I once helped someone get their car home after one of these was installed. Their license would not be returned until it was installed, but they weren't allowed to leave it on the lot. Someone else drove it there, and then I got to experience the breathalyzer to drive it home.
The interesting part is how bad the interlock was. First off, it can apparently randomly not work, so you get three tries. Worse yet, per the official documentation, apparently they can misdetect an ignition while driving at speed, and when that happens you have to pull over and blow within thirty seconds. Now, this is not something you can do while driving, as you have to look at the camera while you do it, on top of needing to have a deep breath. There's no motivation to improve this, because the customer is the legal system, not the person who has to have it installed
I knew somebody with an interlock and if they were around too much car exhaust in a relatively enclosed space, the ethanol in the air would trip the detector apparently.
Having to blow while you're already driving is supposed to be a feature. It's to dissuade people from successfully turning on their car, immediately drinking, and then driving.
If it only kicks in at 45 or lower (i.e., not the highway) then there's always a safe place to pull over. I have no idea how it actually does work though, thankfully.
Is this comment a joke or do you not understand how dangerous it is to ask a driver to blow into a breathalyzer while operating a vehicle?
All this seems to be is a company collecting corporate welfare while doing the bare minimum. Such companies should both be sanctioned and have their leadership investigated for potential fraud.
If you receive public dollars to function, the public should expect some modicum of sensibility and accountability.
If they set their own place on fire, they're also homeless. Just as self-inflicted, but significantly less dangerous to third parties than driving drunk.
Driving while drunk is not a silly little mistake. A third of all fatal crashes involve drunk drivers. Letting these people drive at all even with a breathalyzer is an abomination. You can expect them to have a similar disregard for other fundamentals of safe driving.
I'm not commenting on the morality of drunk driving. I'm commenting on the effectiveness of just fucking them over, that being, not effective at all.
There's this thing in the mainstream where people feel like the best way to handle people doing bad things is to just pummel them into the ground as much as possible.
While that might feel the most justified, that doesn't actually solve the problem. Suspending licenses doesn't stop drunk people from driving, because cars are more or less a necessity.
So, knowing it's a necessity, we have to design the car around that and enforce safe operation by an alcoholic.
Which is a stop-gap solution. A better solution is making cars not a necessity. But until then, we should do the stop-gap.
Stop-gap is restricting the driving to work schedule then. Everything else is optional and you can learn to work within that system. We try to put up industrial solutions to everything. Why not keep the laws cut and dry. This action = this consequence. You determine your actions you must accept x consequence. Or better yet jail time for 6 months then you will be fed and you will lose everything. There are options
That's how the legal system worked a couple centuries ago. You might be familiar with some of the literature written about it, like Les Misérables. I don't know about you, but returning to the world of 18th century French penal codes sounds pretty dystopian.
It wasn't that long ago these devices weren't mandatory and they'd just suspend your license.
I am actually curious now whether that was more effective since the offender had to endure the judgment of the person in their life giving them a ride to work.
I don't understand why this is obviously untrue. Do we have any reason to believe that those people didn't just... continue to drive with a suspended license?
Not to mention DUI is a fairly recent development. In the 20th century, it was pretty easy to drive drunk and get away with it.
Yeah and what's stopping someone from drinking while borrowing someone else's car? Oh they don't want their car wrecked too? They may just drive the drunk to work then.
We arrive at the same place with the same real solutions (the people). The technology doesn't do anything except add extra steps and convince the public something was done.
If anything it creates enough hassle for the offender that new crimes are being committed with harsher consequences (domestic abuse), or dragging additional people into crime they didn't intend (negligent entrustment).
> We arrive at the same place with the same real solutions (the people)
This is always the case. There will always be murderers, and thieves. But technology just helps.
There are real solutions, and fake ones. Fake solutions include "make people not bad anymore". This just doesn't work, there will always be alcoholics, end of.
If there was less of a reliance on cars, there would be less drunk driving. We take drunk driving as a necessary consequence of transportation, but that's just not true. And, if we had less of a reliance on cars, we could actually suspend licenses sooner.
But as it currently stands, we cannot. We would just be permanently fucking people over in such a severe and unnecessary manner. Being unable to drive is one of the most reliable ways to become homeless in many parts of the US. This will only lead to more crime.
I didn't say it directly, but did mention depending on others multiple times in my replies. If you are truly all alone, that is the biggest contributing factor to becoming homeless. We live in a society.
There often is a ton of help for alcoholics with stuff like this. In fact, I would say alcoholics probably have the most support out of any type of addict because it's so common. When a drunk is forced to seek assistance to make their commute, it often comes with strings attached to put them on the path to quitting. I don't see what's so bad about that.
You might be a functioning alcoholic, but when alcohol intoxication is so prevalent in your life it interferes with day to day routines activities, it absolutely meets the psychosocial definition of addiction, and likely points to a deeper one.
Every rural area I've ever worked in had a non trivial number of folks who would have 2-3 drinks at the bar/whatever on a Friday or a Saturday and drive home. It was not alcoholism, it was "I'm totally fine to drive, the law doesn't know my limits" etc.
On some level that's just the price of wanting to go out and not wanting to drop a bunch of cash on a taxi (assuming you can get one to come).
2-3 drinks on a Friday night when you're supposed to drive home is different. I'd also say "I can drink because the law is wrong" is also not exactly a neutral take.
- I believe the law is overly proscriptive / strict / wrong.
- I believe I won't get caught
It's no different to someone speeding because "It's clear conditions and I consider myself to be perfectly safe at this speed". Or skipping a stop sign "I can clearly see nothing is coming".
Unfortunately driving on a suspended is mostly not enforced either, so giving them the carrot of keeping their license is the only thing the judicial branch can do that has much sway (other than jailing them) without being able to order the executive branch to change.
LOL. Do you know how many people are driving with suspended licenses now? The number would skyrocket if systems like these didn't exist.
Especially in rural areas, you can get away with driving on a suspended license for a pretty long time before a cop catches you. I know someone who was probably (she wouldn't admit to it) doing it for at least a year.
Once while hot air balloon chasing, we saw a guy driving his 4 wheel drive in the ditches along a gravel road and found out later from someone he had a suspended license.
They said he figured the cops couldn't stop him if he stuck to the ditches and didn't operate on the official roadway.
Oh wow so the judicial system is developing the software? It's not a private company that only exists to fulfill a government need with zero accountability? What were the terms of their contract? What was their SLA? How do users engage with the company?
Sorry but these companies are all scams thrusted upon the public. Any business that takes government money should be held accountable or compelled to engage in workplace democracy.
I'm not a fan of companies making garbage products while getting rich off of public dollars. Just because some people like corporate welfare doesn't mean the vast majority of the public likes it.
Nothing specific yet, but the legal groundwork has been laid both in the US and in the EU. Starting in July, all new cars sold in the EU will need to be able to fit after-market alcohol interlocks. In the US, interlocks are already mandatory for convicted DUIers in most states, but new cars will also have to come with factory installed drunk driving prevention technology in the coming years. We just don't know how far that mandate will go eventually.
obviously it will require an age verification, also you need to tell Google that you want to go somewhere 24 hours in advance, and Apple gets 30% of the revenue that gas stations make.
Manufacturers are now encrypting Canbus traffic, voluntarily on current and future models.
Buying or selling tools designed to break the law is already illegal - trivial or not. If a driver gets a DUI and possess a NOOP interlock, they are getting an additional charge, and get to help am investigation into the illicit device supply chain.
> Buying or selling tools designed to break the law is already illegal - trivial or not.
I'm curious how this will play out. The "John Deer" exemption from the DMCA comes to mind, not sure if it's strictly for farm equipment or still in effect.
There is no proposal to require these janky ass aftermarket units, nor require any type of interlock at all.
NHTSA was directed to write some guidelines/rules around the implementation of passive impairment detection as OEM features. They have yet to do so, probably because it is flaky technology.
My guess is that the final rule implementation will be similar to the distracted driver detection that is already in many new vehicles.
No, the 2021 infrastructure bill required automakers to install passive technology (passive meaning not requiring any specific actions from the driver) to prevent drunk driving by some future date. However, such technology doesn't really exist yet.
Eh, with lane keeping features I don’t think it’d be hard to at least detect someone swerving a lot. Granted, I don’t think that would detect people that aren’t super drunk, but it’s something.
I might be wrong on that assumption - I don’t drink, myself.
As is commonly commented on by cartoonists: In plenty of places driving consistently within the lines might be the actual sign you're drunk. Because the roads/potholes are bad enough that you shouldn't be, if you value your suspension.
I live in a northern state so I certainly have experience with potholes, but I've never seen a road so bad that it would cause a false positive like that.
Our local dying mall though? Phew. It amazes me whoever owns the mall doesn't at least go out there with some asphalt themselves.
Meanwhile in much of the USA registration laws aren't enforced. The last time my car was totaled (hit and run) the police didn't even show up for that either so my insurance company just ate the whole cost. DUI laws themselves are largely only enforced to the extent the accused consents to bothering to show up to court.
Not really the same. There are proposals to require OEMs to install driver monitoring, but it’s usually IR camera based rather than blow in a tube fuel cell based. These systems are probably going to be a mess but the technology isn’t really comparable to DUI interlock devices and the unreliability of those systems is orthogonal.
I was the DD for my friend's bachelor party and as we were leaving the bar, I saw this older gentleman struggling to start his vehicle. I had a hard time making out what he was telling me, but it looked like he had one of these devices on his car. Being the Good Samaritan that I am, I blew into the device, his car started, and he went happily on his way.
I assume you're joking, Either way. One morning when I took the bus to work the bus driver had repeated problems getting the bus to start due to the breathalyser. I heard him complain to the passenger behind him, about it malfunctioning. The passenger volunteered to test this theory, by also blowing into the device. The driver handed him the hose, the passenger gave it a go, the bus started, and the driver shrugged his shoulders, and off we went, only slightly delayed.
Dunno where the parent comment was referring to, but different countries have different standards. In Colombia the bus transit stations all have breathalyzer stations and the drivers have to pass the breathalyzer before starting their shifts. It was pretty wild to see as an outsider but completely unremarkable to everyone else.
We need a software building code. This wouldn't be allowed to happen with non-software. The fact that anyone can build any product with software, make it work terribly, and when it fails impacts the lives of thousands (if not millions), needs to be stopped. We don't allow this kind of behavior with the electrical or building code. Hell, we don't even allow mattresses to be sold without adding fire resistance. The software that is critical to people's lives needs mandatory minimum specifications, failure resistance, testing, and approval. It is unacceptable to strand 150,000 people for weeks because a software company was lazy (just like it was unacceptable to strand millions when CrowdStrike shit the bed). In addition to approvals, there should be fines to ensure there are consequences to not complying.
It's great to assert "we need" but I implore you to consider the downsides first.
I work for an electrical contractor and I don't think being annoyed by shitty UI is nearly the same problem as electrical fires. Why govern the whole set of software with 1 set of rules?
Software isn't safety critical until it is, but we already have code to regulate software on electrical equipment, planes, etc. Why do you recommend software have a code? I'd much rather each individual thing that's safety critical have regulations around software in place than have to learn a 4000 page manual that changes every time you cross a jurisdiction, where enforcement varies, etc.
Software engineers can't even agree on best practices as is.
Imo, put the code around the safety critical thing (e.g. cars, planes, buildings). Restricting "critical" software will only get abused the way essential workers did during covid.
Also keep in mind the way buulding code gets enforced: you get an inspection upon completion or milestones. Software has a tendency to evolve and need maintenance or add features after; I don't want to trust this to a bureacrat. I don't like google or apple getting involved on "their platform" and I certainly don't want an incompetent government getting involved.
Before we have a software code, let's make and adopt some guidelines we can agree to. In construction, plenty of builders have their own sets of internal rules that are de facto codes. When one of those gets popular enough for life safety software, let's consider pushing for that.
The solar power industry was born, rolled out products, learned from their failures, and implemented electrical and building code changes, in a third of the time that the software industry has existed.
We already know what the failures are. We already know what the solutions are. We know it because people have been born and died in the span of time we have been dealing with these same problems. There is no need to assemble guidelines (that no company would follow anyway without being forced to).
