An Ignition Interlock In Every Car?

ryeguy-nm writes "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. It seems to me that impinging upon the liberty of an entire state is a little bit too extreme. Perhaps tougher penalties and larger fines for people who actually drive drunk would be a better idea."

laws

it seems if they are going to do something like that, they need to get rid of the laws that can get you a DUI for just sitting in a parked car drunk.. there are so many laws that need fixed all over the country.. i think the federal government needs to force counties and states to do a lawbook housecleaning some year. Then just have a 4 page ballot one year and be done with it all.

Re:laws

Most laws (basically anything not having to do with the golden rule) should sunset, but whoever proposed this law is dangerous.

Probably not since laws of this type tend to get pre-empted by federal laws. In any case the bill has not been passed into law, it is currently being considered by the Senate.

This is an election year, so time to grab headlines. Making proposals of this sort is a game the congressmen like to play. You get someone to propose some new law that would cost an industry a large sum of money. Then their lobbyists are forced to cough up plenty of cash in bribes to try and stop it.

Car dealers tend to be significant donors in local politics. The dealers are a group like the taxi-owners, they depend on political favors for their business. Most states have laws that prevent car manufacturers from selling direct to the customer, cutting out the dealer. The dealers also lobby to prevent increases in car purchase taxes as a quick fix for budget shortfalls. This bill probably means that some local dealers failed to pay the necessary protection money this year.

A new variation of this game is you get a bill passed in a state and then the industry is forced to pre-empt the legislation at the federal level, which extracts huge bucks.

Sure both sides play this sort of game. But it has become more blatant since the GOP won control of congress and even more blatant still after DeLay deposed Gingrich.

Re:laws

Or more realistically, legislators will vote for these laws because if they don't, during their re-election campaign or any subsequent campaigns, their opponent will run an ad saying "Senator voted to allow drunk drivers on our streets".

And we're talking about state politics here...I love how you snuck in the GOP in general and DeLay/Gingrich. But since you brought it up (and at the risk of being modded flamebait):

The DNC does exactly the opposite. They just buy votes by promising their constituency they'll give money to them that they took at gunpoint from someone else (welfare, "universal" healthcare, etc).

They vote to take money away from states in the form of taxing that states' citizens then force those states to comply with national regulations in order for that state to get it's money back. Without taking the money from the state to begin with, they would have no constitutional authority to force these things on states. Yes, both sides are guilty here too (No Child Left Behind) but we all know who is worse at it.

This is not extortion?

Re:laws

You're right. Everyone should be exactly equal, regardless of effort put into life. Regardless of who does the work, we should divvy out the spoils equally.

If I choose to never do anything productive, I should still be entitled to the exact same standard of living as you. You should give me your new car every second day of the week. Your house? You should allow me to live there. Your computer? Sorry, I can't afford one, so neither should you be able to. We should both get a cheaper model so that I don't feel inferior to you. Me me me.

See, going to ridiculous extremes works both ways, and is.. well, ridiculous. Any have/have-not disparity always comes down to ME. The haves want what they have, and the have-nots want it also.

Re:laws

You see, I deserve to be richer, smarter, better-looking, safer, better-fed, and healthier than anyone else. Me me me.

If I work harder than you at the above-mentioned things, you're exactly right! I do deserve more.

(BTW, please don't ask how we satisfy our fundamentalist Christian constituency while at the same time enacting laws that go against the most basic tenets of the Judeo-Christian ethic: the Golden Rule and the admonishment to help those less fortunate...we can't figure it out either!)

Stating that people should be responsible for their own needs to the best of their ability is *not* admonishing someone! This country is incredible and almost anyone can and has made a success out of themselves with hard work. How do you think we have *so* many immigrants in this country that come here and open up gas stations, restaurants, etc and are all successful? It's because they work hard and build something with their own two hands. They do it by working 14 hours a day so they don't have to hire help to run their businesses. The fact is that people want to live a good life and not have to work for it. Why do you think so many people who are poor will go and pay so much money on the lottery a month when they could take that same amount of money, drop it in an IRA and actually have something to show for it after a few years? It goes back to that smarter thing you were talking about earlier.

As far as the bitch slap about the fundamentalist Christian mess, you could make the same argument about liberals. Liberals (from my observations) believe anyone with Christian religious beliefs is obviously an ignorant, inbred hick while Muslims are simply misunderstood (I have nothing against Muslims, there just seems to be a double standard). They believe all politicians should denounce any belief in God.

Oh yeah, our (God forbid) fundamentalist Christian beliefs tell us that we should provide for our families and not wait around for someone else to do it for us with money stolen from those who are actually working.

People who are poor have obviously screwed up something in their lives. Don't give me this crap about people's circumstances being different. I don't believe it. I was born in a house in the middle of the North Georgia without electricity. My parents could hardly read. I put myself through college with student loans (available to anyone who didn't wreck their credit at age 18). I didn't have the grades in high school to get into a decent school so I started out at the local community college and eventually brought my grades up to the point that I was accepted (after 4 rejections) to Georgia Tech. I gradated there in 99 with a CS degree. Don't talk to me about poor people. I'm probably more qualified on the subject than most.

It's all about hard work and accountability for one's own actions.

For the life of me, the one thing I can't understand is why liberals continuously complain about government, call it evil and burn it's symbols, yet continue to give that government more power by surrendering more money to it.

Re:laws

Am I the only one that thinks as evil as Drunk Driving is (I nearly lost my sister to a Drunk Driver) we are giving away too many civil liberties over it?

MADD [madd.org] are a bunch of fanatics imho. Why am I required to give evidence against myself if I get pulled over? In my state if you refuse a BAC test you automatically lose your license. The cop can ask you take one even if you haven't touched a glass of booze in months -- and you have no right to refuse.

Enforcement of DWI laws is out of hand too. I've personally been pulled over three different times (two of those times I hadn't been drinking at all -- the third time I had two drinks in a four hour period) on bullshit excuses (loud muffler on my brand new 2003 car with less then 12,000 miles on it) then immediately asked "Have you been drinking?" They shouldn't have the right to even ask that question without some sort of probable cause -- and he had none. I find it hard to believe that he smelled liquor on my breath when I hadn't had a drink in two weeks!

The third time I was actually forced to take the BAC test because I made the mistake of answering "Yes" to the question. He attempted to make me take the roadside sobriety tests -- which I refused. He then claimed that I would lose my license -- to which I replied I could only lose it for refusing the chemical test -- not the "Walk on the line" tests. I blew a 0.018 -- real threat to society there! I received no apology after the fact in any of these incidents for the way I was treated like a common criminal -- the third time I received a lecture! I replied to this lecture with an observation about how I was the DD for three people who were shitfaced and how my taxes pay his salary -- to which I was told "Son, don't let me see you here again." Quite the arrogant statement considering as how the Officer appeared to be less then 5 years older then myself.

I'm sorry as evil as drunk driving is we don't check our civil rights every time we climb into an automobile. What part of the 5th amendment rights against self-incrimination don't they understand?

Re:laws

So if you ever did get a DUI ticket with that BAC (you can get an under the limit DUI) you could easily in many states (including Nevada) claim that is a reading which the legislature intended to be interpreted as zero.

I wasn't charged with anything. I was pointing out the humiliation of being forced to blow into a plastic tube (i.e.: guilty until proven innocent) because I had two drinks over four hours ago. Enforcement of DWI laws is getting out of hand when I can be pulled over merely for leaving a parking lot that is sometimes used by a bar and forced to give evidence against myself. The first two times I was pulled over I hadn't been drinking at all! Yet I was instantly asked "Have you been drinking tonight sir?" I regard that as a personal insult.

What's next? Are they going to round up all the adult males within a two mile radius of a sexual assault and force them to give DNA samples? If they attempted this there would be outcry -- yet they do the same thing with DWI laws on a daily basis and nobody says anything.

0.018? That is less than 0.02 which means even under many states "zero" tolerance laws (i.e. for those under 21)

That's another rant. I love how I can be drafted into military service if Congress deems it necessary at 18 yet I can't touch booze until I'm 21. I have a constitutionally protected right to vote at 18 but I can't drink. You can't have it both ways people -- either I can't be drafted, vote, forced to pay taxes, or be charged as an adult until I'm 21 or I can drink at 18.

There's other problems as other posters have pointed out too. How about being charged with public intoxication if you are walking home drunk? I love that one -- damned if you do damned if you don't. Why should I be forced to get a ride with friends or take a taxi if my house is within walking distance -- as long as I'm not being loud or obnoxious?

Politicians love doing anything that looks like they are fighting DWI because it scores them cheap political points. Whose going to stand up and defend drunks anyway? Hell it's an election year after all...

Re:laws

Here would be a good law for everyone:

Ban parking lots at establishments that serve alcohol. With the new blood-alcohol limits, it doesn't take much to put an average human over the limit. Having a parking lot at a bar is like being an accessory to the crime.

But that would limit government tax income and police revenue. So they certainly couldn't do *that*.

Re:laws

Most restaurants sell alcohol; it would have quite a substantial effect on that industry, they'd either have to stop selling alcohol, and lose customers that way, or stop letting their customers park there, and lose almost all of their customers outside of built-up cities. Most drinkers at restaurants will only have one or two drinks, and most will come with someone else who's capable of being the designated driver anyway.

Re:laws

If most restaurants are selling alcohol then most restaurants are certainly contributing to the problem of drunk driving.

Don't be dumb. That's like saying a hardware store that sells pipes is contributing to people building pipe bombs.

On one hand, it's a true statement. On the other hand it's an absolutely stupid statement.

Re:laws

But in a country where a guy arrested for DUI can still hope to be elected president someday,

At least if he's president someone else will be driving most of the time.

Stephen

Re:laws

If most restaurants are selling alcohol then most restaurants are certainly contributing to the problem of drunk driving.

