Author Topic: Breathalizer Interlocks For Everybody (Read 1206 times)

rpm · « **Reply #45 on:** February 19, 2004, 10:21:43 PM »

John, I hope you never get one either. I'm not preaching, but it's when you get comfortable that you drop your guard and BAM! I was 40 when I got a DWI and I THOUGHT I was OK to drive.
The formula for getting a DWI in Texas is 1 drink per hour (depending on body weight). Drink just that little and you are in the danger zone. Did you know that a BAC lower than .08 can still get you a conviction the way the law is written in Texas? ANY amount in your system can lead to a conviction depending on the circumstances, the procecutor and the Judge. I blew a .05... well below the "Legal Limit".

Capt. Pork · « **Reply #46 on:** February 19, 2004, 10:39:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm371
ANY amount in your system can lead to a conviction depending on the circumstances, the procecutor and the Judge. I blew a .05... well below the "Legal Limit".

I hate to go back to this but....

This is exactly why setting up mandatory jail terms for that circumstance is absurd. Imagine, having to do a year in jail for a .05, as some on the board find justified. With statutes, you can't argue or bargain your way out of it, even though you're hardly a threat to anybody at .05, much less, how did he put it, a '4000 lb bullet'.

rpm · « **Reply #47 on:** February 19, 2004, 10:57:31 PM »

BUT, had my car been equipted with a factory installed interlock I would not have been in the position to get pulled over. Like I said earlier, this will never happen. The State and County make too much money from DWI convictions. Not counting the Fedreal and State Grant money they receive. There are Probation fees, Drug Test fees, Court Costs (talk about over priced!), Counciling fees, Group Education Class Fees, Victim Impact fees, License fees, and DWI Education fees. These do not include money that does not go directly to the state, like Lawyer costs, increased Auto Insurance, Breathalyzer Installation and Maintenence, possible loss of your job or time lost from work for Court, Community Service or worse yet incarceration. Just pray that you do not get in an accident (your fault or not) and someone is injured. You will automaticly be at fault and liable for personal injury damages. You betcha I want one in my car from the factory.

Capt. Pork · « **Reply #48 on:** February 19, 2004, 11:03:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm371
BUT, had my car been equipted with a factory installed interlock I would not have been in the position to get pulled over. Like I said earlier, this will never happen. The State and County make too much money from DWI convictions. Not counting the Fedreal and State Grant money they receive. There are Probation fees, Drug Test fees, Court Costs (talk about over priced!), Counciling fees, Group Education Class Fees, Victim Impact fees, License fees, and DWI Education fees. These do not include money that does not go directly to the state, like Lawyer costs, increased Auto Insurance, Breathalyzer Installation and Maintenence, possible loss of your job or time lost from work for Court, Community Service or worse yet incarceration. Just pray that you do not get in an accident (your fault or not) and someone is injured. You will automaticly be at fault and liable for personal injury damages. You betcha I want one in my car from the factory.

Exactly. It scares the hell out of me to think that my dad, a widely respected physician, could be dragged through the dirt after getting pulled over after 2 glasses of wine. He doesn't drink often, and he's the definition of reponsible, but with these laws the way they are, he's more and more approaching the target zone for shotgun-effect prosecution.

Yes, let's throw him in jail, say some...

I'm still of the belief that another solution is worth trying.

Maverick · « **Reply #49 on:** February 19, 2004, 11:28:02 PM »

Most DUI laws are written to state, impairment in the slightest degree. You do NOT have to be over .08, .10 to be impaired. Those are just legally defined limits, not cast in stone absolutes that show you are not impaired if below them.

Some folks have such a low tollerance to alcohol they are almost falling down drunk on .05%. Others have such a high tollerance that a .15 is hard to detect in their actions. Especially long term alcoholics. It still affects them in complex activities like driving but you would not suspect it in a casual encounter with them.

Capt. Pork · « **Reply #50 on:** February 19, 2004, 11:37:00 PM »

Tolerance or not, if you blow beyond the state limit at the station, which is generally .08, you're going to get prosecuted.

Field sobriety tests, rediculous and unscientific(I've gotten out of two just by being able to recite the alphabet backwards), are just there to determine whether or not to justify the use of a plastic mouthpiece for the intoxilizer. If the intoxilerizer gives the cop the green light, he takes you in for a more in-depth breath-test.

Yes, drinking and driving is a problem, but with current statutes, the law governing this offense is blind. I still support the concept of preemptive prevention. Some call it a track to a 'nanny state', but what exactly are you proving by allowing potentially dangerous drivers out on the road? Stop them before the key is turned. Those that do not break this law have nothing to fear. It'll still be cheaper than more prisons.

gunnss · « **Reply #51 on:** February 20, 2004, 01:11:12 AM »

I live here in NM and the whole thing was just Grandstanding by the state Legaslature and it represents an attempt at getting attention with out having to put any real soulution out there. the ACLU would never let it pass any way, Massive class action suit by those who dont drink at all would result, also suits for limiting personal freedoms with out due prosecution. All in all it was just the Jungle ball style politics as played out west, with the rest of the country in a panic over a Draconein gasp of Fachisim.
Yeah I still cant spell

Gunns

Seraphim · « **Reply #52 on:** February 20, 2004, 01:59:53 AM »

Why don't we just outlaw everything so we can be gauranteed not to get hurt ever?

lazs2 · « **Reply #53 on:** February 20, 2004, 09:58:29 AM »

you guys elected the women and womanly men and now you are *****ing because you have to live like you are still at your moms house?

lazs

Toad · « **Reply #54 on:** February 20, 2004, 10:42:42 AM »

Let's see, the argument now is that the BAC limits are arbitrary? That some respected physicians can drive with one, two , three, four or even five glasses of wine while other mere mortals fall down drunk after sniffing the vapor from a freshly opened beer?

