stuckincincy Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 Tick-tock, tick-tock, tick-tock...it always starts slowly. Will all autos some day have breathalyzers? Updated 4/25/2006 1:18 AM ET By Jayne O'Donnell, USA TODAY "Could the day be coming when every driver is checked for drinking before starting a car? Widespread use of ignition interlock devices that won't allow a car to be started if a driver has had too much alcohol, once considered radical, no longer seems out of the question. Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) gives a qualified endorsement to the idea. New York state legislators are considering requiring the devices on all cars and trucks by 2009. And automakers, already close to offering the devices as optional equipment on all Volvo and Saab models in Sweden, are considering whether to bring the technology here. Manufacturers are perfecting technology that could detect alcohol on the skin surface, eliminating the need for the current, cumbersome, blow-into-a-tube breath-analyzing systems. Current breathalyzers cost about $1,000. The newer systems are expected to cost about the same. The New York bill was introduced by Assemblyman Felix Ortiz, who also sponsored the bill that became the first law banning the use of handheld cellphones while driving. To those who say neither the public nor the technology is ready for such a universal application, Ortiz says he heard similar complaints about the cellphone ban and hands-free technology. He compares the criticism to early complaints about mandatory safety belts. "... http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2006-0...yzer-usat_x.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eSJayDee Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 Gonna see a lot of idling cars in bar/tavern parking lots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gross Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 I could see it as a mandatory purchase for those who have a DWI offense, but everyone? It's not the equivalent of the "hands free" law, it's the equivalent of having the "hands free" law be that it's mandatory that all cars sold in NYS have "Universal" hands-free devices pre-installed. Oh, well, not that far to drive to PA to buy a car I guess. Either that or buy new in 2008... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted April 27, 2006 Share Posted April 27, 2006 Motherment, brought to you by people more interested in living your life than their own. But let's keep using the term "Freedom" all willy-nilly, shall we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted April 27, 2006 Author Share Posted April 27, 2006 Motherment, brought to you by people more interested in living your life than their own. But let's keep using the term "Freedom" all willy-nilly, shall we? 672273[/snapback] Folks reserve their ire for things like passports for trips to Canada and defending their right to pirate copyrighted media. We have our little DUI checkpoints here, they grab one or two or three, but only in the warm months on sunny days. Evidently drunk driving goes away if it's raining, cold, or snowing. I wouldn't mind if Ohio banned the sale of cigarettes. I'd quit, but since the tax from the sales is the 3rd-largest source of State income and knowing that they will recover that from the taxpayers as a whole, many who villify me are in for a *slight* surprise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 Gonna see a lot of idling cars in bar/tavern parking lots. 671843[/snapback] Nope. Those interlock thingies won't even allow the engine to be started. Hey, I'm all for keeping impaired drivers off the road -- few years back, a couple of friends died because they were unfortunate enough to share a stretch of road with a repeat offender. But to assume everyone's guilty until proven innocent? Not cool. On a somewhat related note: guy I know just got busted. Car turned off, keys in his pocket, 'resting his eyes' at a safe distance off the road. Cop initially stopped to see if he was OK, then decided he smelled ETOH. cop: "Guess you'll think twice about sleeping it off alongside the road next time." driver: "No, next time I'll just keep driving instead." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 A friend of mine is going to have to have one installed in his truck for a year because of a DWI offence. To put it in every car is similar to cops arresting people for being drunk in a bar because they "might" have taken a car and went somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 Nope. Those interlock thingies won't even allow the engine to be started. Hey, I'm all for keeping impaired drivers off the road -- few years back, a couple of friends died because they were unfortunate enough to share a stretch of road with a repeat offender. But to assume everyone's guilty until proven innocent? Not cool. On a somewhat related note: guy I know just got busted. Car turned off, keys in his pocket, 'resting his eyes' at a safe distance off the road. Cop initially stopped to see if he was OK, then decided he smelled ETOH. cop: "Guess you'll think twice about sleeping it off alongside the road next time." driver: "No, next time I'll just keep driving instead." 