Intoxalock®?

[Mike Andrew]

Drunk driving is a serious problem and needs penalties that discourage additional instances. Too many lives ruined or lost due to f-d up people behind the wheel. My take is that most repeat offenders have alcohol addiction issues and need treatment starting with the self admission that they have a problem. I can understand one DUI as a matter of bad judgement - like leaving a wedding and thinking you are okay. Arrest, court, punishment and lesson learned; won't happen again. Chronic offenders require severe punishments.
However, I also believe that this has turned into a revenue source for a lot of localities. Perhaps that is part of the below the legal limit is not DUI but "impaired" offense rationale. Still provides revenue. Have a few friends who have fallen into this trap after trying to be responsible, had a couple of beers/ drinks in the course of an entire evening and done a rolling stop or did not signal early enough at a corner and gotten nailed for impaired with just a trace of alcohol on the breathalyzer after passing the roadside sobriety tests. Easy money.
A thought -if a driver demands a blood test and it returns negative for intoxicants, is the arrest voided and who pays for the test?

[Jeff Higgins]

Yes, that whole "below the legal limit but still impaired" nonsense has gotten to be an even bigger trap than a full fledged DUI. I have lost track of the number of coworkers and friends that got nailed by this. They blow a .01 or a .02 and still get popped because "in the officer's discretion" they "appeared impaired". Even fighting a charge like that can easily approach $10,000 in legal fees and court costs.

And yes, the "true professionals" need to get hammered (pardon the pun), and hard. BA levels in the .20 to .30 and higher, repeat offenders, and all of that. No leniency on these. Yet so many appear to get away with it time and time again.

While we are at it, who now kills and injures more drivers than these drunks? Distracted drivers on their cell phones. The supporting data has been available for some time. Why are we not hammering these people just as hard? Mandatory court appearance and loss of driving privileges on a first offense. A week or two of jail time on a second offense. A year or more on a third offense.

As an avid motorcyclist, let me tell everyone, I cannot tell if a driver is drunk. But I can tell if they are yammering on their phone. In this modern world, virtually 100% of the time I suffer a near miss that is the case. I think this should be a new law: If there is a bullet hole in their cell phone that corresponds to the one in their head, it's a righteous kill and no one gets charged. That would soon put an end to it...

[Mike Andrew]

Phones and all the damn touchscreens in today’s cars in place of knobs and switches promote distracted driving. Not really enforced much and could be a good revenue source while making our roads safer.
I quit riding 10 years ago after a close call with a woman texting with hip hop blaring so loudly that she could not hear my horn as she squeezed me.
I see both DIU and distracted driving as serious issues with potentially great safety costs.

[Crowbob]

Originally Posted by berettafan

a buddies ex had one and she got her pre-teen son to use it to start the car. this was years back.

someone nearby has one in her G wagon.

Around here they have a camera connected to the internets with face detection software, GPS tracking, a remote kill switch and scheduled operation. Meaning your car only works during the hours specified by the court order.

[Arizona_928]

lol. That’s draconian