Alcohol Detectors in Cars?

[billvon 2,922]

>Everything after the first paragraph of post 65.

OK. To go through those:

>Compared to Europe, the USA drinks considerably less.

Agreed.

>However, we have the second-highest rate of alcohol-related death in the world,
>behind the biggest drinkers (Europe).

I also agree there. However, since most of these deaths are driving related, I have a feeling there's more likely a correlation between the fact that we drive more than any other country on the planet. In other words, if the people in the US drink exactly as much as the people in, say, Japan, and are drunk as often, and are as responsible etc etc you'll still see more people die in the US since we drive with much greater frequency and thus kill ourselves with much greater frequency. The fact that drunk driving deaths regularly outshadows alcohol related deaths from alcohol-related disease here in the US would seem to support that.

[Nataly 38]

Quote

>Everything after the first paragraph of post 65.

OK. To go through those:

>Compared to Europe, the USA drinks considerably less.

Agreed.

>However, we have the second-highest rate of alcohol-related death in the world,
>behind the biggest drinkers (Europe).

I also agree there. However, since most of these deaths are driving related, I have a feeling there's more likely a correlation between the fact that we drive more than any other country on the planet. In other words, if the people in the US drink exactly as much as the people in, say, Japan, and are drunk as often, and are as responsible etc etc you'll still see more people die in the US since we drive with much greater frequency and thus kill ourselves with much greater frequency. The fact that drunk driving deaths regularly outshadows alcohol related deaths from alcohol-related disease here in the US would seem to support that.

I just think it's because American beer is like drinking water... Leaving you tipsy enough to drive but not drunk enough to pass out like Europeans do from drinking real alcohool!!!

Ok, ok... Seriously, though, I am sure I read in Super Freakonomics that walking home drunk is by far *more* dangerous for the drunk person than driving home. The key difference is that he/she isn't putting other people at risk by walking...

Wasn't it Einstein who said "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Well, more of the same law-enforcement doesn't seem to have had a big impact on drinking and driving thusfar; perhaps this initiative would be more effective. I think if they manage to make a reliable device that doesn't significantly increase the hassle-factor, it's a good idea and at the very least, new cars should have the devices installed as standard, and DUI offenders should get it fitted in as well.

"There is no problem so bad you can't make it worse."
- Chris Hadfield
« Sors le martinet et flagelle toi indigne contrôleuse de gestion. »
- my boss

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Wasn't it Einstein who said "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Probably not. But if you drink enough, you won't care.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Well, more of the same law-enforcement doesn't seem to have had a big impact on drinking and driving thusfar;

???

I believe drunk-driving deaths and injuries have decreased significantly as the drunk-driving penalties and prevention measures have increased.

[Snowwhite 0]

Years ago in Illinois there was a law that required DD'ers to have an alcohol detector added to their cars as part of the sentence. You knew all of the DD'ers, because their cars were in the parking lots RUNNING, while they were in the bar drinking.
Some of them would pay neighborhood kids to breathe into the machines to turn the car on. That is those who could AFFORD the addtions to the car. Apparently it ran about $2000.00 per car aftermarket.
So lets see, the First $2500.00 per car is pension payments for retired union car makers, the Second$2000.00 is for a breathalyzer that may be useless if you leave your car running or have a handy neighborhood kid.
Guess I'll keep driving my junk heap while the American Car industry finishes dying it's slow death, and people ask 'why'?

I liked the 'neighborhood bar' suggestion. Walk!

skydiveTaylorville.org
freefallbeth@yahoo.com

[billvon 2,922]

>I just think it's because American beer is like drinking water...

If you're ever out in this neck of the woods we're going out to the Lost Abbey. (It might change your opinion a little!)

>I think if they manage to make a reliable device that doesn't significantly
> increase the hassle-factor, it's a good idea . . .

Well, that's the underlying question. Let's assume that it is perfect - doesn't let the person drive when the danger caused by them driving is much greater than the danger of not driving, is never wrong etc. Is it still a bad thing? I think about 30% of the people here would say "yes" just on principle.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I liked the 'neighborhood bar' suggestion. Walk!

I have a buddy who, in college, decided he had too much to drink. So he decided to walk.

The cop watching the parking lot decided to follow him and ticketed him for public intox.

