After ten years with no significant drop in alcohol-related car accidents, MADD and other groups are getting behind new laws to require alcohol detection devices for all drivers who have been convicted at least once of drunken driving:

http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/2-0-0&fp=4562266b20fdbf18&ei=SVxiRZG8 G6-wwQHlz5HqBw&url=http%3A//www.nytimes.com/2006/11/20/us/20drunk.html%3Fhp%26ex %3D1163998800%26en%3Dfb2a26d4d0161a35%26ei%3D5094%26partner%3Dhomepage&cid=11113 60425

I'm not opposed to this for people who already have an offense, but also mentioned in the story is the possibility of installing these devices in ALL cars. This I find a worrisome invasion of privacy. I'm not someone who even drinks alcohol, yet I would be opposed to having one of these devices in my car and being required to be tested in order for my car to start. How about you?

Andrew

Big time.

I'll hack it in a second on principle.

The big problem with things like this is they really harm the everyday person just trying to live their life. The chronic boozers are simply gonna get whatever hack gets them started up.

Lots of dollars we could be using on something else, IMHO.

On the other hand, an alcohol detector may save more lives than current airbags. IN PARTICULAR, alcohol detectors may save the equilvant of 3 or four 9/11's EVERY YEAR. Alcohol deaths are too often our innocent CHILDREN and family members.

If alcohol deaths were primarily the drunk driver and the stupid people that got in his car with him, I'd say tough turkey, but unfortunately drunk drivers kill themselves and innocent people with equal gusto, AND Americans have been jaded into thinking 10K-odd innocent victims a year is acceptable.

I'm totally against this. In fact, I'm against it even with a DUII conviction.

What's next, a black box that alerts authorities that you're speeding?

Seriously though, this is big brother at it's worst, using the excuse of protecting us to invade our privacy. MADD needs to rethink it's strategies.

Yep. I'm simply not gonna do it.

Might end up in jail, but this is crossing a big line. We can't apply tech to fix people like this.

If one considers the risks involved with cars too great, there are alternatives.

Those testers are not 100 percent accurate either, and it's another source of failure.

This is exactly why I drive old cars. I don't want computers failing, no tracking devices, etc...

This same kind of logic can be applied to anything dangerous. We don't want to go there.

Either we take some personal responsibility or we don't. A free society mandates that we do, so we need to focus on that, not petty control issues.

I think if someone has had a DUI conviction, they should be given the option of either losing their license or having one of these devices installed in their car. That is consenting to an invasion of privacy, far from the same thing as having EVERY car of even people who will never drive drunk being subject to this same device.

Andrew

I think DUI convictions should include chopping off a leg, but society has chosen be soft on drunk drivers, so whatever can be done may be acceptable to me.

"black boxes" already exist in many commercial vehicles. Also, State Police do issue truckers tickets if a point from one weigh station to another was faster than the time to drive 55 mph. Is this a sort of "tracking" we don't want?

"...but society has chosen be soft on drunk drivers ... "

That is the whole damn problem we have now.

You see the stories on the news where someone gets their 10th DUI while running over a kid on a bicycle on the sidewalk or something like that all the time. Why the hell is this person seeing anything outside of a prison cell?

Even the much more judiciously liberal European nations have much tougher DUI laws, and all have a younger drinking age, and not nearly the problems we do. Hmmmm ...

Yes, Skep. This is the kind of tracking we don't want.

It's not too much of a stretch to just use all those wireless cell towers to control cars. Think about a computer limiting your speed... and you are on the way to the hospital to save a loved one.

Illegal transgression, but completely ethical.

Computers don't care. If we start down this path, computer code becomes law for all practical purposes, particularly when said code is backed by law, preventing us from learning about it, circumventing it, etc...

Oh, and my car does not have a tracking device. Made damn sure of that. Many newer cars do, and the owner really has no idea of just what that device actually does.

There is a statement of functionality, but without the ability to examine the device, the person in possession of such a device really must simply blind trust. Not the kind of position I want to be in, that's for sure.

DUI crimes should be punished with hard labor, lots of it for a long time. I will never do this. In return for that responsibility, I expect the right to exercise my freedom in return, no exceptions.

You know, this discussion has a lot of parallels to the extreme right wanting to save the unborn at all costs. This is the same thing. If we bend a little on our values, we can save a lot of lives.