So because you can't control yourself at an establishment that's serving alcohol it becomes the establishments fault? Why don't you take some responsibility for your own actions instead of expecting the Government or the bar-owner to do it for you? I've been at the height of shitfaced before and still had the higher reasoning abilities to say "Ok, I'm done drinking" for whatever reason (money, needed to drive the next day, etc). I also have the self-control to limit myself to one or two drinks if I know that I have to drive to get home.

What's next? Is it McDonalds fault if you can't control yourself when they open a restaurant two blocks from your house and you gain 200 pounds?

Instead we're going to get all these misdirected attempts to punish everyone (whether it's in-car breathalyzers or disappearing parking lots)

No argument there. But your statement of "the restaurants are contributing to the problem" belies the type of "Nanny-state" mentality that allows laws like this to be passed. People need to take responsibility for their own actions.

It's insane that in a country where simple possession of a naturally growing plant can land you a felony conviction that being found guilty of drunk driving isn't a life-destroying event.

Umm being found guilty of DWI is a life-destroying event. It will cost you at least ten years of your life. You are going to lose your license -- there's a good chance you will lose your job -- your Insurance rates are going to increase anywhere from 3x to 10x times depending on the state (I work for an insurance agency and I've seen policies go from $600 to $4,500 over DWI convictions), it'll be published in the paper, your friends are probably going to turn their backs on you and there's a good chance you'll be doing some jail time and/or paying pretty big fines.

What do you mean by "life-destroying event"? Should we lock up DWI'ers for 15 years to life? That seems a little harsh -- unless they killed someone -- in which case they can be charged under existing (Manslaughter) laws and punished appropriately. If nobody got hurt then I think the existing punishments are more then ample.

The last thing we need is more laws on the books.

Re:laws - bullshit!

Having a parking lot at a bar is like being an accessory to the crime

You are assuming each and everyone of us are unable to drink alcohol in a moderate way. It is not about the taxes collected from the sales of alcohol, but about our freedom.

I do not need an idiot senator or a frustrated, clueless individual like yourself to make new laws that require people to respect laws that are already there. The argument is stupid.

Maybe we could ban the internet too, eh? Making this evil technology available to the public is being accessory to crime, because we know the internet is only used to download music illegaly.

If you have an alcohol problem and you can't behave in public places, get some help. I'm certainly not willing to give away my rights just because you're a moron.

Re:laws - bullshit!

I think you misunderstand the point of that poster. That person _also_ thought that this is stupid, but he realizes that with the legal limit going so incredibly low all it takes is one drink, plus a poorly calibrated breath tester, to screw someone over. You think that they _won't_ have the car phone home and charge you with something just for even _trying_ to drive?

I would trust this lots more if I weren't aware of the calibration problems with low-end breath testers, and I doubt the expensive units will be affordable for this purpose.

Re:laws - bullshit!

realizes that with the legal limit going so incredibly low all it takes is one drink, plus a poorly calibrated breath tester

Actually, for a 200 lb man you would need >4 drinks in a two hour period. A drink is defined as 1 1/2 oz 80% proof booze, or 12oz beer/wine. This assumes a normal person, with a healthty liver.Here is a little tester Breath Wheel [intox.com]
As for the poorly calibrated breathalyzer, the police must maintaine records of the machine being calibrated. If you are ever stopped, refuse the field test and ask to be taken to an ER for a blood test. Make sure they use soap and water and not an alchol wipe before they draw the blood. This will be the most accurate level.

Re:laws - bullshit!

If you are ever stopped, refuse the field test and ask to be taken to an ER for a blood test.

If you were in Pennsylvania when this happened, let me be the first to congratulate you on losing your license for 12 months.

When you receive a PA drivers license, you agree in advance to consent to a breath test if stopped and that you understand that failure to comply will result in 12 month suspension of the license regardless of its outcome.

- Tony

For your own good

But, but, but....

They're doing it all for your own good.

Clearly all of us are too stupid, drunk, evil or whatever to make reasonable choices for ourselves. So, they should (because they have been elected and are thereby the "voice of the people", imbued with superior wisdom, intelligence and wonderfulness) make them for all of us.

And of course we should ban the internet. Thats been on the table for years.

Just think of all the evil on the internet :
Support for terrorists
Child porn
Pirated music
Slashdot
Porn in general
Drug information
Information about elected officials that they don't control

And the list goes on and on and on. Don't forget the CDA, it comes back over and over in slightly different forms - all aimed at making sure you do the right thing.

Re:laws - bullshit!

The first time you (or a loved one) get hit by a drunk driver, you'll realize that this limits the freedoms of a drunk driver, but increases the freedom of innocent people like you and I.

Wow. The first time you slow down and re-read that, you'll realize your logic could justify taking away any and all rights.

Re:laws

I live out of town, but the nearest city to me, not many drinking establishments have parking lots. So it means parking on the street, or in a nearby pay lot.

As far as I can tell, the government (Ontario) almost encourages drinking and driving. They make no effort to allow people to find out their BAC before getting in the car. Instead of the cops sitting a mile down the road from the bar, how about they stand right outside the bar and check people on the way out. Better yet, make breathalizers even more accessable than that. Every bar should have one, or even personal ones. I think a lot of people end up driving because they think they are okay, but have no way of knowing for sure. Granted they shouldn't drive at all, but that will never happen.

The other problem is that the affermentioned city, and most other places I've been to, enforce that all cars must be off the streets at 3AM. What better way than to promote drinking and driving? The driver maybe doesn't want to move their car after they had one too many. But they have no choice, or pay the parking fine.

If government really wanted to stop drinking and driving they could almost eliminate it by making a few small changes. But I think they'd rather have the money come in, and risk a few deaths.

Re:laws

As far as I can tell, the government (Ontario) almost encourages drinking and driving. They make no effort to allow people to find out their BAC before getting in the car.

I don't need yet another thing for the government to do for me. If you aren't able to judge your ability to drink, buy a breatalizer.

Better yet, make breathalizers even more accessable than that.

You can buy a DOT certified breathalizer for about $100. A DUI in California costs about $10,000 by the time you're done with it. Hmmm. Going to have a drink now and then, don't rely on the govenrnment, do it yourself. You can also buy "go/no-go" strips for less than a dollar. Put one in your mouth and you're over/under depending on the color.

Sorry, but I hate hearing what the government should "do for us". Arrrrrggggghhhhh!!!!

how to start each of these new laws...

there should be an initial period in which these de jure (meaning "because we can") laws only apply to the governor and legislators in the particular state. so, for instance, all the big suits in new mexico have to blow into their drunk-o-meters every 15 minutes while driving for a couple years, and then and only then can they remove a sunset clause in the law and apply it to the general public.

we will need a federal statute to make it happen. write your congresscritter now.

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

I, for one, would hack the damn tube out of my car. I think the better solution is to actually fuck up people who DUI. Like permanent license revocations. Repeat offenders spend 5 years in a damn sweat shop. You can always have a designated driver. Or save the money for your last two shots for a cab. Obviously there are some ups and downs to this (driving at .9, for example) but there's a point at which to be firm, and this is one of them. Maybe if people see their buddies never able to drive again they won't dick around any more.

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

I've always read it as .09 Percent, which would actually be .0009. Then .9 Percent would be .009.

This must be true as I don't think we could handle anywhere near 9% alcohol in our blood.

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

If certain drinking establishments had a breathalizer I'd guess there would be a high score sheet next to it.

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

How come this was modded insightful? Are people really this violent and hateful of other people. It's so annoying to hear arguments from people supporting torture and capital punishment, but then hear them talk about how much they love America (not that you did, sir, I'm refering to people in general). The constitution restrics cruel and unusual punishments; execution is both of these (and your suggestion is double so).

In response to you, "If you don't like it, go to China"

Never thought I'd get to use that phrase, but these are twisted times we live in. Civil disobedience doesn't work thanks to shows like "Cops" where it's entertainment to see people getting beaten and arrested. Police corruption and vigilantism isn't called for anymore thanks to movies like "Training Day". Execution is favored by people who are pro-life.

Dogs and cats live together.

Mass hysteria.

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

My neighbor had one of these years ago and he would just park the car next to his air compressor. When he needed to start the car all it took was a puff from the air hose to pass the test. Now how easy would it be to keep a little compressor in your car that plugs into the cig. lighter? Bottom line: people will always find a way around it. ---John Holmes...

Re:That would BLOW (pardon the pun.)

The problem is that the DUI laws are ridiculously stringent, thanks to efforts by anti-alcohol groups like MADD. When talking on a cell phone (even hands free), changing the station on your car's radio, driving while tired, or carrying on a conversation with a passenger contribute just as much to accidents as having had a drink or two, why should one be punished by permanent license revocation and the others not?

How about you get rid of the DUI laws and just give people tickets for driving dangerously, regardless of what the cause is?

We already do

"So let me get this straight, ALL OF US will end up paying for the damned drunk drivers"

We already do in the form of higher insurance payments, loss of life and limb etc.

Re:We already do

Yes but once all the drunk drivers are taken care of the insurance premiums will come down. Yes ? Sorry what am I thinking

Re: Devices

I agree, there are so many things wrong with this assinine proposal that I hardly know where to begin.

