Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Drunk driving prevention


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 thicool

thicool

  • Members
  • 97 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kentucky, USA
  • Local time:05:36 AM

Posted 11 March 2010 - 01:18 PM

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?

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 Queen-Evie

Queen-Evie

    Official Bleepin' G.R.I.T.S. (and proud of it)


  • Members
  • 16,485 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:My own little corner of the universe (somewhere in Alabama). It's OK, they know me here
  • Local time:05:36 AM

Posted 11 March 2010 - 04:20 PM

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.

Edited by Queen-Evie, 11 March 2010 - 04:28 PM.


#3 groovicus

groovicus

  • Security Colleague
  • 9,963 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Centerville, SD
  • Local time:04:36 AM

Posted 11 March 2010 - 05:13 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. :thumbsup:

#4 carri

carri

  • Members
  • 234 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Yorkshire, England
  • Local time:11:36 AM

Posted 11 March 2010 - 05:53 PM

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.
Posted Image
Hug someone today and get on their nerves!

#5 duckne55

duckne55

  • Members
  • 142 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:06:36 PM

Posted 13 March 2010 - 08:51 AM

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

Edited by duckne55, 13 March 2010 - 08:52 AM.


#6 Drovers Dog

Drovers Dog

  • Members
  • 1,048 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brisbane, Australia
  • Local time:08:36 PM

Posted 13 March 2010 - 09:49 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.

Edited by Drovers Dog, 13 March 2010 - 10:53 AM.

What ever you give to others, you will get back doubled, Just make sure you only give Nice Things?......DD saying

There is a saying, "You just can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear" it means "to be happy with what you have and not look for the impossible"......DD saying

The "Spirit" of the people who died, on that terrible day 9/11 will NEVER REST until such time as the "Imbeciles" that caused it, are eliminated through out the World.....DD saying

What is a Dog?

#7 carri

carri

  • Members
  • 234 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Yorkshire, England
  • Local time:11:36 AM

Posted 15 March 2010 - 06:07 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.
Posted Image
Hug someone today and get on their nerves!

#8 the_patriot11

the_patriot11

    High Tech Redneck


  • BC Advisor
  • 6,763 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wyoming USA
  • Local time:04:36 AM

Posted 16 March 2010 - 08:57 PM

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.

picard5.jpg

 

Primary system: Motherboard: ASUS M4A89GTD PRO/USB3, Processor: AMD Phenom II x4 945, Memory: 16 gigs of Patriot G2 DDR3 1600, Video: AMD Sapphire Nitro R9 380, Storage: 1 WD 500 gig HD, 1 Hitachi 500 gig HD, and Power supply: Coolermaster 750 watt, OS: Windows 10 64 bit. 

Media Center: Motherboard: Gigabyte mp61p-S3, Processor: AMD Athlon 64 x2 6000+, Memory: 6 gigs Patriot DDR2 800, Video: Gigabyte GeForce GT730, Storage: 500 gig Hitachi, PSU: Seasonic M1211 620W full modular, OS: Windows 10.

If I don't reply within 24 hours of your reply, feel free to send me a pm.


#9 groovicus

groovicus

  • Security Colleague
  • 9,963 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Centerville, SD
  • Local time:04:36 AM

Posted 16 March 2010 - 09:14 PM

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.

#10 gfroggy

gfroggy

  • Members
  • 6 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:06:36 AM

Posted 30 April 2010 - 09:39 PM

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. :thumbsup:

#11 LarryMac

LarryMac

  • Members
  • 4 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:06:36 AM

Posted 14 May 2010 - 02:25 PM

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.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users