Do this often enough and we no longer have lives.

It's an example of putting the cart before the horse.

Instead of doing something to sock it to those who do the dunderhead thing of driving under the influence, EVERYONE gets punished by the select actions of a few who ruin it for ALL of us.

One other little thing about computer code.

It does what it's creators craft it to do. Currently, for most all code used to regulate people, there is no provision for said code to actually conform to the law.

This means the law of contracts and burden of corporate procedures and best practices is what you get to live under...

Ladies & Germs-

What I am about to say might offend you, but the truth is that MADD is a Gestapo, who gets a free pass, because- who , after all could be against mothers that are against drunk driving? ! I am against driving drunk ( I won’t get into my car after just A beer ) , like I’m sure we all are, but MADD is a dangerous organization, who is used to what ultimately leads to drum up profits for Insurance companies, DUII officers, and DUII equipment companies. MADD has a payroll, huge influence, and got over $200,000,000 dollars last year. Every time they feel they are losing power, then new initiatives are proposed to lower the limit. It used to be .12, then .10. then .8, in some places is as low at .6.

IF MADD was soooo concerned about previous offenders ( and not helping DUII equipment companies), then why wouldn’t they simply just support lifetime license revokement for first time offenders? Simple- $$$$.

Not offensive at all, and a valid point.

I'd venture to say that at least 90% of the population is against drunk driving ... so MADD and these groups are essentially preaching to the choir.

I think personally that the "education" of what drinking and driving isn't working, because guess what a ton of people still do it. MADD preaches the education aspect, but with such lenient penalties it isn't working.

I wonder what the stats are in counties where if you get busted drinking and driving, you lose your car for good? I don't know about you, but I would consider that a deterrent.

Author: Skeptical
Tuesday, November 21, 2006 - 1:17 am

Oh, and my car does not have a tracking device. Made damn sure of that. Many newer cars do, and the owner really has no idea of just what that device actually does.

You are very correct with that statement. Every GM vehicle equiped with ONSTAR or an onboard navigation system has satellite tracking equipment in it. Other vehicles have similiar systems as well. Heck you can order a DELL laptop with a theft tracking system in it. GPS enabled cell phones.....we all have them, or most do by now. 20 years at the most and all people will start to be equiped with "PLD's" (personal locater devices). Heck they are already putting RFID chips in people for things like keyless entry into vehicles....what next? If you want to see a possible application of personal locaters just watch the movie "IMPOSTOR" with Gary Sinise, there's and eye opener for you.

Excuse me all in advance as I go on a tirade....

(You have been warned!)






Fuck the Temperance movement! Fuck any kind of prohibition, and FUCK MADD Mothers everywhere.

Most MADD mothers I have met are either so tight assed that they are makin' diamonds as we speak or are total hypocrites gettin' their drink on with Cosmo's and Margarita's on a regular occurance and in excess but because its at a "Hoity Toity" establishment like an upscale restaurant or hotel bar its OK. These are the same ones who are just plain lucky with the system as they don't have designated drivers and are not taking "god forbid" a lowly cab ride home. Its ok for them but its not for those "Men" who fit that "drunk" profile.

The blow machines don't work as they don't even stop the most motivated person from getting their daily dose of booze and this is coming from someone who has seen it first hand as a former bar manager.

The worst part is not only this states approach to alcohol ie selling and marketing the booze and at the same time regulating and enforcing the laws just doesn't work it is common sense.

Get the OLCC out of the liqour business, and start being less hypocritical about the business the state is in.

Second MADD and other groups need to focus there time better by encouraging all adults to be more responsible. How hard is it to just plain and simple have a designated driver or a cab companies phone number and cab money set aside on occasions when you know your gonna be imbibing in spirits. How hard is it to decide after even the first drink you've had at home that your not going anywhere driving for the rest of the night.

It all comes down to common sense, its a no brainer. Personal Responsibility while maybe getting thrown out the door the minute you've had your first drink is possibly likely but I am fully aware whenever I am gonna get my drink on and prepare accordingly. No reason that the mass poulace at large can't have this same attitude.

/end tirade

Hypocrisy.....

That seems to be rampant in everything these days. Religion, Politics, Just cause, etc. etc.

It's not OK never under any circumstances to do whatever.....unless you are me of course then it's OK! BS....

