View Poll Results: Should Governments Mandate Interlock devices on all new vehicles sold?
Yes
11
22.45%
No
38
77.55%
Voters: 49. You may not vote on this poll
Should Govt mandate interlock devices on all new vehicles sold?
Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Bklyn. NY
Posts: 1,859
My understanding of this is that the car will simply sense alcohol in the drivers system, nothing to blow into or extra things that need to be done. To all the people saying no, how could or would this possibly effect you in a negative way?
Member
Join Date: May 2015
Location: California
Posts: 2,435
Alphaomega, that's how my ex husband got his DUI. He left a bar and a police officer was waiting for him. Pulled him over as soon as he drove off. He ended up getting a plea bargain which was a wet reckless conviction.
Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Mid-Atlantic USA
Posts: 2,441
I voted no, but only because the current technology is limited and too expensive. New, better and much less cumbersome technology will be coming online soon, and all vehicles may eventually come stock with this technology (without a government mandate).
See the original thread regarding the new technology: http://www.soberrecovery.com/forums/...ver-proof.html
See the original thread regarding the new technology: http://www.soberrecovery.com/forums/...ver-proof.html
Forum Leader
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 10,944
I have known someone who had an interlock device installed on their car. Out of curiosity over what it involved, I watched one of the training videos. Not only do you blow into the device to start the car, but the driver is required to blow into it during any given trip at random intervals programmed into the device. So, if it asks you to blow, you must pull over or wait until you hit a light, and blow into the mouthpiece again. If the driver does not respond within a certain amount of time, a notice is sent to the company who installed the device, and that information is fed to the probation officer.
Why should anyone who has never driven drunk, myself included, have to put up with that just to drive their car? My answer is no.
Why should anyone who has never driven drunk, myself included, have to put up with that just to drive their car? My answer is no.
Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,860
At some point, our society deemed driving a right, rather than a privilege. And most drivers operate their vehicles safely on the road so there's some sense to that.
But there are few rights so nearly universally shared that, when abused, can bring about such heartbreak. It wasn't until the early '80s that DWI charges were anything more than a glorified parking ticket.
The penalties have grown stiffer, but at some point we as a society also had to decide whether we want investments (e.g., government funding of services that cost money, which comes from taxes) in things like what AO mentioned -- checkpoints outside bars -- or keeping the cost of governing us lower. At some point, society chose the latter. We don't have lots of checkpoints on any given night and most cops will tell you they know most drunken drivers aren't apprehended.
For purposes of disclosure, I have to say I drove under the influence ... not apprehended. Only a few times, but I am ashamed of it, that's for sure.
I don't know if installing interlock on all devices is the answer.
Making them mandatory for any first-time offender? Absolutely. And no one who is mandated to use a device should ever be able to drive if they blow bad. It's not just about being to stupid and getting busted. It's about the peril everyone else on the road faces.
I'd be in favor of much tougher laws for any repeat offender. My state just did that, incidentally, but I don't think they go far enough.
Mid-level DWI change in state could put many in handcuffs - StarTribune.com
And don't get me started on those who text or talk on the phone while driving. A whole new layer of those who fail to understand that their right ends where the rights of others -- the right to use the roads safely -- begin.
But there are few rights so nearly universally shared that, when abused, can bring about such heartbreak. It wasn't until the early '80s that DWI charges were anything more than a glorified parking ticket.
The penalties have grown stiffer, but at some point we as a society also had to decide whether we want investments (e.g., government funding of services that cost money, which comes from taxes) in things like what AO mentioned -- checkpoints outside bars -- or keeping the cost of governing us lower. At some point, society chose the latter. We don't have lots of checkpoints on any given night and most cops will tell you they know most drunken drivers aren't apprehended.
For purposes of disclosure, I have to say I drove under the influence ... not apprehended. Only a few times, but I am ashamed of it, that's for sure.
I don't know if installing interlock on all devices is the answer.