So he made the right choice, but there are so many ways for locals to collect public revenue, there's no win.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Quote

I liked the 'neighborhood bar' suggestion. Walk!

I have a buddy who, in college, decided he had too much to drink. So he decided to walk.

The cop watching the parking lot decided to follow him and ticketed him for public intox.

So he made the right choice, but there are so many ways for locals to collect public revenue, there's no win.

I'd say a ticket for public intoxication is #WINNING over going to jail (or worse) for drunk driving. So yes, he did make a good choice. An even better choice might have been to not have too much to drink while out in public. (I think there are actual reasons for public intoxication laws, though I can't tell from this anecdote if your buddy's behavior warranted a ticket or not.)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I'd say a ticket for public intoxication is #WINNING over going to jail (or worse) for drunk driving. So yes, he did make a good choice.

I agree - still,

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[VincePetaccio 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I liked the 'neighborhood bar' suggestion. Walk!

I have a buddy who, in college, decided he had too much to drink. So he decided to walk.

The cop watching the parking lot decided to follow him and ticketed him for public intox.

So he made the right choice, but there are so many ways for locals to collect public revenue, there's no win.

I'd say a ticket for public intoxication is #WINNING over going to jail (or worse) for drunk driving. So yes, he did make a good choice. An even better choice might have been to not have too much to drink while out in public. (I think there are actual reasons for public intoxication laws, though I can't tell from this anecdote if your buddy's behavior warranted a ticket or not.)

Maybe, or maybe next time he'll get behind the wheel instead of walking in order to avoid a pub. intox. ticket. We can't say for sure, but certainly what happened applied pressure in the wrong direction.

Come, my friends! 'Tis not too late to seek out a newer world!

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Maybe, or maybe next time he'll get behind the wheel instead of walking in order to avoid a pub. intox. ticket. We can't say for sure, but certainly what happened applied pressure in the wrong direction.

The pressure applied is in the direction of not being drunk in public. This would include drunk driving. (Are you really trying to blame the cop here if rehmwa's buddy ends up driving drunk "because" of this incident?)

[VincePetaccio 0]

Sorry, but ticketing somebody for walking home drunk is not going to stop them from drinking; that's simply wishful thinking.

As far as he is concerned, he made a decision (to walk instead of drive). That decision resulted in a ticket. Who knows how he'll choose next time?

Working is residential living, we used to have a lot of problems with students being injured, robbed, or assaulted while drunk and wandering around the city because they were afraid to come home and "get in trouble" with the RAs or other residence hall staff. We realized that safety is way more important that enforcing policies, so we made a new policy wherein students will be granted immunity to alcohol policies if they approach staff in order to seek help for themselves or friends. The result? A massive decrease in alcohol-related injuries, robberies, and assaults.

My point is, the students didn't stop drinking just because we enforced policies. They just did it in a more dangerous way... knowingly.

Come, my friends! 'Tis not too late to seek out a newer world!

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Sorry, but ticketing somebody for walking home drunk is not going to stop them from drinking; that's simply wishful thinking.

It probably encourages a lot of people to think before getting so wasted next time. For those who continue (or worsen) the behavior anyway, perhaps they do need help.

And here in CA, tickets and arrests will get someone into help a lot quicker than just leaving them alone will.

[SkyDekker 1,418]

Quote

I doubt this. Looking at American tobacco culture, it seems that use has gone down as regulation has increased. I suspect the same would be true with alcohol.

To some degree I understand the rest of your argument. However, I don't think you can compare the two products.

Tobacco is seen as a hazardous substance, even one cigarette.

Alcohol is still promoted as being healthy. One glass of red wine per day is supposed to be good for you.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Quote

I doubt this. Looking at American tobacco culture, it seems that use has gone down as regulation has increased. I suspect the same would be true with alcohol.

To some degree I understand the rest of your argument. However, I don't think you can compare the two products.

Tobacco is seen as a hazardous substance, even one cigarette.

Alcohol is still promoted as being healthy. One glass of red wine per day is supposed to be good for you.

Alcohol may have some health benefits, in moderation. But beyond moderation, it is probably the most dangerous drug in our society (mostly because of its widespread use, compared to the other hard drugs).

