When cars say you're too drunk to drive...

[Merkuri]

From Slashdot: slashdot.org/articles/04/02/19/1341235.shtml

"Monday the New Mexico House of Representatives passed a bill that would require every car sold in the state to have an ignition interlock. This device is essentially a breath analyzer that prevents the car from being started if the driver is drunk. The bill would require that every new car sold be equipped with an ignition interlock by 2008 and every used car by 2009. Ignition interlocks require a breath test, which takes 30 seconds to complete, to start the car as well as random 'rolling retests' to discourage others from taking the test for you. These rolling retests require the driver to take the test as the car is moving. If the driver fails a retest, the horn sounds and the lights flash until the car is turned off. The bill's lead proponent is Dem. Ken Martinez who believes the bill is a quick fix for New Mexico's drunk driving problems. Opponents of the bill argue that it penalizes car dealerships and law abiding citizens who have never driven drunk. The bill makes no mention of who will have to pay for the device, but it will most likely be auto dealers and citizens who have to sell their cars. "

[Hussar]

I'm really divided over this. I can see the reasons for it, but, somewhere, this HAS to be breaking an Ammendment or two. I can't see this holding up in court, and it will go to court the day after it's passed.

[Merkuri]

I can think of plenty of reasons, mostly emergencies, that I might want to start my car in less than 30 seconds, which is how long it takes to do one of these mandatory breathalizer tests, apparently. And having to do them while you're driving?? Americans multitask in the car enough, I could see this causing an accident or two, especially if you don't perform the test in time and your horn starts beeping and your lights start flashing for no apparent reason. That's distracting for other people on the road, not just you.

I think this invention is a great idea... but as a punishment. Somebody like me, who doesn't even drink at all, shouldn't be forced to have such a device in my car. I've never driven drunk in my life and there's not much chance that I'm ever going to, so why should I have to take a breathalizer test each and every time I want to start my car?

[ShonenSenshiDave]

Here in PA we require ignition interlocks, but only on folks convicted of DUI. Even that was a fiasco, because there were issues raised about the price (they are quite expensive), what happens to someone who doesn't own a car, a self-employed person or head of household who owns a number of them, etc.

It took a couple of years, but our legislature managed to iron it all out.

As for the assertion that this will deal with the DUI problem, that's BS. It simply means that they catch more folks who are DUI, spend more $$$ on enforcement, and put more folks in already overcrowded jails. If he's going to suggest that this will be more effective in the "war on DUI", I hope that NM has a solid pre-trial diversion program to avoid their system getting clogged up with low BAC DUIs!

[Merkuri]

The ignition interlock won't help catch drunk drivers, SSD, it will prevent them from driving. If you fail the breathalizer test, the II will prevent the car from being started, not alert the police. Some people don't realize they are over the legal BAC limit, and a device like this will make them stop and find another way to get home. They may just hop in another car and start driving, but I bet the majority of people will just bum a ride home with somebody else or hail a cab.

I think this can help, at least a little... but that putting it in every car is expensive and a hassle for those of us who do not drive drunk.

[EK - Shadow of Death]

ShonenSenshiDave said:

Here in PA we require ignition interlocks, but only on folks convicted of DUI. Even that was a fiasco, because there were issues raised about the price (they are quite expensive), what happens to someone who doesn't own a car, a self-employed person or head of household who owns a number of them, etc.

It took a couple of years, but our legislature managed to iron it all out.

As for the assertion that this will deal with the DUI problem, that's BS. It simply means that they catch more folks who are DUI, spend more $$$ on enforcement, and put more folks in already overcrowded jails. If he's going to suggest that this will be more effective in the "war on DUI", I hope that NM has a solid pre-trial diversion program to avoid their system getting clogged up with low BAC DUIs!

Exactly. Our war against DUI is attacking a basic foundation of American culture - booze. It can't be waged with technology, or Americans will relatiate with another major foundation of our culture - revolt. As Hussar mentioned, some lawyer out there will find a loophole and it'll go out of production just as soon as it'll get in. Especially in this instance, sometimes its absolutely necessary to get somewhere by car, even while drunk. What if you're attacked while drunk and have to get to a hospital? This happened to a friend of mine, and he got into a bunch of legal trouble over it.

[Merkuri]

I think some people miss how serious drunk driving is. A car is a weapon. It can injure or kill not only the driver but innocent bystanders. And whenever you drink, even if it's one beer, you are imparing your judgement and reaction times. You might not even feel drunk, but that one beer might mean the difference between swerving enough to miss that bicyclist or hitting him. Letting a drunk keep his car keys is like letting him keep a loaded gun with the safety off. You wouldn't want to go to a shooting range if you thought somebody there might be drunk, so why should you have to drive when somebody in one of those other cars could be drunk? Driving a car drunk (or tired, or high, or while changing the radio station) is like taking a loaded gun and waving it around at people on the sidewalk while being drunk (or tired, or high, or while trying to button your shirt). Your car is a weapon, and if everyone treated them that way we'd see a lot less accidents, I'd bet my life on it.

And if our culture insists that there's nothing wrong with driving drunk, then it's our culture that needs changing, not our laws.

[Hussar]

Now, there's a point. Some of these tests are required to be done while driving. Say I have a car accident while taking the test. You can bet that I'd be in court the next day saying that the test caused the accident.

Also, what about rental vehicles? Are they going to put this on rental cars? Taxies? Never mind big trucks. I just thought of this. If you stick this in a car in NM, 1. you would have to remove it to sell in another state and 2. If someone drives to another state with this installed and it checks his breath, isn't that illegal? I'm not sure, but isn't it illegal to enforce state laws in another state?

They can pass this through legislature all they want. It will never stick.

[Merkuri]

You can bet the car companies in NM will be fighting this with all they've got. Even if the government pays for each and every II installed in a car, you can bet that the majority of people will prefer to just head over the border and buy their car from another state.

[Hussar]

Just had another problem occur to me. What happens when the II doesn't work properly. A breathalyzer does not always work 100%. It can give a false reading.

So, I have too much to drink, get into my car and blow. The II fails and allows me to drive away. Thinking that I am perfectly under the legal limit, I drive home. On the way home I get into an accident. The cops come and administer a breath test and it shows me over the legal limit so I get nailed with DUI. Now, could I not argue that the car allowed me to drive, therefore I thought I was under the limit. I trusted something that was forced on me and it failed. Can't I blame some of that accident on the government?

[Jorghnassen]

To quote a certain profressor of mine they [heavy Beijing accent]"want to kill chicken, use machine gun"[/heavy accent].