• Nobody wants to pay $1000 extra for a device to be installed in their car to do the cop's job. For $1000 per car on the road, you could hire alot of cops...
• Easily circumvented. Anyone with a pair of wire cutters and access to a Radio Shack can bypass this.
• Ppl would buy their cars out of state to get around this
• Flashing lights! At night??!!!?? Honking horn! At night?????!?
• Violates innocent until proven guilty principle, therefore degrading.
• Will cause accidents. If you think cell phones were bad imagine hyperventilating sober drivers passing out at the wheel.
• Easily circumvented. Even if you don't like wire cutters, you can fill up a balloon with air to blow for you. ( or another low tech solution devized by the same people who can make a bong out of *anything* )
• A 0.1 BAL limit is appropriate. Sorry, 0.08 is too strict. And age doesn't affect the drunkeness of someone with a given BAL. There is no justification for 'zero tolerance' laws that are used to convict minors of drunk driving who have BAL's of 0.02 or higher. Sure, age may play a role in how many drinks *will get a person to a certain BAL* but the BAL *is* the only easy objective measure of how intoxicated someone is. A minor caught with a BAL of 0.03 maybe should be penalized for drinking illegally, but not DUI, since they were not intoxicated while driving. There is MUCH difference morally between drinking a beer that the law says you can't have, and drinking a six pack that the law says you can't have and then going for a spin. Drinking 1 beer and driving home is no different morally than drinking 1 beer at home, or drinking a six pack at home and staying there. It's what one would call responsible drinking.
  

  Of course, a minor found driving while truely intoxicated ( at the adult limit in their state ) should be convicted of DUI as should anyone else, but applying the much harsher penalties meant to deter irresponsible drunk drivers from killing people to responsible minors who drink illegally and happen to be driving home with a safe BAL that is above zero is stupid and cruel.

Re:laws

Well, I for one think it's a GREAT idea ! Although just maybe they should have a test run or something... all the reps should have them installed in thier own cars for a year or so and then tell us how it worked out.

Re:laws

Why would these representatives care if their chauffeur was inconvenienced?

Re:laws

I have been a supporter of "Sunset provisions" [lectlaw.com] in laws for a long, long time. It seems to me that most laws should have a mandatory lifetime after which they would have to be renewed, or they would expire.

Obviously, basic issues (murder, theft, etc.) would be exempt from this sort of thing, but the majority of laws - especially those pertaining to technology - should live their useful life and go away.

Even better would be a restriction that only the core parts of a bill, not any ancillary additions (i.e., unrelated pork-barrel spending, etc.), which would have to be renewed separately.

It would mean a lot more work for congresses in the future, but that could be dealt with when the need arises.

Sunset provisions [tallahassee.com] are a really good idea!!

Re:laws

Sunset provisions, are a good idea, but I see no reason to exempt quote-unquote "basic issues" such as murder or theft. It's not like, when the law against murder is up for renewal, there are going to be a lot of people saying "hey, I don't think there's nearly enough murder going on these days". On the other hand, allowing an exemption clause would just open the gates for lawmakers to describe their pet projects as "basic issues".

"Oh, restricting black people from voting is a basic issue, there's no reason to review that at any point in the future."

We just don't know what laws we currently have that are going to be deemed acceptable in the future, so why presume that we do in certain situations?

Also, I wouldn't worry about adding work for congresspeople; either they'll hate the extra work and be discouraged from making needless legislation, or they'll like it because they can reasonably give themselves higher salaries and larger staffs, and we'll still get sunset provisions. It's win-win.

Re:laws

Obviously, basic issues (murder, theft, etc.) would be exempt from this sort of thing..

You underestimate what a powerdrunk government that doesn't want to give up that power can do. If you give them ANY loophole, they WILL find dirty, underhanded ways to exploit it. Look at the copyright situation. It's so assbackwards now from what it's supposed to be that the people that originally debated it would probably get sick to their stomachs if they saw how the issue has been butchered. Look at the way we tried to circumvent basic rights in this country by declaring people "enemy combatants" - an inoccuous term that just sprang into existance when convenient to take advantage of the "state of emergency" we're perpetually in. Doing things like that is like saying that the current laws don't work, so we need special ones to take their place. It doesn't matter WHY someone is criminal, if they're a criminal they're a criminal and we already have a setup to deal with them. Why do we need special exceptions for different types of criminals? They're just exploiting loopholes to garner additional power they're not supposed to have.

You can't trust the government to do the right thing - this country is based on that principle. Why do you think each of the three branches is supposed to keep the others under control? Why do you think the constitution is written in ways that suggest the framers expected the government to get out of hand? It's only natural that it will take every chance to grab more power. There should be NO exceptions. If the law isn't enforced or renewed, it dies - NO EXCEPTIONS.

Re:laws

Sunset provisions have their goods and bads... It's good to force a review of a laws, witht he hopes of undoing a particularly bad one, such as the Patriot Act.

But it also creates uncertainty, in that every time the administration changes, or power in the senate or house shifts parties, all the work done by the previous congress could be reversed through a "review".

Don't many laws already have sunset provisions?

Sunrise, sunset....

Sunset provisions are a great thing. However, predictable timing on them is not so good as it gives the people in favor of the law advance warning that it might expire, so they can go around and find/manufacture reasons to keep it in effect.

Most especially, think of the effect of having a sunset law for various pieces of the bureaucracy. If Department of Redundancy Department knows that their funding/enabling legislation will expire in the next year, they would then take all their time to find reasons why they are indispensable and ever so valuable. Veritable bulwark of democracy. , they are (or so you'd believe if you listened to them).

I don't quite know how it should work, but I'd propose having a "Law Lottery". Every year 20 percent of the laws would be picked at random and reviewed (really random!). This means laws would probably be reviewed relatively quickly on average. If the legislature did not vote to retain the law within one month it would be tossed out. The law would need at least a 3/4 positive vote of the legislature (both houses in the case of bicamerality) to remain in place (but no executive approval). A law could continue on an "emergency" basis for one year with a 2/3 majority but would then expire completely. The short time frame is to make it tougher to plan/fund campaigns of special interests to support it.

If nothing else it would keep our idiot bastard legislators busy enough so they'd not have as much time to meddle in everything else.

Sadly, it would not work. Someone would rig the lottery. The well funded special interests would pay well to have instant notification of a review and would have lobbyists ready to jump in at a moments notice where the citizens would probably never get notified so would not have an opportunity to speak. (I know, what else is new.) Legislatures would pass hundreds of junk laws just to reduce the probability that real laws would be picked.

But still, its a fun idea.

Re:laws

Speaking of the ten commandments. I believe George Carlin said it best:

Here is my problem with the ten commandments- why exactly are there 10?

You simply do not need ten. The list of ten commandments was artificially and deliberately inflated to get it up to ten. Here's what happened:

About 5,000 years ago a bunch of religious and political hustlers got together to try to figure out how to control people and keep them in line. They knew people were basically stupid and would believe anything they were told, so they announced that God had given them some commandments, up on a mountain, when no one was around.

Well let me ask you this- when they were making this shit up, why did they pick 10? Why not 9 or 11? I'll tell you why- because 10 sound official. Ten sounds important! Ten is the basis for the decimal system, it's a decade, it's a psychologically satisfying number (the top ten, the ten most wanted, the ten best dressed). So having ten commandments was really a marketing decision! It is clearly a bullshit list. It's a political document artificially inflated to sell better. I will now show you how you can reduce the number of commandments and come up with a list that's a little more workable and logical. I am going to use the Roman Catholic version because those were the ones I was taught as a little boy.

Let's start with the first three:

I AM THE LORD THY GOD THOU SHALT NOT HAVE STRANGE GODS BEFORE ME

THOU SHALT NOT TAKE THE NAME OF THE LORD THY GOD IN VAIN

THOU SHALT KEEP HOLY THE SABBATH

Right off the bat the first three are pure bullshit. Sabbath day? Lord's name? strange gods? Spooky language! Designed to scare and control primitive people. In no way does superstitious nonsense like this apply to the lives of intelligent civilized humans in the 21st century. So now we're down to 7. Next:

HONOR THY FATHER AND MOTHER

Obedience, respect for authority. Just another name for controlling people. The truth is that obedience and respect shouldn't be automatic. They should be earned and based on the parent's performance. Some parents deserve respect, but most of them don't, period. You're down to six.

Now in the interest of logic, something religion is very uncomfortable with, we're going to jump around the list a little bit.

THOU SHALT NOT STEAL

THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS

Stealing and lying. Well actually, these two both prohibit the same kind of behavior- dishonesty. So you don't really need two you combine them and call the commandment "thou shalt not be dishonest". And suddenly you're down to 5.

And as long as we're combining I have two others that belong together:

THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTRY

THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S WIFE

Once again, these two prohibit the same type of behavior. In this case it is marital infidelity. The difference is- coveting takes place in the mind. But I don't think you should outlaw fantasizing about someone else's wife because what is a guy gonna think about when he's waxing his carrot? But, marital infidelity is a good idea so we're gonna keep this one and call it "thou shalt not be unfaithful". And suddenly we're down to four.

But when you think about it, honesty and infidelity are really part of the same overall value so, in truth, you could combine the two honesty commandments with the two fidelity commandments and give them simpler language, positive language instead of negative language and call the whole thing "thou shalt always be honest and faithful" and we're down to 3.

THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR"S GOODS

This one is just plain fuckin' stupid. Coveting your neighbor's goods is what keeps the economy going! Your neighbor gets a vibrator that plays "o come o ye faithful", and you want one too! Coveting creates jobs, so leave it alone. You throw out coveting and you're down to 2 now- the big honesty and fidelity commandment and the one we haven't talked about yet:

THOU SHALT NOT K

Re:laws

That's a perfectly good law (unlike the stupid ignition interlock law described in the story). If you have the keys and are in the car, you've demonstrated your intention to drive.

Nonsense. At most you've demonstrated you're possible intention to drive. It may alternately demonstrate your intention to listen to the radio, roll down the power windows, or plug your cell phone into the cigarette lighter socket to call a cab. Keys in the ignition + seat belt, maybe, but even then the fact that you're not operating a motor vehicle makes calling it a DUI pretty fascist. It may be true that it's a lot easier to arrest drunk drivers if you can nail 'em just for sitting in the driver's seat with their keys in the ignition, but that also means that people who had no intention of driving drunk (but don't know the draconian extent of the law) get DUI's as well. The problem is the whole notion of "proactive law enforcement". By making a whole set of activities that are merely possible precursors to crime themselves illegal, the definition of criminal acts expands to include people who have hurt no one, would not have hurt anyone, and/or never had any intention of doing anything that would have hurt someone. Why not make it a DUI to posess car keys while drunk? It sounds stupid, but it makes as much sense as making it a DUI to listen to the radio or roll down the window from the driver's seat while drunk. More laws won't stop people from being criminals; more laws just creates more criminals.

Re:laws

it seems if they are going to do something like that, they need to get rid of the laws that can get you a DUI for just sitting in a parked car drunk.

I can hardly wait for the first time some stranded motorist dies up in Mesa country during the winter because he can't start his car to run the heater (either because of a malfunction in the interlock somewhere, or because he took a swig of booze in an effort to stay warm).

Re:laws

I can hardly wait for the first time some stranded motorist dies up in Mesa country during the winter because he can't start his car to run the heater (either because of a malfunction in the interlock somewhere, or because he took a swig of booze in an effort to stay warm).

I'm betting more on an accident caused by a distracted driver who has to take a "rolling retest" on a busy highway instead of concentrating on the road. And this, in the midst of banning cell phones (both handheld and not) because they are a distraction.

Also, to a lesser extent, people who have to take up to and extra 30 seconds to start up a car, but don't have that luxury due to an emergency (hospital, flight out of fear, etc.)

Re:laws

there are so many laws that need fixed all over the country

You can't rule a nation of innocents. The more laws, the more criminals, and the more power (hence profit) for those who control government.

There is a very good reason why government has a tendency to expand over time: because it benefits those in power.

Whatever happened....

...to taking peoples licence away from them, or basing fines on a percentage of the yearly income, like they do in Finland, people would think twice then. Recently a man was fined about 200.000 Dollars for speeding, he was a CEO, he will definately think twice. How long before someone constructs a hack for this breath analyzer?

Re:Whatever happened....

Wouldn't a balloon full of air serve as a "hack"?

Re:Whatever happened....

fill it before you start drinking of course

Re:Whatever happened....

then only outlaws will have balloons

Re:Whatever happened....

Depends on how clever it is. Your breath comes out at apporximately body temperature, for example, and making the air in a balloon body temperature plus or minus a few degrees would be tough.

Re:Whatever happened....

Nah, most ppl that actually do drink and drive (have a habit) will have some switch installed hidden for the police. Teenagers with motorcycles and truck drivers have all kinds of technical restrictions built in/imposed and it's common knowledge that a large part of them has such a contraption.

The police normally don't bother to take the vehicle apart to find the hidden switch...

I would have to agree that more testing and more testing is the only successful way (like they do over here around new year (december/january: drinking under influence drops significantly, only to rise again in february :-/).

Re:Whatever happened....

"Whatever happened..." indeed.

From a link [ignition-interlock.com] link further down the page....

PRODUCT AND DESIGN FEATURES

Hum Tone: Requires the client to deliver a hum resonance while blowing the alcohol test prior to starting the vehicle. Deters techniques utilized to mimic human breath or to absorb alcohol.


This is good, if you are concerned about people faking it.


Random or Fixed Retest: Programmable. The client is alerted and given a grace period to retest after the vehicle is put into the run state. The test can be delivered while operating the vehicle or after pulling off the road. Breath test refusal or failure is recorded and sanctions are imposed, including honking of the car's horn. Deters drinking after completing a sober start and vehicle idling at bars.


Probably most useful for DUI offenders, not for everyone...but who knows how far this legislation will go?


Bypass Detect: If a vehicle is started and the breath test is not passed, the horn will begin honking until the vehicle is turned off or a breath test is successfully completed. All events are recorded. Deters hot-wiring and push-starting of vehicles.


There had better be a small amount of time that the vehicle can be driven before the test but after you start the car. Otherwise, that 30 seconds is going to be a major pain. Not only that, but what if you are fleeing from an attacker? I guess our own personal safety isn't as important as those on the road who might be killed if I end up behind the wheel drunk (which, statistically, the majority of people do not do.)


Events Log: A built-in memory chip records all events associated with the use or misuse of the device. Reports are generated through a personal computer in a summary and complete hard-copy format.


Cool.. Now when are these reports read? For DUI offenders, it's presumably fairly often. For everyone else...when? When you get your car inspected? These things had better have a pretty big memory.


Violations Reset: Programmable. If the predetermined number of violations occurs during a monitoring period, an early inspection is required within three (3) days. Failure to report will result in immobilization of the vehicle. Violations are quickly identified and reported to the jurisdiction.


Again, most useful with DUI offenders. But honestly, after one violation, I'd think that you'd want inspection.


Service Reminder Reset: Reminds the client of a scheduled monitoring check. Failure to have the device monitored within the prescribed time period results in the device interlocking.

Power Interrupt: A dated record, in the event 12 volt power has been disconnected or interrupted. The device maintains memory through an onboard back-up lithium battery. This condition (other than tampering) can occur when a vehicle's battery is disconnected due to repairs or is replaced. Clients are required to provide documentation of repairs.


Whoa whoa whoa.... So if my battery dies, I'm fucked? No documented repair. This absolutely is only good for DUI offenders, because frankly, it's an unreasonable burden on your average person. I change my own batteries. There are also times when I take the battery off for other reasons. I should just be able to, period. Demanding documentation as to why the battery was removed is simply unacceptable unless there is good cause to believe that I was trying to get around the system.



Vehicle Restart: In the event of a vehicle stall, the driver has a grace period during which the ignition can be turned off and re-engaged without having to submit an additional breath test.

This somewhat mitigates the 30 second timer, but it also leads me to believe that that timer is a hard limit, and that this device actually prevents the car from being started until the check has

Re:Whatever happened....

There had better be a small amount of time that the vehicle can be driven before the test but after you start the car. Otherwise, that 30 seconds is going to be a major pain. Not only that, but what if you are fleeing from an attacker? I guess our own personal safety isn't as important as those on the road who might be killed if I end up behind the wheel drunk (which, statistically, the majority of people do not do.)


I agree with you for the most part... except this. I think an overwhelmingly larger number of people drive drunk than have to flee for their lives from an attacker. Or maybe I'm just luckily to live in a part ofthe country where we don't get attacked that much,

Re:Whatever happened....

Look at it this way: It *everybody* had one of these on their cars then muggers/rapists/murderers/etc will know that anybody they see entering their car will be a sitting duck for 30 seconds.

Re:Whatever happened....

I think there's a point where you need to ask "who really owns your car?" I thought that I owned my car, since I bought it outright with cash. It seems to me they're saying that the government owns your car now. When they're requiring you to document when you remove your battery, that's going way too far. I had a bad alternator once, and my battery died pretty frequently until I figured it out and replaced it. I did all the work myself, and the only documentation I have is the receipt for the alternator. The only reason I saved that is because it's got a life time warranty ;). The car is mine, and while on my private property I should be able to do whatever I like with it. There is no reason that a law should be passed having this great of an affect on so many people, when it's meant to deter a slim minority.

Well...

I agree that this is a stupid law but...

Yes, you own your car and you should be able to do whatever I like with it, but the streets are not yours, they are public property. If you want to drive in public streets you have to comply with any law they come up with.

Re:Whatever happened....

Having to retest while the car is in motion seems like something that could cause accidents to me!

Imagine going down the freeway at 60+mph and having to fiddle around for the tester to keep the car running! Your options are

1) Take your eyes off the road and concentrate on the test

2) Don't test, and hav ethe car stall

Neither of these sound especially safe to me.

Re:Whatever happened....

> Now that's what I call one law for the rich and one for the poor!

So you feel that the poor should be fined in such a way as to seriously impact their monthly food budget, while the rich should be fined in a way with no discernible impact on their lives whatsoever? Why should the poor be punished much, much more severely for the same crime?

Will last about 1/2 hour...

Until I take it out.

Ignition interlocks are a tool for those who need them. They are monitored strictly under the guidelines of whatever court ordered it. Just throwing them onto cars without the monitoring is simply a waste of time.

This has been tried before. Anyone remember seat belt interlocks from the early 70's? Didn't think so - that's how long that bright idea lasted.

Re:Will last about 1/2 hour...

Until I take it out.

A few problems with that plan:

1. It will probably be a crime to disable the device. This could turn a simple speeding ticket into a trip to the pokey.
2. New Mexico has periodic (annual, IIRC) vehicle safety inspections. If your interlock were disabled, you wouldn't get your inspection sticker and couldn't legally drive your car.
3. As you mention, interlocks now are used by court order only. This is Constitutional and reasonable. Someone needs to re-educate Mr. Martinez about the Constitution:

   Amendment V

   
   No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Re:Will last about 1/2 hour...

New Mexico has periodic (annual, IIRC) vehicle safety inspections. If your interlock were disabled, you wouldn't get your inspection sticker and couldn't legally drive your car.

How is the guy who tests if the interlock is working going to drive home?

Could have been worse...

They could have asked for rolling urine samples and performance anxiety would have cleared the roads of cars.

Um, why not just for DUIs?

Um, why not install in peoples cars that have had at least one DUI or DWI or whatever?

Re:Um, why not just for DUIs?

Because nowadays it's vitally important to make sure that we don't discriminate against the stewheads by unfairly singling them out. In 21st century America everyone is so very equal that DUI offenders can't possibly be any more likely to drink and drive than, say, the leader of your local Prohibition league.

Re:Um, why not just for DUIs?

Um, why not install in peoples cars that have had at least one DUI or DWI or whatever?

No, that would never work, because the drunks would just find a way to disable or trick the thing. The people most affected by this would be the regular, law-abiding folks who are too scared to try disabling it.

And wow, is life going to suck for them.

Think of a family where more than one person shares the same car, i.e., most families. Yeah, I'm gonna want to blow into the same nasty tube as everyone else, including Mom who has a horrible stomach virus at the moment, Grandpa who needs some bridgework done soon because his teeth are kinda disintegrating, and Junior who smokes 3 packs a day of the cheapest cigarettes he can find.