Making them mandatory for any first-time offender? Absolutely. And no one who is mandated to use a device should ever be able to drive if they blow bad. It's not just about being to stupid and getting busted. It's about the peril everyone else on the road faces.
I'd be in favor of much tougher laws for any repeat offender. My state just did that, incidentally, but I don't think they go far enough.
Mid-level DWI change in state could put many in handcuffs - StarTribune.com
And don't get me started on those who text or talk on the phone while driving. A whole new layer of those who fail to understand that their right ends where the rights of others -- the right to use the roads safely -- begin.
Member
Join Date: May 2015
Location: rockville
Posts: 126
Absolutely not. I will never support any gov mandate like this. It would begin with the car and continue from there. The Government needs far less power over personal lives vs more as it is.
The post about the cops hanging at a bar reminded me of a joke:
Small town cop made it a practice to stake out the local watering hole at closing time. One Friday night he spots a guy stumbling through the lot. Guy can hardly get the keys in the door. After he gets the car started he proceeds to drive right over the curb and zig zag down the road.
Cop thinks he has a live one and pulls the car over. Asks the driver if they can just save time and skip sobriety test and blow. Driver says sure and he does. Zero point zero?! Cop says "my equipment must be malfunctioning. Can you blow again?". Driver says "Nah, not necessary. I'm designated decoy tonight!"
The post about the cops hanging at a bar reminded me of a joke:
Small town cop made it a practice to stake out the local watering hole at closing time. One Friday night he spots a guy stumbling through the lot. Guy can hardly get the keys in the door. After he gets the car started he proceeds to drive right over the curb and zig zag down the road.
Cop thinks he has a live one and pulls the car over. Asks the driver if they can just save time and skip sobriety test and blow. Driver says sure and he does. Zero point zero?! Cop says "my equipment must be malfunctioning. Can you blow again?". Driver says "Nah, not necessary. I'm designated decoy tonight!"
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 211,444
Originally Posted by alphaomega 
In a similar vein, I have always wondered why cops dont just hang out at bars at closing time ?
It would be revenue central. And would save a lot of lives
It would be revenue central. And would save a lot of lives
D
Member
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Washington, MO
Posts: 2,306
Yes, and while they're at it maybe pass a bill requiring all alcoholic beverages to be fortified with B1. And all polititians to be drug tested. And all child care facilities and nursing homes to have cameras covering every square inch. And mandatory 2 hrs every day that everyone must put away their devices and look folks in the eye when speaking.....geesh,I could go on and on........
Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Ireland
Posts: 25,826
I personally have never even seen one of these devices or know anyone who has had one fitted to their car.
Where I live it seems we're way behind in using this technology, so moving forward the first stage of those loosing their licence and after regaining it having a device fitted would be a good mandatory step as the amount of repeat offenders I know of seems to be high.
As for every car having it? the logistics currently involved would be tough, I'd like to see a start being made on existing offenders, get that right as a first step!!
Where I live it seems we're way behind in using this technology, so moving forward the first stage of those loosing their licence and after regaining it having a device fitted would be a good mandatory step as the amount of repeat offenders I know of seems to be high.
As for every car having it? the logistics currently involved would be tough, I'd like to see a start being made on existing offenders, get that right as a first step!!
Trudgin
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 6,348
I am undecided if I'd be a proponent for mandatory BAC devices or not. I am of the limited government intervention in all things camp, but I ponder this, recognizing my own hypocrisy over the years I drank. What if a party goer leaves a bar one night, gets in there car and is slightly over the limit.
They don't think there really impaired and the affect of the alcohol provides false bravado - I am fine,they believe.
The person ends up killing not only them self but a family of 4 headed on the interstate looking forward to arriving at their vacation destination in few hours.
5 lives lost, countless other live forever painfully altered - Maybe a BAC device could have prevented this? And yea, maybe the intoxicated person should self check with a BAC test kit. But they won't..........
