BleepingComputer.com: Drunk driving prevention

Im sure we have all been through those late night police checkpoints, or roadblocks, where the MAIN objective is to catch drunk drivers. If you have lived in that particular city or county, then you know when the prime time for checkpoints is, and you know the locations the police use to set up these checkpoints.
so obviously, if you are driving home drunk, you are going to take the route that has no checkpoints.
Checkpoints are one way to catch drunk drivers, but i think law enforcement should focus more on the ability of drunk drivers to get start there cars in the first place.

we have all this new technology that allows you to remote start your vehicle, keyless entry, keyless ignition, voice recognition....etc
i believe that there should be some type of device that wont allow drunk drivers to take off in there cars to begin with. (i dont have a specific example or a way of doing so, but somebody should)

and another thing, do you think the government just isnt doing that so they can keep there arrests up and make all this money off drunk drivers who get caught? keep in mind that without people breaking the law (ex. driving drunk), there would be no need for law enforcement.

just a thought, what does everybody else think about this topic?

There are devices which do test drivers, but they are used for convicted drunk drivers.

http://www.fox17.com/newsroom/top_stories/..._vid_2777.shtml

http://ezinearticles.com/?New-Technologies...&id=3242737 (which has a blurb to contact a law firm if one finds him/herself nailed for DUI, but over-all an informative article)

do you think the government just isnt doing that so they can keep there arrests up and make all this money off drunk drivers who get caught

What's the alternative to NOT arresting them? I'd much rather have the police arrest someone who is driving drunk or under the influence of drugs, and letting the system get that person's money in the form of fines, or giving the person jail time than have someone killed or seriously injured by a drunk driver-which happens every day somewhere.

This post has been edited by Queen-Evie: 11 March 2010 - 04:28 PM

Well yeah, if people didn't break the law, there wouldn't be a need for law enforcement. That is sort of like saying that if there was no darkness, we wouldn't need lights either.

Drunk driving does make me angry. This is the wilful act of someone who consciously decides flout the law. Not to mention the value of their own life and any other person that may suffer injury or be killed by their act.
I do not agree that law enforcement should be concentrating more on drunk people being able to start their cars. There is the fact that most laws have to be broken before the police can enforce them. It would cause a public outcry if the police were for example to stop people and breathalise them just because they were coming out of a bar or a pub which is what would have to happen, or something similar in car parks.

It would be great if cars were fitted with some blocking technology that stopped people who were under the influence of alcohol or any other substance. The idea is good, but just like anything else it will cost the car manufacturers money and that will be passed on to the customers. There is also the issue of cars already in circulation. I do not drink and drive - I rarely drink, and I don't see why I should have to have a car fitted with a device I won't use because some irresponsible people choose to drink and drive.

The penalties for drinking and driving have for a long time been a joke, and when someone has had a loved one killed by a drunken driver, the sentence has been in some cases an insult to them, and a slap on the wrists to the perpetrator. I think that the government has every right to fine law breakers, the law enforcement officers cannot ignore drunk driving and people driving under the influence of illegal substances. I am pretty sure that they don't enjoy sitting in the darkness or whatever hour it is waiting to have to deal with some person who is usually the worse for wear and possibly abusive.

I don't know how it works where you live, but where I live some people do not even bother to pay fines, and are a public menace. They waste court time and public taxes, Often even after been fined and having their license revoked some of these drunk drivers just get into a car and drive regardless. I think these check points are necessary.

you will never drink and drive, if you don't drive to drink.

This post has been edited by duckne55: 13 March 2010 - 08:52 AM

carri,

It would cause a public outcry if the police were for example to stop people and breathalise them just because they were coming out of a bar or a pub which is what would have to happen, or something similar in car parks.

Random Breath Testing is not new in the World, Been there for many years. It is used exactly as you say with no Problems.

Only IDIOTS Drink and Drive!

Then they get caught and Charged.

This post has been edited by Drovers Dog: 13 March 2010 - 10:53 AM

I literally meant testing anyone who exits a place on foot where alcohol is served. In the UK as far as I am aware that type of testing does not happen and would cause an outcry if this was to happen as not everyone who comes out of such a place will have had alcohol, nor would everyone be driving.

putting in technology that wont let you drive drunk, yes will take drunk driving off the road, but on the other hand, is a major invasion of privacy and while that alone, isnt bad, it is giving the government more control, and when talking about control, give the government a inch and it will take a mile, and lead to places we dont want to go. No, we need to find other methods. Like having to check in your keys when you enter a bar, and if your to drunk the bar tender can choose not to give them back. that may be a better option in my mind.

The technology is great, but in addition to the expense, what is to prevent a person from getting a sober person to blow into the breathalyzer for the drunk driver? I know people that take in piss from their children in order to pass UA tests. If I were of the wrong social ilk, I could make a few hundred dollars a night outside bars helping people start their cars.

And has already been mentioned, totally goes against the concept of innocent until proven guilty.

In this country,traffic court is a money-maker.If you want to stop drunk driving ,a country in europe takes your driver's licence for a year for 1st offense and then permanently.We should do this. Then if the idiot still hasn't learned,DWI after losing license nets a felony charge, that will get them off the road for awhile.

Random testing is wrong, wrong, wrong. What's next? Allowing police to randomly drug test people walking down the street? Allowing them to randomly stop people and search them for weapons?

I'm sure that I'm the only person here who is going to say that things have already gone too far in drunk driving enforcement, but simply saying that everybody should somehow be required that they aren't drunk first is crazy.