I have a feeling police unions would fight this hard. They would likely loose funding (and have to reduce officers) as they would no longer need to patrol for drunk driving. I am not sure what the total amount of LE goes to traffic enforcement, but I am guessing it is sizable.
I do actually think the interlock wouldn’t be to terrible of an idea. I don’t think it would cost very much if every car had it (mass production). The sensor only costs in the tens of dollars to produce, and the wiring to disable ignition is very simple.
I think if it’s obvious a person isn’t capable of operating a vehicle due to being drunk getting them off the road at that time makes a lot of sense.
If I’m swerving all over the road by all means pull me over before I harm myself or someone else. Waiting until I’ve harmed someone makes little sense if a cop is aware I have a high likelihood of being in an accident.
My grandma still drives, she’s 85. There’s a spectrum of elderly, some are far more resilient than others.
As to drinking/driving, it’s complicated. Generally it should be very easy to abstain from getting behind the wheel (keep in mind my initial post was advocating for stricter measures, not lenience), but some people are inconsiderate assholes… They either don’t care and/or legitimately believe “they drive better when drunk”. I wish they could see how they stumble and fumble around just to get their keys in the ignition, they don’t drive better… it’s false confidence induced via extensive ethanol induced disinhibition.
As a generalisation installing interlocks within all cars isn’t feasible. Tis very costly, as @mnben87 specified LE would lose funding/revenue, it’s one of the hypothesised reasons as to why the roadside drug testing (widely debunked as being inaccurate, tests for traces of X substance rather than impairment) is still being widely deployed here.
However it’s generally a solid idea, provided the individual trying to get behind the wheel isn’t punished when/if they blow over
I am, going out at this point aside from procuring bare essentials/going for a jog is inexcusable (in my opinion)
I cater towards a libertarian stance (though left leaning). I don’t believe someone should be punished under the contents of their blood per se (say you’ve got cannabis, cocaine etc in you’re urine/saliva, or a BAC of 0.2)… but you’re conduct under the influence of said substances is certainly important, dangerous behavior that puts others around the user at risk should result in penalisation.
Getting behind the wheel whilst intoxicated puts the generalised populace at risk as well as yourself, hence this is where I draw the line. Getting behind the wheel drunk doesn’t represent being punished for the contents of your blood, it’s being punished for your actions whilst under the influence. Statistically speaking, a BAC of .05-.08 increases risk of crash 4x, .1-.14 and the risk is 6-7x, a BAC of .15 and it’s 25x. This clearly isn’t acceptable, if one is irresponsible enough to get behind the wheel like this punishment is due.
Yeah I have no idea how people could be opposed to this. A woman significantly speeding with an unbuckled little kid. And we’re going to ignore that?
The idea of not removing that woman and that kid from the situation is insane. But don’t step on her precious freedom! No one actually wants to live in an anarcho-capitalist society. Not even the people who advocate for it. They would be screaming against it in no time. But since they just have a paper idea and aren’t living it it’s all good to advocate for it.
This video is just heartbreaking… It makes me livid to know that people have kids only to neglect them like this.
There was a case like this in Aus. A man with a prior DUI conviction (had an interlock installed) got pissed and had his toddler blow into the interlock, was pulled over going around 150km/ph.
He shouldn’t be punished for the content of his blood. We should wait until he has killed people to take him off the road…that makes the most sense. Don’t tread on me!!!
But this is where the real world comes in: a cop sees someone who has been drinking get in his car and start to drive off and stops him. It then turns out the driver’s BAC is above the legal limit and he is arrested for DUI. The driver didn’t kill anyone or damage anything or drive erratically, because he never had the chance as he was stopped immediately. He wasn’t arrested because of his conduct but for what was in his blood. The thing is, should we wait for someone to actually conduct himself in a way that is putting others at risk or stop him before it gets to that point?
A drunk driver puts others at risk almost the second he gets behind the wheel and drives off.
I’d argue punishment is warranted, if you’re irresponsible enough to get behind the wheel whilst intoxicated you probably shouldn’t have the right to drive. Getting behind the wheel like this in the first place tells quite a bit about an individuals character. If you’re willing to carelessly put others at risk, who knows what else you’re willing to do.
There should certainly be a distinction between blowing say 0.0501 and .2 etc, however as a generalisation punishment in my opinion is warranted for driving whilst intoxicated.
Well it depends on the country. In the state where I live (Aus, not the USA) public drunkenness isn’t a crime (tis a civil penalty, small fine at most), but smoking a joint in public can net you prison time.
If criminalization against public intoxication was strictly enforced then bars, clubs (and strip clubs) probably wouldn’t exist… Neither would concerts or music festivals.
This I agree with. A scale of punishment based on how bad the offense is. A 0.05 is roughly two drinks. You might be slightly more dangerous, but not anything like someone at .15. Seems appropriate to scale the punishment by the severity of the crime.
I believe the rhetoric is that an absolute “zero tolerance” should deter the populace from getting behind the wheel.
with intoxicants within secular, democratic society, history has empirically demonstrated a “zero tolerance” approach simply doesn’t work. If anything the prohibition of marijuana was what made it so popular decades down the line; and alcohol prohibition wasn’t exactly successful either. In my opinion taking a hard line, “zero tolerance” approach to drug use is ineffective in reducing rates of use/antisocial behaviours associated with use, it does however strain the judicial system, lead to excess rates of incarceration and generally punishes the user for one bad decision they might’ve made decades ago… But that’s not a topic relevant to what we’re talking about
If you’re pulled over at an RDT here with a trace of marijuana in your system (say you’ve smoked 24 hrs ago) there’s a fairly decent chance you’re getting a criminal record, license disqualification for 6 months and a 1000$+ fine.
Are you saying the person merely receives a summons or citation and is allowed to continue his behavior, or are you saying the person is fined AND taken to a safe location?
Of course not. There’s a wide gap between arresting people for merely being drunk and allowing them to get into and start a car or act disorderly.
It depends, if you’re drunk at a bar, the bartender might refuse to serve you if you’re really pissed (slurring speech, fumbling/stumbling around), but generally you won’t be taken away unless you’re harassing someone/behaving inappropriately. Drinking culture is heavily engrained here, if we legitimately enforced any regulated that existed pertaining to public drunkenness (perhaps they do in NSW, they’re known for being the nanny state of the nanny nation) all teenagers above the age of say… seventeen would’ve been arrested.
If you’re drunk on the street, it depends where you are and what time of day it is. If you’re drunk out at the city during the night time near all the bars/clubs you’ll be left alone… As a teenager living in Australia, I can assure you the vast majority of us have been tipsy/drunk in public, on public transport, in Ubers, at parties, on the beach (publicly), in bars, clubs, on the city streets and more. Granted I haven’t been drunk since New Years eve (very rarely drink these days, I like it too much)
If you’re extremely drunk they might refuse you entry into a bar/club, tell you to go home/go somewhere else
If you’re drunk in the middle of the day near a playground where children play, you’re probably getting a fine/removed to a safe location.