Don't even try to tell me that tube will be nice and pristing, either. Anyone who's ever played a wind instrument knows there's a lot of spit involved. If everyone has their own mouthpiece, does that mean you have to carry it around with you all day? What do you do when it fell out of your pocket into the urinal, but you have to get home somehow?

And good lord, what about rental cars?

Then there are the time issues. 30 seconds before you can start the car seems not too bad on the face of it. Your aren't usually driving accident victims to hospitals, and so on (though of course if you're late for work you're going to be pretty pissed off, just sitting there waiting).

Now change the situation. It's -10 F outside, and you want to start your car to warm it up, then run back inside. That's right, that remote starter you were so thrilled to get for Christmas is useless now.

Okay, now imagine your battery's low, and you can't get it started on the first few tries. If you're really lucky, the flaky power will cause some odd behavior in the breath analyser, too!

Next: what does the thing do when it breaks? When it's molded over from too much spit? Oh, just drive it to a nearby garage. Wait, did I say drive? I meant push. Unless of course it lets you start the car when it malfunctions... in which case I guarantee there are going to be a lot of "malfunctions" that people "didn't notice" so they haven't had their unit fixed.

</sarcasticRant>

I applaud the sentiment -- drunk driving is a serious problem and needs continuing efforts to stop it -- but this seriously affects the quality of life for NON-offenders without even significantly helping the problem.

Re:Um, why not just for DUIs?

Because as neurotic, overreactive safety-hounds get their way in our societies, legal fixes like this lean more toward prevention (pipe dream or perhaps totalitarian nightmare) than relying on the responsibility of the citizen, or even a good balance. Simply put, making only the DWIs use it means they will be missing potentially dangerous drunks that haven't been caught yet. I'd also say something about rehabilitated drinkers, but this law punishes non-drinkers too, so it's pointless.

So, once again, our government is pursuing a technology that authorizes the use of some item deemed too dangerous to operate for "us" ignorant subjects. We've already been through this with biometric auth in handguns. Look: A car ignition system is a fairly simple device to understand. All that fancy stuff like a think steering column guard, steel keyhole guard and double-sided key- it just protects two wires. Cross those two wires, and a relay shuts and spins up the starter. There is going to have to be a whole other agency to inspect these vehicles for compliance. It will be prohibitively expensive. The random tests would be more of a distraction than a loud radio and wireless phone combined. It won't be 100% accurate (oops, you used a strong mouthwash this morning?) What's to stop a driver from drinking until he is intoxicated while he is driving around?

If DUI is such a runaway problem in NM, why don't they:

1. Put a freeze on liquor licensing for about 10 years.
2. Raise taxes on alcoholic beverages to...
3. ...hire more highway police
4. Suspend licenses for a minimum of 90 days after a DUI arrest
5. Have police include popular bars and package stores in their routes at night (very effective way to catch drunks in the Northeast).

I see a lot of huffing about blood alcohol levels, but I've yet to see a study that includes information about where the drunks are coming from. Do they drink at home? Do they drink in a bar? Do they go to a package store and drink while they drive home?

no thanks

I dont drink and drive so obviously this has no appeal to me.

We do already have this in Ontario as some sort of punishment for convicted DUI'ers and I think its a great idea for them - but as a non-drinker-and-driver I wouldnt want to deal with the inconvience on a daily basis, and I think I can speak for everyone else who fits that criteria.

Re:no thanks

I agree. This makes perfect sense as part of a sentence for a DUI offence after your licence suspension is over.

For the rest of us, this would be just a big pain in the ass.

Re:no thanks

I dont drink and drive so obviously this has no appeal to me.

Substantial delay in starting your own car plus random distracton while driving has no appeal to you?

This test is UNBEATABLE!

There's NO WAY to blow air into a tube wihout it coming from a human lung. Billows do not exist. And these things are so inexpensive, they can put two or three in each car, to make sure the passengers are sober too!

Wait, none of that is true.

What the story doesn't mention is the Special Edition model for bishops and politicians. When they fail a drunk test, a HUD shows up on the windshield and locks on to pedestrians. Makes life a LOT easier, let me tell you.

Re:This test is UNBEATABLE!

This is the dumbest law I've ever seen.
There are so many implications it's not funny.

1) Carjacker's paradise. Carjacker now has a good 30 seconds while the person is blowing into a fucking tube.

2) Disease. What about rental cars? What if a friend wants to drive you home in your car and you're sick. What if you've got Obsessive Compulsive disorder? Did they really think this through?

3) Emergency. I can't wait until someone sues the state because they couldn't get someone to the hospital because it took them an extra 30 seconds to start the fucking car OR it was life or death and they were drunk. If my kid or wife was dying and I was drunk and I had no other choice, I'd risk it.

4) People with lung problems can't drive now? What if you have asthma? Does this cause problems? I don't know but I suspect there could be problems.

They should have much stricter drunk driving laws for DUI offenders, not make breathalizers necessary for every citizen. If that becomes law and I lived there, I'd probably exit the state.

Re:This test is UNBEATABLE!

Special Edition model for bishops and politicians.

Here in New Mexico, that's part of the problem.

Clearly, this is an unwieldy technical solution to a social problem: drunk driving would be cured in a hurry if strict laws were accompanied by adequate funding for the courts, which are way overloaded (letting people off due to technicalities) and by an attitude shift.

Currently, there is an attitude that "taking away the vehicle of the family breadwinner" would constitute an undue hardship on some individual. Yes, it would. But having that individual kill off some other family's breadwinner constitutes what I would call "an undue hardship" on that other family.

A lot of these issues have come to a head over the past 10 years or so after a couple of spectacular fatal accidents involving drunk drivers. That, and a newspaper reporter uncovering that one guy was still behind the wheel after being arrested 27 times for DWI.

[BTW, a similar line of arguments are responsible for New Mexico's high rate of uninsured motorists on the highways. But that's another story.]

Speaking of politician stories, though, you'll like this one.

A few years back in New Mexico a member of the state legislature was arrested for DWI. (Not the first time that such an event took place.)

His defense attorney mounted an effort to get the charges dismissed based on the "human brewery defense". The argument was that food items ingested by the defendant during lunch had started to ferment in his stomach and to produce the alcohol that was certainly observed in the administered tests. [Fortunately, I don't think the defense's story was bought].

Good luck trying to leave in a hurry...

...after eating apples, or after brushing your teeth and using a mouthwash chaser [beforeyoudrive.com].

It's idiocy to punish all for the idiocy of few. Why do I have to pay more and be subject to this if I don't drink and drive?

Re:Good luck trying to leave in a hurry...

Did you actually watch that episode? In case you didn't, the one guy swished around some mouthwash, he blew a .48 BAC. Note that the legal limit is .08 in most (all?) states. Now that .48 tapered down quite quickly, but it still obviously effected the results and brought in doubt as the the true accuracy of his BAC. Most likely a cop would retest after a few minutes of observation if a person belew a .48 since many wouldn't even be conscience at that level.

But,

but, but, what about all those movie scenes where's it the middle of the night, and the woman desperately tries to start her car, while the stalker is running towards her. I'm sure that the 30 second breath test will be the death of large numbers of movie babes...

Re:But,

Also, consider the rolling retest. If they think driving while talking on a cellphone is bad, imagine trying to grab the tube, bring it to your mouth, and then blowing forcefully (enough that some people with low lung capacities can get dizzy and light headed). Cute.

Although the fact that rolling retests are possible means that it should be possible to let the car start and drive away without a test, but if a test isn't taken within, say, 60 seconds, then the alarms start going off, etc. Solves the "quick getaway" problem, though then we are back to the issue of fumbling with the gear while you're driving.

Re:Drinking and driving?

So, just to get this straight.. You dont approve of this, but you think it would be a good idea to have a device in a car that wouldnt allow for designated drivers? "Whoops, sorry guys, I cant drive you home, the sensor is picking up how drunk you all are, and wont start the car"

This is a problem that cant be solved so simply.

Re:Drinking and driving?

Get rid of alcohol. It worked for drugs. Hell I haven't heard anything about drug usage since Nancy Regan started her "Just Say No" campaign. Too bad GWBush didn't read the papers back then.

Creative punishment

Ohio has an interesting way of discouraging drunk driving. Anybody caught driving drunk has to get yellow license plates, so everybody will know they have a DUI.

Re:Creative punishment

Ever wonder why New Mexico's license plates are yellow?

Where to start ....

First off, this is insanity at a new level. 30 seconds to start your car?!?!!
The real point is the argument for drunk driving. Now don't get all up in arms hear but listen first. In the US you are innocent until proven guilty. This is one of the first laws that convict a person before he has committed any wrongdoing. I am all for throwing the book at somebody who has maimed or killed another after getting behind the wheel, but when that person has not harmed another and we presume he will that is being guilty before any crime has been committed. If I hold a knife while drunk, does that mean I should be liable for stabbing an innocent bystander before the crime has been committed? Constitution? Liberty? Freedom? They are all thrown out the window in the fight against that evildoer known as the drunk driver. I should note that I do not drive after drinking, not because of the law but because I am a responsible person who believes I should be responsible for my own actions.

START THE FLAMES !!!!!!

Re:Where to start ....

In a rather chilling experiment a few years ago, someone took a group of professional long-distance lorry drivers. Sober, on average, they would confidently drive their lorries at 30+MPH through a gap 6 inches wider than the lorry, slow down for narrower gaps and refuse gaps narrower than the lorry. These men (I think they all were men) routinely drank 10 to 20 pints of beer at a session when socializing. The experimenters gave them 1/2 pint each and allowed time for it to be absorbed. Now, they would confidently attempt to drive their lorries through spaces 1/2" NARROWER than the lorry at 30+ MPH.

In other words they thought they were still safe drivers (and they were well under any blood-alcohol limit), but in fact they were dangerously overconfident.

