0
Hooknswoop

New Bill Could Force Automakers to Install In-Car Breathalyzers to Prevent Drunk Driving

Recommended Posts

Holy thread drift Batman!

I know a couple of skydivers who installed breathalizers in their cars after they were arrested one too many times for driving drunk. One guy had a variety of drug addictions and alcohol was just one of his demons. The breathalizer was connected to his ignition switch, so he had to blow "clean" before his car would start.

OTOH I think that breathalizers are a waste of money for the other 80 percent of the population.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like mandatory safety items that drive up the cost but I have a hard time disputing this one considering what we put into drunk driving prevention and accident fallout.  But I think we'll have an issue with drivers being OK with sticking their mouth on some tube every time they get into a car.  Gotta imagine there will be a sterile "thing" for rentals, shared cars, etc.  Or is it just an apparatus you blow towards and not into?  Solvable problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
On 10/18/2019 at 10:06 AM, Hooknswoop said:

Derek V

There's a law requiring auto insurance; yet anywhere from 13-20% of motorists have none. I recently came back from a benefit in Texas where a biker ws hit by a lady who lane drifted. He damn near lost his leg; six surgeries and two more. She received a $120.00 fine for failure to maintain - that was it. No arrest. In Texas; it's cheaper to hit a biker than to litter out of your car window. Littering in Texas is a $500.00 fine. 

Bottom Line: all the laws or bills put forth don't mean anything if there's no consequences. Drunk Driving, Insurance, gun laws, etc. IMO, commit a crime with a gun - automatic ten year addition to your sentence without eligibility for parole.      

But, hey. I'm just a racist, misogynistic, Islamophobic, trans-fearing, scumbag Trump supporter - WTF do I know.    

Edited by BIGUN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

There's a law requiring auto insurance; yet anywhere from 13-20% of motorists have none. I recently came back from a benefit in Texas where a biker ws hit by a lady who lane drifted. He damn near lost his leg; six surgeries and two more. She received a $120.00 fine for failure to maintain - that was it. No arrest. In Texas; it's cheaper to hit a biker than to litter out of your car window. Littering in Texas is a $500.00 fine. 

Bottom Line: all the laws or bills put forth don't mean anything if there's no consequences. Drunk Driving, Insurance, gun laws, etc. IMO, commit a crime with a gun - automatic ten year addition to your sentence without eligibility for parole.      

But, hey. I'm just a racist, misogynistic, Islamophobic, trans-fearing, scumbag Trump supporter - WTF do I know.    

Well you know that much :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DJL said:

I don't like mandatory safety items that drive up the cost but I have a hard time disputing this one considering what we put into drunk driving prevention and accident fallout.  But I think we'll have an issue with drivers being OK with sticking their mouth on some tube every time they get into a car.  Gotta imagine there will be a sterile "thing" for rentals, shared cars, etc.  Or is it just an apparatus you blow towards and not into?  Solvable problem.

Blowing toward something would be problematic.  Think of people who work in the service industry: bartenders, waiters, even cooks.  You spill alcohol on yourself all the time, or get it spilled on you.  When I was in the service industry I remember getting pulled over a few times on the way home from work and the smell of alcohol vaporizing off of my clothes was so strong in the car that I had to go through a dog-and-pony-show of a FST to prove I wasn't under the influence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

Blowing toward something would be problematic.  Think of people who work in the service industry: bartenders, waiters, even cooks.  You spill alcohol on yourself all the time, or get it spilled on you.  When I was in the service industry I remember getting pulled over a few times on the way home from work and the smell of alcohol vaporizing off of my clothes was so strong in the car that I had to go through a dog-and-pony-show of a FST to prove I wasn't under the influence. 

I wonder if we're the only country thinking about this.  You'd think some other country would be the butt of the joke first that they can't even allow their citizens behind the wheel without make sure they're not drunk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DJL said:

I wonder if we're the only country thinking about this.  You'd think some other country would be the butt of the joke first that they can't even allow their citizens behind the wheel without make sure they're not drunk.

Well, most other countries take drunk driving a lot more seriously than we do. 

Allowable limits, enforcement, punishment are all more strict in much of the world. 
Even in Canada (which is both pretty lenient on a lot of things and has a pretty strong alcohol culture) treats first time OWI (OUI, DUI, DWI, all the same basic thing) as a felony.

Here in Wisconsin, first offense isn't even a misdemeanor. It's a 'civil forfeiture' (you pay a fine). 

 

We also have as many traffic deaths as gun deaths (total on both) and roughly half of the traffic deaths are alcohol related.

I'm in the same position as Derek. So many people say "Do something, do anything" about guns, yet ignore drunk driving deaths.

And while there are some issues that need to be addressed, it's a fairly simple solution. Not cheap, somewhat of a pain in the ass, but the basic idea is sound. 

Make it so the driver has to blow in a tube to start the car. The mouthpiece is simple enough that rental car companies could offer disposable ones. Keeping the moisture from freezing and blocking the tube in very cold temps is an issue (I know a couple people who have had these installed in their cars to keep their license or get it back sooner). Cost is an issue. But "they" said the same thing about other safety equipment that is now considered normal.

