd develope and sell counter measures to defeat it.

Fuck anymore, unnecessary feel good bullshit in our lives... we have more than enough already.

[bettyellen]

50. this is why they should just take away their licences, and jail em when they inevitably do drive.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

43. No. It's presumption of guilt. nt

[U4ikLefty]

47. My goodness...you're so clever!!!

[UglyGreed]

61. Was not trying

to be clever. I just see day after day people saying DWI is a terrible crime and we could at least put a dent in the problem by using these devices. I bet about 90% of the people that have replied have driven over the limit and have not been caught doing so, yet will bash those who have been caught. I know in my in younger days many of my friends and I have.

[NutmegYankee]

62. Even if you managed to get these installed in new cars...

People like myself would just disable them. I'd rewire the ignition and flash the ECM with new software to eliminate the device check. There is no human technology out there that a trained mechanical engineer can't defeat.

[Ron Green]

52. Instead of a breath device, how about a random

number generator that requires a quick and accurate copy response before turning on the ignition? That way, not only a drunk but ANYONE who shouldn't be driving is locked out.

[yeoman6987]

54. Not in a million years...You have zero idea about what these things do and the operation of them.

I don't drink but I would have to blow in a tube every fifteen minutes to keep the car going or it is going to stop dead in the middle of the highway. You clearly forgot the sarc tag on your OP.

[Initech]

55. Absolutely not.

[Maedhros]

56. Step One: Government mandates interlock breathalizyes.

Step Two: Auto industry gouges customers with massively overpriced breathalyzers on every new vehicle.

Step Three: Mandated breathalyzers require regular periodic expensive maintenance.

Step Four: Mandated breathalyzers wear out after a short time, requiring expensive replacement.

Step Five: Clever entrepreneur invents device for bypassing breathalyzer so drunks can buy it on the Internet.

My vote: NO.

[mercuryblues]

58. Should Interlock/Breathalyzers Be Mandatory

before John Boehner votes?

there I fixed the question for you.

[dembotoz]

59. i drive old used cars and the thought of having to put my mouth on something that someone else has

used for 10-15 years before i get it is just toooooooooooooooooooooooooooo damn gross for words

[TexasProgresive]

60. Oh yeah! and something that makes texting while driving impossible.