I respectfully suggest that you are doing the same thing.

Oh this makes sens... huh?

So I'm driving in the snow trying to make a difficult manuver when I suddenly have to take my eyes off of the road, find this hand held device (a photo of one of these interlocks is here [ignition-interlock.com]), breathe into it, and if I don't the horn will start going off. Explain to me again how this bill promotes safety.

Re:Oh this makes sens... huh?

You're right. It should do periodic test of your ability to focus by playing the sound of a baby crying in the back seat and checking that your steering doesn't become erratic.

There should also be a periodic eye exam for older drivers where an eye chart drops down in front of the driver and they have to read off the bottom row.

Its clearly the auto makers who are at fault in every accident by letting unqualified drivers operate their cars.

Excuse for the cops

"No officer, she wasn't taking my breathalyzer for me. She was just giving me road head."

Re:That's just dumb

The consumer should have had the choice with airbags all along, but some legislator thought that because some people can't wear seatbelts -- we should all pay for mandatory airbags.

Car safety systems are optimized for the use of both seatbelts and airbags at the same time. Airbags don't just benefit the idiots who can't be bothered to put their seatbelts on; they make it safer for seatbelt wearers as well.

Moreover, the cost isn't just about your "consumer choice". If you or one of your passengers gets injured or killed in an accident, I pay more for insurance premiums or whatever other funding source is used to keep uninsured accident victims out of the gutter. You're propising to shift the cost of accident risk from your new car purchase to my taxes and insurance bills.

A device called Pass Time

I am going through something similar. I've just purchased a used car and in order to get any type of financing, they are installing a device on the car called "Pass Time". Basically this device gets installed between my key and the ignition and emits a friendly chime when I turn the key to on. After the friendly chime, I can start my car. This may sound innocuous enough, but in order to start my car, I have to punch in a six digit code every month in order to start my car. When I make the payment, I get the six digit code and I can use the car I pay for for 30 days. Oh but they are so sweet.....I get a 9 day grace period after the due date when the friendly chime beeps a little longer. After that, the car is dead as a door nail until I make a payment and get the six digit code. Nich huh? And it's not being installed because I have crappy credit.....no...it's being installed because I've only been in this area for 9 months as opposed to 2 years! It's an outrage and I feel less than human. I've NEVER been late on a car payment and I show 5 paid off car loans in my lifetime. You may say that we could have walked (which I almost did) or gone elsewhere, but we tried. This was pretty much the only way for my wife and I to get a loan for a frickin USED car.

Why not sooner???

My friends girlfriend died from a crazy nut driving a car whilst drunk. My friend still hasnt gotten over it.

Laws are simply not working enough, The UK has some of the most draconian drink driving laws, yet still many drink and drive. The alcohol clouds the mind into doing things it wouldnt do.

Drinking and Driving ruins lives (taken from UK government slogans). Whatever can be done, shoudl be done.

Slashdot interlock

While we're at it, can we have a device which detects whether slashdot readers are on crack and refuses to give them mod points if they are?

Example of what the Road to Hell is Paved with

Good intentions.

on it's razor thin surface surface this looks just good enough to attract legislators attention.

Until we see all the various problems that will occur later:

1) the device gets removed by a smart enough technician
2) people use ballons with "sober air" to defeat the system
3) All state drivers get charged for a device that presumes guilt (constitution, anyone?)
4) repeat offenders still kill
5) out of state rentals are used and someone gets injured/permanently disabled/killed from a drunk driver in one
6) insert your "I've just lost more rights" scenario here.

I've always felt that if you put enough monkeys into the statehouse they could end up making laws that may actually do some good (just like the joke that enough monkeys in front of a typewriter could make a work as good as shakepeare).

.

Part of the Problem

I lived on or around the Navajo reservation for a long time while growing up in New Mexico. Part of the problem for communities in those areas is that alchohol was not allowed to be sold on the reservation. So, every Friday and Saturday, you had a great number of people hopping into their cars and trucks, making the 30-70 mile trek to the closest bar/liquor store.

Then those people would drink and drive that 30-70 miles back to the reservation. Trust me, you did NOT want to be on those roads at night those days.

I'm not sure this plan will help that situation at all: generally, when one is drunk and weaving in and out of the lane, having the horn and headlines turn on and off probably isn't going to stop you at that point. And on the reservation, at least, you won't be seeing that many cops on the road.

Perhaps a lot has changed since I left (I know, for example, that drive through liquor stores are no longer allowed). But I do know that there is no quick fix for the problems of drunk driving in New Mexico.

Re:Part of the Problem

When I moved to New Mexico in 1994, I had to take a special course (as did all immigrants to the state), which was very anti-drunk driving. I remember being in the room with a bunch of very pissed-off people, as the angle was that the state's drunk driving problem was the fault of people moving into the state; if memory serves, the class wasn't required of residents that were getting their DL for the first time. It was just stupid.

I spent several years as a firefighter in the state, with a fire department that covered >25 miles of interstate. Lots of drunk drivers piled it in over that time on that stretch of road, but the problem was much worse once you got off the interstate. The drive-up liquor windows went away, yes- but I think the only effect that had was on my roommate at the time, who was bound to a wheelchair and found it much more convenient to pick up a couple of beers on the weekend via the drive-ups.

New Mexico has a long way to go in terms of bringing itself to the modern day. Enforcement is also a big issue; in the areas where the police AREN'T corrupt, they're usually so sparsely placed that they simply can't cover it. Catron County is something like 3x the size of Rhode Island, and has only two state police officers to cover the entire area at any given time. It's amazing.

Re:This has been suggested in Sweden

If everyone was forced to work and live in a large compound with padded floors, ceilings, and windows, and if everyone was kept seperate from everyone else by plexiglass walls, and if everyone's food was prepared by a dietician, and if everyone requiring transportation was given a padded, computer controlled wheelchair...

The point is that saving human lives is, in and of itself, NOT a valid excuse for treating me like a criminal.

brilliant idea for asthmatics

I suffer an attack and hop in my car to go to the doctor, or to get an inhaler at the pharmacy. Or I'm driving down the road and have an attack, and the stupid horn/lights thing goes off.

Or I'm camping, and not near phones.

Oh, wait. Sorry. Can't blow enough air? That's ok, because the state is small and there aren't long stretches of desert or open roads.

Or not.

Then there is the issueof people with emphysema or other permanent breathing diseases/disorders? Guess they'll have to fork over money for exemptions, and paying for disabling the device.

Bad idea

I think any law which places a burden on many citizens to police the actions of a few is misguided and sets a bad precedent. In addition to viewing the entire state population as 'guilty until proven innocent', it imposes the burden of the change upon the people. The article mentions a 'tax credit' to be given to car owners converting their vehicles, but makes no mention of low-income residents who might not be able to pay for the device and then wait for a refund.

Of course, the first thing most people will do to avoid the inconvenience is disable the system. Therefore this law will inevitably be followed by yet more legislation to make disabling the system illegal, to make selling any device for disabling the system illegal, and probably, to even criminalize the mere dissemination of information on how to perform such modifications. Oh, and of course, an agency would have to supervise the installation of such devices, with 'authorized dealers','inspection stations', and certification, adding another layer of bureaucracy and expense to this ill-advised undertaking.

If you live in NM, please take the time to phone or fax your representative and voice your opinion. A law like this is the first step to a police state with presumptive-guilt laws.

You want me to do what?

You want me to sit in one place in my car for a half a minute every time I start it?
Even if it stalls at a light?
Even if I'm being chased by pirates?
Even at the gas pump?

You want me to take a breathalyzer test while underway?
You've seen the all-out exertion needed on an admissable, accurate police test - you mean like that, while underway?
I'm not supposed to be using a cell phone underway, but you want me to have to stop what I'm doing and use this?
And if I fail, I'm drunk, and I'll do something real brilliant and try and outdrive my own flashing lights and honking horn (y'all watch "COPS", right?)
And if I was going to fail, wasn't I already too close impaired to drive and take the test long before the test randomly popped up on the dash?

How does stuff like this get to "bill" status...

But does it WORK?

Canadian-born, I'm often a political pragmatist. My first question is not "does it intefere with people's rights" but "is the interference beneficial"?

Are these tests easy to fool? I can imagine keeping a can of compressed air handy. Can they be easily disabled? How often will the car start even if the driver is drunk? What about variability for body size?

More importantly: will having such a device actually prevent people from driving drunk? If a drunk person IS driving a car started by someone else, is it really a good idea to have the lights and horn start going off on him suddenly? How the hell do you take the breath test _while you're driving_ for heaven's sake?

To sum up: has a pilot project been done? What quantifiable success did it have?

The customer always pays

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.

Car sellers will not "pay" for this device, car buyers will. If it costs $200 to add the device, you can be sure that car prices with rise $200 in New Mexico. This is the same logic that has government paying for things, when it is really the taxpayer that pays. Businesses, like governments, pass their spending on to customers and taxpayers respectively.

The only exception is if a business faces competition that does not have to install this gizmo. So we can expect to see some booming car sales on the borders near New Mexico.

People really need to stop looking at businesses and government as big money machines. These organizations may have lots of money, but they got it from someplace else.

Great tool for road safety

As if people on cellphones weren't bad enough, now every few miles a tube is going to drop down in front of you, require you to take a hand off the controls to pull it to your mouth, and blow into it, otherwise the engine is going to cut out.

How about requiring that every car be sold with a hands-free cellphone adapter?

More save the children bullshit

Why don't these people just get over themselves and go for prohibition again?

Drunk driving, while obviously a bad thing, is probaly the single most blown out of proportion issue in the United States.

If you actually get your hands on a study proclaiming that 70% (or whatever unrealistically high percentage) of crashes are "alcohol-related", look at the methodology. Crashes where the driver was perfectly fine, but a passenger had A DRINK were considered "alcohol-related"... as was a closed case of beer in the trunk.