> Software engineers can't even agree on best practices as is.
I'm not talking about "best practice"; I'm talking about, before you ship a build to customers, you must at least run it once to look for errors. This is kid stuff, yet the companies don't do it, and subsequently half the flights in the USA are delayed for weeks. There is no need to argue about this, there is no question that there are basic practices that should be considered malpractice not to do. We must make this law or they will continue to disregard these basic practices and we will continue to suffer for it.
> Software has a tendency to evolve and need maintenance or add features after
That is a flaw in business practice, it has nothing to do with software itself. I can run a suite of Perl programs today that I wrote 20 years ago, and they run flawlessly. No need for maintenance, it just works. The reason is, we just happened to treat this one language as something that should not break, and should last a long time. No reason we couldn't treat other software the same way. The fact that other software doesn't is a choice by a lazy industry and uncaring business models, and this choice needs to be challenged, the way every industry has had to be challenged by codes (the reason codes exist is industry cannot be trusted to "do the right thing", they need to be forced).
But despite this, codes change all the time. The electrical code changes as solar progresses. Building codes change as we learn new things or new materials are introduced. The codes do change slowly, precisely so the work is well thought-out, coordinated, and safe, which nobody can say about modern software. The time for move fast and break things needs to end.
>That is a flaw in business practice, it has nothing to do with software itself
I don't think it's a flaw and throwing this away isn't worth a quarter of the hassle that comes with any enforcment implementation I can conceive of. Please think about what testing, safety, security is "enough", how you test it, and if it's worth the tradeoffs.
Who is at fault for code violations? The scope of software is generally too big that prearchitected designs don't work and you must assign life safety faults to a PE. Software doesn't work like that, it's not singularly done. You shouldn't need to file a permit for expansion to add a feature or plug a security hole.
You point to solar, but solar is less complicated than the things most of this website would deride as simple in software. The electrical codes. It has hardly changed at all since it's inception, and only inspired a handful (<12) of changes since the 2008 NEC. Most jurisdictions only update every 2 cycles or so, so we're talking 3 updates.
Move fast and break things is fine when it's okay to break things; software is fundamentally different than physical infrastructure and you paint with really broad strokes here when you just assert "need" and "right".
I work with building code every day and I fundamentally disagree that writing a "critical software code" would be net beneficial.
> Software doesn't work like that, it's not singularly done.
This is definitely a business practice problem, and not some intrinsic quality of software.
And even if your business decides that software is never done, nothing stops you from getting a particular build inspected and certified. It's physically possible. The problems are mostly cultural and in other areas: Governments are generally hesitant to regulate business. Software companies lobby extensively to keep it that way. Vendors and customers are generally not willing to pay the increased cost of software inspections. Developers don't like the idea of being held to a quality standard.
There are lots of "software building codes" IEC-62304, MISRA, DO-178C, etc. Problem is that the vast majority of software doesn't fit into those categories. And as you mention, since you can build any product with software, you would have to have categorization for any new standards to make sense.
I think a better ideea would be that software should not have disclaimers. Authors should assume full responsibility in court if their work misbehaves.
> We need a software building code. This wouldn't be allowed to happen with non-software. The fact that anyone can build any product with software, make it work terribly, and when it fails impacts the lives of thousands (if not millions), needs to be stopped.
Uncle Bob had a bit to say about this a while ago[1], and is largely what his Clean Code philosophy is trying to achieve, despite the detractors.
To the detractors and down-voters...
If you're complaining about over-abstraction, arguing about the 'better language' to use, or that 'Clean Code' doesn't work - you're missing the point by a few hundred miles.
The whole point of 'Clean Code' is to establish a body of ethics software 'engineers' collectively agree to, and rigorously follow to avoid "killing 10,000 people with a little software failure".
If you think you can make a better 'Clean Code', do so! That's the whole point about ethics debates. But! You need to proffer an alternative and prosecute why your version is better than Clean Code.
Software is a bit unique in that in almost all cases there are no consequences to responsible parties for malpractice. Shipping defects is the standard of care. Not so for doctors, plumbers, and hair stylists. It’s why I’m so surprised by the AI slop criticism. Humans had no code standards to begin with, at least, not compared to standards of care in licensed professional services.
I have no idea why you'd been downvoted. Everything you said is common sense. I guess this is a case of "it's hard to get a man to understand something if his paycheck depends upon him not understanding it."
EU has the NIS2 directive, the CRA (cybersecurity resiliency act), and a few sector specific ones (DORA for financial, MDR/IVDR for medical/diagnostical, and there's probably a bunch more)
these are slowly but surely pushing manufacturers/sellers/distributors to try to do the right things
it requires transparency about support period commitment, a bug tracker program, issuing updates (I guess in case there's a CVE), doing risk assessment during development, etc., and requirements kick in based on turnover (or headcount).
and it seems like the correct approach, these are already things good products come with
Or maybe it's "the NFPA doesn't need to prevent against your wires suddenly becoming aluminum because somebody discovered new math" like "DSA encryption has been broken" affects software.
I am an Intoxalock user right now. My device was due for calibration three days after the onset of this breach. I called the mechanic that does the calibration and they said they could not access the Intoxalock system. My device said I was overdue. I still drove it for 2 days. Intoxalock did a partial fix and the service center was able to extend the period for my calibration for another 10 days, but still couldn't calibrate it. I need to schedule that calibration now. It was a minor inconvenience for me.
We need to legally mandate a single physical switch that disables all vehicles radios, and a second that factory resets everything but the odometer and vehicle fault logs / black box.
Irrelevant to this issue - the devices didn’t get bricked over the air, but rather they have a “calibration” time lock which must be reset at a service center and the service centers are ransomwared.
I would agree with you if the state took up the responsibility of driving people with suspended licenses around or making public transportation reliable enough for employment. But they don't and so we're stuck with this as the compromise.
I agree with public transport but that's basic. I don't see why the government should babysit you and drive you around because you drank and drove. Driving is a privilege not a right.
I consider it to be the same as the state having to provide for your food, shelter, clothing, and healthcare while you're imprisoned. The state took away your ability to provide those things for yourself and so now it's their job to do it. In cities with shit public transportation that isn't going to be invested in any time soon the state took away your
ability to provide for your own transportation and I think it's on them to shoulder the cost.
Things like house arrest and the breathalyzer interlock are ways to punish that still let people provide for themselves. So I agree I don't think the state should be babysitting adults which is why I don't like punishments that turn adults into babies.
The punishment for drinking and driving would be losing the ability to drive, not losing the ability to work or buy groceries, which are generally tied to being able to drive in the US. Public transport is a long-term solution but nothing exists in the meantime. So you end up creating a whole host of downstream problems
I feel like a lot of you are commenting without reading the article. Vehicles are not being remotely disabled.
The computer systems which perform the calibration on the device (usually done at a mechanic or auto electrician) are under attack. The vehicle will get locked out of this calibration is not performed monthly. There is no remote attack on the vehicle.
If you search for Intoxalock on r/DUI you'll see this company has been notorious for a long time. They are regarded as the worst interlock provider by a very wide margin for various issues around reliability and service quality.
I guarantee that basically nothing will come out of this.
People dont willingly put these alcohol breathalyzer interlocks on their vehicles. They're 100% court mandated, as a punishment for, usually, drunk driving.
This country is so hell-bent on making criminals' lives worse and worse as a never-ending punishment. So what 150k people cant use their cars. 'They did something wrong and deserve it', is the usual motto in the USA.
Now, lets have a discussion about software liability....
And there is nearly no oversight on how much these private companies are allowed to charge those 150K people for something that is court mandated. These interlocks can exceed $100/month for some of the poorest people in society.
Unfortunately the US public has no interest in this issue. They have a dual morality where lawbreaking is wrong, but profiting off of criminals and the poor isn't. So mandatory prison labor, expensive monitoring, for-profit probation services, and for-profit jails are fine.
Literally if you don't pay or play, you go to jail. But it was a plea so you "volunteered" (to not go to jail).
A lot of bad things will occur (and or should occur) if you get a DUI. I'm not sure what that has to do with private companies/individuals profiting off of the criminal justice system though.
How much bad is fair though? There are constitutional protections against "cruel and unusual punishment".
Its obviously cruel and unusual to execute those guilty of DUI. But what should the penalty be? Jail? How long? Monetary? How much? Confiscation of vehicle(s)? Some 3rd party company-owned device? What terms? What is reasonable and what is excessive? We also must keep in mind that our society constructed this to be a vehicle nation, with poor to non-existent public transit.
Should the punishment depend on how poor or rich you are? Pro-tip: it already does.
In Kentucky there are approved vendors of these devices by the government. I do not know for certain, but I assume if they had outrageous pricing, they would no longer be approved.
Why not? The minimum court fines and fees and programs are often outrageously priced themselves. A 3 hour "Dont drive impaired" program with 30 people on it can be up to $1000 per person. What other service can justify a $10,000 an hour price tag?
It is $80-90/month in Kentucky, with a $40 starting fee paid to the Kentucky's DUV. So you assume incorrectly; their "approved" vendors are the same as most other states.
I'm legitimately quite confused about this reply in general, why did you assume I wouldn't be talking about a state like Kentucky? Did you consider that most states/courts mandate approved vendors?
> So what 150k people cant use their cars. 'They did something wrong and deserve it', is the usual motto in the USA.
Maybe I'm in the wrong here, but I do find it pretty fair that people that can't responsible use a vehicle aren't allowed to use a vehicle. You don't see me flying airplanes for hire ...
> Now, lets have a discussion about software liability....
You're welcome to demand that the software you use provide a warranty. For some reason government agencies which actually would have the ability to demand this seem to not care. It does seem extremely negligent to allow people who can't use cars responsibly to use cars with provided software without a warranty.
> Maybe I'm in the wrong here, but I do find it pretty fair that people that can't responsible use a vehicle aren't allowed to use a vehicle.
Except they are allowed to use a vehicle. This issue isn't that they aren't allowed to use their vehicles. The danger is the disruption in what they are allowed to do and software/hardware failing. This is dangerous not only for them, but others as well.
And to be clear, this is specifically about people who are allowed to drive with a breathalyzer. So, "aren't allowed to use a vehicle" makes no sense. They are allowed to drive with certain conditions. Just like you and me.
Given that most of these defendants are poor, they're using public defenders.
The choices these defendants are being offered is "We can charge you for 3-10 years in prison, or you can pay a pile of money to the state and our private companies for 1 year of a breathalyzer in your car"
The plea deal is at best blackmail, and enriches the state and 'business partners' (private companies) via more suffering.
And given how this plea deal system works, I would wager that quite a few who pled out didn't do anything wrong, but are still subject to the blackmail and subsequent removal of rights with tenuous due process at best.
The whole root of this issue is that the USA demolished most of public transit to go all in on the personal vehicle. This was done nationwide to increase profits for vehicle companies and gas/oil companies. If we did have good/great public transit, drunk driving would be a significantly less of a thing. But that would cut into US domestic car production and oil/gas production.
> This country is so hell-bent on making criminals' lives worse and worse as a never-ending punishment.
Interlock devices are typically mandated for 6-12 months if it's your first DUI. In California, you will be mandated to use it for three years after your fourth (!) DUI. DUI laws in many parts of the US are ridiculously permissive and your criticism is pretty off-base.
Because the DUI laws aren't designed to protect people, they are designed to extract money out of citizens for the courts and their buddies providing 3rd party services. Someone blows exactly the limit that is within the error range of the breathalyzer? Still get charged just as hard for a DUI because that is literally thousands of dollars the court will receive. Oh sure if you got $10K to drop on a lawyer it will go away easily, but for anyone that has a public defender they are shit out of luck. Defending yourself in court with a public defender is just increasing the risk and liability because if they lose the case they now have to pay thousands of dollars more for court costs, which pushes people to taking shitty plea deals.
Oh sure there are plenty of people who are guilty and have a problem, they get caught too, but the courts want money so they aren't just going after the problem, they are charging any and every person possible. Some people get charged DUIs for annoying a cop or being tired, and even if their blood work comes up clean, do they drop the case? No. They just argue they were high on some other drug that they didn't test for.