I consider this scenario as I read what is being considered. I don't have the answer by any means. As EndGame posted - just more questions.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recently unveiled new advanced alcohol detection technology that could prevent drunk drivers from operating a vehicle.
At a press conference in Washington this past week, NHTSA Administrator Mark Rosekind presented two prototypes of the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety (aka DADSS), which has been in the works under a partnership with automakers since 2008. One model detects alcohol particles in the driver's breath. It is similar to ignition interlock devices currently used by 25 states for drunk driving offenders, but instead of requiring the driver to blow into a breathalyzer, DADSS takes noninvasive air samples.
The other DADSS model determines blood alcohol content by touch: it shines a light on the driver's finger and uses near-infrared tissue spectroscopy to ascertain how much the person has had to drink. If the driver's blood alcohol content is above 0.08, the car's engine won't start.
https://www.*****.com/tech/s/could-t...133139130.html
They don't think there really impaired and the affect of the alcohol provides false bravado - I am fine,they believe.
The person ends up killing not only them self but a family of 4 headed on the interstate looking forward to arriving at their vacation destination in few hours.
5 lives lost, countless other live forever painfully altered - Maybe a BAC device could have prevented this? And yea, maybe the intoxicated person should self check with a BAC test kit. But they won't..........
I consider this scenario as I read what is being considered. I don't have the answer by any means. As EndGame posted - just more questions.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recently unveiled new advanced alcohol detection technology that could prevent drunk drivers from operating a vehicle.
At a press conference in Washington this past week, NHTSA Administrator Mark Rosekind presented two prototypes of the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety (aka DADSS), which has been in the works under a partnership with automakers since 2008. One model detects alcohol particles in the driver's breath. It is similar to ignition interlock devices currently used by 25 states for drunk driving offenders, but instead of requiring the driver to blow into a breathalyzer, DADSS takes noninvasive air samples.
The other DADSS model determines blood alcohol content by touch: it shines a light on the driver's finger and uses near-infrared tissue spectroscopy to ascertain how much the person has had to drink. If the driver's blood alcohol content is above 0.08, the car's engine won't start.
https://www.*****.com/tech/s/could-t...133139130.html
voices ca**y
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: St. Paul Minnesota
Posts: 4,360
Originally Posted by anattaboy
Yes, and while they're at it maybe pass a bill requiring all alcoholic beverages to be fortified with B1. And all polititians to be drug tested. And all child care facilities and nursing homes to have cameras covering every square inch. And mandatory 2 hrs every day that everyone must put away their devices and look folks in the eye when speaking.....geesh,I could go on and on........
just messing with you Anattaboy.
Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 2,126
Just what we need; more government intervention. Some folks have drive under the influence; they've committed a crime; they're criminals; by law, they must have this device installed in their cars. Soooo, now we should all be treated like criminals................? I think NOT....................NONONONO
(o:
NoelleR
(o:
NoelleR
Its a cold and its a broken hallelujah.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,887
I have to take my shoes off, my freaking SHOES, at the airport because of one guy with a shoe bomb. Today they took away my Bengay because it was more than 3 ounces.
And don't even THINK of getting through airport security with a water bottle.
The U.S. Government has admitted to basically listening to all our telecons for the better part of a decade.
There are cameras on almost every street corner that send us automatic speeding tickets.
I feel like we are constantly inconvenienced in the name of "safety" per our big brother who is watching.
I sincerely believe something like this could truly save some serious lives. Perhaps not as it stands, but something to that end.
And don't even THINK of getting through airport security with a water bottle.
The U.S. Government has admitted to basically listening to all our telecons for the better part of a decade.
There are cameras on almost every street corner that send us automatic speeding tickets.
I feel like we are constantly inconvenienced in the name of "safety" per our big brother who is watching.
I sincerely believe something like this could truly save some serious lives. Perhaps not as it stands, but something to that end.
Currently Active Users Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
