There are obvious advantages to this law. If you've got kids in the car you can have them blow on the monitor next time you get loaded.

It seems that the interlock would be appropriate regardless whether kids are in the car or not.

Don't you think the Hero tag is a bit much for this basic exercise of common sense?

In Maryland you can just refuse the test and take the 120 day license suspension. Or, instead of a suspension, you can voluntarily install an interlock device in your car for one year.

So, if you are going to get the interlock anyway...

A guy at work has an interlock on his car since he got his third DUI. The only complaints he has are that he can't use certain mouthwashes because it would not all him to start his car.
Also, the folks that put the interlock in were idiots and damaged his wiring.

/no sympathy from me
//he shouldn't be driving around drunk
///that's what you get.

It's almost as if the peopel who make ignition interlocks lobbied lawmakers to make their product more prevalent.

I'm still waiting on them to bring back the stocks for people that jaywalk with young children.

AbbeySomeone: There are obvious advantages to this law. If you've got kids in the car you can have them blow on the monitor next time you get loaded.

That was my first thought. Get the sober kid to start the car.

I propose that all members of all state legislatures be forced to get an ignition interlock and use it for 30 days before being allowed to vote on any bill involving their mandatory instillation.

/nope, never even pulled over for DUI
//don't plan to start, no pun intended
///just tired of assclowns slowly raping civil liberties hitting me with the "safety!" nerf bat about the face and shoulders

Driving drunk should be considered attempted manslaughter.

Stupid that its not in place for all DUIs. Plus obvious work around is obvious.

What if a pregnant woman is the only one in the car? (Bonus: Can a pregnant woman drive in the carpool lane?)

Interlock on the car if you get caught for DUI regardless. Staked on top of an anthill in the sun and force fed honey till you get sick if there are children in the car.

Define drunk. There's fark history making double digit BAC drunk, and then there's "I had two glasses of Bordeaux at dinnertime". Both of which could pull a fail on a breathalyzer, depending on your jurisdiction. Who is setting the threshold on these things?

As someone who was once rear-ended at a traffic light by a drunk driver who had two kids in the car with her, I like this idea.

WhatTheHellAreYouLookinAt: Define drunk. There's fark history making double digit BAC drunk, and then there's "I had two glasses of Bordeaux at dinnertime". Both of which could pull a fail on a breathalyzer, depending on your jurisdiction. Who is setting the threshold on these things?

They are also notoriously unreliable.

This will just encourage drunk drivers to hide the kids in the trunk.

What's wrong with a mandatory ban for a DUI, first offence or not? No need for expensive equipment then. Here in the UK you will almost always - exceptions for being spiked and life-and-death emergencies - get banned for a year (at least) if you're caught over the limit.

I really don't see why, given the damage they can cause, anyone would cut drunk drivers any slack whatsoever. To me, it's about the only aspect of the law where zero-tolerance is justified.

I don't see why we should bother with courts and breathalyzers and probable cause.

Cops should have the legal power to pull over anyone they feel like, and shoot them in the head if they suspect alcohol was anywhere near them at any time they thought of using their personal vehicle. Sure a few innocent people would be harmed but thats the price we all pay to prevent the scourge of drunk driving. According to the Department of Transportation drunk driving kills 8.9 billion people a year. Thats a large number so you should be scared.

Express any opinion other than absolute obsequious agreement with anything I say then you just want to get drunk and run over schoolchildren and puppies, and deserve death and sterilization for all of your family members.

My cousin/wife/husband/daughter/nephew/great-aunt were killed by drunk drivers so you aren't allowed to question my sincerity and I'm an authority on these things and my emotional response is the only reasoning I need that these measures are necessary.

Im not nessecarily against the idea, but is this like a huge problem in MD?

Because if not, it kind of seems like pandering, "feel good/think of the children" type of thing, which I am against.

sprawl15: Driving drunk should be considered attempted manslaughter.

Exactly what MADD wants.

Oh and because people will mostly be freaked out by the prospect of a violent felony conviction on their record (and attempted manslaughter is just that), they will stop buying booze altogether in public places and mostly stop drinking in private residences as well. That's effectively Prohibition and would soon be followed by the formal reinstatement of it.