> Someone blows exactly the limit that is within the error range of the breathalyzer?
I hate to say this, but how about... not drinking and driving? Drunk driving is a massive problem in the US and accounts for a good proportion of all driving fatalities. And your attitude sounds precisely like what causes this issue: unless the penalties are painful, people keep trying their luck in hopes of blowing "exactly the limit".
Because often there is a large cost: an expensive taxi ride, another to pick up the car the next day, and that's if it's not towed from wherever it was left, maybe you end up late for work the next day and reprimanded/fired because you can't manage it in time. There are incentives if you're borderline. But making punishment harsher (which itself ends up causing more problems beyond the nominal punishment itself) isn't the only way to tweak the incentives. Promote walkable infrastructure so you don't need to drive at all. Establish a government rideshare program to pick drunk people up and take their cars home. But anything that gets seen as helping criminals or the undeserving is untouchable
So you think there should be zero threshold at all for alcohol? If someone drank a single beer 10 hours ago they shouldn't be allowed to drive? How about alcohol containing foods or medications? Because if you don't want an absolute zero tolerance for even the smallest amount of alcohol im not sure what your deal here is. There has to be a legal limit or threshold somewhere.
Ive also never drove drink in my life and I think anyone who does is a complete moron for a multitude of reasons, so maybe you should examine yourself for bias entering this topic.
>> This country is so hell-bent on making criminals' lives worse and worse as a never-ending punishment.
> your criticism is pretty off-base
In my experience, and the experience of my friends, that criticism was spot-fucking-on. Once you get into the system, you'll be lucky to ever truly get out. Every step is designed to keep you paying into the system in perpetuity unless you walk a very, very thin tightrope. Anyone that thinks we rehab our criminals is pretty off-base.
The comment you're replying to isn't disagreeing with the sentences but with the additional hassle on top of the sentence. Do you think that additional ad-hoc punishment is justified? Where would you draw the line?
If the people of the country were more constitution minded, they would want a punishment that fits the crime, and no additional punishment on top of it. So I share this gripe, even though I consider DUI a very serious crime (including those who do it and don't get caught).
I've been hit by a drunk driver before. I know this will be a very unpopular opinion but I believe a single instance of DUI should be enough for a permanent prohibition on an individual owning or operating a motor vehicle. These interlock devices are already a weak compromise catering to people who oppose inconveniencing those who have already proven themselves to recklessly endanger the public when allowed to operate vehicles.
I might agree with you, but I struggle to think of it in isolation from the move towards self driving cars. Also we already have a quite harsh consequence of not being able to visit Canada for 10 years that a lot of rich people can get out of by paying a lawyer to keep them from getting a DUI. If only deterrents worked better. Is the problem with an interlock device that they can drive when they can pass the interlock test, or is the technology not needed, and what technology would you propose for preventing drunk driving convicts from driving illegaly?
I'm not sure there's a technological solution to a social problem. The problem is decision making when intoxicated. The solution might be to take the weapon (car) away from those who misuse it.
Consider guns. A felon cannot be in possession of guns legally, and the doctrine of constructive possession means that a prohibited person can be charged with unlawful possession of a firearm if a lawful owner in a household leaves a gun accessible to the prohibited person.
Perhaps it should be a serious crime for a convicted drunk driver to be in or around a car where the ignition device could be in the prohibited person's possession.
The technological solution is to make it so the addict doesn't need to drive to go about their lives. I know at least one alcoholic that moved to an apartment with a bar within walking distance, so they could walk home from the bar instead of driving home drunk.
The other technological fix is naloxone, which helps with alcohol use disorder just like it does with other substance use disorders. We have many options if we as a society decide to take these problems seriously.
> The solution might be to take the weapon (car) away from those who misuse it.
My technological ideas were along those lines. Basically allowing them to continue to own their automobile, but not to drive, and perhaps not to buy one, because forcing them to sell their cars is hard to implement (though maybe worth it). And also preventing them from operating cars owned by other people that are stored in their residence or workplace.
Interlock devices aren't "ad-hoc punishments," they are making sure someone with a history of driving drunk can't start their car when they are drunk for a very, very short period of time. 1 year is common and is extremely lenient.
"Plea deals" have an interesting caveat that I didn't know - you can agree to punishments that the government couldn't impose as part of a plea deal.
So if the punishment for driving drunk is 3 years in prison, you may be able to avoid it by accepting a plea deal that infringes on your third amendment rights.
They aren’t violations if you are being punished. People who don’t take the deal and get sent to jail or put on probation typically lose those rights as well.
I'm generally against long term punishments for crimes like this, but operating a dangerous machine like a car is a serious matter. A breathalyzer is a reasonable compromise compared to just taking away your license, right?
I don't think most people realize just how few people in the US obey license suspensions. Studies show the vast majority of people simply keep driving anyway.
In the latter case, the man is going to Western State Secure Psychiatric Hospital. As a former paramedic, that facility is entirely jail-like, sally ports for access, razor wire, armed security, and very barebones. And he will likely be there for the rest of his life.
So you're angry that someone found to be mentally ill is getting treatment while potentially spending life in prison?
That first case? There's something missing there, there's zero reason explained as to why the Judge overturned the conviction. Like it's a gaping black hole in that article. "Judge overturned the conviction, defendant's lawyers say "it was a good decision"." The vibe I get there is almost one more of corruption...
> People dont willingly put these alcohol breathalyzer interlocks on their vehicles
N=1, but I know of one case where the defendant was offered a lock on their car or an ankle alcohol monitor. Of course they were going to choose the car lock.
If I offer you the choice to give me your wallet or else be stabbed, I don't believe it would be appropriate to describe this as "willingly" giving me your wallet.
Mugging victims didn't make a choice that endangered a bunch of other people that resulted in them getting mugged. Interlock devices are not given to random people for no reason.
Courts (read: prosecutors) routinely use legal blackmail to coerce defendants into agreeing to plea deals. The threat is "we will prosecute you, and add extra charges, and push for maximums, that is unless you agree to these terms".
And those terms, as others have rightly pointed out, can include punishments the court normally isn't permitted to ask for on sentencing.
Also, with our judicial punishment based system, and that those with more money can afford better lawyers. And those with less money get public defenders, who are well known for not doing their job, or the absolute minimum to keep from being investigated by the Bar.
The only way out of here is to ever avoid interacting with police or courts. Once you're in that system, any sympathy is thrown out the window, and you become a money-pinata for the state and private 3rd party companies predating on your socio-economic class.
Well, one could remove their licenses instead, however the US is built around the car, and not being able to use one almost becomes a social credit, in that you can not function in the country without a car.
Yes. I think there are people who would not drive without a driver's license. I don't think magic would be involved.
You are free to backup your claim that magically _everyone_ that illegally drives drunk will not abstain from driving becasue they don't have a license.
This is an anecdote. My experience working adjacent to criminal justice gives me the feeling it's indicative of a given mind-set. It certainly would be interesting to see what kind of statistics exist for recidivism
On 2019-04-19 my wife's car was struck, while she was driving, by a driver who was driving under suspension. The driver had a bench warrant out for their arrest for failure to appear in court on a previous driving under suspension violation.
I searched my local court database and found this driver had driving under suspension or driving in violation of restriction charges on: 1999-07-12, 2000-01-27, 2000-02-03, 2000-02-14, 2000-05-03, 2001-07-23, 2011-07-13, 2013-07-10, 2013-10-24, 2016-03-10, 2016-05-23, 2016-08-15, 2016-09-09, 2018-04-09, 2018-05-03, and 2019-04-19 (when my wife was struck).
The driver has since had additional driving under suspension charges on: 2019-08-15, 2022-04-29, 2022-08-18, and 2025-10-21.
The driver had served jail time for some of these violations, too.
I tend to think a significant fraction of people who don't respect the law prior to conviction don't begin to respect the law after conviction.
(My wife wasn't injured, fortunately. The other driver was also driving without the state minimum required liability insurance, so we ended up eating the cost of the crash, too. This also seems to be indicative of a general disrespect for the law.)
Here in Canada a Family Protection clause is common in insurance policies which covers you and your family in the case of hit and run, uninsured or under insured up to your liability limit.
We'd actually paid for an "uninsured motorist coverage" endorsement but discovered that it really didn't cover anything material. Shame on me for not digging into the details when I added the endorsement. I've become a more savvy insurance consumer.
> Yes. I think there are people who would not drive without a driver's license. I don't think magic would be involved.
That isn't what I said, you're misrepresenting me. That isn't very nice.
I said someone who _already broke the law_ in a very provable way, most likely doesn't give a fuck about driving without a license.
> You are free to backup your claim that magically _everyone_ that illegally drives drunk will not abstain from driving becasue they don't have a license.
I didn't say everyone. There you go again, making shit up and putting words in my "mouth" as it were. This isn't a good-faith conversation. Take care.
> So, you think someone that illegally drives drunk will magically decide to abstain from driving because they don't have a license?
You have to prove that everyone will do it, because if not, than someone will, disproving your belief. Because if you can't prove everyone, you've proven that there are people who would not drive without a driver's license.
> This isn't a good-faith conversation.
No, you're a liar.
> That isn't what I said,
Yes.
> I said someone who _already broke the law_ in a very provable way, most likely doesn't give a fuck about driving without a license.
That was what I meant. I'm sorry that context is difficult for you, but yes, that's what I meant when I said what I said.
You're right - but of course it's telling that "don't go outside" is the only prescription to respond to qualms about terraforming the entire planet in service of one industry's (statistically quite dangerous) product.
...but even though it's impractical to avoid these machines entirely, in many parts of the world it's possible (and enjoyable) to simply choose a bike instead.
The issue here has nothing to do with the device and everything to do with the fact that car-brained America is so cowardly and broken that they will do some Rube Goldberg stunt before they even consider taking cars away from alcoholics.
Nobody in human rights would allow that. Take away the car and people cannot live.
The above is sadly serious. It is almost impossible to find a job and a house you can afford in walking distance of each other, demanding there be things like grocery shopping as well make it not feasible for most people. Taking away someone's car is cruel and usual punishment that cannot be accepted.
> Take away the car and people cannot live. [...] It is almost impossible to find a job and a house you can afford in walking distance of each other,
As a Brazilian, that statement feels bizarre. Yeah, my job and my home are not in walking distance of each other. I simply take the bus. Sure, some jobs are not within reach of the bus (or the ferry, or the metro, or the light tram, etc), and some jobs need a car (for instance, it would be hard for a HVAC technician to take all their equipment on a bus), but saying it's "almost impossible" to find a job?
> demanding there be things like grocery shopping as well make it not feasible for most people.
That also sounds bizarre to my ears. Most places I've known have small grocery shopping places on nearly every corner. You just have to walk.
Unfortunately that just isn't true in large parts of the US. Many cities have no public transit, and no accessible grocery stores.
Being able to live car free is pretty much limited to (expensive) major cities and some (expensive) mid-sized college towns.
The city of about 50,000 I'm from not only has no public transit and limited sidewalks, it doesn't even have crosswalks across the two main 6-lane roads that divide the city, so you can't safely walk more than about a mile even if you wanted to.
Even in cities with public transit often it is so bad that isn't reasonable to expect someone to use it. Reasonable transit must run 24x7/365, at least every half an hour. Miss a day and someone can't get someplace they might want to. More than half an hour between bus/trains and it isn't reasonable. Miss the over night - maybe you can do this if you have taxi service for the same price (which might be cheaper overall for the few people who want to ride at 3am). Half hour is the minimum, it is possible to plan your life around that level of service and not be impacted too badly, but you will hate it (particularly when the line is a little longer than you expected: you miss your bus and so your ice cream melts by the time the next comes)
Not just the US, it's like that everywhere. Private transport will always be necessary as people need to go on routes with low demand. Only counterexample I can think of is Singapore, which has a vast network of buses and trains that go to everywhere.