Traffic statistics are among the most abused and oft cited. The folks who sell highway signs claim that 60% of accidents are caused by bad signage; police unions say that speedng causes up to 75% of crashes.

Re:More save the children bullshit

No, terrorism is the most overblown out of proportion issue in the US.

Imagine, total invasion of privacy, random searches, mandatory ID checks, and a large hit on our right to travel, all to counteract something that has killed about 3,000 people in the US in the past five or so years, and has killed exactly zero people in the US in the past two years.

Drunk driving comes in pretty badly, though, I must admit. As does child pornography, AIDS, and lots of other things. Come to think of it, every single issue that people have used as an excuse to eliminate our rights is completely overblown. What an incredible coincidence.

This is really irritating

I am imagining a bad scenario here:

A young woman is being chased by a large man who has the apparent desire to physically harm her with a large, blunt instrument. The woman makes it to her car, gets in and..."Damn! The breathalyzer!" Woman breathes into autmobile, menawhile the man breaks through the window with his large, blunt instrument, and proceeds to maim woman....

Now, my rant: This is so typical of government and corporations nowadays. Don't solve the problem, just inconveniance everyone under the false pretense of security! Yay, I have to be assaulted by security guards at Best Buy! A real criminal will just run out the goddam store -- the security dopes cannot do anything about it! Yay, I have to type in 50,000 character codes before installing software! The real pirates (arr) will get a code off the internet and install it anyway! Yay, I cannot rip my CD to mp3 anymore because anti-copying software won't let my CD-ROM drive see an audio-CD! Anybody can still play the CD on a player with a line-in to soundcard and rip away! Yay, "anti-terrorism" activities make me inconvenianced and stripped of liberties! Actual terrorists won't stand in nice, long lines at airports, they'll get guns and bombs and blow up people somwhere else! WHY! Why am I persecuted for someone else's stupidity?!!?!!?!!?!

I hate this shit.

--rhad the embittered and cynical

Dial tone interlock

I've often wanted and required one of these placed on my mobile phone, simply for those post drinking sessions moments when it seems like an ideal moment to call my ex.

It would certainly prevent those next day conversations when she calls you up wondering exactly what you were trying to say/sing on her answering machine.

Hold on a second there.

There is a N E W Mexico?

Human Justice

Support Human Justice for Human Beings [jerf.org].

This story is part of a larger pattern, where law enforcement thinks it can farm its job out to machines. DRM is another instance of the exact same bad idea.

But machines enforce a machine version of the law. We are human. We need fuzziness, and we need the expense of prosecution, as well. (See my linked essay for a justification of that second clause.) This is a feature of the law, not a bug!

What do you do when the machine gets a false positive? Or your life depending on going somewhere right now? Is the state going to take responsibility for the extra 30 it took to get someone to the hospital while they are having a heart attack, or on the verge of a potentially life-threatening birth??

Machines and law enforcement do not go together!

This will certainly backfire...

...when someone needs to rush another person to the hospital. Thirty seconds can be the difference between life and death when you need to rush your hurt kid or pregnant wife to the hospital down the street.

Then also imagine this all happening in the morning, right after you downed a couple spoonfulls of cough syrup because you weren't feeling so hot, and the car refuses to start because it thinks you're drunk.

Will the lawmakers be exempt?

It's an interesting and timely story considering some recent news from Alabama. To quote Birmingham's WERC News Radio [960werc.com]:

"The Alabama Constitution says legislators can't be arrested for some crimes while in session. Among those crimes they can be arrested for ... treason, felonies, violation of their oath of office and breach of the peace. The lawmakers began talking about changing the law after Representative Alvin Holmes was stopped last week by a Montgomery County sheriff's deputy for suspicion of drunk driving. Even though the deputy says he smelled alcohol, he couldn't arrest the Holmes, so they took him home. Holmes says he is being harassed by racist deputies."

Yes, I know the Slashdot story related a proposed bill in New Mexico, but I wonder if legislators there (or in other states) would be exempt from those laws, as is so often the case?

Send some auto-engineers in there to smack'em

What an awful idea, it's just another expensive way for modern cars to stop working, as if they need one. I can't imagine such technology would be reliable over the long term, and in different weather/environmental conditions. "No sorry, can't drive today, it's too humid/dry/cold/hot."

I predict $500 repair bills for replacing $5 chemical sensor elements. I also imagine refit kits available on the internet to disable these things, or to store up sober breaths (& later reheat/hydrate them) to be used later.

I'm sure it'll reduce drunk driving, but sometimes the cure is worse than the problem. I don't want to be stranded on the motorway at negative -10 degrees farenheit because my breathalyzer is broken.

I think the US will finally have reached the end-state of its current decline into lunacy when everyone is implanted into an environmentally sealed, armored chamber at birth. We'll become the land of the bubble people. Noone can do anything, but our lifespans are .4 years higher so it's worth it.

Enforce those laws on the book, k?

Drunk driving is a problem, every four years or so we get enough people killed by drunk drivers to equal the number of Americans lost during all of Vietnam. It kills somewhere around 15,000 people a year. Fine, it's a problem, I can accept that. So why don't they enforce the laws they already have? Better yet, why not have a California style three strikes and your out law. Drunk drivers are a menace to society, so why not lock them up for life without after their third DUI conviction?

Having said all that, leave my car the fuck alone. It's mine, got it? Big brother riding shotgun, I don't think so. Under the auspices of the slippery slope of this program we might as well have gps governors, insurance tracking and automated tickets. Just because technology can do a thing, does not mean that is should do a thing, especially for the masses. At some point, a line must be drawn that says you may not exceed X just because technology allows you to.

Great news for the budding homicidal maniac...

We've all seen the movies....woman running from maniac with a pickaxe gets into her car and starts fumbling with the keys. Then the car won't start until after about two good pickaxe shots throught the roof.
.
Now, on top of everything else, she's got to manage to breath into a tube between screams of terror.
.
yup, great day to be a homicidal maniac.

false positives...

I tried to search for information on the percentage of false positives these devices give, and most of the resulting homepages had FAQs that claimed that false positives were not a problem. Howerver, I did find some interesting things beyond the mouthwash false positives, for example that cigarette smoke and acetone breath (for ex. in type 1 diabetics who either don't know they have the disease or do a poor job in controlling it, or people on Atkins) can cause false positives.

Letter to Senitor

I live in Albuquerque New Mexico. Below is the letter/email I sent to all the state senitors. Thankfully the bill seems dead as there will be no time to vote on it during this session. I recent local TV poll showed people were 85% to 14% against the measure

To Albuquerque Senitors:

I'd like to begin by stating that I do understand we have a large DWI problem in New Mexico. I personally lost my father years ago to a drinking and boating accident. I know the pain families feel when people decide to recklessly endanger themselves and others.

However, I must speak up about the "Ignition Lock" legislation recently passed by the legislature and pending in the Senate. As much as I want our streets to be safer this measure goes way too far in my mind. You're basically asking people to prove they're not committing a crime just to go somewhere.

I'd also like to make sure some possible ramifications to this law have been thought out. People would likely start leaving there cars running when they make quick stops. This could lead to an increase in motor vehicle theft. We are also talking about technology here, which is not always 100% reliable. What if someone gets stranded in the back country because their Interlock malfunctions? Or, if it hinders someone's ability to get moving quickly in an emergency situation? Or even the possibility of spreading disease when several people share a car.

With the projected cost of $600 you are also punishing the underprivileged. For some people they do not have that much to spend on an entire car, let alone a state required accessory. You're raising the cost of entry of vehicle ownership over the $1200 mark. For some people that's too much.

The intentions of this law are good. But monetary and societal cost seems too high. Our civil liberties are vanishing too quickly in this country, and this is a large step in the wrong direction.

Grandstanding.

The House is just playing to the crowd on this one. "See? We're really concerned about this! Vote for us!" Since it will never get signed into law, they'll never have to deal with the consequences. Like how many accidents will be cause by someone futzing with the "rolling test" rather than looking where they're going.

If you want to use interlocks, make them a punishment on first offense DUI. Don't wait until someone gets killed before the punishments get serious. Just the threat of having to deal with the things should make people think twice about combining liquor and driving.

This will die in the NM Senate this morning.

Relax, this just is not going to happen. The NM Legislative session is scheduled to end at noon MST today, and this bill is as dead as a drunk driving victim. No real legislation will get through the NM Legislature until the elected drunks (yes, some of our NM representives have DUI convictions) are thrown out of office. Will that happen anytime soon? Probably not. Driving drunk is embedded in part of the culture here, and until that changes, we here in NM will still have our drunk driving problem. Our Governor Bill Richardson missed yet another opportunity to fix a problem which has now become known world-wide. Shame on you Bill. You let us down again.

Simple suggestion: TAKE THEIR CARS

I've been proposing this for years [slashdot.org]. For your first DUI/DWI, you get a fat fine and points on your license. For your second conviction, the police takes your license, and your car. For #3 and beyond, it's license, car, and go to jail. Most people will stop driving drunk pretty quickly.

It's a simple solution that's easy to implement, isn't intrusive on innocent people, and provides non-tax revenue for local government. Do any states do this? I contacted my local legislators but they weren't interested.

My aunt was killed by a drunk driver there

I have relatives in NM, and coincidentally my aunt was killed by a drunk driver there. This drunk driver (female in this case) was a repeat offender. Folks in NM tend to do what they want regardless of the law (wild west aspect), which partly explains their DUI problem. Passing laws like this isn't going to address that _basic_cultural_issue_ in an effective manner. Those who have spent time in NM among the locals understand what I am saying.

A couple of obvious problems with the bill: What consumer would buy a car that had that feature? And if they did buy it, how long before they took it off the car? Would car companies be liable if the breathalizer read green but you got pulled over and arrested anyway? What if during a random "check" on the highway @ 65 MPH your car decides you failed and shuts down the engine? Its just too absurd to think about in a serious fashion.