Since you're banning booze, let's also ban tobacco (very dangerous to those who consume it and to those around them if smoked), increase the penalties for operating under the influence of weed and other illegal drugs, to match booze (violent felony conviction), oh and since many prescription drugs come with warnings about operating vehicles while taking them, better make that a violent felony conviction too if caught.

Now you've clogged the prisons and the court system with "violent non-violent" offenders, and people convicted of fraud and other non-violent offenses are now walking the street because there is no place to put them, how's that America working for you?

hdhale: I propose that all members of all state legislatures be forced to get an ignition interlock and use it for 30 days before being allowed to vote on any bill involving their mandatory instillation.

/nope, never even pulled over for DUI
//don't plan to start, no pun intended
///just tired of assclowns slowly raping civil liberties hitting me with the "safety!" nerf bat about the face and shoulders

I've got no problem with interlock devices after someone has been convicted of a DUI. It is part of the punishment for the crime. "Safety" checkpoints on the other hand fark with everyones civil liberties innocent or not and should be done away with

fark the children.

YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE TO EVER DRIVE DRUNK.

Just don't do it. The sister of a friend of mine was killed this week by a drunk.

My wifes best friend's father was killed by a drunk in the 70s, it was his SECOND kill.

Nightsweat

It's almost as if the peopel who make ignition interlocks lobbied lawmakers to make their product more prevalent.

^This.

Why is it the only time moon-bats are pro-business is when they can get the government to force you to buy the product at gunpoint?



// dui laws are so ridiculous no sane person can actually support them.

Subliterati: What's wrong with a mandatory ban for a DUI, first offence or not? No need for expensive equipment then. Here in the UK you will almost always - exceptions for being spiked and life-and-death emergencies - get banned for a year (at least) if you're caught over the limit.

I really don't see why, given the damage they can cause, anyone would cut drunk drivers any slack whatsoever. To me, it's about the only aspect of the law where zero-tolerance is justified.

What is the limit in the UK?

My wife was DD one night and we got pulled over. Cop lied and said she swerved (she didn't signal before she turned but we were driving a few people home). We were there hours she had one beer. He gave her the sobriety test (she could touch her nose, count backward, walks ont he line, but as she was nervous she was "chatty" and he assumed runk), then the bereahtalyzer she blew a .02 and he said he could arrest her for that but decided to let her go.

So the reason I think people shold be "cut slack" is becasue our system is BS enough that if he had wanted to screw her over he could have.

As fro the exception for spiked, how do you prove that in court?

AverageAmericanGuy: It seems that the interlock would be appropriate regardless whether kids are in the car or not.

Don't you think the Hero tag is a bit much for this basic exercise of common sense?

Those things aren't even remotely accurate. They're so innaccurate that you can fail them multiple times and still be considered having passed your punishment. Believe me, I know.

hdhale: Oh and because people will mostly be freaked out by the prospect of a violent felony conviction on their record (and attempted manslaughter is just that), they will stop buying booze altogether in public places and mostly stop drinking in private residences as well.

What in the actual fark are you babbling about?

sprawl15: Driving drunk should be considered attempted manslaughter.

I support mandatory bans for drunk drivers (and community service/prison when warranted) but "attempted manslaughter" is an imaginary crime. Charge drunk drivers with what you can prove and petition your legislators to make sure the penalties for those crimes are sufficient to dissuade people from getting in front of the wheel tipsy. But don't just go making silly shiat up.

There should be a "drunk driving license" where you take the driving test while hammered and if you pass, you get to legally drive while intoxicated.

liam76: What is the limit in the UK?

For the breathalyser, 35 micrograms of alcohol per 100ml of breath is enough to get you arrested and taken to a police station for a blood test. You can refuse the blood test, but then the breathalyser reading is taken as definitive.

Drink driving (United Kingdom) (new window) and Magistrate's Court Sentencing Guidelines (new window)

Igor Jakovsky: hdhale: I propose that all members of all state legislatures be forced to get an ignition interlock and use it for 30 days before being allowed to vote on any bill involving their mandatory instillation.

/nope, never even pulled over for DUI
//don't plan to start, no pun intended
///just tired of assclowns slowly raping civil liberties hitting me with the "safety!" nerf bat about the face and shoulders

I've got no problem with interlock devices after someone has been convicted of a DUI. It is part of the punishment for the crime. "Safety" checkpoints on the other hand fark with everyones civil liberties innocent or not and should be done away with

Agreed. If you're convicted of DUI, then you've demonstrated you're a threat to everyone else, and having your personal vehicle temporarily disabled if you are drunk is a logical consequence.

However, setting up a "checkpoint" to harass people along a route (and typically they set these checkpoints up so you can't opt-out) just really irritates me.

Subliterati: I support mandatory bans for drunk drivers (and community service/prison when warranted) but "attempted manslaughter" is an imaginary crime.

Hypotheticals are imaginary? How long did it take you to figure that out?

How is drunk driving any different than going outside, closing your eyes and firing your gun in random directions? In both cases you intentionally did it, and in both cases you endangered the lives of those around you, and in both cases these is a good chance if you someone doesn't stop you form doing it you will eventually kill someone. I don't see why one of these things seems to get a pass from so many people, but the other one would result in people saying whatever punishment they got would be ok.

In VA if you are guilty of 'Reckless Endangerment' (Or illegally discharging a firearm). A class 6 Felony is 1-5years in prison and $2500 in fines. While the DUI is only a class 1 misdemeanor with a max of 1 year in prison and $2500 in fines that normally results in no jail time the first offense, and maybe 30day on the 2nd offense.

I don't understand why two crimes that essentially are both 'Reckless Endangerment' don't result in the same punishment. What making drinking so special that they get to endanger people with less consequences?

RembrandtQEinstein: I don't see why we should bother with courts and breathalyzers and probable cause.

Cops should have the legal power to pull over anyone they feel like, and shoot them in the head if they suspect alcohol was anywhere near them at any time they thought of using their personal vehicle. Sure a few innocent people would be harmed but thats the price we all pay to prevent the scourge of drunk driving. According to the Department of Transportation drunk driving kills 8.9 billion people a year. Thats a large number so you should be scared.

Express any opinion other than absolute obsequious agreement with anything I say then you just want to get drunk and run over schoolchildren and puppies, and deserve death and sterilization for all of your family members.

My cousin/wife/husband/daughter/nephew/great-aunt were killed by drunk drivers so you aren't allowed to question my sincerity and I'm an authority on these things and my emotional response is the only reasoning I need that these measures are necessary.

And here come the idiots.

sprawl15: Hypotheticals are imaginary? How long did it take you to figure that out?

Quicker than it took you to figure out that people shouldn't be charged with crimes you decide to pull out of your arse just because.

cenobyte40k: What making drinking so special that they get to endanger people with less consequences?

Big Alcohol spends more on lobbying than Big Ammo.

If they really want to get serious, make it a felony to DUI with a kid in the car, no matter whether its your first offense or not like they do in my state (TX).

Drunk driving certainly isn't good, but we're making criminals of normal folks here.

I've been hit by a drunk driver before. It totaled my car, broke a finger and a made a huge bruise along my chest. I was pissed off as all hell at the other driver, but I don't think the dudes life needs to be ruined because of it. Drunk tank, maybe. Jail time, fark no.

Make 'em pay a $500 fine and do a defensive driving class, and pay for any vehicle or medical problems that may have occured .... end of story.


/not even a speeding ticket on my record

Subliterati: liam76: What is the limit in the UK?

For the breathalyser, 35 micrograms of alcohol per 100ml of breath is enough to get you arrested and taken to a police station for a blood test. You can refuse the blood test, but then the breathalyser reading is taken as definitive.

Drink driving (United Kingdom) (new window) and Magistrate's Court Sentencing Guidelines (new window)

I am not sure how a Blood alcohol content relates to micrograms of alcohol per 100ml of breath.

Wiki says, 0.10 mg/L of breath alcohol converts to 0.021 g/210L of breath alcohol.