Even in cities with public transit cars have a very high mode share in rich countries. Some of it is 'trades' that need to carry tools and parts with them, but a lot could take transit but don't for unknown reasons
"Being able to live car free is pretty much limited to (expensive) major cities and some (expensive) mid-sized college towns"
I live in the UK (hardly a bastion of public transport) in a town of under 10k, and have a car. The main requirement for a car is to take my youngest to Drama club in the next town where it finishes at 9pm, well after buses have stopped. There is a drama club in the town, but as we only just moved we didn't want to move him. Likewise we're driving him to his old school until the end of July as he'll move school then.
I used to live in a village of 300 people, and sure you need a car there.
Sure it was nice to drive the 4 miles to the garden centre at the weekend rather than take the hourly bus, but it's not a requirement.
For a town of 10,000 people, let alone 50,000, to say you can't live car free is nonsense.
Of course America is different. Their towns are far less dense, they don't even have "sidewalks", they are consciously built so you have to drive everywhere, but that's unique to the time American towns were built.
So again, what towns in Europe with a population of 50,000 have no public transport.
As an American I can report there are sidewalks nearly everywhere. They are used for exercise only: getting anywhere is frusterating but if you just need to run (or walk the dog) they are great.
Where I live I would half to walk about a half day to get to the nearest place that sells any kind of food and back, which is a 7/11 gas station. To get to a real grocery store and return would require a full day's travel on foot (just checked google maps, 4.5 hours one-way to the closest one). There is no public transportation option at all, the only buses are school buses until you get much closer to a major city. Driving is a necessity in such places.
I live in a well populated East Coast state, so it's not like I'm even really far out in the sticks too, there are many places which are even worse off in these regards.
There are no buses to take here, and the distances are looooong. Your job or grocery store could be 15 miles away, and that's in an urban-ish area. Rural, it's much worse.
> It is almost impossible to find a job and a house you can afford in walking distance of each other, demanding there be things like grocery shopping as well make it not feasible for most people
This is exactly what the parent meant by designing the country in a 'car-brained' fashion. It's not true in many/most other countries.
Europe may not drive as much as America, but it's still about half. Cars are popular worldwide for a reason, and it is not American corporations magically convincing everyone how useful they are.
It's also entirely moot, as we're not redesigning the country in the short term to cut down on DUIs.
Yeah, but there's a big difference between having a car because you can afford it and it's often more convenient, and it being completely impractical to not have one. Or even to go have a beer without having to drive home.
It's actually an easy problem to solve, some places have done it with great success. You can't effectively stop DUI by taking the car away. The problem is the drinking. You make someone test every morning and if they've been drinking they get the slammer for the day. You don't need to take away their transportation.
Steelman the argument. They didn't say take it away from everyone, they were responding to the idea of taking away cars from alcoholics. We absolutely can take away alcohol from people who are convicted of DUI, as a condition of their release from prison. We do it already in a few places across the US, and it reduces recidivism quite a lot.
But we still restrict sale of alcohol to minors, suggesting that it, like driving, is a privilege granted only to those we trust to control it, rather than a natural right deserved by everyone.
If “car brained” means recognizing how great cars are for improving our lives, by letting us get to places quickly, then I don’t see anything cowardly or broken about it. Just seems rational.
I once read a claim that once you remove the distance that exists between places because of cars (large set-backs, unusable "green space", wide freeways including the medians and buffer around them, giant parking lots, et c.) cars are only an improvement for most car owners for day to day travel before a city adjusts to widespread car ownership, and adds all that stuff. Add in the time you spend working just to pay for the car (depreciation, fuel, insurance) and it's not a great deal at all. After that, it's only consistently a benefit if you can afford a driver. For most, it's a wash with bicycling, if not worse (in the hypothetical world that hadn't bloated way apart to account for tons of cars) except now you also need to schedule separate time to work out to stay healthy.
This seemed implausible, so I ran the numbers for my situation at the time that involved car costs and a commute distance that were both below median for my city, plus well above-median household income.
Sure enough! It worked out just the way they claimed, if only barely. For the median worker in my city though, it was very true.
When I hear people suggest that, I wonder if they live somewhere fairly flat, with mild mostly dry weather and high population density. Maybe this is why there is so much disagreement on the topic.
If by "quickly" you mean reaching a far-away destination in much more time and with higher variance in arrival time than it would have taken if the origin and destination had been sensibly placed closer together, then sure.
The issue here is not an OTA thing, for what it’s worth. That is to say, it’s not that these devices phoned home directly and a cloud server is down; rather, these devices require periodic “calibration” (due to a combination of regulation, legitimate technical need, and grift) at a service center and the service centers are out of commission, presumably due to ransomware.
Either they are alcoholics who can't control themselves or simply just think they are still under control of their ability to drive despite being impaired. Many people just don't know what 0.08 BAC feels like. In college, I got the opportunity to blow on a breathalyzer (not because I was arrested) and found that despite not feeling drunk, I was over the 0.08 limit.
The 0.08 BAC limit also has no basis in reality for what impairment is. It's a political reality, not a scientific one. MADD and other organizations lobbied to make this a legal limit across the US and many other jurisdictions around the world followed suit.
That's not to say that anyone should drive after drinking, but the basic reality is that impairment is often individual, and cannot be directly measured by blood alcohol content. Many people are impaired with a lower BAC than 0.08, and in many states you can now be charged and convicted of DUI even if your BAC is not beyond the legal threshold on the basis of purely circumstantial evidence.
There's no good answer here, because we need cut and dried evidence in our legal system to prevent abuses, but there's not really good ways to do that. Separately, the leading cause of accidents is no longer drunk driving in most parts of the West, it's inattentive driving due to cellphone/electronics usage while operating a vehicle. Younger generations don't drink as much as older generations, to the point that zero-percent alcohol spirits and NA beer are now becoming broad markets and it's dramatically affecting bar/pub culture, but younger generations nearly as a rule are addicted to their smartphones.
That's the BAC of a healthy male an hour after drinking 2 light beers. That is an absurd limit to set in stone, however there is plenty of evidence to show that /some/ people are impaired at 0.05 BAC.
Ultimately it really amounts to a battle between people who want to operate off fuzzy logic and reasonableness and a people who want to use totalitarian enforcement. There is definitely a significant government-funded (and activist pushed) take where /any/ amount of alcohol /any/ time prior to driving is dangerous, which is obviously stupid and incorrect.
People should not drink and drive, they should not drive while impaired in any capacity, whether its from their prescription medication, a drink, a joint, or simply a lack of sleep. There is also absolutely nothing wrong for a normal healthy person to have a single glass of wine over a steak dinner and to drive home, which will not in any way physiologically impair you.
> There is definitely a significant government-funded (and activist pushed) take where /any/ amount of alcohol /any/ time prior to driving is dangerous, which is obviously stupid and incorrect.
Driving itself is dangerous. Acknowledging this is obviously smart and correct.
And while I'm sure that you can drive safely at 100 miles an hour, or after five beers, some objective standard has to be drawn somewhere. If the line were drawn at 0.16, someone would no doubt chime in to explain about how they've got it fully together at 0.17.
Sure, but that's a strawman of my position. I'm not saying we should not draw a line, I'm saying that drawing a line is required due to how our systems work (in my earlier comment), and then in my reply to /reducing that line which was already nebulous/ I'm pointing out how ridiculous that reduction is. There are people who are impaired at 0.05 BAC. A normal healthy adult male is not. Like many things you can think of them as statistical distributions with outliers. If you slide the BAC level you consider legally impaired (regardless of actual function) you shift how many people will fall in the distribution above the line but without meaningful impairment.
I'm not making some radical point here, I'm speaking basic reality.
Your assertion this was an American pressure group which didn't form for over a decade after the rest of the western world introduced explicit restrictions is just the brainwashing of American exceptionalism.
Every single one of the 50 states had to individually sign laws because there is no national law about drunk driving, and MADD was instrumental in the 0.08 legal limit becoming law in the United States. That's a well-founded assertion.
Addiction, mental illness, a defacto requirement to drive to get around low-density towns where walking is often extremely dangerous due to lack of sidewalks and fast roads.
Alcohol abuse has been around about as long as we've been human. We've just constructed a society where Alcohol abuse is far more likely to pick up collateral damage.
We've also become a lot better at distilling high-proof alcohol, and at making it cheap enough that most people have the budget to get absolutely wasted on the regular.
Most people don't do that, but the option is there for anyone looking to make their life and the lives of people around them significantly worse.
I once helped someone get their car home after one of these was installed. Their license would not be returned until it was installed, but they weren't allowed to leave it on the lot. Someone else drove it there, and then I got to experience the breathalyzer to drive it home.
The interesting part is how bad the interlock was. First off, it can apparently randomly not work, so you get three tries. Worse yet, per the official documentation, apparently they can misdetect an ignition while driving at speed, and when that happens you have to pull over and blow within thirty seconds. Now, this is not something you can do while driving, as you have to look at the camera while you do it, on top of needing to have a deep breath. There's no motivation to improve this, because the customer is the legal system, not the person who has to have it installed
I knew somebody with an interlock and if they were around too much car exhaust in a relatively enclosed space, the ethanol in the air would trip the detector apparently.
Having to blow while you're already driving is supposed to be a feature. It's to dissuade people from successfully turning on their car, immediately drinking, and then driving.
30 seconds seems a bit fast to force that though, no? There’s not always a safe place to pull over.
If it only kicks in at 45 or lower (i.e., not the highway) then there's always a safe place to pull over. I have no idea how it actually does work though, thankfully.
Stuck in stop and go traffic on the freeway doesn’t sound like a good place to me, but I’ve never had a DUI so meh?
Is this comment a joke or do you not understand how dangerous it is to ask a driver to blow into a breathalyzer while operating a vehicle?
All this seems to be is a company collecting corporate welfare while doing the bare minimum. Such companies should both be sanctioned and have their leadership investigated for potential fraud.
If you receive public dollars to function, the public should expect some modicum of sensibility and accountability.
I think they shouldn’t be driving in the first place. Suspend DL for one year and move on.
The main problem is that, in a lot of parts of the US, your options are "drive or be homeless".
The ideal solution is needing less driving overall. But excessively punishing people doesn't fix the problem. They're still gonna drive, most likely.
If they set their own place on fire, they're also homeless. Just as self-inflicted, but significantly less dangerous to third parties than driving drunk.
Driving while drunk is not a silly little mistake. A third of all fatal crashes involve drunk drivers. Letting these people drive at all even with a breathalyzer is an abomination. You can expect them to have a similar disregard for other fundamentals of safe driving.
I'm not commenting on the morality of drunk driving. I'm commenting on the effectiveness of just fucking them over, that being, not effective at all.
There's this thing in the mainstream where people feel like the best way to handle people doing bad things is to just pummel them into the ground as much as possible.
While that might feel the most justified, that doesn't actually solve the problem. Suspending licenses doesn't stop drunk people from driving, because cars are more or less a necessity.
So, knowing it's a necessity, we have to design the car around that and enforce safe operation by an alcoholic.
Which is a stop-gap solution. A better solution is making cars not a necessity. But until then, we should do the stop-gap.
Stop-gap is restricting the driving to work schedule then. Everything else is optional and you can learn to work within that system. We try to put up industrial solutions to everything. Why not keep the laws cut and dry. This action = this consequence. You determine your actions you must accept x consequence. Or better yet jail time for 6 months then you will be fed and you will lose everything. There are options
That's how the legal system worked a couple centuries ago. You might be familiar with some of the literature written about it, like Les Misérables. I don't know about you, but returning to the world of 18th century French penal codes sounds pretty dystopian.
This is obviously untrue.
It wasn't that long ago these devices weren't mandatory and they'd just suspend your license.
I am actually curious now whether that was more effective since the offender had to endure the judgment of the person in their life giving them a ride to work.
I don't understand why this is obviously untrue. Do we have any reason to believe that those people didn't just... continue to drive with a suspended license?
Not to mention DUI is a fairly recent development. In the 20th century, it was pretty easy to drive drunk and get away with it.
Yeah and what's stopping someone from drinking while borrowing someone else's car? Oh they don't want their car wrecked too? They may just drive the drunk to work then.
We arrive at the same place with the same real solutions (the people). The technology doesn't do anything except add extra steps and convince the public something was done.