672468[/snapback] I think he was referring to sober people driving their cars to the bar, leaving the engine idling for a few hours (definitely need to fill the car's tank before filling their own!) and then hopping in the already started, already warm (hmm, this may not be a bad idea in WNY even without the automatic breathalyzer, too bad gas is $3.00/gal) car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 I think he was referring to sober people driving their cars to the bar, leaving the engine idling for a few hours (definitely need to fill the car's tank before filling their own!) and then hopping in the already started, already warm (hmm, this may not be a bad idea in WNY even without the automatic breathalyzer, too bad gas is $3.00/gal) car. 672477[/snapback] Cas consumption is very minimal on idle but the pollution problem could rapidly increase Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 I think he was referring to sober people driving their cars to the bar, leaving the engine idling for a few hours (definitely need to fill the car's tank before filling their own!) and then hopping in the already started, already warm (hmm, this may not be a bad idea in WNY even without the automatic breathalyzer, too bad gas is $3.00/gal) car. 672477[/snapback] Could be -- I didn't consider that option. Guess I'm not devious enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EndZoneCrew Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 MORE COWBELL!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 Tick-tock, tick-tock, tick-tock...it always starts slowly. Will all autos some day have breathalyzers? Updated 4/25/2006 1:18 AM ET By Jayne O'Donnell, USA TODAY "Could the day be coming when every driver is checked for drinking before starting a car? Widespread use of ignition interlock devices that won't allow a car to be started if a driver has had too much alcohol, once considered radical, no longer seems out of the question. Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) gives a qualified endorsement to the idea. New York state legislators are considering requiring the devices on all cars and trucks by 2009. And automakers, already close to offering the devices as optional equipment on all Volvo and Saab models in Sweden, are considering whether to bring the technology here. Manufacturers are perfecting technology that could detect alcohol on the skin surface, eliminating the need for the current, cumbersome, blow-into-a-tube breath-analyzing systems. Current breathalyzers cost about $1,000. The newer systems are expected to cost about the same. The New York bill was introduced by Assemblyman Felix Ortiz, who also sponsored the bill that became the first law banning the use of handheld cellphones while driving. To those who say neither the public nor the technology is ready for such a universal application, Ortiz says he heard similar complaints about the cellphone ban and hands-free technology. He compares the criticism to early complaints about mandatory safety belts. "... http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2006-0...yzer-usat_x.htm 671837[/snapback] Realistically...when you compare the total number of hours people spend driving in this country every day with the total number of hours people spend driving impaired every day...how is this remotely cost-effective? Out of every hundred times a person starts a car, how many times is that person drunk? Maybe three? The other 97 times out of 100, people have to prove they're sober to start their own car? I'm all for taking drunks off the road...however, I'm not for the idea of forcing innocent people to prove they're innocent to participate in a perfectly legal act. Plus...it makes me wonder, can't you just blow canned air through the thing to get the car to start? Or hell, just appoint a "designated blower" to start everyone's car for them. Only reason that doesn't work now is because there's a person standing there watching when you personally take the breathalyzer test, and can differentiate between you, someone else, and a tire pump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 Realistically...when you compare the total number of hours people spend driving in this country every day with the total number of hours people spend driving impaired every day...how is this remotely cost-effective? Out of every hundred times a person starts a car, how many times is that person drunk? Maybe three? The other 97 times out of 100, people have to prove they're sober to start their own car? I'm all for taking drunks off the road...however, I'm not for the idea of forcing innocent people to prove they're innocent to participate in a perfectly legal act. Plus...it makes me wonder, can't you just blow canned air through the thing to get the car to start? Or hell, just appoint a "designated blower" to start everyone's car for them. Only reason that doesn't work now is because there's a person standing there watching when you personally take the breathalyzer test, and can differentiate between you, someone else, and a tire pump. 672539[/snapback] Depends how sophisticated you want to make it. It probably wouldn't be too hard to test that CO, humidity, and temperature are within the range of a normal person's exhale to beat someone cheating with a compressed air cartridge. That could create a market for a breathalyzer version of the "ultimate whizzanator". (Beating idiotic laws, the true mother of invention!) Having a "designated blower" would be tougher for the idiots pushing this type of law to beat, but somehow I doubt that inconvenience or cost are factoring much into their thinking; so it wouldn't surprise me to see them want to add biometric sensors to the thing to make it more difficult for someone other than the driver to "blow". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 Realistically...when you compare the total number of hours people spend driving in this country every day with the total number of hours people spend driving impaired every day...how is this remotely cost-effective? Out of every hundred times a person starts a car, how many times is that person drunk? Maybe three? The other 97 times out of 100, people have to prove they're sober to start their own car? I'm all for taking drunks off the road...however, I'm not for the idea of forcing innocent people to prove they're innocent to participate in a perfectly legal act. Plus...it makes me wonder, can't you just blow canned air through the thing to get the car to start? Or hell, just appoint a "designated blower" to start everyone's car for them. Only reason that doesn't work now is because there's a person standing there watching when you personally take the breathalyzer test, and can differentiate between you, someone else, and a tire pump. 672539[/snapback] a friend of mine is having one installed in his car and he told me that it only starts when he is the one that blows in it. i have no idea how, but that's what i was told. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 On a somewhat related note: guy I know just got busted. Car turned off, keys in his pocket, 'resting his eyes' at a safe distance off the road. Cop initially stopped to see if he was OK, then decided he smelled ETOH. cop: "Guess you'll think twice about sleeping it off alongside the road next time." driver: "No, next time I'll just keep driving instead." 672468[/snapback] Truely sucks. Round these here parts the Texas BAC was recently in the news. They were eyeballing patrons inside bars. If they thought someone was intoxicated they called in the locals to have the patron arrested because they posed a risk of potentially driving while impared. They went so far as to have a man arrested in a hotel bar. Just so happens the guy was staying at the hotel, and thus posed virtually no threat what so ever. I believe the charge in these cases was PI. Person drives drunk...I have no problem with them getting popped. Person could potentially drive drunk...big problems for me. The resulting public backlash has led the BAC to "reevaluate" the program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted April 28, 2006 Author Share Posted April 28, 2006 Truely sucks. Round these here parts the Texas BAC was recently in the news. They were eyeballing patrons inside bars. If they thought someone was intoxicated they called in the locals to have the patron arrested because they posed a risk of potentially driving while impared. They went so far as to have a man arrested in a hotel bar. Just so happens the guy was staying at the hotel, and thus posed virtually no threat what so ever. I believe the charge in these cases was PI. Person drives drunk...I have no problem with them getting popped. Person could potentially drive drunk...big problems for me. The resulting public backlash has led the BAC to "reevaluate" the program. 672676[/snapback] Yes, I remember that...two months ago or something like that? Chilling. Especially the attitude of the BAC lady I heard on the radio. Smacks of prior restraint... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 Yes, I remember that...two months ago or something like that? Chilling. Especially the attitude of the BAC lady I heard on the radio. Smacks of prior restraint... 672793[/snapback] Not in Texas! Well, not any more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 Truely sucks. Round these here parts the Texas BAC was recently in the news. They were eyeballing patrons inside bars. If they thought someone was intoxicated they called in the locals to have the patron arrested because they posed a risk of potentially driving while impared. They went so far as to have a man arrested in a hotel bar. Just so happens the guy was staying at the hotel, and thus posed virtually no threat what so ever. I believe the charge in these cases was PI. Person drives drunk...I have no problem with them getting popped. Person could potentially drive drunk...big problems for me. The resulting public backlash has led the BAC to "reevaluate" the program. 672676[/snapback] Yes truly sad story, but as VA Bills puts it, people shouldn't be in hotel bars getting drunk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 Plus...it makes me wonder, can't you just blow canned air through the thing to get the car to start? Or hell, just appoint a "designated blower" to start everyone's car for them. Only reason that doesn't work now is because there's a person standing there watching when you personally take the breathalyzer test, and can differentiate between you, someone else, and a tire pump. Now, where is Monica when you need her? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts