Jump to content

U.S. may require anti-DWI locks on vehicles


Lil Bit Special

Recommended Posts

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-29-drunk_N.htm?fark

A national campaign against first-time drunken-driving offenders is gaining ground as states and the federal government weigh mandatory use of devices requiring violators to prove their sobriety before their engines start.

Three more states have enacted laws this year requiring all violators to install devices called alcohol ignition interlocks, bringing to 11 the number of states with such rules. The instrument blocks a vehicle engine from starting if it detects alcohol on the breath of drivers.

The current version of a federal transportation funding bill, which could be debated by Congress this fall, requires all 50 states to mandate the devices for anyone convicted of drunken driving or risk losing federal highway money. Today, 47 states and the District of Columbia have interlock ignition laws for at least some offenders. Alabama, South Dakota and Vermont have no such laws.

They are installed in about 150,000 vehicles in the USA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know a few people that have them down here. They just get other people to blow into the to start their car.

One of my neighbors had that thing and use to get his kids to do it and his wife would find out and throw him out. see dude all hammered sitting on his porch. Silly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have an idea... someone drives drunk take their license away. Problem solved no need for this big brother controlling your life ****.

If someone drives drunk and kills someone there is little taking a Lic away will do nada since someone is already dead. Having it installed would save lives IMO.

I do see your point though, it feels like it encroaches on our freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone drives drunk and kills someone there is little taking a Lic away will do nada since someone is already dead. Having it installed would save lives IMO.

I do see your point though, it feels like it encroaches on our freedom.

Life in prison without parole would clear that right up. Trust me, if people were getting 25 to life for driving drunk people would not do it. I have a better idea. Ban alcohol and see all the pathetic drug addicts squirm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Life in prison without parole would clear that right up. Trust me, if people were getting 25 to life for driving drunk people would not do it. I have a better idea. Ban alcohol and see all the pathetic drug addicts squirm.

Well prohibition did little or nothing in the 20's since people found a way to get liquor anyway from Speakeasy's and other underground bars. Banning alcohol wont work!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Life in prison without parole would clear that right up. Trust me, if people were getting 25 to life for driving drunk people would not do it. I have a better idea. Ban alcohol and see all the pathetic drug addicts squirm.

That's a great idea. Ban alcohol so criminals have an even bigger market to get rich off of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Life in prison without parole would clear that right up. Trust me, if people were getting 25 to life for driving drunk people would not do it. I have a better idea. Ban alcohol and see all the pathetic drug addicts squirm.

What? Lock up drunk drivers and do what you want with vehicle manslaughter people. But touch my booze and we going to tango. My lead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many more civil liberties are Americans willing to freely give up without moving a muscle in the name of "Safety"?

I'm sorry, but what? When did "driving a car that starts without an interlock" become a civil liberty? Hell, these things don't even track usage - its no more a breach of your civil liberties than, say, a drivers license is

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm wondering how they'll enforce this law. Not every drunk driver drives only his/her own car. Nor does every drunk driver have a car registered to him/her.

If the drunk driver is a young adult, they might be driving their parents' car. Does that mean Dad and Mom have to have an interlock on their cars?

If a husband drives drunk while in his wife's car, does the wife's car have to get the device? Or if he get convicted on his own car but often drives her car, does her car need the device, too, just in case?

And how long ago are they looking for drunk driving convictions? If someone was convicted when 21 but is now 41, do they still need a device?

Methinks there are more questions than answers right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've often said : Ban Booze and Legalize Marijuana.

You can't drive a car into a building doing 15mph while baked out of you mind.

I agree with some of what you say but banning alcohol will not stop people from drinking and driving.

I think the solution is technology. There are systems in development which uses onboard computers and camera's to check if the driver is drunk or just drowsy, in either case, the system turns the engine off. In future hopefull auto-piloting/driving will solve the whole problem all together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've often said : Ban Booze and Legalize Marijuana.

You can't drive a car into a building doing 15mph while baked out of you mind.

Um yes you can. I dont know if I should be saying this to a cop, but driving stoned is just as stupid/dangerous as driving drunk.

In both cases your senses are impaired and it will lead you to do something stupid. You shouldnt drive under the influence of anything IMO. Not even cough syrup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's a pretty cool idea. Driving isn't a right, and people too stupid to do it correctly need to be kicked in the ass until they do it correctly.

And if a drunk is pulled out of a wreck with one of those devices in place, he should get 20 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um yes you can. I dont know if I should be saying this to a cop, but driving stoned is just as stupid/dangerous as driving drunk.

In both cases your senses are impaired and it will lead you to do something stupid. You shouldnt drive under the influence of anything IMO. Not even cough syrup.

while driving stoned isn't too smart.....there is no comparison to driving stoned and drving piss drunk. you can not drive piss drunk. you can drive after you just smoked a blunt.....you may drive slower than normal....but it's not even close. piss drunk there aren't many things you can do but act like a moron and pass out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

while driving stoned isn't too smart.....there is no comparison to driving stoned and drving piss drunk. you can not drive piss drunk. you can drive after you just smoked a blunt.....you may drive slower than normal....but it's not even close. piss drunk there aren't many things you can do but act like a moron and pass out.

I get that alcohol is more severe than weed, but it isnt a good idea to drive high either. Many people have died as a result of accidents where 1 party was stoned senseless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...