If anything it creates enough hassle for the offender that new crimes are being committed with harsher consequences (domestic abuse), or dragging additional people into crime they didn't intend (negligent entrustment).
>The technology doesn't do anything except add extra steps and convince the public something was done.
That seems to be the way the system works, selling a treatment rather than a cure, from antacids to national security.
> We arrive at the same place with the same real solutions (the people)
This is always the case. There will always be murderers, and thieves. But technology just helps.
There are real solutions, and fake ones. Fake solutions include "make people not bad anymore". This just doesn't work, there will always be alcoholics, end of.
If there was less of a reliance on cars, there would be less drunk driving. We take drunk driving as a necessary consequence of transportation, but that's just not true. And, if we had less of a reliance on cars, we could actually suspend licenses sooner.
But as it currently stands, we cannot. We would just be permanently fucking people over in such a severe and unnecessary manner. Being unable to drive is one of the most reliable ways to become homeless in many parts of the US. This will only lead to more crime.
I still disagree.
I didn't say it directly, but did mention depending on others multiple times in my replies. If you are truly all alone, that is the biggest contributing factor to becoming homeless. We live in a society.
There often is a ton of help for alcoholics with stuff like this. In fact, I would say alcoholics probably have the most support out of any type of addict because it's so common. When a drunk is forced to seek assistance to make their commute, it often comes with strings attached to put them on the path to quitting. I don't see what's so bad about that.
The person I mentioned in my story upthread had the one-year suspension followed by the interlock requirement for another year
Someone who drives drunk ought to drive with the interlock for life.
Generally driving drunk is a sign of addiction.... And that can come back anytime, and killing bystanders is clearly a worse outcome.
You can get a DUI without drinking[1][2], and you can get a DUI without driving[3].
1: https://www.duilexington.com/blog/2020/september/can-you-be-...
2: https://www.carscoops.com/2026/01/tennessee-highway-patrol-s...
3: https://www.sevenslegal.com/criminal-attorney/can-you-get-a-...
> Generally driving drunk is a sign of addiction....
No it is not.
Repeatedly driving drunk absolutely is.
You might be a functioning alcoholic, but when alcohol intoxication is so prevalent in your life it interferes with day to day routines activities, it absolutely meets the psychosocial definition of addiction, and likely points to a deeper one.
Every rural area I've ever worked in had a non trivial number of folks who would have 2-3 drinks at the bar/whatever on a Friday or a Saturday and drive home. It was not alcoholism, it was "I'm totally fine to drive, the law doesn't know my limits" etc.
On some level that's just the price of wanting to go out and not wanting to drop a bunch of cash on a taxi (assuming you can get one to come).
As long as bars still have parking lots and there are sin taxes, it’s another state-sponsored racket.
How is that not alcoholism?
Having 2-3 drinks on a Friday night is "alcoholism?"
2-3 drinks on a Friday night isn't.
2-3 drinks on a Friday night when you're supposed to drive home is different. I'd also say "I can drink because the law is wrong" is also not exactly a neutral take.
Ok, but it's not alcoholism, it's something else (disregard for others)
Precisely!
There are two key components:
It's no different to someone speeding because "It's clear conditions and I consider myself to be perfectly safe at this speed". Or skipping a stop sign "I can clearly see nothing is coming"."intoxication", not "had a drink"
The wording used did not indicate they were taking about a repeat offender.
Unfortunately driving on a suspended is mostly not enforced either, so giving them the carrot of keeping their license is the only thing the judicial branch can do that has much sway (other than jailing them) without being able to order the executive branch to change.
LOL. Do you know how many people are driving with suspended licenses now? The number would skyrocket if systems like these didn't exist.
Especially in rural areas, you can get away with driving on a suspended license for a pretty long time before a cop catches you. I know someone who was probably (she wouldn't admit to it) doing it for at least a year.
Especially in rural areas
Once while hot air balloon chasing, we saw a guy driving his 4 wheel drive in the ditches along a gravel road and found out later from someone he had a suspended license.
They said he figured the cops couldn't stop him if he stuck to the ditches and didn't operate on the official roadway.
My wife used to tend bar at a place where one of the regulars would drive there on a tractor for a similar reason.
[flagged]
Oh wow so the judicial system is developing the software? It's not a private company that only exists to fulfill a government need with zero accountability? What were the terms of their contract? What was their SLA? How do users engage with the company?
Sorry but these companies are all scams thrusted upon the public. Any business that takes government money should be held accountable or compelled to engage in workplace democracy.
I'm not a fan of companies making garbage products while getting rich off of public dollars. Just because some people like corporate welfare doesn't mean the vast majority of the public likes it.
They are accountable…. To the courts?
What does workplace accountability actually concretely mean here?
It’s the classic enterprise software issue too - the people doing the buying/selecting are not the people actually using it.
I've wondered what happens with these when a forest fire is bearing down.
Isn’t there a proposed law to install these into every single new car?
Nothing specific yet, but the legal groundwork has been laid both in the US and in the EU. Starting in July, all new cars sold in the EU will need to be able to fit after-market alcohol interlocks. In the US, interlocks are already mandatory for convicted DUIers in most states, but new cars will also have to come with factory installed drunk driving prevention technology in the coming years. We just don't know how far that mandate will go eventually.
obviously it will require an age verification, also you need to tell Google that you want to go somewhere 24 hours in advance, and Apple gets 30% of the revenue that gas stations make.
There is no security protocol though. It will be trivial to buy an interlock which always returns 'ok to drive'.
Manufacturers are now encrypting Canbus traffic, voluntarily on current and future models.
Buying or selling tools designed to break the law is already illegal - trivial or not. If a driver gets a DUI and possess a NOOP interlock, they are getting an additional charge, and get to help am investigation into the illicit device supply chain.
> Buying or selling tools designed to break the law is already illegal - trivial or not.
I'm curious how this will play out. The "John Deer" exemption from the DMCA comes to mind, not sure if it's strictly for farm equipment or still in effect.
There is no proposal to require these janky ass aftermarket units, nor require any type of interlock at all.
NHTSA was directed to write some guidelines/rules around the implementation of passive impairment detection as OEM features. They have yet to do so, probably because it is flaky technology.
My guess is that the final rule implementation will be similar to the distracted driver detection that is already in many new vehicles.
No, the 2021 infrastructure bill required automakers to install passive technology (passive meaning not requiring any specific actions from the driver) to prevent drunk driving by some future date. However, such technology doesn't really exist yet.
Eh, with lane keeping features I don’t think it’d be hard to at least detect someone swerving a lot. Granted, I don’t think that would detect people that aren’t super drunk, but it’s something.
I might be wrong on that assumption - I don’t drink, myself.
As is commonly commented on by cartoonists: In plenty of places driving consistently within the lines might be the actual sign you're drunk. Because the roads/potholes are bad enough that you shouldn't be, if you value your suspension.
I live in a northern state so I certainly have experience with potholes, but I've never seen a road so bad that it would cause a false positive like that.
Our local dying mall though? Phew. It amazes me whoever owns the mall doesn't at least go out there with some asphalt themselves.
Old cars sound better and better every year now.
They’ll just make it illegal for you to drive them.
Its illegal to drive under the influence now. "Just making something illegal" doesn't work
Meanwhile in much of the USA registration laws aren't enforced. The last time my car was totaled (hit and run) the police didn't even show up for that either so my insurance company just ate the whole cost. DUI laws themselves are largely only enforced to the extent the accused consents to bothering to show up to court.
Not really the same. There are proposals to require OEMs to install driver monitoring, but it’s usually IR camera based rather than blow in a tube fuel cell based. These systems are probably going to be a mess but the technology isn’t really comparable to DUI interlock devices and the unreliability of those systems is orthogonal.
I was the DD for my friend's bachelor party and as we were leaving the bar, I saw this older gentleman struggling to start his vehicle. I had a hard time making out what he was telling me, but it looked like he had one of these devices on his car. Being the Good Samaritan that I am, I blew into the device, his car started, and he went happily on his way.
I assume you're joking, Either way. One morning when I took the bus to work the bus driver had repeated problems getting the bus to start due to the breathalyser. I heard him complain to the passenger behind him, about it malfunctioning. The passenger volunteered to test this theory, by also blowing into the device. The driver handed him the hose, the passenger gave it a go, the bus started, and the driver shrugged his shoulders, and off we went, only slightly delayed.
I'm not sure if this is preventable.
Why does the bus have a breathalyzer rather than a damn manager who can fire the worker who smells of booze?
Dunno where the parent comment was referring to, but different countries have different standards. In Colombia the bus transit stations all have breathalyzer stations and the drivers have to pass the breathalyzer before starting their shifts. It was pretty wild to see as an outsider but completely unremarkable to everyone else.
If it's as flaky as my experience upthread suggests, maybe it was just that. At least, that's what I hope, for the sake of those on the bus
Lots of troll-only accounts, recently (flagged this comment for this reason).
Is an email the best way to report these?
Guess your joke about bypassing breath interlocks didn't go over too well.
We need a software building code. This wouldn't be allowed to happen with non-software. The fact that anyone can build any product with software, make it work terribly, and when it fails impacts the lives of thousands (if not millions), needs to be stopped. We don't allow this kind of behavior with the electrical or building code. Hell, we don't even allow mattresses to be sold without adding fire resistance. The software that is critical to people's lives needs mandatory minimum specifications, failure resistance, testing, and approval. It is unacceptable to strand 150,000 people for weeks because a software company was lazy (just like it was unacceptable to strand millions when CrowdStrike shit the bed). In addition to approvals, there should be fines to ensure there are consequences to not complying.
It's great to assert "we need" but I implore you to consider the downsides first.
I work for an electrical contractor and I don't think being annoyed by shitty UI is nearly the same problem as electrical fires. Why govern the whole set of software with 1 set of rules?
Software isn't safety critical until it is, but we already have code to regulate software on electrical equipment, planes, etc. Why do you recommend software have a code? I'd much rather each individual thing that's safety critical have regulations around software in place than have to learn a 4000 page manual that changes every time you cross a jurisdiction, where enforcement varies, etc.
Software engineers can't even agree on best practices as is.
Imo, put the code around the safety critical thing (e.g. cars, planes, buildings). Restricting "critical" software will only get abused the way essential workers did during covid.
Also keep in mind the way buulding code gets enforced: you get an inspection upon completion or milestones. Software has a tendency to evolve and need maintenance or add features after; I don't want to trust this to a bureacrat. I don't like google or apple getting involved on "their platform" and I certainly don't want an incompetent government getting involved.
Before we have a software code, let's make and adopt some guidelines we can agree to. In construction, plenty of builders have their own sets of internal rules that are de facto codes. When one of those gets popular enough for life safety software, let's consider pushing for that.
The solar power industry was born, rolled out products, learned from their failures, and implemented electrical and building code changes, in a third of the time that the software industry has existed.
We already know what the failures are. We already know what the solutions are. We know it because people have been born and died in the span of time we have been dealing with these same problems. There is no need to assemble guidelines (that no company would follow anyway without being forced to).
> Software engineers can't even agree on best practices as is.
I'm not talking about "best practice"; I'm talking about, before you ship a build to customers, you must at least run it once to look for errors. This is kid stuff, yet the companies don't do it, and subsequently half the flights in the USA are delayed for weeks. There is no need to argue about this, there is no question that there are basic practices that should be considered malpractice not to do. We must make this law or they will continue to disregard these basic practices and we will continue to suffer for it.
> Software has a tendency to evolve and need maintenance or add features after
That is a flaw in business practice, it has nothing to do with software itself. I can run a suite of Perl programs today that I wrote 20 years ago, and they run flawlessly. No need for maintenance, it just works. The reason is, we just happened to treat this one language as something that should not break, and should last a long time. No reason we couldn't treat other software the same way. The fact that other software doesn't is a choice by a lazy industry and uncaring business models, and this choice needs to be challenged, the way every industry has had to be challenged by codes (the reason codes exist is industry cannot be trusted to "do the right thing", they need to be forced).
