Well I can drink as much as I want, Australia impounded my car anyway.

Ignition interlocks? In my car?

It's more likely than you think!

Nice use of one of the four bimbos of the apocalypse.

they need to make a hoochie momma one for britney and paris as well; keep the high dollar sports cars parked where they belong, instead of being used for some drooling baby, or skanky pantieless 'hoe out partying and passed out god knows where..

The interlock only shuts off your car if you blow a BAC over a preset limit. Assuming they would set the limit to whatever the legal limit is in your location, I have no problem with it.

Also, did they use Lohan's image without her permission? Seems like that would be illegal.

...guess it's the only blow-job i'll get in my Saab...

Oh Yeah, that's a great argument. "I know my limits." "I'm not /too/ drunk to drive." "I've driven this drunk before."- Famous last words.

Jesus Christ, talk about irresponsible. Now, I know there is little risk in having a drink at dinner and driving home, but I certainly don't think it is something that needs to be publicly encouraged.

@B: Except that there's a tolerance associated with any measurement.

Which means the interlock manufacturers will set the nominal measurement artificially low. Which means you're SOL if you're legally clear but your device is reading on the high end of the spectrum.

If it's a good idea for DUI offenders, why not make it mandatory safety feature in all cars? After all, no one should be allowed to drive drunk.

While we're at it, we should set up a safety interlock for seat belts. Oh, and a system that can read the speed limit of the road you're on and limit your car to that.

I keep trying to draw a clear line, but it's tough since this slope is so slippery.

@B: Mugshot, public record.

Wasn't there a news report of a woman who let her 8 or 9 year old try to start the car because she had one of those devices on her car as a habitual offender?

Why not do something useful with this technology and combine it with a weight sensor in the passenger seat. If you blow over "x" BAC your new friend from the bar can't be over "y" lbs or the car won't start. It may not stop drunk driving, but it would still help with some of those post drinking regrets.

@Mad_Science: Or, you could make the device more accurate. Doesn't the breathalizer the police use have the same tolerance problem, anyways?

[quote]We hate to break it to you "Interlock Facts", but on the list of things to be paranoid about, this one is pretty damn far down. [/quote]

I know that most people here think that an OEM breathalizer is no big deal, but I would like to respectfully disagree.

I'm very saddened that we're sanguinely considering turning decisions about who's qualified to drive over to fallible machines and distant programmers.

This is only my opinion, but I find a startlingly radical disconnect between expecting citizens to act like rational human beings while placing devices that remove adult decision making from their driving process.

There should be a pretty clear correlation between citizens that thinks it's Toyota's job to prevent drunk driving and citizens that don't understand why gas is so expensive.

Not to worry. The skanks can always hire a temp driver from Hurtz.

+ Watch video

People, people! All it means is that you have to start your car before you start drinking.

Seriously it's just an inconvenience to law abiding citizens that shouldn't be mandated. If you never drink, do you want to have to blow into something every time you want to start your car?

How would this work with remote starters?

Didn't they try something like this with seatbelts in the 70's? That lasted a long time, huh?

How about those early 90's automatic belts? Those were fun, right?

I drive old enough vehicles and have enough of an understanding of how a car works, that I would have no trouble bypassing a retrofit interlock. It probably wouldn't be to difficult to bypass even as an OEM item. (blow up a balloon before you start drinking, and use that air to pass the test?)

Plus, (last one, I promise) I want as few as possible of the systems in my car to have the power to stop my car from running and/or driving.

Having an ignition interlock wouldn't bother me one bit... as long as I'm not paying for it - and that includes the tow/repair bill if it malfunctions.

This is one of those things that the insurance industry should be paying for. They say they care soooo much about reducing collisions/claims and reducing the incidences of drunk driving... how about they put there money where their mouths are. No... they only want it when someone else spends the money even though it benefits them directly.

And it's the same thing with speeding... one little ECU programming change and you can eliminate all highway speeding.

The police and insurance industry say they want people to "slow down"... that's what they say... but not enough to lobby government to limit the maximum speed of all cars sold to the highest speed limit in the given province/state. But if they lobbied for that, I'd be lobbying for ensuring that all government vehicles being limited in the same way - except for when the emergency lights are on.

It seems they care about speeding... but not enough to forgo the speeding ticket revenue (as well as the BS "street racing" revenue scheme in places like Ontario)as well as BS excuses to raise insurance rates.

How dare anyone interfere with the great tradition of drunk driving!
If these were installed on the rides in my fair hamlet, 1/2 the population would be permanently immobilized.

wanna see real speed? watch how fast any .gov mandated interlock ends up in my driveway with a big fat toyo on top of it.

I favour locking the booze-industry Astroturfers in a room with the MADD prohibitionists and...

...actually, just lock 'em all in there and go away. That'll do.

Everyone who's saying "that wouldn't bother me" doesn't know how these things actually work. One of my friends installs these things for people who have gotten DUIs and are required to have them.

They don't just make you blow before you start the car, every now and then a little light will turn on and you have X amount of time to pull over and blow again. If you don't, and you're under a certain speed, it'll kill the car. So even if you are a straight up teetotaler, never touched a drop of alcohol in your life, it would still be annoying as hell. And if you use a mouthwash with alcohol in it... well...

Yes, that's what we need. More bureaucracy. More paperwork and expensive items tagged onto cars. Mandate them, so people like me can make my car go as fast as I freakin' want to. Really think a guy with a major in Aerospace Engineering and a minor in Computer Science can't outsmart the guy doing the inspection down at the local quik-e-lube?