Guess what......the interlocks would operate at a predetermined arbitrary BAC.

Here's an idea for you. Make the arbitrary-limit interlocks optional. If you're caught weaving all over the interstate in an interlocked equipped car, or take out a family in an minivan when you weave across the centerline, you get off scott free. After all, you have an interlock!

However, do these things without an interlock and fail a breathalyser and you go to jail.

There ya go. Freedom of choice!

Great thread though.

hyena426 · « **Reply #55 on:** February 20, 2004, 12:18:08 PM »

interlock should only be put on drunk drivers who are caught in the act,,,if they make me put those things on my classic cars ill hand over my keys ride a damn bus,,hehe,,it would ruin there value,,we had a 53 merc flathead v8 make the northwest rodder,,and won cool desart nights,,we restore classic cars,and i never drive drunk,, i think its unfair to punish everyone with a interlock when not everyone drinks and drives

drunk driving accidents have dropped to half from 20 years ago,,dont ya think thats amazing considering there are more cars on the road now then back then? and more laws then ever,,they seem to be working if death rate is falling

Munkii · « **Reply #56 on:** February 20, 2004, 12:50:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by hyena426
drunk driving accidents have dropped to half from 20 years ago,,dont ya think thats amazing considering there are more cars on the road now then back then? and more laws then ever,,they seem to be working if death rate is falling

Do you have a source for that? I find that really interesting. I hate drunk driving, but would never advocate interlocks for everyone. If the rates of accident are falling, there is obviously something working. If it's just death rates falling, a lot can be attributed to the greater safety in your average car.

rpm · « **Reply #57 on:** February 20, 2004, 02:49:21 PM »

I am not talking about retrofitting every car on the road. Just start making them standard equiptment on new cars. Eventually, they will become commonplace. With the technology we have today you could incorporate it into the Anti-Theft system no problem. "Hello, this is On Star....would you prefer a Taxi or Tow Truck?" But don't get yer Huggies in a wad. It's NEVER going to happen.

hyena426 · « **Reply #58 on:** February 20, 2004, 03:17:18 PM »

Quote

Do you have a source for that? I find that really interesting. I hate drunk driving, but would never advocate interlocks for everyone. If the rates of accident are falling, there is obviously something working. If it's just death rates falling, a lot can be attributed to the greater safety in your average car.

yes i do,,check out these links,,you will notice even from the 1980's drunk driving has gone down big time,,not anuff maybe,,but big time if you add up all the percentages,its quite amazing,,the laws are helping

http://www.alcoholstats.com/1.htm

http://www.madd.org/aboutus/0,1056,1686,00.html

both got info,,not the right web site i was lookin for,,but if you pop in a google searce you will notice every web site to do with drunk driver stats are close to the same,,its dropped almost half in the last 20 years,,sounds like the laws are working to me,,slowely but surely

The number of fatalities in teen drunk-driving crashes has declined 36 percent since 1990 and 61 percent since 1982, going from 4,214 fatalities in 1982 to 1,651 fatalities in 2002. There were 2,500 fewer teen drunk-driving fatalities in 2002 than in 1982. <~~wow that just shows the laws are working,,just taking time

Since MADD's inception, alcohol-related traffic fatalities have declined 43 percent. Statistics indicate that in 1980, 55 percent (28,100) of the nation's 51,091 traffic fatalities were alcohol-related. In 1999, alcohol-related fatalities represented 38 percent (15,794) of the nation's 41,345 traffic fatalities, according to preliminary statistics

Capt. Pork · « **Reply #59 on:** February 20, 2004, 03:50:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Let's see, the argument now is that the BAC limits are arbitrary? That some respected physicians can drive with one, two , three, four or even five glasses of wine while other mere mortals fall down drunk after sniffing the vapor from a freshly opened beer?

Guess what......the interlocks would operate at a predetermined arbitrary BAC.

Here's an idea for you. Make the arbitrary-limit interlocks optional. If you're caught weaving all over the interstate in an interlocked equipped car, or take out a family in an minivan when you weave across the centerline, you get off scott free. After all, you have an interlock!

However, do these things without an interlock and fail a breathalyser and you go to jail.

There ya go. Freedom of choice!

Great thread though.

The point is, you don't have to take out a mini van, or even weave across a centerline to get arrested. In fact, you can get stopped for a seatbelt violation, driving fine otherwise, and the penalty sticks. Statutes mean no room for interpretation of the law.

As for the respected physician, that was merely an example of how functioning, contributing members of society can become criminals, having hurt nobody and damaged nothing at all, and in certain cases, having had no more than 1-2 drinks(zero tolerance laws, such as the case in Washington DC). Nobody said anything about 4 or 5.

The way you say it, it's like every time somebody gets into a car after drinking, whatever amount, the first thing they do is look for an innocent family to mow down, the more children the better. It's simply not the case.