Excessive Drinking is the problem, so they should focus on fixing that - not the symptom of driving while intoxicated. The current DUI laws need to be tougher and enforced with more vigor.

A prime example of ...

Engineering Design done by a legislature:

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.

I mean ... I'm all for reducing drunk-driving, but they obviously haven't considered the full impact of this. Just a few human factors/reality issues:

• Carmakers sued because someone couldn't get someone else/self to help in time due to an emergency situation and the person died ... since the driver had to do a breathe test. I'm not saying it's likely ... but hey, Coffee cups now have warning labels about hot contents don't they?
• Teenagers: "Let's all go caravan in our cars (or parents' cars) and nobody do their rolling retest" ... and purposely drive around annoying everyone (but I'm sure some law will cover that too, right?)
• Breath tester thingamajig malfunctions and shuts car won't start/starts tooting and winking at random internvals
• General American Populus becomes more grumpy in the AM because they are delayed 30 more seconds by breathe test.

And then the funny/unrealistic (but still possible ones)

• System mistakes unbrushed teeth/bad breath for drunkenness and sends driver home for hygiene maintenance
• Police cars winking and honking while driving down the street.
• Police (or Keystone cop) car won't start for 30 seconds while criminal speeds away (who has bypassed his system anyway). They shouldn't be 'above the system, no?
• Beneficial one here ... system becomes new alternative to 'jump-starting your car'
• New Bumper Stickers: "Stop Breathing, Start Driving"

Rolling Retests? Great Idea!

Me: Vroom! Vroom! Yee-haa, 250km/h! *pop open a cold one to celebrate* *glug glug glug*
Car: Sir, time for a rolling re-test!
(cue: honker breathalyzer tube falling from the ceiling)
*whap!* Smack in the face!
Me: Eek!
Car: Screeech! WHAM! *flip* *roll* *bounce bounce bounce* *BOOM!* (Car explodes in kindergarten playground off shoulder of autobahn, splattering passer-bys with bits of 3-year-olds)
Me: Ooogh. Pain.
Onlooker: Well, at least he's not a traffic hazard anymore.

Sign me up...

Used cars too?

Interesting...so by 2009, all used cars will have to have this device installed.

I guess that'll kill the resale value of many classics. I wouldn't expect many shops in New Mexico that specialize in restoration to be very happy about this. I mean, do they seriously think that they're going to get somebody to put this device on their Model T? Gullwing Mercedes?

Tell you one thing, if this law comes to my state, I'll either move, or circumvent it. No way are my MGs having these things on them...

How many drunk drivers would there be...

...if every state required forfeiture of the vehicle on the first DUI offense? 25 states [madd.org] have some sort of confiscation law now.

...if drunk drivers had to purchase a special DUI offender's license plate? Are drunk drivers any less of a public safety threat than sex offenders? Sex offender info is very public information, why not DUI offenders?

Just another example

of how willing law makers are to infringe on your civil rights. First they create an infrastructure where if you don't drive you are basically crippled and then they tell you it's a priveledge.

I will protest by driving a small obnoxious electric powered 45 mph top speed car with lots of D&D stickers on the back.

This will kill people

...when their engine craps out on the freeway, or their car starts honking and flashing lights, startling all the other drivers. When they can't get the car started in an emergency. When it strands people in inclement weather, or in the middle of the desert. When a bug in the code sets it off without warning, or locks up and refuses to recognise a good test.

Maybe when those damn idiot legislators see the death toll, they'll learn that it takes a human to make a judgement call.

Vintage/Antique/Muscle Cars

My uncle is a classic Mopar guy. So is my father.

With a '68 Road Runner, a '69 Dart, and a '72 Challenger in the collection, I'm sure they're happy they don't live in New Mexico.

There's no WAY they'd bastardize the hours and hours of meticulous restoration that they've put into these cars, with a big ugly breathing tube.

S

education and tougher laws

have worked well on the population of the UK.

Very graphic adverts showing the results of drink driving have had a large impact.

Of course there is still the hard core of abusers who still instist on DD, but they 'tend' to be above 40 where they didn't have this hammered in from a early age.

It's become socially unacceptable to DD over here, although of course people still do..

Tough laws along with this have helped as well.

Using technology for the sake of it will only make a black market in getting around the device.

Increased policing on the issue had gone someway as the 'named driver' getting cheap/free soft drinks in some areas around various hi-days and holidays.

I think making it socially unacceptable is the key, this takes time and education, and of course the tax payer has to pay for this education.

move along, show's over

this is just some political crackpot trying to make a point in an election year. It'll never pass, it's too invasive. Especially out west, where people value their privacy.

This is just so wrong

I live in Toronto, Canada, and there was this idea that these breath testers should be installed in all cars. There was a radio talk-show about this, so I called in and disagreed. You see I never drunk in my life. Never had any alcohol, no beer, no wine nothing. My car is also a very expensive lease, so I never give it to anyone. So I asked them to tell me why are they going to punish me by installing this device in my car? Install in cars of those who were convicted for DUIs whatever, I don't care, but you cannot presume guilt on everyone.

Besides, those who do drink and drive will simply disconnect the device or use a fake breath blower of some sort or will have filters installed on the tube, how difficult is that?

The only real way to fight DUIs is by strict laws and severe penalties.

Much better solution

I'm a huge supporter of tough drunk driving laws--I get absolutely furious when I see fatal drunk driving accidents where the driver had been arrested 5, 10 sometimes even 15 times for drunk driving. Personally if some one close to me were injured or killed by a repeat offender drunk driver, I will try everything I can to sue the judge and state legislators for gross negligence. Education, fines, blah blah blah with these repeat offenders, they're not going to stop doing it until they kill themselves or somebody else or they're locked up in prison.

That being said, I'm also a pretty big stickler for the Constitution--I can't imagine this wouldn't be thrown out by the courts in a second. This seems like a clear cut case of a violation of illegal search & seizure laws in the fourth amendment. But the much simpler, and more effective solution is to put the ignition interlock in the cars of the people actually conviced. If you're convicte of a crime, you voluntarily surrender rights, so I see no Constitutional problem there.

The other thing I'd like to see is a different license plate for convicted drunk drivers. That way the rest of us have a little advanced warning and a little public humiliation and stigma ain't such a bad thing for people who willingly violate serious laws.

The devil is in the details.

This is going to be trivial to circumvent - so the bad guys will continue to drive drunk - and law abiding citizens will pay the cost.

1) How does the car know you are breathing into it's sample tube and not squirting air into it from some other source?

2) Note that breathalyzers only produce a valid reading 15 minutes AFTER you've taken your last drink. For some of that time, the alcohol remaining in your mouth will give a false positive if you have had a drink but are well below the legal limit. For the later part of that time, the alcohol has not yet passed from your stomach into your blood stream and thence into your lungs - so you'll get a false negative for people who are already legally drunk.

So the test that happens as you get into the car could produce either a false positive (making it impossible to drive your car for 15 minutes after you've just finished a single glass of wine with a large meal) - or a false negative (allowing people who will shortly become drunk as a skunk to get their car started before the full effects are noticable in their breath).

3) Since there is also the obvious "getting your friend to start the car" trick - the initial test is essentially worthless. The whole thing stands or falls on the 'random retest'. Are we to believe that the car beeps at you and demands that you blow into a tube whilst you are driving along...all day - every day? Isn't that gonna be kinda distracting? Am I going to have to prove I'm not drunk every day I drive to work - or 50 times during a long road trip?

How often does it do it? If it's going to do it once every (say) 10 hours of driving, then that won't be a deterrent to someone who is stupid enough to take the risk of driving drunk. If it does it once an hour - then *maybe* that's a deterrent - but it's also a major pain to have to do this two or three times a day on your daily commute.

This is a stupid law.

Here in Texas, the penalty for drunk driving is pathetic - hardly more than a speeding ticket. In UK, there is a HUGE fine (thousands of dollars) and they automatically take away your driving license for 18 months (more for a second offence) - and of course your insurance premiums are going to be astronomical for the rest of your life.

Now *that* is a deterrent.

Car Chases!

Ignition interlocks require a breath test, which takes 30 seconds to complete...

Can you imagine the car chases in movies? Good guy jumps in through the open window... fumbles with the keys as the bad guy is getting closer... puts the key in the ignition... BEEP! PLEASE BREATHE INTO THE STEERING WHEEL AND WAIT 30 SECONDS! BEEP!

I predict a few crashes

These rolling retests require the driver to take the test as the car is moving.

Great, so someone has a new distraction in their car to go along with cell phones, the CD player, kids...etc. Wait until a few people wrap themselves around a tree. Then I wonder if the state may be liable for passing retarded legislation.

Good one, lawmakers. Strike another blow for stupidity!

My old man had one of these after a DWI in PA

My dad got stopped for speeding (and subsequently DWI) in 1990 and as part of a Pennsylvania first-time offenders program he paid a fine, did time in AA meetings, and had one of these installed in his car. By doing so he avoided the mandatory 48 hours jail time and loss of license.

It cost around $2500 to install, and he had to keep it in the car for a year. You had to blow in a pattern, and the thing was fussy as hell. Like blow for 5 seconds, stop, blow for 2 seconds, stop, blow for 2 seconds and pray you did it close enough. Don't blow too hard, or too softly. It was easy to screw it up and have to redo it. It was right around then that I started to drive, so I got the old car and my mom started driving the car with the interlock on it. She had a hell of a time getting it to work under normal conditions. On more than one occasion she failed the 3 times and was stuck waiting 30 minutes for the lock to time out.

Maybe the technology on these has improved in the last 14 years, but I'd bet they're just as fussy as they ever were. Bad idea, too expensive, and why are we punishing 100% of the citizens for something .08% or less of them do? I'm all for whoever suggested the politicians all 'test' this idea for a year to see how it goes before enacting it as law.