I agree that comparing the two is not an exact analogy, but in discussing measures to reduce drug abuse (both of them being drugs), I think it makes sense to look at how tobacco use was curtailed in order to see what might reduce the alcohol problem.

And, just for the record, I'm not necessarily suggesting that we do any of the things that have been mentioned. I tend to be in favor of less laws rather than more. I was just joining the discussion of what could be done if we wanted to reduce drunk driving/alcohol abuse problems. But "more safety" generally seems to equal "less freedom," so, hmm . . .

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Maybe, or maybe next time he'll get behind the wheel instead of walking in order to avoid a pub. intox. ticket. We can't say for sure,

I do. It was over 20 years ago. He met a very nice girl, completely stopped drinking and is a veterinarian.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Nataly 38]

Quote

Quote

Well, more of the same law-enforcement doesn't seem to have had a big impact on drinking and driving thusfar;

???

I believe drunk-driving deaths and injuries have decreased significantly as the drunk-driving penalties and prevention measures have increased.

While I agree that more education and enforcement of penalties has improved the situation, I think there is a limit to how much doing more of the same would lessen the problems... In other words, there is a "peak" in there where doing more of the same thing no longer results in much (if any) improvement. I guess the debatable point is whether we have reached the stage where something else needs to be done in order to get significant results.

"There is no problem so bad you can't make it worse."
- Chris Hadfield
« Sors le martinet et flagelle toi indigne contrôleuse de gestion. »
- my boss

[pirana 0]

Quote

Good idea.

How many times has each of us been driving around and just looking for a nice bar, or a liquor store?

Sometimes a little help is needed. A detector will let us find these establishments easier and more conveniently. And spending money there will help the local establishments.

You could wire it to function with a GPS for that matter


Of course, they'd be worthless in Wisconsin. They'd just point you to various front seats, backseats and trunks of every car. But that's ok - it's easy to find alcohol in WI without any fancy device.

I was going to say that putting an alcohol detector in a vehicle in WI would be like installing a smoke detector in a bonfire - but you beat me to it.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[DaVinci 0]

How about a good idea that is stupid in reality?

The idea is great. The theory is it will stop drunk driving. But in reality it will not and most of us are smart enough to know that.

But it is a good analogy to compare this to "smart" guns.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Looking at American tobacco culture, it seems that use has gone down as regulation has increased.

I think it might have to do with the connection of cancer and smoking.

Right now if you asked people on the street what is the worst thing that smoking will do to you... they will say cancer.

Ask a drinker and they will have a hard time coming up with a single answer, and for many drunk driving is something that happens to "the other guy".

Perception is that smoking can give you cancer, but drinking is not dangerous.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

How about a good idea that is stupid in reality? The idea is great. The theory is it will stop drunk driving. But in reality it will not and most of us are smart enough to know that.

An idea that sounds good but is stupid in reality, is still a stupid idea.

[billvon 2,922]

>The idea is great. The theory is it will stop drunk driving. But in reality it
>will not and most of us are smart enough to know that. But it is a good
>analogy to compare this to "smart" guns.

Agreed, for both cases. It's a great idea that (so far) is unworkable. To use an older example, it's comparable to letting a computer operate the controls of an airplane or the controls of a car. Fifty years ago it was a good idea, but unworkable. Nowadays most new aircraft are fly by wire, and computer operation of automotive braking/acceleration is common.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

An idea that sounds good but is stupid in reality, is still a stupid idea

I agree.

Just like if legislation could prevent criminals from driving drunk, then since we have had laws against drunk driving for years there should be no drunk driving now.... right?

[billvon 2,922]

>Just like if legislation could prevent criminals from driving drunk, then since we have
> had laws against drunk driving for years there should be no drunk driving now.... right?

Do you think drunk driving laws are a stupid idea?

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Agreed, for both cases. It's a great idea that (so far) is unworkable. To use an older example, it's comparable to letting a computer operate the controls of an airplane or the controls of a car. Fifty years ago it was a good idea, but unworkable. Nowadays most new aircraft are fly by wire, and computer operation of automotive braking/acceleration is common.

I agree... Someone on here (I think Kennedy) said that the standard for a rule about firearms should be, "Will this also apply to the police?" If not, then it should not apply to civilians.

Personally, I prefer "military"... But the question is a good one.