Building an interlock device for DUI parolee.

Buy a breathalyzer interlock... they're manufactured you know. They're often required here by the courts (in AZ) to continue to drive after a 2nd DUI.

...Jim Thompson

One DUI and that should be it for you.

Expensive? Tell that to the kids whose dad doesn't make it home from work because some drunk SOB took him out.

Picture the drunk blowing his analyzer, talking on the cell phone, and eating a big Mac, with a beer between his legs..... I'm feeling real safe on the road...... Hang em high the first time, and put an end to this kind of crap.

You drive drunk, you learn to take public transit, or you just walk for the rest of your life. (until you retire and the government gives you a free electric scooter.

JB

One of the units specified by the courts who issue such sentences.

My bet is that the officially supplied-by-the-court units are considered to be the *ONLY* devices that are acceptable for such use, period, world without end, no negotiation, no nothing.

As in "Our terms, or you get to sit in the clink. Don't like that? Tough! You shouldn't have been driving while drunk. Oh, you want to argue about it? That's fine. Here ya go - Your parole (or whatever they call it) is now canceled, go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200, end of discussion. Bailiff, remand him into custody. Wanna open your mouth again so I can slap a contempt of court charge on top of everything else?"

My further bet is that such devices *MUST* be installed by a specific person designated by the court, otherwise, the perp is considered to be refusing to comply with his terms of parole, and once again gets jailed.

Unless you're one of the people the court approves, and/or the maker of the device being used, I dont think you've got a prayer of putting together something acceptable. You might brew something up, sure. It might even be better than what the court currently uses. But keep in mind that part of the reason for these things is specifically to make driving inconvenient/impossible for drunks. Secondary effect that's not likley to be publically spoken: A nice bit of income for the court, since these devices are usually charged to the offender as part of their sentence, and the price of both unit and installation is deliberately set punishingly high. Actual value is probably 10-20 bucks a unit, if that, with an actual installation/maintenance cost of something like a hundred bucks. Likely "sale price" to the person using it is likely to be in the high hundreds, if not thousands of dollars, with the installation cost likely being jacked just as high.

They aren't SUPPOSED to be cheap/easy/convenient. They're intended to be punishment, and the more expensive, difficult, and inconvenient they can be made for the drunk to use, the better both court and "Average non-drunk-driver" on the street likes it.

Or one extreme DUI. They're also ungodly expensive - I don't know if the OP had cost concerns... but besides having to breathalyze yourself to start the car, you have to do it at random times while driving, otherwise your car shuts off. Obviously this is to counteract a friend blowing for you to start the car.

Jason Pawloski

Ayup, I can go with that concept *REAL* easy, despite having *VERY* strong "stop 'the war on (some) drugs'" feelings. A drunk behind the wheel is a proven wreck looking for a place to happen. (and seemingly, one usually involving an innocent bystander of some type who goes home in an urn or a wheelchair, while drunk goes to the tank, sleeps it off, and bails out the door the next morning fresh as a daisy)

I wouldn't even be particuarly unhappy to see a law passed along the lines of "Blow "you're drunk" on the roadside test, you go directly to the joint, where you spend the next 10 years waking up to ten strokes of the cane, followed by 14 hours of "makin' little ones outta big ones".

Stupid should be painful - And driving drunk is just about as stupid as it gets. Ergo it should be as painful as it can possibly be made.

Adult Supervision.

Cheers! Rich

Imagine if sober people would bother to take responsibility for operating their vehicle in a safe manner, even in the presence of road hazards. "Gee, officer, I was just minding my own business, and this tree jumped out in front of me..."

A drunk driver is a road hazard, nothing more or less. Blaming "the drunk driver" is just a cop-out to evade responsibility for one's own negligence.

Thanks, Rich

What you describe about the trees is called an accident. When someone drinks, and then drives a car and kills someone, that is premeditated murder, and deserves the death penalty.