But despite this, codes change all the time. The electrical code changes as solar progresses. Building codes change as we learn new things or new materials are introduced. The codes do change slowly, precisely so the work is well thought-out, coordinated, and safe, which nobody can say about modern software. The time for move fast and break things needs to end.
>That is a flaw in business practice, it has nothing to do with software itself
I don't think it's a flaw and throwing this away isn't worth a quarter of the hassle that comes with any enforcment implementation I can conceive of. Please think about what testing, safety, security is "enough", how you test it, and if it's worth the tradeoffs.
Who is at fault for code violations? The scope of software is generally too big that prearchitected designs don't work and you must assign life safety faults to a PE. Software doesn't work like that, it's not singularly done. You shouldn't need to file a permit for expansion to add a feature or plug a security hole.
You point to solar, but solar is less complicated than the things most of this website would deride as simple in software. The electrical codes. It has hardly changed at all since it's inception, and only inspired a handful (<12) of changes since the 2008 NEC. Most jurisdictions only update every 2 cycles or so, so we're talking 3 updates.
Move fast and break things is fine when it's okay to break things; software is fundamentally different than physical infrastructure and you paint with really broad strokes here when you just assert "need" and "right".
I work with building code every day and I fundamentally disagree that writing a "critical software code" would be net beneficial.
> Software doesn't work like that, it's not singularly done.
This is definitely a business practice problem, and not some intrinsic quality of software.
And even if your business decides that software is never done, nothing stops you from getting a particular build inspected and certified. It's physically possible. The problems are mostly cultural and in other areas: Governments are generally hesitant to regulate business. Software companies lobby extensively to keep it that way. Vendors and customers are generally not willing to pay the increased cost of software inspections. Developers don't like the idea of being held to a quality standard.
The two long-term existing environments are Misra-C and ADA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MISRA_C
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_(programming_language)
ADA is particularly strong in aviation.
https://www.adacore.com/industries/avionics
Rust would also be a contender, but it's "the new kid on the block."
Ada is a name, not an all cap abbreviation.
There are lots of "software building codes" IEC-62304, MISRA, DO-178C, etc. Problem is that the vast majority of software doesn't fit into those categories. And as you mention, since you can build any product with software, you would have to have categorization for any new standards to make sense.
That’s the wrong lesson. Rather we should control things we own and not them control us.
I think a better ideea would be that software should not have disclaimers. Authors should assume full responsibility in court if their work misbehaves.
> We need a software building code. This wouldn't be allowed to happen with non-software. The fact that anyone can build any product with software, make it work terribly, and when it fails impacts the lives of thousands (if not millions), needs to be stopped.
Uncle Bob had a bit to say about this a while ago[1], and is largely what his Clean Code philosophy is trying to achieve, despite the detractors.
To the detractors and down-voters...
If you're complaining about over-abstraction, arguing about the 'better language' to use, or that 'Clean Code' doesn't work - you're missing the point by a few hundred miles.
The whole point of 'Clean Code' is to establish a body of ethics software 'engineers' collectively agree to, and rigorously follow to avoid "killing 10,000 people with a little software failure".
If you think you can make a better 'Clean Code', do so! That's the whole point about ethics debates. But! You need to proffer an alternative and prosecute why your version is better than Clean Code.
[1] (19:47-24:33) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EmboKQH8lM&t=1187s
Software is a bit unique in that in almost all cases there are no consequences to responsible parties for malpractice. Shipping defects is the standard of care. Not so for doctors, plumbers, and hair stylists. It’s why I’m so surprised by the AI slop criticism. Humans had no code standards to begin with, at least, not compared to standards of care in licensed professional services.
I have no idea why you'd been downvoted. Everything you said is common sense. I guess this is a case of "it's hard to get a man to understand something if his paycheck depends upon him not understanding it."
EU has the NIS2 directive, the CRA (cybersecurity resiliency act), and a few sector specific ones (DORA for financial, MDR/IVDR for medical/diagnostical, and there's probably a bunch more)
these are slowly but surely pushing manufacturers/sellers/distributors to try to do the right things
it requires transparency about support period commitment, a bug tracker program, issuing updates (I guess in case there's a CVE), doing risk assessment during development, etc., and requirements kick in based on turnover (or headcount).
and it seems like the correct approach, these are already things good products come with
Or maybe it's "the NFPA doesn't need to prevent against your wires suddenly becoming aluminum because somebody discovered new math" like "DSA encryption has been broken" affects software.
I am an Intoxalock user right now. My device was due for calibration three days after the onset of this breach. I called the mechanic that does the calibration and they said they could not access the Intoxalock system. My device said I was overdue. I still drove it for 2 days. Intoxalock did a partial fix and the service center was able to extend the period for my calibration for another 10 days, but still couldn't calibrate it. I need to schedule that calibration now. It was a minor inconvenience for me.
The fragility of putting ignition control behind a third party cloud service was always going to end like this. Someone had to find out the hard way.
We need to legally mandate a single physical switch that disables all vehicles radios, and a second that factory resets everything but the odometer and vehicle fault logs / black box.
Irrelevant to this issue - the devices didn’t get bricked over the air, but rather they have a “calibration” time lock which must be reset at a service center and the service centers are ransomwared.
That's an extremely attractive attack surface. How about we just have keys to turn on the engine?
Well, in this case because drunks keep murdering people.
If you're drink driving you are not mature enough to drive and therefore you should lose your license. Simple.
I would agree with you if the state took up the responsibility of driving people with suspended licenses around or making public transportation reliable enough for employment. But they don't and so we're stuck with this as the compromise.
I agree with public transport but that's basic. I don't see why the government should babysit you and drive you around because you drank and drove. Driving is a privilege not a right.
I consider it to be the same as the state having to provide for your food, shelter, clothing, and healthcare while you're imprisoned. The state took away your ability to provide those things for yourself and so now it's their job to do it. In cities with shit public transportation that isn't going to be invested in any time soon the state took away your ability to provide for your own transportation and I think it's on them to shoulder the cost.
Things like house arrest and the breathalyzer interlock are ways to punish that still let people provide for themselves. So I agree I don't think the state should be babysitting adults which is why I don't like punishments that turn adults into babies.
The punishment for drinking and driving would be losing the ability to drive, not losing the ability to work or buy groceries, which are generally tied to being able to drive in the US. Public transport is a long-term solution but nothing exists in the meantime. So you end up creating a whole host of downstream problems
> a single physical switch that disables all vehicles radios
Disabling all of them would have silly consequences, and wouldn't be compatible with other safety regulations.
I feel like a lot of you are commenting without reading the article. Vehicles are not being remotely disabled.
The computer systems which perform the calibration on the device (usually done at a mechanic or auto electrician) are under attack. The vehicle will get locked out of this calibration is not performed monthly. There is no remote attack on the vehicle.
If you search for Intoxalock on r/DUI you'll see this company has been notorious for a long time. They are regarded as the worst interlock provider by a very wide margin for various issues around reliability and service quality.
I guarantee that basically nothing will come out of this.
People dont willingly put these alcohol breathalyzer interlocks on their vehicles. They're 100% court mandated, as a punishment for, usually, drunk driving.
This country is so hell-bent on making criminals' lives worse and worse as a never-ending punishment. So what 150k people cant use their cars. 'They did something wrong and deserve it', is the usual motto in the USA.
Now, lets have a discussion about software liability....
And there is nearly no oversight on how much these private companies are allowed to charge those 150K people for something that is court mandated. These interlocks can exceed $100/month for some of the poorest people in society.
Unfortunately the US public has no interest in this issue. They have a dual morality where lawbreaking is wrong, but profiting off of criminals and the poor isn't. So mandatory prison labor, expensive monitoring, for-profit probation services, and for-profit jails are fine.
Literally if you don't pay or play, you go to jail. But it was a plea so you "volunteered" (to not go to jail).
Your insurance is going up more than $100/month if you get a DUI.
A lot of bad things will occur (and or should occur) if you get a DUI. I'm not sure what that has to do with private companies/individuals profiting off of the criminal justice system though.
How much bad is fair though? There are constitutional protections against "cruel and unusual punishment".
Its obviously cruel and unusual to execute those guilty of DUI. But what should the penalty be? Jail? How long? Monetary? How much? Confiscation of vehicle(s)? Some 3rd party company-owned device? What terms? What is reasonable and what is excessive? We also must keep in mind that our society constructed this to be a vehicle nation, with poor to non-existent public transit.
Should the punishment depend on how poor or rich you are? Pro-tip: it already does.
In Kentucky there are approved vendors of these devices by the government. I do not know for certain, but I assume if they had outrageous pricing, they would no longer be approved.
Why not? The minimum court fines and fees and programs are often outrageously priced themselves. A 3 hour "Dont drive impaired" program with 30 people on it can be up to $1000 per person. What other service can justify a $10,000 an hour price tag?
It's $30-$40 a person for me for one hour. I have to do 10 of the classes.
It is $80-90/month in Kentucky, with a $40 starting fee paid to the Kentucky's DUV. So you assume incorrectly; their "approved" vendors are the same as most other states.
I'm legitimately quite confused about this reply in general, why did you assume I wouldn't be talking about a state like Kentucky? Did you consider that most states/courts mandate approved vendors?
> So what 150k people cant use their cars. 'They did something wrong and deserve it', is the usual motto in the USA.
Maybe I'm in the wrong here, but I do find it pretty fair that people that can't responsible use a vehicle aren't allowed to use a vehicle. You don't see me flying airplanes for hire ...
> Now, lets have a discussion about software liability....
You're welcome to demand that the software you use provide a warranty. For some reason government agencies which actually would have the ability to demand this seem to not care. It does seem extremely negligent to allow people who can't use cars responsibly to use cars with provided software without a warranty.
> Maybe I'm in the wrong here, but I do find it pretty fair that people that can't responsible use a vehicle aren't allowed to use a vehicle.
Except they are allowed to use a vehicle. This issue isn't that they aren't allowed to use their vehicles. The danger is the disruption in what they are allowed to do and software/hardware failing. This is dangerous not only for them, but others as well.
And to be clear, this is specifically about people who are allowed to drive with a breathalyzer. So, "aren't allowed to use a vehicle" makes no sense. They are allowed to drive with certain conditions. Just like you and me.
Given that most of these defendants are poor, they're using public defenders.
The choices these defendants are being offered is "We can charge you for 3-10 years in prison, or you can pay a pile of money to the state and our private companies for 1 year of a breathalyzer in your car"
The plea deal is at best blackmail, and enriches the state and 'business partners' (private companies) via more suffering.
And given how this plea deal system works, I would wager that quite a few who pled out didn't do anything wrong, but are still subject to the blackmail and subsequent removal of rights with tenuous due process at best.
The whole root of this issue is that the USA demolished most of public transit to go all in on the personal vehicle. This was done nationwide to increase profits for vehicle companies and gas/oil companies. If we did have good/great public transit, drunk driving would be a significantly less of a thing. But that would cut into US domestic car production and oil/gas production.
> This country is so hell-bent on making criminals' lives worse and worse as a never-ending punishment.
Interlock devices are typically mandated for 6-12 months if it's your first DUI. In California, you will be mandated to use it for three years after your fourth (!) DUI. DUI laws in many parts of the US are ridiculously permissive and your criticism is pretty off-base.
Because the DUI laws aren't designed to protect people, they are designed to extract money out of citizens for the courts and their buddies providing 3rd party services. Someone blows exactly the limit that is within the error range of the breathalyzer? Still get charged just as hard for a DUI because that is literally thousands of dollars the court will receive. Oh sure if you got $10K to drop on a lawyer it will go away easily, but for anyone that has a public defender they are shit out of luck. Defending yourself in court with a public defender is just increasing the risk and liability because if they lose the case they now have to pay thousands of dollars more for court costs, which pushes people to taking shitty plea deals.
Oh sure there are plenty of people who are guilty and have a problem, they get caught too, but the courts want money so they aren't just going after the problem, they are charging any and every person possible. Some people get charged DUIs for annoying a cop or being tired, and even if their blood work comes up clean, do they drop the case? No. They just argue they were high on some other drug that they didn't test for.
> Someone blows exactly the limit that is within the error range of the breathalyzer?
