www.ditl.org

KuvahMagh wrote:True but if it stops someone from driving drunk and killing someone else?

I don't think it would, though. For instance, as well as just asking friends or whoever happens to be about, you'd get homeless guys making a living hanging outside of bars and blowing into machines for a pound a time. And of course you'd have people disabling the devices themselves, finding ways around them.

Ultimately, you can't make people behave responsibly. You can encourage them, but they'll still make their own decisions. It's a shame from some points of view, but that's just the way it is.

GrahamKennedy wrote:

KuvahMagh wrote:True but if it stops someone from driving drunk and killing someone else?

I don't think it would, though. For instance, as well as just asking friends or whoever happens to be about, you'd get homeless guys making a living hanging outside of bars and blowing into machines for a pound a time. And of course you'd have people disabling the devices themselves, finding ways around them.

Ultimately, you can't make people behave responsibly. You can encourage them, but they'll still make their own decisions. It's a shame from some points of view, but that's just the way it is.

So we shouldn't try? I know it won't stop everyone but it might stop a few. Obviously this isn't the only answer, people need to continue to be educated of course but like I say if it can save lives it is worth considering.

KuvahMagh wrote:So we shouldn't try? I know it won't stop everyone but it might stop a few. Obviously this isn't the only answer, people need to continue to be educated of course but like I say if it can save lives it is worth considering.

Yes, in this case we shouldn't try. The costs outweigh the benefits in my view.

The only thing I can suggest for that would be to put a massive penalty for cirvumventing them, along with penalties for helping someone circumvent them.

Rochey wrote:The only thing I can suggest for that would be to put a massive penalty for cirvumventing them, along with penalties for helping someone circumvent them.

Charge the acomplice with accessory to DUI as well as whatever other crime the driver committs, so accessory to murder would be pretty harsh.

And lets be honest: for all of you complaining about mouthwash and tic-tacs. The worst that happens is your car doesn't start. Boo-hoo, take a cab or transit.

Rochey wrote:The only thing I can suggest for that would be to put a massive penalty for cirvumventing them, along with penalties for helping someone circumvent them.

It's a pointless exercise IMO. Utterly impractical.

Here's another thought. Blow up a balloon before you go out and stick it in the glove box. When you get back, put it on the machine and blow the air through it; hey presto, unlocked. Alternately use a little cylinder of compressed air.

I've now thought of half a dozen or so ways to beat this thing in the space of an hour or so. Doesn't this tell you something about how impractical it is?

GrahamKennedy wrote:
It's a pointless exercise IMO. Utterly impractical.

Here's another thought. Blow up a balloon before you go out and stick it in the glove box. When you get back, put it on the machine and blow the air through it; hey presto, unlocked. Alternately use a little cylinder of compressed air.

I've now thought of half a dozen or so ways to beat this thing in the space of an hour or so. Doesn't this tell you something about how impractical it is?

And guess what? When the guy gets caught, he now gets charged with trying to circumvent the system as well as DUI. And if the law is written correctly it would be an automatic one way trip to con college.

If even a fraction of drunks fail to circumvent the system, I'd say it succeeded. OK, it might not work all the time; but what's the downside?

GrahamKennedy wrote:It's a silly idea IMO. Extremely easy to cheat - you just get somebody else to blow in the thing for you.

Now instead of designated drivers there'll be designated breathers

Mikey wrote:If even a fraction of drunks fail to circumvent the system, I'd say it succeeded. OK, it might not work all the time; but what's the downside?

There isn't one. Like you say even if it only stops 5% of drunk drivers, than it's saved thousands of lives a year. And we can do it off the backs of the industry whose R&D will be (relatively low) thanks to this already being out there.

Mikey wrote:If even a fraction of drunks fail to circumvent the system, I'd say it succeeded. OK, it might not work all the time; but what's the downside?

Well, for starters there's the issue of people who don't need breathalyzers.

ChakatBlackstar wrote:
Well, for starters there's the issue of people who don't need breathalyzers.

Pardon me? I hate to break it to you but driving is a privledge, not a right. And frankly given the large number of DUI's, there's no reason why you shouldn't have to prove you are sober when you get in. You already have to prove it at a cops request anyways.

Cpl Kendall wrote:

ChakatBlackstar wrote:
Well, for starters there's the issue of people who don't need breathalyzers.

Pardon me? I hate to break it to you but driving is a privledge, not a right. And frankly given the large number of DUI's, there's no reason why you shouldn't have to prove you are sober when you get in. You already have to prove it at a cops request anyways.

What about people who don't drink? Like me?

ChakatBlackstar wrote:
What about people who don't drink? Like me?

Suck it up. Once again: driving is not a right, you get to do it at the sufference of the state. And if you don't drink than the thirty second pause between getting in and starting up is just part of the routine check you do when you get it. It's only an inconvienance if your drunk or you consider your personal wants to be greater than public safety.

Edit: BTW I also don't drink and I have no problem with this. Of course I've also been driving longer than you've been an adult.

Cpl Kendall wrote:

ChakatBlackstar wrote:
What about people who don't drink? Like me?

Suck it up. Once again: driving is not a right, you get to do it at the sufference of the state. And if you don't drink than the thirty second pause between getting in and starting up is just part of the routine check you do when you get it. It's only an inconvienance if your drunk or you consider your personal needs to be greater than public safety.

I got a better idea. How about drunks stop drinking?. Or better yet, chug down a bottle of poison that acts faster then alcohol.