If you talk the talk then walk the walk!!! It is funny to see people in church...good people mostly...but a few go in and raise their hands, pray at the alter, take communion, and then go outside and curse out some old lady for walking to slow in the cross walk......or cut someone off because i'll be darned if I will let you merge in front of me....how dare you....!!!

In religion that is like the ultimate SIN.....right up there with taking your own life! I am not as good a christian as I should be but I do try to live my life as good as I can. However I am weak sometimes and fail to do the right thing. I try to walk the right path but get detoured from the way so it would be inappropriate for me to talk the talk.

The major difference is that I admit to this and do not try to force my beliefs or religion on others as many so called righteous thinking "HYPOCRIT'S" do. They tell you you are a sinner and should be more like them.....then you see them talk smack about some poor person in need.

No Thank You....i'll take the way I live over the way those type of people believe to be the right way to live. I may not be perfect but I can see the error's of my ways and try my best to own up for my mistake's in life.

It must be very nice to go through life with blinders on that shield you from the bad things you do!

It makes no sense to me why I feel this way - but I think I would be OK with it. I could explain why and what problems I do have with it - but I end up feeling that I would support it.

But hey, I don't know what will happen. I doubt if I'll be asked to help shape policy for it.

Yeah, it would be real cool to have to blow into a machine each and every time you start your car. No thanks! And what if the machine decided not to work, then your car doesn't work either.

Well that's a legitimate issue too. Can't deny that.

Maybe Microsoft can make the instrument. They never have any problems.

YOUR CAR NEEDS TO SHUT DOWN DUE TO AN UNKNOWN ERROR. IF YOU CONTINUE TO HAVE PROBLEMS, PLEASE CONTACT MICROSOFT CORPORATION.

LOL!

Andrew

tirade people,

unlike many other things, drunk drivers kills innocent people in HUGE HUMBERS and return to the road again and again after a slap on the wrist.

Peer pressure and personal responsibility isn't working. Any suggestions as to what will work better than big brother?

First offense: revoke driver's license for 5 years + fine of 5% of annual income or $1,000, whichever is more. Second Offense: revoke driver's license for 10 years. Caught driving without valid driver's license? 2 years in jail, $10,000 fine.

Step up random patrols for drunk drivers.

Today, you get to take a class for your first DUII. That's bullshit. No wonder there are so many repeat offenders.

Andrew

Thousands of lives could be saved, by simply making all cars have a speed limit restriction to 35 MPH.

I don't have a link but speeders tend to kill themselves at a higher ratio than drunk drivers. That's the key -- drunk drivers kill too many innocent people -- at a far higher ratio than other stupid and/or dangerous activity.

I don't care if people do stupid things and the deaths were limited to just themselves.

Help the police.....if you see a suspected drunk driver call 911 and give them the area, direction and plate number. They have been known to block driveways waiting for them to return home. Maybe if there are more eyes out there then maybe people will think twice.

Neighborhood watch programs worked in cutting down crime in those areas.

Speeders kill others with as much efficiency as drunk drivers do. It's negligent behavior behind the wheel, regardless. And, more people speed, and more speeding occurs as a percentage of drive time as compared to drunk driving. They should be judged the same. Idiot behavior being sober, or simply reckless behavior by driving drunk is the same reckless behavior. Drunk driving gets put on a pedestal (as it should) but it's really not that different from other negligent types of behavior behind the wheel.

The penalties are pretty steep from what I've seen from a few people that have been arrested for DUII. "Oregon drivers face a license suspension ranging from 90 days to three years for failing or refusing a breath or blood test. An Oregon DUII conviction will result in a driver's license suspension of one or three years, or a lifetime suspension." I believe the diversion class costs between $1-2000 to attend, and then your insurance will double for three years at a minimum.

Personally, I believe the the punishment for DUII should range depending on what happened and what the BAC is. .08 is much less dangerous than .22, but they face the same punishment. Next time you get a speeding ticket going 80, ask the cop what the fine would be if it was 70. Things like multiple infractions like running a red light or speeding, car accidents, and level of BAC should play in the punishment, including jail time, fines, or seizing the car. First offenders need punishm, but, let's not treat the 50 year old mom who had a glass or two of wine and blows a .08 the same as someone who blows .22.