I hate to say this, but how about... not drinking and driving? Drunk driving is a massive problem in the US and accounts for a good proportion of all driving fatalities. And your attitude sounds precisely like what causes this issue: unless the penalties are painful, people keep trying their luck in hopes of blowing "exactly the limit".
Because often there is a large cost: an expensive taxi ride, another to pick up the car the next day, and that's if it's not towed from wherever it was left, maybe you end up late for work the next day and reprimanded/fired because you can't manage it in time. There are incentives if you're borderline. But making punishment harsher (which itself ends up causing more problems beyond the nominal punishment itself) isn't the only way to tweak the incentives. Promote walkable infrastructure so you don't need to drive at all. Establish a government rideshare program to pick drunk people up and take their cars home. But anything that gets seen as helping criminals or the undeserving is untouchable
So you think there should be zero threshold at all for alcohol? If someone drank a single beer 10 hours ago they shouldn't be allowed to drive? How about alcohol containing foods or medications? Because if you don't want an absolute zero tolerance for even the smallest amount of alcohol im not sure what your deal here is. There has to be a legal limit or threshold somewhere.
Ive also never drove drink in my life and I think anyone who does is a complete moron for a multitude of reasons, so maybe you should examine yourself for bias entering this topic.
>> This country is so hell-bent on making criminals' lives worse and worse as a never-ending punishment.
> your criticism is pretty off-base
In my experience, and the experience of my friends, that criticism was spot-fucking-on. Once you get into the system, you'll be lucky to ever truly get out. Every step is designed to keep you paying into the system in perpetuity unless you walk a very, very thin tightrope. Anyone that thinks we rehab our criminals is pretty off-base.
The comment you're replying to isn't disagreeing with the sentences but with the additional hassle on top of the sentence. Do you think that additional ad-hoc punishment is justified? Where would you draw the line?
If the people of the country were more constitution minded, they would want a punishment that fits the crime, and no additional punishment on top of it. So I share this gripe, even though I consider DUI a very serious crime (including those who do it and don't get caught).
I've been hit by a drunk driver before. I know this will be a very unpopular opinion but I believe a single instance of DUI should be enough for a permanent prohibition on an individual owning or operating a motor vehicle. These interlock devices are already a weak compromise catering to people who oppose inconveniencing those who have already proven themselves to recklessly endanger the public when allowed to operate vehicles.
I might agree with you, but I struggle to think of it in isolation from the move towards self driving cars. Also we already have a quite harsh consequence of not being able to visit Canada for 10 years that a lot of rich people can get out of by paying a lawyer to keep them from getting a DUI. If only deterrents worked better. Is the problem with an interlock device that they can drive when they can pass the interlock test, or is the technology not needed, and what technology would you propose for preventing drunk driving convicts from driving illegaly?
I'm not sure there's a technological solution to a social problem. The problem is decision making when intoxicated. The solution might be to take the weapon (car) away from those who misuse it.
Consider guns. A felon cannot be in possession of guns legally, and the doctrine of constructive possession means that a prohibited person can be charged with unlawful possession of a firearm if a lawful owner in a household leaves a gun accessible to the prohibited person.
Perhaps it should be a serious crime for a convicted drunk driver to be in or around a car where the ignition device could be in the prohibited person's possession.
The technological solution is to make it so the addict doesn't need to drive to go about their lives. I know at least one alcoholic that moved to an apartment with a bar within walking distance, so they could walk home from the bar instead of driving home drunk.
The other technological fix is naloxone, which helps with alcohol use disorder just like it does with other substance use disorders. We have many options if we as a society decide to take these problems seriously.
There's beginning stages of research that show that GLP-1s can helping some people with addiction issues.
The other technology is self driving cars. Tesla's will pull over if the driver has passed out. The technological can't come fast enough.
> The solution might be to take the weapon (car) away from those who misuse it.
My technological ideas were along those lines. Basically allowing them to continue to own their automobile, but not to drive, and perhaps not to buy one, because forcing them to sell their cars is hard to implement (though maybe worth it). And also preventing them from operating cars owned by other people that are stored in their residence or workplace.
Interlock devices aren't "ad-hoc punishments," they are making sure someone with a history of driving drunk can't start their car when they are drunk for a very, very short period of time. 1 year is common and is extremely lenient.
No, the ad-hoc punishment would be the massive glitch in the article, where the interlock devices didn't function as intended.
"Plea deals" have an interesting caveat that I didn't know - you can agree to punishments that the government couldn't impose as part of a plea deal.
So if the punishment for driving drunk is 3 years in prison, you may be able to avoid it by accepting a plea deal that infringes on your third amendment rights.
This can even occur in a civil case.
I'm pretty sure even a plea bargain can't result in soldiers being quartered in your home.
It's a humorous example, but violations of the 1st, 2nd, and 4th are common.
They aren’t violations if you are being punished. People who don’t take the deal and get sent to jail or put on probation typically lose those rights as well.
The soldiers in my home only have bill acceptors, not coin slots, so it's legal.
I'm generally against long term punishments for crimes like this, but operating a dangerous machine like a car is a serious matter. A breathalyzer is a reasonable compromise compared to just taking away your license, right?
More effective, too.
An interlock prevents you from driving drunk. Suspending a license pretty frequently does nothing.
I don't think most people realize just how few people in the US obey license suspensions. Studies show the vast majority of people simply keep driving anyway.
This but replace Germans and British with Americans above and below some fairly fuzzy income level.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3EBs7sCOzo
You think USA punishes criminals too much?!?!
You mean like this?
https://komonews.com/news/nation-world/minnesota-judge-sarah...
Or like that??
https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/seattle-man-who-shot-killed...
Or maybe this?
https://x.com/alexberenson/status/2036074349921272197
These are your examples?
In the latter case, the man is going to Western State Secure Psychiatric Hospital. As a former paramedic, that facility is entirely jail-like, sally ports for access, razor wire, armed security, and very barebones. And he will likely be there for the rest of his life.
So you're angry that someone found to be mentally ill is getting treatment while potentially spending life in prison?
That first case? There's something missing there, there's zero reason explained as to why the Judge overturned the conviction. Like it's a gaping black hole in that article. "Judge overturned the conviction, defendant's lawyers say "it was a good decision"." The vibe I get there is almost one more of corruption...
It is the "potentially" that is the problem. Remove that and i am 100% onboard
> People dont willingly put these alcohol breathalyzer interlocks on their vehicles
N=1, but I know of one case where the defendant was offered a lock on their car or an ankle alcohol monitor. Of course they were going to choose the car lock.
If I offer you the choice to give me your wallet or else be stabbed, I don't believe it would be appropriate to describe this as "willingly" giving me your wallet.
Mugging victims didn't make a choice that endangered a bunch of other people that resulted in them getting mugged. Interlock devices are not given to random people for no reason.
It is not so dissimilar.
Courts (read: prosecutors) routinely use legal blackmail to coerce defendants into agreeing to plea deals. The threat is "we will prosecute you, and add extra charges, and push for maximums, that is unless you agree to these terms".
And those terms, as others have rightly pointed out, can include punishments the court normally isn't permitted to ask for on sentencing.
Also, with our judicial punishment based system, and that those with more money can afford better lawyers. And those with less money get public defenders, who are well known for not doing their job, or the absolute minimum to keep from being investigated by the Bar.
The only way out of here is to ever avoid interacting with police or courts. Once you're in that system, any sympathy is thrown out the window, and you become a money-pinata for the state and private 3rd party companies predating on your socio-economic class.
I have a friend who would like to do it voluntarily, however, just having one on the vehicle increases your insurance cost.
I like to not share roads with drunks
Well, one could remove their licenses instead, however the US is built around the car, and not being able to use one almost becomes a social credit, in that you can not function in the country without a car.
Drunk driving is already illegal. Doesn't seem like that rule stopped them. Why would this rule?
I've had my license suspended. It was just speeding. It's my only traffic ticket, let's not focus on that too much.
Do you know what was stopping me from getting in my car and driving it to work? Absolutely nothing.
So, you think someone that illegally drives drunk will magically decide to abstain from driving because they don't have a license? Really?
Yes. I think there are people who would not drive without a driver's license. I don't think magic would be involved.
You are free to backup your claim that magically _everyone_ that illegally drives drunk will not abstain from driving becasue they don't have a license.
This is an anecdote. My experience working adjacent to criminal justice gives me the feeling it's indicative of a given mind-set. It certainly would be interesting to see what kind of statistics exist for recidivism
On 2019-04-19 my wife's car was struck, while she was driving, by a driver who was driving under suspension. The driver had a bench warrant out for their arrest for failure to appear in court on a previous driving under suspension violation.
I searched my local court database and found this driver had driving under suspension or driving in violation of restriction charges on: 1999-07-12, 2000-01-27, 2000-02-03, 2000-02-14, 2000-05-03, 2001-07-23, 2011-07-13, 2013-07-10, 2013-10-24, 2016-03-10, 2016-05-23, 2016-08-15, 2016-09-09, 2018-04-09, 2018-05-03, and 2019-04-19 (when my wife was struck).
The driver has since had additional driving under suspension charges on: 2019-08-15, 2022-04-29, 2022-08-18, and 2025-10-21.
The driver had served jail time for some of these violations, too.
I tend to think a significant fraction of people who don't respect the law prior to conviction don't begin to respect the law after conviction.
(My wife wasn't injured, fortunately. The other driver was also driving without the state minimum required liability insurance, so we ended up eating the cost of the crash, too. This also seems to be indicative of a general disrespect for the law.)
None of this at all contradicts my statement, nor disproves it.
Here in Canada a Family Protection clause is common in insurance policies which covers you and your family in the case of hit and run, uninsured or under insured up to your liability limit.
We'd actually paid for an "uninsured motorist coverage" endorsement but discovered that it really didn't cover anything material. Shame on me for not digging into the details when I added the endorsement. I've become a more savvy insurance consumer.
> Yes. I think there are people who would not drive without a driver's license. I don't think magic would be involved.
That isn't what I said, you're misrepresenting me. That isn't very nice.
I said someone who _already broke the law_ in a very provable way, most likely doesn't give a fuck about driving without a license.
> You are free to backup your claim that magically _everyone_ that illegally drives drunk will not abstain from driving becasue they don't have a license.
I didn't say everyone. There you go again, making shit up and putting words in my "mouth" as it were. This isn't a good-faith conversation. Take care.
> I didn't say everyone.
> So, you think someone that illegally drives drunk will magically decide to abstain from driving because they don't have a license?
You have to prove that everyone will do it, because if not, than someone will, disproving your belief. Because if you can't prove everyone, you've proven that there are people who would not drive without a driver's license.
> This isn't a good-faith conversation.
No, you're a liar.
> That isn't what I said,
Yes.
> I said someone who _already broke the law_ in a very provable way, most likely doesn't give a fuck about driving without a license.
That was what I meant. I'm sorry that context is difficult for you, but yes, that's what I meant when I said what I said.
I have no problem sharing the roads with drunks. It's the cars that scare me.
Okay, so don't go outside?
You're right - but of course it's telling that "don't go outside" is the only prescription to respond to qualms about terraforming the entire planet in service of one industry's (statistically quite dangerous) product.
...but even though it's impractical to avoid these machines entirely, in many parts of the world it's possible (and enjoyable) to simply choose a bike instead.
Good old "let's fire QA guys and give testing to the everyone else". It never fails to entertain. "The happy path checks all green, lets deploy!" :) .
Imagine if an attack like this could disable ALL vehicles, and not just the ones fit with the breathalyzer socket. It could happen soon:
https://carcoachreports.substack.com/p/government-kill-switc...
Is there any indication that the source of the attack was Iran?
The issue here has nothing to do with the device and everything to do with the fact that car-brained America is so cowardly and broken that they will do some Rube Goldberg stunt before they even consider taking cars away from alcoholics.
Nobody in human rights would allow that. Take away the car and people cannot live.
The above is sadly serious. It is almost impossible to find a job and a house you can afford in walking distance of each other, demanding there be things like grocery shopping as well make it not feasible for most people. Taking away someone's car is cruel and usual punishment that cannot be accepted.