In Md the limit is .08, so here a 16 micrograms of alcohol per 100ml of breath is enough to get you arrested.

Englighten me. Why not install these on all cars as standard equipment? Sure, it would cost a lot of money, but I assume with that level of demand, the prices would come down. How difficult is it to circumvent the device? I'm assuming most drunk drivers are not so crafty as to circumvent them... but maybe I'm wrong.

RembrandtQEinstein: I don't see why we should bother with courts and breathalyzers and probable cause.

Cops should have the legal power to pull over anyone they feel like, and shoot them in the head if they suspect alcohol was anywhere near them at any time they thought of using their personal vehicle. Sure a few innocent people would be harmed but thats the price we all pay to prevent the scourge of drunk driving. According to the Department of Transportation drunk driving kills 8.9 billion people a year. Thats a large number so you should be scared.

Express any opinion other than absolute obsequious agreement with anything I say then you just want to get drunk and run over schoolchildren and puppies, and deserve death and sterilization for all of your family members.

My cousin/wife/husband/daughter/nephew/great-aunt were killed by drunk drivers so you aren't allowed to question my sincerity and I'm an authority on these things and my emotional response is the only reasoning I need that these measures are necessary.

You, sir, are a role model. I salute you!

People don't think things threw; this thread brings new meaning to the term "knee-jerk".

I love the idea that morons think by throwing a parent in jail or banning them from driving actually SAVES the kids when in fact it puts them at a major disadvantage by having the BREADWINNER IN JAIL!!! My God.

Here's some common sense:

1 - Add a camera to breathalyzers to take a snapshot of the person blowing
2 - Back up a breathalyzer with very strong penalties for anyone who blows into it for the drunk.

I suspect the people bleating all of this "kill the monsters!" have pitchforks at home and are complete, utter perfect people.

Never mind the 'innocent' speeding at 5-10 miles over the speed limit that could just as easily kill someone. Never mind the 'whoops' moment when they pull out in front of a car because they weren't completely thinking about traffic.

I understand that people make the conscious effort to drink but HELLO! Alcohol impairs ability. Like it or not, it just does. There are perfectly law-abiding citizens who make just ONE mistake and for that they should be hog-tied, feathered and decapitated while their kids become a burden on the rest of us financially???????

What a bunch of retards.

HellRaisingHoosier: I've been hit by a drunk driver before. It totaled my car, broke a finger and a made a huge bruise along my chest. I was pissed off as all hell at the other driver, but I don't think the dudes life needs to be ruined because of it. Drunk tank, maybe. Jail time, fark no.

Six years ago, my brother was t-boned at an intersection by a Suburban doing 65 mph (my brother had the green light). He was in a coma for 26 days, broke 19 bones in his body, among other things like a lost spleen, lacerated liver, etc. Essentially a flailed chest.

You got off lucky. The other guy? Was his fourth dui, the third time he put someone in the hospital. He served 11 months for this one.

(threadjack) - btw - did I mention that he had been deported twice and this was the third time he was caught in the U.S.?

They need jail time...................this is a totally preventable scenario - dont get behind the wheel after drinking.

/brother survived, looks like he's been opened by a blunt can opener.
// If you're trolling, it's a pretty good one

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Englighten me. Why not install these on all cars as standard equipment? Sure, it would cost a lot of money, but I assume with that level of demand, the prices would come down. How difficult is it to circumvent the device? I'm assuming most drunk drivers are not so crafty as to circumvent them... but maybe I'm wrong.

If you're willing to pay for it, put your money where your mouth is and get one. Then you can have the warm fuzzies every time you start your car.

I assume you want checkpoints too, correct?

/ doesn't drink

Death_Poot: If they really want to get serious, make it a felony to DUI with a kid in the car, no matter whether its your first offense or not like they do in my state (TX).

yes, so the person is then doomed to work crap jobs and cause their family to descend into poverty.

Felonies punish someone waaaaay after they pay their initial dues in the form of other punishments.

Relegating someone and their family who made a mistake once to a life of 'no happy ending' is ridiculous and unfair to other taxpayers who have to pick up the welfare tab when they can't find a decent paying job.

Thanks for that!