So with that analogy a man who rapes one woman should be punished less than one who raped two women? Or a man who kills someone with a knife less than one who kills someone with a gun? Leagally drunk is legally drunk. Why shouldn't that MADD mom who blows a .08 and whose neighbors son was killed by a .08 driver be punished any less than the .22 driver? Should a bank robbers sentence be based on how much money was in the bank? The law is the law and if you leave it open for interpretation then it will fail completely.

Reminds me of a good joke....

A guy gets pulled over for going 85 in a 60. The man says to the officer "How about just giving me a warning". The officer looks at him and says "OK...i'll give you a warning....if I see you speeding again i'll give you another ticket" as he hands him his ticket!!! Who says cops have no sense of humor!

Punishment even for killing someone is usually adjusted based on circumstances. Killing your sister in the midst of a heated argument is not punished the same as planning to kill your whole family months ahead of time. Pete's right. The chances of getting into an accident and killing someone are greater when your BAC is 0.22 than when it is 0.08, so you should be punished differently. People also absorb alcohol differently. It's much more plausible for someone to claim they didn't know two glasses of wine would put them up to 0.08 than for someone to claim driving after a couple of six packs and pegging 0.22 was just a misunderstanding.

Andrew

I think any one with anything over .05 should get a DUI, and immediate loss of license, and on second offense loss of the automobile.

Its like fun laws, start enforcing the ones on the book.

Most horror stories of drunks killing people, the drunk driver had multiple convictions.

I could be okay with it,if someone's been convicted of drunk driving before..
Putting them in every person's car,no thanks!

If I were forced to install it,I'd hack it.Just cut/jump a couple wires..Even a half-drunk person could bypass it..There lies the problem.
Good idea,but in practice I think it would completely fail.

Author: Nwokie
Tuesday, November 21, 2006 - 6:31 pm


Thousands of lives could be saved, by simply making all cars have a speed limit restriction to 35 MPH.

-----
Even if you do that we will still have deaths as long as people follow too closely or drive down the wrong way. What we need to do is enforce the rules against road rage, especially people who speed up and follow as close behind as they can.

I am for testing for DUI but an not sure its a good idea to have a monitor in your car for that. We have monitors at certain intersections and what I wonder is if both of those things don't invade one's privacy. I was photo ticked at the one at 39th and Sandy and was in the middle of the intersection when it was taken. The officer dropped the charge when he admitted he didn't write the report.

Time for turkey day! Have a good one.

That was very well said. Direct and to the point. Your views were made very clear and I agree most of it. I am very much in favor of photo intersections on very busy streets and photo radar in neighborhoods and school zones. These are very effective tools that help enforce the laws of the road in congested areas. I do agree about road rage.....I to drive the left side of the freeway but if someone is coming up behind me going faster I make an effort to surrender the lane as soon as safely possible. Unfortuneately others are not that considerate and will drive in it no matter what...usually driving slower than the limit because they can't talk and drive at the same time they are stirring their Latte'. The reall problem is that people just do not allow enought time anymore to get from of point to another so they try to make up for it. I see people all of the time rushing past me like their hair was on fire only the pull up behind them on the offramp.....they saved 2 seconds at the most and drove poorly to boot.

Have a good turkey day!

Thanks. My question still is how can we enforce photo radar without invading ones privacy? When I was before the judge and he saw the photo of me in my car it wasn't very clear and I felt like my privacy was invaded. I think its a better idea to have the flashing lights in school zones. That way we need to slow down only when kids are in the area and not all the time. What bothers me is the sign that says: Speed 20 when children are present. We don't always have time when we are driving to see if its a child or not and the child could be anyplace, even on a playground. Near my church we have a flashing light and a speed monitor which should be at all schools.

How do you feel photo radar is an invasion of your privacy?

I don't think its any business of the city who is driving my car or not. There must be better ways than photo radar of keeping the speed slower.You know how they have neighborhood watch programs for criminals? Maybe something similar to that could be set up in our freeways. One could have a monitor and if he notices someone driving too fast he could let the police know. Just an idea.

The only time it will take your picture is if you break the law. As far as picture taking...every time you use your atm card at the bank it takes a snapshot....quick-mart stores record you while in them....red light camera's....etc.etc... we are likely to see an increase of these things and I think that so ling as you are on a public street or property law enforcement may use whatever tools they have that are legal to uphold the law....once your car rolls into your driveway then it would be an invasion of privacy. In washington and Oregon it is against the law for cars to have privacy glass on the rear, front, drivers, and passengers windows. This is so police are able to see what is going on inside the vehicle as they approach it and also allows for greater visibility under normal driving conditions. Police can and will pull you over, ticket you, and make you remove it or face further penalties. Photo enforcement systems may seem an invasion for those that set them off by breaking the law but I look at them as a good thing to help keep others safe....even if I were to ever set one of I would still be in favor of them.