> Take away the car and people cannot live. [...] It is almost impossible to find a job and a house you can afford in walking distance of each other,
As a Brazilian, that statement feels bizarre. Yeah, my job and my home are not in walking distance of each other. I simply take the bus. Sure, some jobs are not within reach of the bus (or the ferry, or the metro, or the light tram, etc), and some jobs need a car (for instance, it would be hard for a HVAC technician to take all their equipment on a bus), but saying it's "almost impossible" to find a job?
> demanding there be things like grocery shopping as well make it not feasible for most people.
That also sounds bizarre to my ears. Most places I've known have small grocery shopping places on nearly every corner. You just have to walk.
Unfortunately that just isn't true in large parts of the US. Many cities have no public transit, and no accessible grocery stores.
Being able to live car free is pretty much limited to (expensive) major cities and some (expensive) mid-sized college towns.
The city of about 50,000 I'm from not only has no public transit and limited sidewalks, it doesn't even have crosswalks across the two main 6-lane roads that divide the city, so you can't safely walk more than about a mile even if you wanted to.
Even in cities with public transit often it is so bad that isn't reasonable to expect someone to use it. Reasonable transit must run 24x7/365, at least every half an hour. Miss a day and someone can't get someplace they might want to. More than half an hour between bus/trains and it isn't reasonable. Miss the over night - maybe you can do this if you have taxi service for the same price (which might be cheaper overall for the few people who want to ride at 3am). Half hour is the minimum, it is possible to plan your life around that level of service and not be impacted too badly, but you will hate it (particularly when the line is a little longer than you expected: you miss your bus and so your ice cream melts by the time the next comes)
Not just the US, it's like that everywhere. Private transport will always be necessary as people need to go on routes with low demand. Only counterexample I can think of is Singapore, which has a vast network of buses and trains that go to everywhere.
I'm trying to think of a city of 50,000 people in western europe with no public transport, do you have one in mind?
Even in cities with public transit cars have a very high mode share in rich countries. Some of it is 'trades' that need to carry tools and parts with them, but a lot could take transit but don't for unknown reasons
"Being able to live car free is pretty much limited to (expensive) major cities and some (expensive) mid-sized college towns"
I live in the UK (hardly a bastion of public transport) in a town of under 10k, and have a car. The main requirement for a car is to take my youngest to Drama club in the next town where it finishes at 9pm, well after buses have stopped. There is a drama club in the town, but as we only just moved we didn't want to move him. Likewise we're driving him to his old school until the end of July as he'll move school then.
I used to live in a village of 300 people, and sure you need a car there.
Sure it was nice to drive the 4 miles to the garden centre at the weekend rather than take the hourly bus, but it's not a requirement.
For a town of 10,000 people, let alone 50,000, to say you can't live car free is nonsense.
Of course America is different. Their towns are far less dense, they don't even have "sidewalks", they are consciously built so you have to drive everywhere, but that's unique to the time American towns were built.
So again, what towns in Europe with a population of 50,000 have no public transport.
As an American I can report there are sidewalks nearly everywhere. They are used for exercise only: getting anywhere is frusterating but if you just need to run (or walk the dog) they are great.
45% of Americans have zero access to any public transport of any kind.
And the other 55% may have access but often it doesn't meet people's needs (it may not go when/where they need to go)
Only 11% of Americans use public transit at all on a weekly basis.
3.5% of Americans use public transit to commute.
Where I live I would half to walk about a half day to get to the nearest place that sells any kind of food and back, which is a 7/11 gas station. To get to a real grocery store and return would require a full day's travel on foot (just checked google maps, 4.5 hours one-way to the closest one). There is no public transportation option at all, the only buses are school buses until you get much closer to a major city. Driving is a necessity in such places.
I live in a well populated East Coast state, so it's not like I'm even really far out in the sticks too, there are many places which are even worse off in these regards.
There are no buses to take here, and the distances are looooong. Your job or grocery store could be 15 miles away, and that's in an urban-ish area. Rural, it's much worse.
> It is almost impossible to find a job and a house you can afford in walking distance of each other, demanding there be things like grocery shopping as well make it not feasible for most people
This is exactly what the parent meant by designing the country in a 'car-brained' fashion. It's not true in many/most other countries.
> It's not true in many/most other countries.
Europe may not drive as much as America, but it's still about half. Cars are popular worldwide for a reason, and it is not American corporations magically convincing everyone how useful they are.
It's also entirely moot, as we're not redesigning the country in the short term to cut down on DUIs.
Yeah, but there's a big difference between having a car because you can afford it and it's often more convenient, and it being completely impractical to not have one. Or even to go have a beer without having to drive home.
It's actually an easy problem to solve, some places have done it with great success. You can't effectively stop DUI by taking the car away. The problem is the drinking. You make someone test every morning and if they've been drinking they get the slammer for the day. You don't need to take away their transportation.
That seems fair, yet even less likely to happen in America.
It's called 24/7 sobriety, and I think there are places in America that have already implemented it. E.g. https://www.waspc.org/24-7-sobriety-program
Wouldn't it be better to take the alcohol away?
The US tried this in 1920 and rolled it back a decade later - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_Stat...
Steelman the argument. They didn't say take it away from everyone, they were responding to the idea of taking away cars from alcoholics. We absolutely can take away alcohol from people who are convicted of DUI, as a condition of their release from prison. We do it already in a few places across the US, and it reduces recidivism quite a lot.
But we still restrict sale of alcohol to minors, suggesting that it, like driving, is a privilege granted only to those we trust to control it, rather than a natural right deserved by everyone.
LOL, exactly! The underlying problem is people's addiction to drugs, not all the symptoms that come from those addictions.
We tried that once. It caused a lot of other problems.
Nobody suggested banning alcohol altogether.
If “car brained” means recognizing how great cars are for improving our lives, by letting us get to places quickly, then I don’t see anything cowardly or broken about it. Just seems rational.
I once read a claim that once you remove the distance that exists between places because of cars (large set-backs, unusable "green space", wide freeways including the medians and buffer around them, giant parking lots, et c.) cars are only an improvement for most car owners for day to day travel before a city adjusts to widespread car ownership, and adds all that stuff. Add in the time you spend working just to pay for the car (depreciation, fuel, insurance) and it's not a great deal at all. After that, it's only consistently a benefit if you can afford a driver. For most, it's a wash with bicycling, if not worse (in the hypothetical world that hadn't bloated way apart to account for tons of cars) except now you also need to schedule separate time to work out to stay healthy.
This seemed implausible, so I ran the numbers for my situation at the time that involved car costs and a commute distance that were both below median for my city, plus well above-median household income.
Sure enough! It worked out just the way they claimed, if only barely. For the median worker in my city though, it was very true.
> For most, it's a wash with bicycling
When I hear people suggest that, I wonder if they live somewhere fairly flat, with mild mostly dry weather and high population density. Maybe this is why there is so much disagreement on the topic.
Yes, it’s different if you live in the actual country. “For most”
If by "quickly" you mean reaching a far-away destination in much more time and with higher variance in arrival time than it would have taken if the origin and destination had been sensibly placed closer together, then sure.
People need cars to get to work.
The issue here is not an OTA thing, for what it’s worth. That is to say, it’s not that these devices phoned home directly and a cloud server is down; rather, these devices require periodic “calibration” (due to a combination of regulation, legitimate technical need, and grift) at a service center and the service centers are out of commission, presumably due to ransomware.
Now let's add an externally-controlled backdoor to everything else, too, and that'll work out great.
Given Pete Hegseth’s history, this could be a huge national security issue.
[dead]
Why do people drink drive?
Either they are alcoholics who can't control themselves or simply just think they are still under control of their ability to drive despite being impaired. Many people just don't know what 0.08 BAC feels like. In college, I got the opportunity to blow on a breathalyzer (not because I was arrested) and found that despite not feeling drunk, I was over the 0.08 limit.
The 0.08 BAC limit also has no basis in reality for what impairment is. It's a political reality, not a scientific one. MADD and other organizations lobbied to make this a legal limit across the US and many other jurisdictions around the world followed suit.
That's not to say that anyone should drive after drinking, but the basic reality is that impairment is often individual, and cannot be directly measured by blood alcohol content. Many people are impaired with a lower BAC than 0.08, and in many states you can now be charged and convicted of DUI even if your BAC is not beyond the legal threshold on the basis of purely circumstantial evidence.
There's no good answer here, because we need cut and dried evidence in our legal system to prevent abuses, but there's not really good ways to do that. Separately, the leading cause of accidents is no longer drunk driving in most parts of the West, it's inattentive driving due to cellphone/electronics usage while operating a vehicle. Younger generations don't drink as much as older generations, to the point that zero-percent alcohol spirits and NA beer are now becoming broad markets and it's dramatically affecting bar/pub culture, but younger generations nearly as a rule are addicted to their smartphones.
MADD was formed in 1980
0.08 level was set in law in the UK in 1967, in France and West Germany in 1970
Most countries have since lowered it to 0.05.
> Most countries have since lowered it to 0.05.
That's the BAC of a healthy male an hour after drinking 2 light beers. That is an absurd limit to set in stone, however there is plenty of evidence to show that /some/ people are impaired at 0.05 BAC.
Ultimately it really amounts to a battle between people who want to operate off fuzzy logic and reasonableness and a people who want to use totalitarian enforcement. There is definitely a significant government-funded (and activist pushed) take where /any/ amount of alcohol /any/ time prior to driving is dangerous, which is obviously stupid and incorrect.
People should not drink and drive, they should not drive while impaired in any capacity, whether its from their prescription medication, a drink, a joint, or simply a lack of sleep. There is also absolutely nothing wrong for a normal healthy person to have a single glass of wine over a steak dinner and to drive home, which will not in any way physiologically impair you.
> There is definitely a significant government-funded (and activist pushed) take where /any/ amount of alcohol /any/ time prior to driving is dangerous, which is obviously stupid and incorrect.
Driving itself is dangerous. Acknowledging this is obviously smart and correct.
And while I'm sure that you can drive safely at 100 miles an hour, or after five beers, some objective standard has to be drawn somewhere. If the line were drawn at 0.16, someone would no doubt chime in to explain about how they've got it fully together at 0.17.
Sure, but that's a strawman of my position. I'm not saying we should not draw a line, I'm saying that drawing a line is required due to how our systems work (in my earlier comment), and then in my reply to /reducing that line which was already nebulous/ I'm pointing out how ridiculous that reduction is. There are people who are impaired at 0.05 BAC. A normal healthy adult male is not. Like many things you can think of them as statistical distributions with outliers. If you slide the BAC level you consider legally impaired (regardless of actual function) you shift how many people will fall in the distribution above the line but without meaningful impairment.
I'm not making some radical point here, I'm speaking basic reality.
Your assertion this was an American pressure group which didn't form for over a decade after the rest of the western world introduced explicit restrictions is just the brainwashing of American exceptionalism.
Every single one of the 50 states had to individually sign laws because there is no national law about drunk driving, and MADD was instrumental in the 0.08 legal limit becoming law in the United States. That's a well-founded assertion.
Addiction, mental illness, a defacto requirement to drive to get around low-density towns where walking is often extremely dangerous due to lack of sidewalks and fast roads.
Alcohol abuse has been around about as long as we've been human. We've just constructed a society where Alcohol abuse is far more likely to pick up collateral damage.
We've also become a lot better at distilling high-proof alcohol, and at making it cheap enough that most people have the budget to get absolutely wasted on the regular.
Most people don't do that, but the option is there for anyone looking to make their life and the lives of people around them significantly worse.
Alcohol has never been expensive enough or hard enough to produce to prevent alcoholism. 3000 years ago average people were drinking alcohol daily.
Alcohol used to be the thing you made from taking old fruit, putting them in water, and walking away.
There are no beds in most bars and nightclubs.
That’s why I have been proposing Nappy McBeers’s Middle-Aged Tap & Blanket Room for over 20 unsuccessful years.
“Have a pint, stay a spell. It’ll be our cozy little secret, mate.”
Because they are drunk and want to get home.
Or because they are drunk and want to go somewhere.
That's all there is to it.
Alcohol inhibits people's decision making skills