Car Tech that Combats Drunk Driving

Well said. I cannot think of anything else to add.

I totally agree. I don't need the nanny state putting more junk on my car that I need to pay for and maintain.

Most of us have been in a situation where we drove a car when we were legally intoxicated (0.08 in our state); Having too much at the company's Christmas Party, a bachelor party, wedding reception, New Year's Eve Party, friend's house, at a bar, frat party in college, etc. Sometimes we think that we're okay to drive. Other times we tell ourselves that it's only a few miles away. Or that we need to get home, so even though we shouldn't be driving, we'll be extra careful. This is normal stuff in our lives and the one time when we do get caught (if we do), everything goes upside down and we learn that it isn't worth taking a chance - we never do it again.

For those with multiple DUI's, it's a psychological problem. Most times they're not just at the limit (0.08 or 0.10), but they're really drunk - stumbling drunk! For these people, they should of course get help, but also, they should lost their driving privilege forever. No mercy on them, because they're the one who's going to wind up crashing into me, my family or my friends.

As Hero points out, it's our responsibility to make sure we don't get behind the wheel when we've had too much. We make the conscious decision to drink. We make the conscious decision to turn the key and drive off. If we start with a device like this, what's next? A device to shut off your car if the CEL triggers? Or shut it off if your tire pressure is low or you haven't changed the oil when you should have?

FYI, a friend of mine in the insurance business told me that the driver's the insurance company likes the best are the ones who have a good driving record and they just got their first DUI. They pay a much higher rate, they are most likely not going to drive after even one beer and they've definitely learned their lesson.

In Wisconsin, if you are convicted of DUI (I believe the first offense) , you have to have these interlock installed at you own expense...

I had my girl friend's car in the shop, and I overheard the mechanical on the phone that told the one on the other end of the line say something to the effect $2400.00 cash up front to install one..

But then you get the woman who made US national news last week who was caught driving drunk with her 3 year old in the car. She had previously been convicted of drunk driving and did have a breath interlock in the vehicle.

She got around it by teaching the 3 year old to blow in the interlock. Nothing short of chaining them down can stop a determined drunk.

Hooker

Then the government defines alcoholism as a disease and people like these aren't held accountable to the degree they should be at.

I don't know the laws where you are at, but here the laws are almost draconian.

First offense will cost you about $10,000 by the time you are through.

Florida can change a person with drunk driving if you are simply walking down the street and happen to have car keys on you and you are intoxicated.

Its at least that, I had a dated a girl that worked at a drug and alcohol center. If convicted you also have to take classes as well, Not to mention getting car insurance, and there was only on insurance outfit that would insurance convicted DUI for a very high price.

Public intoxication when walking down the street is what it's called here, there were a few people I heard of that got pinch while sleeping it off in the back seat of the car.

But it seems that after the first few offices they are convicted of, it doesn't seem to phase them. I heard on the radio that one fellow after the 9th conviction the judge really threw the book at him, but I really did find out what that meant.

Florida can change a person with drunk driving if you are simply walking down the street and happen to have car keys on you and you are intoxicated.

So you can be charged for walking home from the bar instead of driving your car?

They should expend their resources going after people who are actually committing a crime. Laws such as these do nothing more than encourage disrespect for the law.

Or instead charge them with public intoxication,

They may have had other issues, with spring break.... Even though intoxication can be a threat,.... At times It does seem that some of these are just cash generators.

If you have car keys in your possession they can consider that as the ability to DUI.

That being said, police have discretion in how they apply the law.

I know someone who got their first DUI. They drove to a convenience store and decided that they couldn't drive, so they slept it off in the parking lot.

Police arrived and knocked on the window and determined he was still legally intoxicated. Police offered to release him to the custody of someone if they would pick him up. He called friends, but no one would answer the phone at that time of night, so he was hauled off to jail and charged with a first offense DUI. Between the attorney fees, fines, court costs, AA meetings, recurrent blood tests, etc., he was in about $10K and the loss of his license for a number of months.

At least the police tried to give him an out, but it didn't work in his case.

In Green Bay, wi. A lot of the taverns in the tavern league has free taxi/shuttle service for the patrons. I feel this is great, but I believe they had to do it.

I know that for the last 25 years, when I go out I watch my alcohol intake, and the last 10 years it's been basically next to nothing.

No one should be driving drunk, but for every drunk on the road, I suspect there are at least 10 cell phone Sallys and 10 texting Toms. I've never been run off the road by a drunk, but I have by a "phone head". Fortunately, there was a good shoulder and I could dodge the road sign.

Personally I see having a drivers licence is a privilege not a right to which effect to mean anyone who gets a DUI or similar should automatically lose their licence for 1 year with zero bargaining options available.

Second time 5 years, Third 10, Fourth 20 and no bargaining in any case Going by that rate if you get a DUI on your 18th birthday you will be 19 before you can drive again.

By the time you can get your licence back again you will likely be about 25.

Do it again and you're 35+ before you can drive again this time.

Do it one more and your 55+ and at a point where you have either outgrown the stupidity or your long life without a vehicle has brought you to a point where you likely have no need for a vehicle and licence any more.

My reasoning is that I for one am one of those people who have worked they way up to having earned a full Class A Commercial Drivers Licence with HazMat endorsements which means for me anything more than a speeding ticket every few years could affect me keeping my licence and a very large aspect of my ways of earning a rather favorable living in return.

a privilege not a right...I think you just nailed most of the current behavioural problems that blight modern society problems.Del

More so in this country,... People would cry they have rights, which is true.... But these same people haven't a clue what their rights actually are. Only that they know they have rights.

While I certainly agree that drunk drivers that cause serious injury to someone should be penalized heavily, there's still the 69% of fatalities that were caused by people that weren't drunk. I find it quite upsetting how often I read about a motorcyclist run down by someone turning left that says "I didn't see him", and gets off with a relatively minor sentence. I'd prefer to see a device that would park your car if it determines that you aren't paying attention to the road, and not allow the car to be restarted for a set period of time.

Unfortunately, the motorcyclist has a smaller cross sectional area.... And the driver of the car, like the motorcyclist is human. the awareness becomes transplanted with complacency...

Also remember that at times motorcyclist put themselves at risk because of their movability.

And your suggestion is ridicules,..... take a cab.

I think society draws a line between an accident and negligence.

Making an honest good-faith effort to clear your turn and causing an accident is just that, an accident. There are penalties for that behavior.

Neglagence is not apply the due diligence or even ordinary care required to operate a motor vehicle. Loading yourself up with some chemical that impairs your ability to operate that vehicle safely, but operating anyway is more than an accident - it's criminal.

Personally, I would rather resources be applied to actually training people to drive and licensing requirements that actually amount to a test instead of a form you fill out to get behind the driver's wheel.

Then again, I have always advocated just handing out pilot's licenses to some of these people and if they attempt to fly anything like they drive it will become a self-correcting problem.

Quite a while back, in the US, when the number of motorcyclists was fewer, I saw an article about a guy that recorded the number of "I didn't see him" close encounters with his motorcycle in civilian and police bike type guise.

These encounters dropped dramatically with the police version.

There could at least be a heads up display that corrects double vision.