I didn't think you would agree, so I am not surprised. You drink, you drive, you kill, you die.

JB

Grise is our resident village idiot. (My spell checker just suggested substituting Grime for Grise... how appropriate :-)

...Jim Thompson

I presume you are describing a situation where this is not an order of the court but is a voluntary precautionary addition? Seems like some sort of confusing reaction time measurement might work to some degree.

If the guy's a responsible enough drinker to bother to check his breath, he's probably responsible enough to say, "Well, guess I'll get a ride this time." IOW, if you've had so much that you need to check, you've had too much.

Good Luck! Rich

He is also remarkably thin-skinned. A while back he plonked me out of the blue while I was enaging in banter not unlike his own, and yet when I plonked him he started whining about it in random posts and hasn't stopped since. I don't mind a fellow who enjoys light hearted pseudo-insult banter between friends, and I don't mind a fellow who treats others with respect and dignity and expects to be treated the same, but a "I can dish it out but I can't take it" mixture is annoying.

At least Genome and John Larkin are full-time flamers and shit-stirrers. I like it when the bottom feeders self-identify early on so that I can killfile them and never see them again :)

No, _THIS_ is the rub. Every Single Car Is Out To Get You. Ever heard of "Defensive Driving", or "The Virtual Car"? The Virtual Car is an aspect of Defensive Driving - my virtual car extends one car length in front of me for every 10 MPH, and to the sides and back as far as I can see. Yes, cars will move unpredictably, and "jump out in front of you", but if you're not already driving like a doughhead, you WILL have time to respond to the new threat. Two tons of metal will, after all, continue to obey Newton's Laws of Motion.

It certainly is! So is a Tank Truck with a flat tire. EVERY SINGLE THING ON THE ROAD WITH YOU IS A HAZARD, WHETHER IT'S MOVING OR NOT!!!

Yes, an active threat. So it behooves you to be especially alert while driving amongst them, wouldn't you agree?

Except for the fact that you're not running at the rifle at 85 MPH.

Never mind this is exactly the kind of silly red herring that the blame set always throws up when the facts fail them. For Example, the drunk isn't "hidden" unless you're driving negligently.

You're still trying to make excuses, and evade responsibility by blaming others for what comes down to your own negligence.

Trying to make others responsible for your personal well-being is one of the reasons society is going down the toilet.

Thanks, Rich

And the one who isn't drunk has absolutely no responsibility whatsoever for the safe operation of his own vehicle?

Sorry, it doesn't wash. That's just the mentality of blame.

I say, if you kill yourself driving, tough.

Cheers! Rich

Thompson, you seem to have such a way of making contributions of such insetimable value, I stand in awe of your example.

Thanks for once again displaying a level of sophistication and class that hasn't been achieved on USENET in quite some time.

Thanks, Rich

(Well, at least he got the right vowel.)

I think you are just fishing for a reaction here. Are you implying that a person moving at 70 mph northbound, has any chance at all to cope with a drunk who crosses the median fromthe southbound lane at 70mph and heads straight for them?

Are you saying that a person who moves through an intersection, along with other traffic, has any say in whether a person who runs the red light at high speed, t-bones them? Are you trying to absolve the drunk driver from responsibility? We all have to drive defensively, but that means WE ALL have to, which includes the drunk. Not all defensive moves in a car are going to avoid the crash. If we are all driving defensively, does that mean there is no one to blame for a crash?

Besides, tell your story of 'no blame' to my best friend who's daughter was WALKING home from school, but never made it. Explain what her "virtual car" ought to look like, and explain how the drunken bastard ought not be accountable for drinking, getting into his 2 ton vehicle, and driving it on the sidewalk where she was walking and a laughing with her friends. I suppose you think she is somehow liable, because she was not paying attention to traffic on the sidewalk, or because she was not "walking defensively" and using rear view mirrors to monitor the cars moving along the sidewalk?