Go ahead, put 'em on. I dare ya.

@Daniel Rutter:

+1

I'm quite tired of people trying to control my life in the "land of the free".

That's what I need is one more device in a vehicle which can render it a paperweight when it fails.

This is why I like older cars...they're simpler, relatively speaking.

I bought an Alcohawk® ABI breathalyser unit a couple of years ago on a lark (I drink heavily, but only after I'm done working and/or driving for the day). These people make units that law enforcement use as well. The first sentence in the Operating Instructions reads as follows:
BE SURE TO WAIT AT LEAST 20 MINUTES AFTER CONSUMING ALCOHOL OR EATING ANY FOOD BEFORE TAKING A TEST (italics mine).

That fact puts me square into the camp of Mad_Science above, and, I suppose,aligns me with the American Beverage Institute. So false positive lockouts would be rampant and unacceptable.

Thankfully "something unique" brought some facts about these things to the discussion. My roommate had one, and he's totally right, they go off all the time while you're driving and you have to keep blowing in the breathalyzer. It's crazy, and he would always need rides from me because the thing didn't work. Have a problem on the weekend and the shop is closed, no driving that weekend. Also there were times that he appeared to be drunk and could drive still drive with it, which was a terrible but also shows how these things work. That said I myself wouldn't mind a breathlyzer installed in the car but it wouldnt stop you from driving, just so a person could make an informed choice about driving after going out. And I have one of those alcohawk things too, mostly as a novelty, and they work ok, but not if you've had a drink recently.

@charles_barrett: "I bought an Alcohawk® ABI breathalyser unit a couple of years ago on a lark...
@icust298: "I have one of those alcohawk things too, mostly as a novelty..."

Face it, in a controlled environment (i.e. no one is going to be driving themselves), it's a bit of a party favor to compare Blood Alcohol Levels (just don't let anyone go toxic, fer Chrissakes!) Let the good times roll...

Haha yeah they're cool, but not totally accurate. I saw a guy blow a .37 on that thing at like 10:30pm, needless to say if that thing was accurate he would've been dead by 2am.

@icust298: Agreed. Once at home I blew a 0.40 (without waiting the requisite 20 minutes since eating or drinking). According to the Alcohawk® docs I should have been in a coma. Not by a longshot (I certainly wouldn't drive, of course; I was safely soused at home...)

What's to stop me from rigging up a CO2 tank/regulator/heater/humidifier to trick these bad boys? Wouldn't take too much work, and if built to use 12g cartridges (like those in pellet guns / whipped cream dispensers) I bet you could get it down into the cigarette-pack or a little larger range.

Didn't Steve Carell prove in the 40 Year Old Virgin, that you can just have your passenger blow into it and resume your well knackered driving?

I like the time line on their site, especially since they apparently have "facts" about the future. I also I'm not sure that keeping from driving when they have a BAC of 0.03% (approx 3 drinks in an hour for me if I did the math right) is prohibition.

If you've drunk enough to fail the breathalyzer...shouldn't you not be driving regardless? It's not like you fail one if you have "a toast at a wedding".

Kinda dumb.

Those devices should only be used on repeat offenders. The law needs to understand that we all deserve a 2nd chance.

@Novaload: Also, promoting an opinion, not a product or other direct commercial interest.

@smoke~: That Hurtz driver still has a tether just like their skank passengers should.

@AmishJohn: Great idea--they'll be selling packets of "Sober Breath" at 7-11 and your bar of choice.

This is so stupid. The only people who really think this is a good idea are the people making the device.

@Unevolved: Whoop!: that minor in computer science will take you far.

What causes more highway deaths/year - excessive speed or drunk driving?

I agree with their statement.

For every drunk driver, there are 1 million moderate drinkers who may drive home safely and responsibly.

If you listen to MADD, they'll have you believe that 1 beer will turn you into the Anti-Christ.

They are right, groups like MADD keep pushing the limits down. All of a sudden moderate, responsible drinkers are turned into criminals.

MADD succeeded in pushing the BAC level in most states from 0.12, then to 0.1 and now most have adopted 0.08. Now they're pushing for 0.05 with the goal of 0.02.

They have to keep pushing the limits down, eventhough they may have achieved all their original goals, because they have to to stay in business. There are many people who have salaries and benefits that count on it.

This is kind of annoying. Is anyone seriously proposing a system like that?

I don't drink, so this won't really have an effect on my ability to drive--i mean, apart from how it will likely spew out false positives like crazy. It'd just be something else i'd have to do every time i sit down in the car. (Which, let's be honest, would sap away a lot of my respect for such a system--and probably not just mine, but everyone's respect.)

Seriously.

If you want to make me a safer driver don't try to stop me from drinking--i don't already--but instead put an alertness test in that won't let me sleep when i'm tired. (That won't work either, but at least driving when i'm tired is something i do.)

Not that i have a problem sticking these things in the cars of people who, uh, need them... but i'm there has to be a better way.

@Shapeshifter: "an alertness test in that won't let me sleep when i'm tired. (That won't work either, but at least driving when i'm tired is something i do.)"

I'm guessing that you're tired, and you meant an alertness test that won't let you DRIVE when you're tired? Not letting you sleep when you're tired sounds a) unpleasant & dangerous and b) like a Guantanamo hospitality policy...