Building an interlock device for DUI parolee.

[Simon]

I will install a device that prevents anyone with an alcohol level
over 0.08% BAC from driving. I am thinking of a keypad to enter his
phone number or social security number within xx seconds or something
better. I could try a breathalyzer, but this would be inconvenient to
other sober drivers. What are some of the best way (or device) I could
use to prevent a drunk person from starting his car?

Thanks

 

[Jim Thompson]

I will install a device that prevents anyone with an alcohol level
over 0.08% BAC from driving. I am thinking of a keypad to enter his
phone number or social security number within xx seconds or something
better. I could try a breathalyzer, but this would be inconvenient to
other sober drivers. What are some of the best way (or device) I could
use to prevent a drunk person from starting his car?

Thanks

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

 

[Don Bruder]

I will install a device that prevents anyone with an alcohol level
over 0.08% BAC from driving. I am thinking of a keypad to enter his
phone number or social security number within xx seconds or something
better. I could try a breathalyzer, but this would be inconvenient to
other sober drivers. What are some of the best way (or device) I could
use to prevent a drunk person from starting his car?

Thanks

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.

 

[Jason Pawloski]

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.

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

 

[[email protected]]

Or one extreme DUI. They're also ungodly expensive -

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

 

[Don Bruder]

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

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.

 

[Rich Grise]

I will install a device that prevents anyone with an alcohol level
over 0.08% BAC from driving. I am thinking of a keypad to enter his
phone number or social security number within xx seconds or something
better. I could try a breathalyzer, but this would be inconvenient to
other sober drivers. What are some of the best way (or device) I could
use to prevent a drunk person from starting his car?

Adult Supervision.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

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.

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

 

[[email protected]]

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.

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

 

[Don Bruder]

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.

Ah, but therein lies the rub, Rich - A tree/signpost/etc. is a static
hazard that can be avoided/evaded. A drunk behind the wheel, on the
other hand, is an unpredictable variable in an already quite complex
task. One that can (and at times DOES) actively "jump out in front of
you" with no reason or warning - or change from a mobile to a non-mobile
hazard at a moment's notice, with no indication that he/she/it actually
is a hazard.

Granted, it IS every driver's duty to deal with road hazards. However,
attempting to handle a hazard that gives no clue that it IS a hazard
until it suddenly manifests as one by slamming on its brakes for a
hallucinatory elephant, or dodging into your lane just as your "point of
no return" is reached, is NOT something that anyone is able to cope with.

Road hazards aren't something that can be eliminated. They must be dealt
with. We agree that far. But a drunk isn't "a road hazard". A drunk
behind the wheel is an active threat, in my estimation no different in
any way, shape, or form, than a hidden sniper with a high-powered rifle
fliping a coin to decide "Do I shoot this one, or let him go by?"

The only distinction between the two is the brand of "rifle" and the
size of "ammunition" being used.

 

[Jim Thompson]

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

 

[Dave]

I will install a device that prevents anyone with an alcohol level
over 0.08% BAC from driving. I am thinking of a keypad to enter
his phone number or social security number within xx seconds or
something better. I could try a breathalyzer, but this would be
inconvenient to other sober drivers. What are some of the best way
(or device) I could use to prevent a drunk person from starting
his car?

Thanks

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.

 

[Rich Grise]

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

 

[Guy Macon]

Grise is our resident village idiot.

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

 

[Rich Grise]

Ah, but therein lies the rub, Rich - A tree/signpost/etc. is a static
Granted, it IS every driver's duty to deal with road hazards. However,
attempting to handle a hazard that gives no clue that it IS a hazard
until it suddenly manifests as one by slamming on its brakes for a
hallucinatory elephant, or dodging into your lane just as your "point of
no return" is reached, is NOT something that anyone is able to cope with.

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.

Road hazards aren't something that can be eliminated. They must be dealt
with. We agree that far. But a drunk isn't "a road hazard".

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!!!

A drunk
behind the wheel is an active threat, in my estimation no different in
any way, shape, or form, than a hidden sniper with a high-powered rifle
fliping a coin to decide "Do I shoot this one, or let him go by?"

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

The only distinction between the two is the brand of "rifle" and the
size of "ammunition" being used.

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

 

[Rich Grise]

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.

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

I say, if you kill yourself driving, tough.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

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

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.)

 

[[email protected]]

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

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.

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

I say, if you kill yourself driving, tough.

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

John

 

[Clarence_A]

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 from the 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

What has this Fictional BS to do with Electronics?

 

[Clarence_A]

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.

Sounds more like he is trying to give car-jackers an edge while
you are trying to start you car.