Some of the time, I am with you on your positions, and other times, I enjoy it as just a lot of friction between points of view. This one is over the top, highly personal, and really a no brainer for anyone with a modicum of intelligence. We need to hear from our friends in Germany, and other nations about how they deal with drunk drivers. It ain't all pretty.

If you drink, and you drive, and you kill, you should die. End of story.

Sure, and if you kill my child and survive the wreck, you should be killed also.

John

someone

premeditated

whatsoever

implying that a

cope with a

and heads

along with

light at

driver from

WE ALL

car are

does that

daughter

her "virtual

ought not be

driving it

friends. I

paying

"walking

moving along

times, I

one is

anyone with a

Germany, and

all pretty.

of story.

be killed

What has this Fictional BS to do with Electronics?

Wow, we are not on the same page. You say "punishing _everyone_ based on what _someone_ _might_ do" can be extreme and I agree. Why do you seem to be implying that I advocate punishment for something someone -might- do?

I said if you drive drunk, and you kill someone, you ought to die too. I didn't say if you drive drunk, you should die. I do recall saying if you get caught driving drunk, once, that is it for you. Learn to hail a cab, or get used to public transit.

I am unable to recall where I implied a punishment for someone who did not do anything. If you want to keep tweaking me, and throwing out stuff just to troll for a response, you have to at least stick to the facts at hand. Anyone can distort the words and make a big issue out of something.

I think maybe you figure I want the death penalty for drunk drivers, and that is not correct.

How many times do you think a drunk driver should be caught, slapped on the wrist, and allowed to do the same thing again?

Again, you are not talking about the same thing I am talking about. I just want stricter penalties for breaking those laws. What the heck are you talking about?

This implies that if it was your mother who was run down by a drunk, you would carry on the explanation, but since it was a child, "oh well, who cares?"

Near as I can tell, you advocate everyone to be able to drive any way they want. In your town, it ought to be okay to drive on the wrong side of the road, because the other person should be getting out of your way. Running stop signs and red lights are permitted because everyone should be driving defensively anyway. I lived in NYC for years, and it doesn't always work out when you drive like that.

On your planet, there is no fault in any accident. Its an interesting concept. Its bullshit, but its interesting.

Its against the law to run a red light. If you do, you are punished. Its against the law to drive on the wrong side of the road, and if you do, you pay the penalty. Its against the law to drive drunk, and if you do, you have to pay the price.

Which of those statements don't you agree with?

JB

No, I'm not implying that at all. I'm saying it right out in plain English: If you do not have the driving skills, forethought, and common sense to be able to avoid an oncoming car, crossing the median and coming right at you, then you have no business driving a car at 70 MPH.

Of course not. That's why you're supposed to look both ways.

Not with the same ardor as you seem to be trying to absolve the one who wasn't impaired, but was supposed to be paying attention.

No, it does not. _*I*_ drive defensively, precisely because no one else does. For all practical purposes, they're all drunk, they're all armed, and they're all out to get me, so it behooves to watch my precious little white ass, as opposed to flinging myself at the mercy of the whim of the lunatics out there and then whining "It's all his fault" when the inevitable happens.

If you jump into a snake pit without any protective equipment and annoy the snakes, is it the snake's fault that you got bit?

This is why you look in front of the car first. If there's already something there, don't go there. That will avoid 90% of the situations that require "defensive moves". The defensive move should have come long before you crash into the drunk. Hell, they're a moving target! You'd have to try even harder to hit them!

If we were all driving defensively, there wouldn't be any crashes.

Now, youj're changing the subject.

Vehicular manslaughter is pretty much a felony anywhere you go. Punish him for that. But punishing _everyone_ based on what _someone_ _might_ do is getting a little extreme.

There are already laws against doing damage. Prior restraint is anathema to a truly free society.

Well, until you get off your "for the chiiiildrrruuuuuun" high-horse, I guess there's no reason to continue to attempt to enlighten you.