Comments on: Drivers not too keen on ignition interlocks

By: David

David — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 11:24:18 +0000

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.

By: Doc

Doc — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 07:50:33 +0000

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.

By: Fireblade

Fireblade — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 00:40:10 +0000

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!

By: Reckless1

Reckless1 — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 23:39:46 +0000

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.

By: Bob

Bob — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 23:19:46 +0000

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)

By: arsenalroc

arsenalroc — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:52:53 +0000

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…

By: alborz

alborz — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 13:07:30 +0000

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…

By: Reckless1

Reckless1 — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 12:42:29 +0000

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.

By: acfsambo

acfsambo — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 11:40:30 +0000

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.

By: Grumps

Grumps — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 10:59:40 +0000

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.