Why not have one at every single intersection? Why not have our every move recorded from start to finish so the government can determine whether to punish us or not? I think photo radar and photo red light suck. If you're going to get a ticket, it should be from a human.

"In washington and Oregon it is against the law for cars to have privacy glass on the rear, front, drivers, and passengers windows."

actually, it only applies to the front side windows and windshield. windows for the rear seats and back, and the back window is not regulated.

the front side windows are limited to 25% tint in Oregon and zero for the windshield. for some reason, the law isn't really enforced.

Bigger fish to fry than busting people for tinted glass?

one would think that not being able to see people in a vehicle would be a threat to law enforcement officers . . .

Author: Reinstatepete
Thursday, November 23, 2006 - 8:13 pm


Why not have one at every single intersection? Why not have our every move recorded from start to finish so the government can determine whether to punish us or not? I think photo radar and photo red light suck. If you're going to get a ticket, it should be from a human.

-------

The world has come to an end: I actually agree with a statement you have written!

You sure about the back window in cars??? I thought for passenger cars the back could also not be tinted. The exception was pickups and suvs that have a designated tonage. These vehicles are however required to have functional outboard mirrors on both sides while not required to have an inside rear view mirror or even a back window. Passenger cars only require a driver side functional outboard mirror and the inside rear view mirror so I thought restricting it visibility with tinting was forbidden just as the front was. I have heard of kids being forced to peel off the peel on tinting on the spot.


"If I am going to listen to radio I want the DJ to be human and not a hard drive!"


As technology evolves the police should be able to use this technology to help them do their jobs because you know darn well the bad guy will. Why not just give them whistles instead of radio's, six shooters instaed of 13 round glock's, horses intead cars. I also dislike them but if you don't break the law then there is no problem right????

jo, this fella who did the tinting in my car had all this paperwork I had to sign swearing that the tinter did not exceed the 25% limit for the side windows to protect himself from lawsuits, loss of his insurance and supply of tint film, et al., because if a tinted car is involved in a wreck, he's liable for a lawsuit. He will refuse to do side windows darker than 25%.

At any rate, you've brought up a good question re tinting the rear window, I had a suv done -- but what about cars? but aren't limos also cars?

I think because they are a modified vehicle that they have all kinds of special permits and such. Most due to the length even have backup cameras so they can see what they backup into! Pretty sure on the car deal though and the rear window...but I may be wrong as this can vary state to state.

oh , heck even better, just add a device to every car, that tracks speed by GPS, and by its location, it will know the speed limit, then automatically report speeders to the police, and go ahead and add a sensor to all stop signs and redlights, so when you run a red light or stop sign, reports that too.

Some $%(*&$#%)#$ rental car companies already do this in many places.

They just mail the tickets, and split the revenue with state law enforcement.

Bastards...

Author: Nwokie
Friday, November 24, 2006 - 9:49 am


oh , heck even better, just add a device to every car, that tracks speed by GPS, and by its location, it will know the speed limit, then automatically report speeders to the police, and go ahead and add a sensor to all stop signs and redlights, so when you run a red light or stop sign, reports that too.

what concerns me about this whole thing is that it could turn America into a police state and I don't think thats what our framers wanted. Whats to stop the law from putting hidden cameras in our homes?

<giggle_snort_and_tee_hee>

Private joke there Randy...or you smokin that wacky tabacky again?

you know, some day the light bulb may just come on and he'll have to kill himself ya know. (and I'm not talking about Randy!)

Who are you talking about, yourself?

thump thump thump and pooping on the forum.

The techniolgy is there, in Japan, you can subscribe to a service, that will give you a print out of wherever your kids or spouses cell phone goes.

The City of Chicago now requires all busineess's to have a camera instid and outside the entrances. With plans to connect them to the police command posts.

New Your has mobile towers, that are equiped with low level video equipment, that they poat in high crime areas.

I was kind of joking, until I read this
2087-2471987%2C00.html,http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2471987,00.h tml

Try another link.