 

Hardcore drunks will find a way around it. Older cars likely won't be required to have them retrofitted, have a sober person blow so the car starts (there are stories that a drunk adult had their kid blow in the tube to start the car - really), rig up an air source at the right pressure & flow. Nothing is fool proof.

But for the casual drinker who may not realize how drunk he/she is, this might be a good idea. Keep in mind the first thing alcohol affects is judgement. Most people have no idea how intoxicated they are. Many will drastically underestimate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

I'm in the same position as Derek. So many people say "Do something, do anything" about guns, yet ignore drunk driving deaths.

We don't though. There are some pretty active campaigns and restrictions around drinking and driving. For instance we have labelled drunk driving such a problem that we do not allow drinking and driving together. Not even allowed to have an open container in your car.

Considering owning a gun isn't the issue, but the shooting of projectiles is, maybe we should not allow guns and ammunition to be together? The only people who object to treating gun control the same as the controls on drunk driving are those in favour of the current gun culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

I can help. November 8, 2016.

See, Rick.  :D

And thank you, Joe, for not only illustrating my point so quickly, and thoroughly, with such an efficient choice of words, but doing so in such a fashion as to broker no argument to the accuracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
On 10/21/2019 at 6:17 PM, SkyDekker said:

maybe we should not allow guns and ammunition to be together?

We cannot transport weapons with ammunition in them.

They must be separate; unless you have a conceal carry.

Well, at least for the next nine days.   

Edited by BIGUN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, BIGUN said:

We cannot transport weapons with ammunition in them.

They must be separate; unless you have a conceal carry.

Well, at least for the next nine days.   

So quite a bit more lacks than drinking and driving laws by the looks of it. (never mind that here continue to be states who have no problem with guns and alcohol together). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/22/2019 at 4:04 AM, swisschris62 said:

While we're at it could we please do something about being able to use a cell phone while driving? Seems like it would be an easy fix.

Looking at a cell phone - while driving - is already banned in several Canadian cities. You are only allowed to talk on hands-free devices. Even with HFDs, not many drivers are bright enough to talk and drive at the same time. Even before it was banned, I refused to pick up my cell phone while driving downtown. I barely had enough brain cells to carry on a conversation while driving on the highway.

Police levy hefty fines and suspend licenses, but people persist at talking on their phones while driving. I bet you that we will see that sin before the fourth traffic light in Vancouver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, riggerrob said:

Looking at a cell phone - while driving - is already banned in several Canadian cities. You are only allowed to talk on hands-free devices. Even with HFDs, not many drivers are bright enough to talk and drive at the same time. Even before it was banned, I refused to pick up my cell phone while driving downtown. I barely had enough brain cells to carry on a conversation while driving on the highway.

Police levy hefty fines and suspend licenses, but people persist at talking on their phones while driving. I bet you that we will see that sin before the fourth traffic light in Vancouver.

Fourth Traffic Light??

In Texas, I believe that it is a state law that phones are illegal to be used without a HFD.

School zones in my area say "No Mobile Device Usage"

But like speeding - it is sometimes ignored.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Er .... by “fourth traffic light” I meant that you only have to drive three or four blocks before seeing a driver talking on a cell phone in Vancouver. We only notice drivers holding cell phones to their ears as they make left turns through busy intersections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, riggerrob said:

Er .... by “fourth traffic light” I meant that you only have to drive three or four blocks before seeing a driver talking on a cell phone in Vancouver. We only notice drivers holding cell phones to their ears as they make left turns through busy intersections.

hahaha  yeah - OK - I can be as dense as everyone here sometimes - just couldn't make the connection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/20/2019 at 4:22 PM, JoeWeber said:

on first blush I'm not a fan. Conceivably, it could put more impaired drivers on the road. For example, my rule is to never drive after even one drink. But, if I had a device to prove me innocent and not guilty at the whim of a junior cops field sobriety test, who knows?

Just because you're under the limit doesn't mean that you're not impaired and can't be charged with an OWI.  You'd likely be found not guilty if you decided to take it to trial, but it'll probably cost you 10-20k. Same thing even if a PBT showed that you were over the limit.  PBTs aren't admissible in court, so as long as there isn't hard video evidence of your impairment or a blood draw to prove absolutely that you were over the limit, a skilled trial lawyer would likely get you off on reasonable doubt.

 

On 10/20/2019 at 4:22 PM, JoeWeber said:

this post makes me think your original post was less solution driven than agenda driven.

But in the other thread awhile back your sole argument for banning ARs was "THINK OF THE CHILDREN," but now when we have a solution that actually would save many more lives, you argue how it's conceivable that it might cause you to abandon your principles and allow you to drink and drive.

The only thing conceivable about that is it's utter nonsense, and only shows how I was right about the glaring inconsistency with "thinking of the children," but only when it suites your agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/24/2019 at 1:51 PM, riggerrob said:

Er .... by “fourth traffic light” I meant that you only have to drive three or four blocks before seeing a driver talking on a cell phone in Vancouver. We only notice drivers holding cell phones to their ears as they make left turns through busy intersections.

hahaha  yeah - OK - I can be as dense as everyone here sometimes - just couldn't make the connection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0