Drivers not too keen on ignition interlocks
23 Aug, 2007
14 Comments 
Drink and Drive, you’re a bloody idiot. We all know it, we have all seen the ads and we all know, not to do it. Whilst here at CarAdvice we are not shy of criticising the state government’s “Speed Kills” revenue raising campaigns, we are 100% behind the anti drink-driving campaigns.
Unfortunately, being the arrogant species that we are, there are some who still don’t get the message, for those select few, there is the option of installing ignition interlocks, devices which will control the vehicles ignition and are activated by the driver (e.g. a breathalyser controls the ignition - if you’re clean, it starts, if you’re not, it doesn’t).
Being the over cautious society that we are, many are trying to push for the next stage, so that all new vehicles come standard with these devices, regardless of driver history.
The argument? In the U.S. around 80 percent of drivers drink very lightly or not at all, and only about 0.5 percent of vehicle trips are piloted by drunk drivers. However 40 percent of the U.S. road toll (43,000) is caused by drunk drivers (no Australian statistics available from Australian Bureau of Statistics).
Since they can’t stop the 0.5 percent, they want to inconvenience the 99.5 percent, a very American approach. Of course, this isn’t going to happen here, Australians are not going to buy cars that come standard with these devices (are we?), and if we were forced to, we would simply remove them.
Obviously that’s not going to work, so we move on to the next-next stage, smarter devices. Recently we showed you this Nissan concept, a car which doesn’t simply rely on the breathalyser method, it can sense your odour, it can use the sweat from your palms and, it can even tell, by measuring your eye movement, if you are actually paying any attention to the road (it can even make you coffee…).
The question remains though, would you like your car to breath test you every-single-time you get in the car? Would you be happy to have your integrity questioned and be inconvenienced every time you get behind the wheel? If it means someone, somewhere, will end up walking home and possibly not run over your dog, or worse, your neighbour?
Tell us:
Location: Home / Opinion / ...
Rate Post: 
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
-
Print it:
![IMG_6648 [1024x768].JPG](http://www.caradvice.com.au/wp-content/gallery/landrover60thaniv/IMG_6648 [1024x768].JPG "IMG_6648 [1024x768].JPG")
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:31 pm
I think there has to be a better way around this issue - imagine for example being a courier driver, how much of a pain would it be to do this 80+ times a day…
(Report)
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Lets ignore the courier drivers, although I’d like Taxi drivers and bus drivers to be tested!
(Report)
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Haaaa imagine taxi drivers getting in a car that detects if they are paying attention or not? There would be thousands of taxis sitting there because the car says “your going nowhere until you concentrate” LOL! God imagine if it can detect their smell as well Ooooooooo
(Report)
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:09 pm
there is a misconception that younger drivers drink and drive when it its the older generation(40+) who are usually the culprits
this technology will only work on a minority as the newer generation understand the risks of drink driving.
other measures such a more RBTs or CHEAPER and MORE EFFIECNT public transport will reduce the drink driving
(Report)
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:59 pm
If the government is serious about reducing the incidence of drink driving then the courts need to start imposing the appropriate sentence, rather than handing out slaps on the wrist.
As for the ignition lock. Well, an inconvenience it no doubt would be to the majority, but how would you feel if the next person to be killed by a drunk driver was a member of your family?
I have seen the results first hand of what a shattering experience it is for ALL involved when a drunk driver is killed or has killed another through a crash.
(Report)
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Im not sure if i agree with it or not. We need to do something about it but this may or may not be a solution. One thing your missing is that if it takes 2 seconds to do it, you put your keys in the ignition, give a quick breath and off you go, if you ar eover the limit you wont be able to go.
The only problem is that threse machines are not entirely reliable and can produce palse readings.
These two arguments leed to my indecisive opinion about this.
(Report)
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:42 pm
Statistics are fun.
The article states that “40 percent of the U.S. road toll (43,000) is caused by drunk drivers”.
This undeniably means that 60 percent of the US road toll is caused by SOBER drivers.
Therefore, sober drivers cause more accidents than drunk drivers, and so no-one should be allowed to drive sober.
(Report)
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Reckless1, thats one way of looking at it, the other is the 60% is caused by bad roads, bad drivers, drivers failing to obey road rules etc…
(Report)
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:52 pm
okay reckless1, but those 60% percent could have been genuine accidents… ever heard of that?
and why take the risk when you can avoid it?
those 40% could have avoided an accident IF they were sober but instead some mother can cry over her dead son…
(Report)
August 24th, 2007 at 9:19 am
I can see a market opening up almost immediately for canned-air that attaches to breathalyser-interlocks (beyond those who actually go as far as removing them)
The sad thing is the drunk drivers and those stupid enough to do it would be the ones smart enough to circumvent the system and the honest joes would be the ones inconveienced every day. In-car systems don’t have the benefit of a Policeman standing next to you proving you’re not rigging the result.
Also can see issues with people who use mouthwash and breath spray just before driving to work, as these contain high alcohol and can cause a short-term false reading…
If it takes me 30 seconds to come up with these valid points, how does it take a whole government to completely miss them? (or ignore them)
(Report)
August 24th, 2007 at 9:39 am
Bob, the govt misses the obvious, common sense solutions because they only use statistical analysis to make decisions.
My remarks above re statistics were made to illustrate that even though my “conclusion” was 100% accurate, it was not LOGICAL. People get fooled when operating this way, because much of the time you can arrive at good, sensible, logical conclusions when only using statistics. Then they fail to know when that metod gives the wrong result.
Arsenolroc, I was taking the p!ss…. wake up.
(Report)
August 24th, 2007 at 10:40 am
I never drink and drive, I wouldn’t even approach the .05 limit but there is NO WAY I’d ever buy a car with one of these. Aside from the pain in the ass factor of having to do it each time you start, you just know that the first time you are well out of the city it will suddenly decide you’ve drunk a brewery and refuse to start, despite the fact you’re a tee-totaler!
Imagine a poor L-plater stalling at the lights and trying to get the car restarted. Blow, wait for analysis… turn key, accidentally drop the clutch, stall… repeat… LOL!
(Report)
August 24th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
I don’t agree with mandatory devices. However, if a driver is convicted of a drink driving offence, as part of their punishment (which at the moment is a joke), they should be forced to have one installed in ALL vehicles that they will be driving, at their cost, once their suspension (if any) finishes.
This should be made a licence condition for them - just like “Must wear visual aids” etc.
(Report)
August 26th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
As far as I am concerned the last thing I want to do before operating machinery or tools of any kind is drink alcohol.
Can someone explain to me why is a car any different?
Before I get branded a wowser & worse the alcohol is not the problem but the uncivilised way we have consumed it in generations past & present.
We give adult responsibilities to people who are not fit to do a lot of things.The majority are made to subsidise these people.I am over it.
(Report)